Warning! This article contains more insight than all of Stephen Fry’s ‘tweets’ put together

"Stephen Fry has made online peace with another user of the micro-blogging site Twitter who called his posts "boring". The actor and presenter, who has more than 900,000 followers, had threatened to leave the site, saying there was "too much aggression and unkindness"." [source]

I couldn’t help but smile at how that unfortunately ubiquitous species of ‘fans’ rallied fanatically and lynch mob-like around Stephen Fry because he threatened to leave twitter after some individual very politely said that he found his ‘tweets’ ‘a bit boring’ even though he 'admires and adores him'. The entities these 'fans' choose to deify boggles the mind - and what's worrying is that they have the right to vote as well.

Perhaps the blasphemous individual might have found Fry's 'tweets' 'a bit boring' because he expected more from a ‘celeb’ than can be expected of most ‘celebs’. In that, the fault lies on him. Then again, perhaps this individual, unlike most fans, wasn’t totally inclined to think that the worth of the fart of a celeb was derived from the diameter of the spotlight cast on her/im by the media. If he was looking for something interesting, he was looking for it in the wrong place, or had yet to be lobotomised enough to seek it there and be satisfied. Personally, i had opened up a 'twitter' account myself to see what it was all about. However, i decided to discard it after realising that it presented the danger of my 'tweets' boring myself - given what is generally expected of and circumscribed by the highly abbreviated nature of a 'tweet'.

I personally don’t find Fry’s ‘tweets’ ‘boring’, but I do find it quite typical of just about any celeb who thinks a bit too much of the value of their doings and thoughts simply because those whom are used to living vicariously do. In this, these celebs are validated 'as is' and hence do not really progress beyond the criteria defined by the stupidity it takes to worship them. That isn’t really Fry’s fault entirely, given that the value of the celeb is symbiotically derived and reinforced by the mutual contribution of both ‘fan’ and ‘celeb. And let’s not forget how this is further illustrated in celebrities unashamedly adding extra ‘value’ to products via their endorsement. They actually find nothing amiss with the 'value by association' promoted by such ads and which they profit from. Hence, these celebs do quite ask for a dressing down from time to time as an effort to preserve the integrity of the objective potential of the people.

These ‘fans’ too contribute to this nonsense by not checking on the transference of their excitation from the screen to off it. Come on, if you think about it, the imaginative and escapist tilt of films and much 'entertainment' means that ‘Jeeves’ is going to be far more interesting than ‘Fry’ is it not? So every so often, a fan is going to wonder in and realise that, albeit in hazy enough a sense so as to forward a critique with a genuflection - as did the bloke who found his 'tweets' a bit boring even though he 'admires and adores' him.

This mad worship of prominence is increasingly seeing the undervaluation of thinkers, professional humanitarians and related experts whilst we see celebs being appointed as representatives to the UN in their stead, or given knighthoods. Essentially, what we are actually seeing here is a symbiosis between the 'undervaluation of that which is significant' and the 'overvaluation of that which isn’t'.

Anyway, we are talking about ‘tweets’ for goodness sakes. How ‘interesting’ can a monosyllabic sound be? When I first came across 'Twitter' and 'Tweets', I found it all a bit condescending. I can understand it being used by new-sites when it comes to keeping us abreast with the latest, but when it comes to personal updates, I'd think it most useful for family and friends. And even then, if it is not good enough to communicate via Messenger real-time, i have to wonder after its value as a relatively permanent 'tweet' on 'twitter'.

As I was saying, in a previous observation, about the limitations imposed by the lyrical form of songs on the communication of anything more than a ‘signpost’, as opposed to providing a clearly articulated navigational chart, this would apply more so to ‘tweets’. So, I would say that the potentially exciting value of Fry’s ‘tweets’ is compromised not by a boring character, but by the limitations imposed by a form of communication that aptly takes its description from a monosyllabic ‘tweet’.

It seems that people are becoming increasingly thought-challenged enough to appreciate ideas and thoughts only when they are abbreviated to the point they require little or no thought, or which simply validates that which they value.

If modes of communication begin to increasingly take on a form that promotes increasing brevity, what happens after a while is that the need for and even propensity to think in greater depth and detail about anything is compromised. That is how, for instance, an Orwellian ‘newspeak’ is facilitated via the ‘newthought’ that is promoted by these modes of communication – though ‘modes of thoughtlessness’ would be more apt. Put together the self-absorption of ‘blogs’ together with thought-reduction ‘tweets’, and we’re set for a civilisation inundated by self-centred bird-brains.

What we are seeing here, ladies and gentlemen, is not the failure to communicate, but in mistaking abbreviated forms of communication as the preferred or/and subscribable means of communication. Close to a million people fans subscribe to Fry’s ‘tweets’. And in this, what is evidenced is not his significance, but the significance attributed to ‘prominence’ to the point that a singular line by a celeb of as much insight-value as a period can garner such following.