God said, "Let there be light", and then there was...a blog post.

"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Creation, Frustration, Fragmentation, Abomination" by Devon Anderson of Brown University, has some thought-provoking questions. I sought to answer a few of them below. Click here to see what he wrote.

Q: "Are acts of creation inherently fragmenting? Does the creator always become what he or she creates?"

A: My first gut response to these questions is no. Art, literature, etc, can be created without being emotionally attached to it. "A work of art in no way resembles the man who made it or the method by which it was made;" When I was in 8th grade, I wrote a sad, angry poem, speaking to a boy that had slighted me (cute, eh?). In reality, no boy had hurt my feelings other than maybe pushing me off a swing, but the poem was fun to write. My loving parents were concerned about the dark nature of the poem, and that's when I realized that when writing, you can portray yourself in whatever way you wish. If we apply this to online creation, we see many places where this is true. People create avatars, profiles, and entire alternate realities pretending to be a different person. Recently I came across a website that is the IM conversations between a man and his cat. The possibilities of creations living lives separate from that of their creators are certainly great.

On the other hand, there can be ways that the creation reflects its creator. I thought this quote put the definition of art in an interesting context: “Art is a mirror not because it is the same as the object, but because it is different…A mirror is a vision of things, not a working model of them.”-G. K. Chesterton in The Uses of Diversity. Sometimes, that reflection can be a fragmenting factor, especially when the artist "puts himself into it." Granted, comparing art to blog posts is for some a bit of a stretch, but when shaping thoughts and ideas into words, they can take on a life of their own, and the creator feels responsible for them. Another personal example: This blog post was read by my mother and my professor, who both gently reminded me that everyone on Facebook is not a narcissistic attention-monger, but real people trying to connect and reach out. I re-read the post and conceded that I was harsh, and probably unrightfully so. It also made me think more carefully about what I was going to say on this blog, so that it didn't become a hate-on-everyone-that-uses-the-internet space, and a place for constructive thinking about the ways literature is affecting and being affected by the digital age.

This being said, it is possible for the creator to become what he creates, but the correlation between creation and creator is not cause and effect. It is nearly always true that the things you associate with the most is what you become. If you're in the business for writing depressing music, you aren't going to be the happiest person that ever walked the earth. If you constantly post statuses about how bored you are, you aren't going to be out doing things as much. And the examples are many.

So after this hearty ramble, all I'm trying to say is, our creations, whether online or not, will affect us. I believe the trick is how much we will let them.