I wish more people would acknowledge my existence,
says someone who is not the author of this text; the difference is essential.
(as in: An essentialist view on the individual,) though, one could also call it
crucial
(as in: Excruciating.) I am not that author, I am his public persona. I have a voice of my own.
We all do.
I hope it doesn’t confuse you too badly with both of us talking in first person. If it helps any, assume that everything in this space comes out in my voice, even when I say it on his behalf. As long as he is public, it’s me.
He shares a lot about himself (through me), more than he ought to probably, and some have questioned why he needs a public persona at all?
Why can’t he just …
“be himself”?
Speaking as that other thing, ie “not myself”, I must ask: Do you have any idea at all?
You know nothing about what personas do, do you! You have no idea about our work. No idea about our lives. Or even that we are here.
Do you think we exist to cover up some sort of dangerous, life-changing “authenticity”?
Do you believe we stay on high alert, prepared to rush to the scene when our charge show signs of “vulnerability”?
You say we impede communication; I say we make it possible.
You say we distort message; I say the message begins with us.
My charge, author of this text, agrees.
He says, he turns to me when in public, but also:
He always is (ie. in public).
All humans are; at least he sees it that way,
even among friends.
Even among family. One represents oneself. At least he sees it that way.
Between himself and every one of his peers, those layers of interpretation, consideration –
are the natural state of things he says; inevitable,
beneficial.
And he is not alone, within, after all. I mean, he’s got me for company …
At least, that’s how he sees it.
(and if he did not, I still would be free,
I have always been, to make the claim on his behalf)
bullgudmundsen.com 