OK, so trolls aren't really "trolls," they're still human beings. But they're shitty human beings, Andrea.

And just as there are good people who exhibit patience, kindness, empathy and understanding, there are people who not only care just about themselves but also get off on making others feel worse. I hope I'm not naive in believing that this world is peopled more by the former than the latter.

Great post.

"Troll" is, I suspect, an ill-understood term. It tends to get tossed around whenever someone is critical, but to me the term really refers to insincere criticism - an all-out attack that is not simply an expression of annoyance or dislike or even a genuinely held opinion, but rather a deliberate and conscious attempt to provoke a riot. Bulletin boards provide better hunting grounds for trolls than blogs do, because there is the opportunity to inflame opposing sides and then watch them tear each other to pieces. If the troll is successful, it should be possible for him/her/it to retire from the fight after a few inflammatory posts and then enjoy the fireworks from the sidelines.

Trolling is difficult to prove, since it's so difficult to be certain of the motivations of others. I've seen clumsy attempts at trolling that have been transparent enough to provoke little reaction (not on blogs but on Babycenter).

Those who are labelled as "trolls" on blogs tend to be something else - tactless, perhaps, or simply skeptical and oppositional, but sincere in their remarks.

It's an interesting question you raise here - what ethical responsibilities does a blogger have towards a critic/heckler? (A topical question, in relation to the recent "Kramer" debacle?) I think, as a starting place, that bloggers have the right to delete upsetting comments. No one is obliged to provide space for an unwanted discussion. I would hesitate to exercise that right myself, but I think it's a right worth acknowledging. When we do choose to engage with our critics, it's probably worth remembering that for some reason words on the Internet seem always to come across as much angrier than they really are - and that knowledge can affect how we read others' remarks and how we choose our words in response.

Thanks for tackling this issue. I've recently had to decide how to handle a few comments I received in person. Sadly, even though this was written as fiction (very nicely written at that), I know it happens in real life. My heart goes out to anyone who deals with this on a regular basis.

Well said - an interesting new way to look at the problem. I don't know what the solution is, except to keep on reminding people to consider the impact of their words and deeds.
Good luck to you.

This is a great post, Andrea. It took me a while to get it, but then I got it. I've never had those kinds of visitors, but they scare me. Funny, isn't it, how scary it can be to just get an obnoxious comment or see yourself being ridiculed on some site somewhere.

Amazing amazing amazing post.

Wow. That just about knocked me out of my seat when I realized what sort of character the woman with the daughter was. Very, very well written.

I was thinking about this issue yesterday, to some extent. Not on my own blog, since only a handful of people that I already know read and comment on it, but about 'internet pranking' and the ethics it brings up.

I'm suprised that even when someone who plays a cruel internet prank is identified by his first and last name, photo, and city and state of residence, that he would still express no remorse or intention of stoppping. It's got me wondering: if it isn't the anonymity factor of the internet that lets people be cruel, what is it?

Hugs hugs hugs.

yes, it confuses me as to why you'd read a personal blog of someone you dont like or whose choices you dont approve of. just to irritate yourself? Thats what talk radio is for...

It's sad to think that there are people out there who have nothing better to do than to constantly tear others down. I agree that we (me included, too -- I know I'm guilty of it) often dismiss people who exhibit very little tact as "trolls" or as people only out to "stir the pot." Dismissing people because you disagree with them may not be the best solution, but sometimes it is the *smart* solution. Often, the more contentious of commenters ARE there only to muckrake. I would rather ignore them than to give in to their desire to start an argument.

I'm sorry that you are dealing with people who are two-faced. I agree with you that it seems to make no sense that you inhabit a space where you are not enjoying yourself. And, if you're only visiting so that you have conversational fodder, then that's even worse. It's all so highschool.

I hope things turn for the better for you, and no matter those thoughtless people out there, know that you DO have a group of people here who are here because we WANT to be here, and who genuinely like you, and like your writing. Plus, there's the added bonus cuteness that is Frances. Don't let some very sad individuals with nothing better to do ruin what you've got going.

It's not about me particularly--I mean, yes, similar experiences have happened to me, and I do find it upsetting that the internet fosters this bizarre situation where both sides are nearly obliged to treat each other like sub-human cartoon characters--but I've noticed this on many many blogs, and I think it's similar regardless of which particular site it is. If you hate it, why read it? Why do people treat other people like television shows? Is it because a monitor looks like a TV screen? I don't get it.

I think there are miserable people who want to keep tabs on others to make ensure or ensure that everyone else is miserable, too. And yet a truly miserable person can't really enjoy someone else's misery, because enjoyment would defeat the necessarily miserable default state.
So if it were me, then: I'm unhappy-->you're unhappy-->I'm still unhappy, but-->at least you're unhappy, too

I meant "make sure or ensure."

I guess I'm really lucky in that, although I'm sure I've had readers who think that way, they don't post comments.

So this is a bit tangential, but it came up for me when I read this post to tell you that I recently went to a conference where folks were talking about changing the world through hosting radical dialogues. And while the conference itself is not the point (even though it is wonderful to know that there are really cool people thinking, talking, and acting in world-changing ways), I was struck by the amazing way that people at the conference interacted with each other. They were, in a word, beautiful to each other. Really and truly committed to seeing each others humanness.

So I read your fictional post and know that it's very true - in many spaces, in many ways, but I also feel so strongly after coming from that conference that there are people who are tired of that and are trying different ways of being and relating. And I just wanted to share it with you. Hopeful, isn't it?

ZM, that sounds like a conference I would have loved to be at.

I think you've really nailed part of it too--I think it's so important to see someone's humanness even (or especially) when they stand for all kinds of things we disagree with. How do you change the world if you replicate the worst parts of human behaviour?

Wow, that really hits home, and it was beautifully written.