the next step into virtual rcalit}’, but before I could think aboutrnraising the question the step had already been taken. Now wernare being told that the solution to our woes, publie as well asrnpersonal, is to be found somewhere on the Internet.rnWhat ean you sa” to people who think that every da’, whenrnthc wake up, the world is a blank slate on which to scribble arnnew reality? This is going Locke one better. It is no longer thernmind of a newborn individual that is a tabula rasa but the worldrnitself, newborn with every innovation. We are always either atrnthe dawn of a new age or at the end of history. Unhappily, thisrnUtopian optimism reveals that the one really blank slate is thernAmerican mind.rnTlie Internet, we arc told, represents the next wave of personalrnand political liberation. We ean make our travel plans,rnfind new recipes, and make friends with disembodied spiritsrnwho use code-nunrbers and aliases. According to stories in thernpopular press, real marriages, however frail, are underminedrnwhen husbands spend so many hours talking to their imaginaryrnfriends that the’ hae no time for their family. Women are notrnimmune. A jilted husband, writiirg recently to Ann Landers,rncomplained that his wife had been seduced by one of her electronicrnpenpals and was refusing to return to him. This is somernnightmare out of Poltergeist, when the ghosts on the screen in-rn ade our living rooms.rnNot onlv our living rooms and our bedrooms, but also thernvoting booths. According to the author of The Electronic Republic,rnthe Internet will restore the direct, participatory democracrnof ancient Greece. Now, I am all in favor of restricting thernvote to adult male children of native-born citizen parents, butrnc en supposing that we had access to real information on homernpages and bulletin boards set up bv candidates and interestrngroups, one essential item is being left out of the equation: personalrnknowledge of a man’s character. Even a television imagernor a stump speech gives us more insight into what a candidaternis really about than all the information in the world on his votingrnrecord or official positions. If Bill Clinton suddenly adoptedrna pro-life/antigovcrnment platform, would any sensible conservativerntrust him? Look irrto his eyes: the two-dimensionalrntelevision screen is deep enough to plumb the depths of hisrncharacter.rnEach new advance in “information technology” begins byrnpromising us indi idual liberation and ends up making us thernprisoner of the technology. Gossip is a better guide to politicsrnthan the newspapers, because good gossip sometimes representsrna genuine leak of information through unfiltered sourcesrnand almost always reflects, even when it is entirely false, thernsense of the people. The wildest rumors about the VincentrnFoster suicide may turn out to be closer to reality than the officialrnstory, but whatever the truth, the rumors say a great dealrnabout the public’s perception of this administration.rnBut the worst of newspapers is better than the best news program,rnbecause we ean put down the newspaper, have secondrnthoughts about the facts or point of view, compare it with otherrnpapers. With television, we are caught up in the imaginaryrnstream of someone else’s consciousness. We can turn it off, butrnwe cannot, so long as we are in the stream, exercise our criticalrnjudgment, unless the story goes so roughly against our grainrnthat it turns us into the antagonist who shouts back at DanrnRather. To resist requires the very power of the will that televisionrnhas undermined.rnTelevision is a primitive form of mind control compared withrnthe possibilities offered bv computerized journalism. Ofrncourse, the Internet offers boundless opportunities for hatchingrnthe best kind of conspiracies. Use it, if you ean, as you wouldrnuse any instrument of communication—a waxed tablet or arnbullhorn or an overhead projector, but never allow yourself tornget sucked into the illusion of empowerment.rnThere may be strength in numbers, but it is not yourrnstrength, and there can be no community with people whosernlives you do not share. It is not morally healthy to fill your headrnwith alien experiences. Schizophrenics who hear voices in theirrnheads would give anything for a moment of silence. There arerntens of millions of people on the Internet, but, for all the usefulrnknowledge they can give you, their name might just as wellrnbe Legion. Books take days and weeks to master and digest.rnQuicker access to more and more information may help thernreporter in preparing his story, but it also makes him less criticalrnabout the torrent of facts, more gullible about the sources.rnThere are more voices babbling in Hell than there will everrnbe online, and the sum total of their wisdom would fit comfortablyrnon the head of a pin, with room enough left over forrnseveral choirs of angels. Your mother must have told you,rn”Don’t talk to strangers.” Don’t listen to them either, especiallyrnif they are journalists. crnSeville 1492-1994rnby Gloria WhelanrnIn the park of Maria Luisarnnewspapers lie unfurled,rnthe world barteredrnfor Andalusian light,rnfor the thick scentrnof orange blossoms.rnLet the Nioors raise their towers of gold,rngrow gardens that frothrnwith white roses,rnFerdinand and Isabellarnwill march southrnto drown themrnin their perfumed bath.rnFEBRUARY 1996/11rnrnrn