Skip to main content

Learning to Circumvent the Limitations of the Written-Self: The Rhetorical Benefits of Poetic Fragmentation and Internet ‘Catfishing’

Nolan, Meghan Punschke (2015) — Persona Studies

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.21153/ps2015vol1no1art431 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   Catfishing, Computer Mediated Communication, Online False Identities, Online Relationships, Poetic Fragmentation, Romantic Deception, Self Presentation, Written Identity
Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This publication examines how writing identities are formed and perceived within the constraints of authority, authenticity, and moral accountability, arguing that fragmentation of the self can illuminate the complex, fluid nature of linguistic identification. It juxtaposes Modernist poetic techniques of fragmentation with contemporary online practices of catfishing to assess how both strategies reveal tensions between normative expectations of belonging and the lived multiplicity of persona. The analysis draws on theories from sociolinguistics, literary studies, and communication research to map how writers negotiate selfhood through varying voices, records of speech, and stylistic choices. The author traces the historical shift from resemblance-based language and traditional poetic authority to modern practices that valorize identity plurality. Poets such as Pessoa and Eliot are cited as exemplars of deliberate impersonality and multi-voiced writing, while internet catfish are described as online counterparts who perform altered identities for strategic or relational ends. Although the two phenomena share reflective techniques, the piece differentiates their moral implications: poets’ fragmentation is framed as an ethical and artistic pursuit that engages audiences in truth-telling and reflection, whereas catfishing is characterized as deception that disrupts trust within online communities. The discussion also engages related work on online self-presentation, context in computer-mediated communication, and the ways digital platforms enable rapid cycling through personas. In conclusion, the work argues that deliberate fragmentation can expand our understanding of language and self, offering a framework for examining how identity is performed and perceived. It emphasizes careful, morally aware use of fragmentation to explore multilingual and multiplatform expressions of the self.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The essay explicitly identifies scarce non-academic discussion of the restrictive nature of written self-expression. It also argues that writerly identity is rarely treated as a component of personal identity, despite writing's role in everyday self-presentation. No empirical evidence is offered about the scale of these gaps.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Conceptual interdisciplinary essay drawing on sociolinguistics, literary theory, composition studies, media theory, and cited prior studies. It compares Modernist poetic fragmentation with online catfishing as forms of alternate-persona writing, using literary texts and publicly reported catfishing cases to develop a rhetorical argument about authority, authenticity, moral accountability, and written identity.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
This is a theoretical, interpretive essay rather than original empirical research. Its claims about catfishing, victims, motives, and harms rely on cited scholarship, documentaries, television cases, and media reports. It does not provide a systematic sample, participant data, prevalence estimates, validated measures, or direct testing of its comparisons between poetic and online identity performances.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Further work should give greater attention to the written self outside academic settings and examine how deliberate, ethical fragmentation can support reflection on fluid written identities. Any such work should distinguish reflective identity experimentation from covert deception intended to mislead or harm others.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.