In a 2007 PMLA article addressing “the changing profession,” Nancy K. Miller (2007) suggests that “[a] utobiography may emerge as a master form in the twenty-first century”(545). Recognizing both the expansion and explosion of popular forms of published autobiography, and the strength and durability of what Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson have called “the memoir boom”(Smith and Watson 2010, 127), Miller points to the rich variety of texts and contexts animating autobiographical production and consumption, as well as to the necessity of promoting a similar richness in scholarly approach. She happily concludes that, in the face of such variety and plenitude,“[a] cademics have risen to the occasion with refreshing inventiveness”(Miller 2007, 546). Since that publication, popular Internet life writing forms—among them blogs, vlogs, and social network sites—have begun to demand a similar inventiveness. Such invention proceeds in fits and starts, but the challenges presented by digital life writing are arguably more sweeping and various than those uncovered by the graphic memoirs and print “autobiofictionalography” Miller considers in her survey. Digital life writing maps a realm with no gatekeepers, editors, or canons, producing texts to excess on a scale of production and publication that completely overwhelms the boutique reading practices of literary scholarship. Digital life writing develops normative writing and reading practices that shift with each software upgrade or each new cultural meme. Digital life writing troubles the hard-won notion of the artfulness of auto/biographical texts as the basis for their appropriateness as objects of scholarly attention. Digital life writing, in fact, poses a kind of limit case of autobiographical theory and criticism, at once terrifying and compelling in its sheer scale and its wide-open popular production. How can we understand the Facebook status update? This is a deceptively modest question, one that will generate further pointed inquiries into digital life