The Crusades of a Critic putting pop culture in its place every week with sharp verbal bullets.
Welcome to the cold oppressive inner sanctum of my mind that gave birth to the beast known as The Iron Criterion; armed with high expectations, a short temper, a lyrical spirit, and a raging God complex the literary equivalent of letting Dick Cheney loose in the suburbs with a high velocity hunting rifle. So this is my personal crusade against a wide range of "unjust villains" of the Movie, Television, Video game and Literature varieties - that is abit like a drunk hobo stuck in a rental store. (A special thanks to my friend Allan Anderson for designing the original logo which is now BURNING IN HELL WHERE IT BELONGS).
My reviewing style is very analytical and critical, while simultaneously aiming to be comical and entertaining. I automatically hate anything mainstream unless it can prove itself to me, I'm also a foreign film purist and a lover of the English Language and the literature it has spawned. Recurring elements in my reviews include surrealism, cynicism, nihilism, misanthropy and strange references that most people probably daren't even attempt to understand - think Jon Stewart meets Friedrich Nietzsche.
Want to suggest a review? Then simply e-mail Iron.criterion@googlemail.com
For archived posts visit the categorised links above or for this week's post scroll down:
I Less Than Three You
I for one am looking forward to the inevitable atheist wars as depicted by popular television programme South Park. In my mind it makes infinitely more sense to engage in a vicious conflict for lexicographical reasons than to fight over whose vision of a deity is the definitive one. After all, language is important – more so than belief in a mystical force whose best argument for existence is that you cannot disprove its existence. The reason for my being as wrathful as Travis Bickle in a brothel is due to the fact I was reading an article regarding some of the new ‘words’ added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Like many I regard the tome as an authority on the English Language; though apparently not as much as they do, the smug fucks. So like a murderer waking up secured to a table to witness a power tool wielding Dexter Morgan stood over them I was horrified to discover that the following was being added to the dictionary - <3
"This is just like 'Nam all over again."
At best that is a symbol or a character. Claiming it is a word is like rolling a man around the floor in a barbershop and then parading him around as the missing link. Firstly how do you even pronounce that? Would one say it as what it appears to resemble – a HEART? Or would we be expected to take it on a more literal basis and pronounce it as its components - lesser than three? It is settled then. In 2012 for a beautiful romantic Valentine’s Day message that appears to have been written by Isaac Asimov you could tell your partner that you lesser than three them.
Obviously I understand the need for language to evolve, I’m not a literary equivalent of an Alabama redneck brandishing a rifle at anyone who dares to suggest my favourite words evolved from a dirty primate of a word and not a part of some intelligent design set in motion by a Word Wizard. But if the supposed ‘evolution’ of the language adds nothing but reasons for opening up the nuclear football, than it is more of a mutation or retrograding. Now I realise that I shall sound like Glenn Beck for stating such ludicrous tosh, but it vaguely resembles Newspeak; the idea of removing all shades of meaning from language and to leave simple dichotomies featured in 1984. Clearly that very notion is fantastical but it is clear that <3 represents language death, partly because it doesn’t add to the language (we already have words which convey such an emotion) but also because there isn’t much use for <3. There are currently no synonyms, alternate spellings, antonyms or other uses for <3. It is language at its most debased and for me defeats the purpose which a ‘word’ should serve.
I also don’t agree internet terms such as such as ‘LOL’, ‘BRB’ and ‘WTF’ being added to the dictionary. They are more at home in a colloquialism or slang database. The reason being is that they have limited application in the real world, since they usually serve to portray a human behaviour or emotion that cannot be displayed via text based communications – therefore they have as much use as a grass-court specialist on a clay court. Some could serve as a quick explanation, such as WTF, but frankly if you are in the actual presence of another human being and have the desire to enquire about something you find shocking, blurting out WTF seems to be an inadequate way of achieving this. Which is why in my humble view they will never be little more than internet slang, as tools vital for quick and easy communication on a medium were preventing a friend’s impending suicide may very well depend on your typing speed and resilience to carpal tunnel syndrome.
"I saved a friend's life and smashed a world record for typing out a 5,000
word speech. Worth it."
Though I admit that I do personally know someone who religiously uses such acronyms in his day to day speech, and do actually tolerate being seen with such a creature. Some of his inane utterances can almost be forgiven but his usage of LOL/variant, an initialism for expressing laughter when texting or instant messaging, in a situation where he is physically capable of actually producing laughter, well that cannot be forgiven. I would rather spend the remainder of my natural life trapped in a Michael Cera simulation. Mind you, he does prefer the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes over the original, so that should have served as a glaring warning sign.
"This is just like 'Nam all over again."
At best that is a symbol or a character. Claiming it is a word is like rolling a man around the floor in a barbershop and then parading him around as the missing link. Firstly how do you even pronounce that? Would one say it as what it appears to resemble – a HEART? Or would we be expected to take it on a more literal basis and pronounce it as its components - lesser than three? It is settled then. In 2012 for a beautiful romantic Valentine’s Day message that appears to have been written by Isaac Asimov you could tell your partner that you lesser than three them.
Obviously I understand the need for language to evolve, I’m not a literary equivalent of an Alabama redneck brandishing a rifle at anyone who dares to suggest my favourite words evolved from a dirty primate of a word and not a part of some intelligent design set in motion by a Word Wizard. But if the supposed ‘evolution’ of the language adds nothing but reasons for opening up the nuclear football, than it is more of a mutation or retrograding. Now I realise that I shall sound like Glenn Beck for stating such ludicrous tosh, but it vaguely resembles Newspeak; the idea of removing all shades of meaning from language and to leave simple dichotomies featured in 1984. Clearly that very notion is fantastical but it is clear that <3 represents language death, partly because it doesn’t add to the language (we already have words which convey such an emotion) but also because there isn’t much use for <3. There are currently no synonyms, alternate spellings, antonyms or other uses for <3. It is language at its most debased and for me defeats the purpose which a ‘word’ should serve.
I also don’t agree internet terms such as such as ‘LOL’, ‘BRB’ and ‘WTF’ being added to the dictionary. They are more at home in a colloquialism or slang database. The reason being is that they have limited application in the real world, since they usually serve to portray a human behaviour or emotion that cannot be displayed via text based communications – therefore they have as much use as a grass-court specialist on a clay court. Some could serve as a quick explanation, such as WTF, but frankly if you are in the actual presence of another human being and have the desire to enquire about something you find shocking, blurting out WTF seems to be an inadequate way of achieving this. Which is why in my humble view they will never be little more than internet slang, as tools vital for quick and easy communication on a medium were preventing a friend’s impending suicide may very well depend on your typing speed and resilience to carpal tunnel syndrome.
"I saved a friend's life and smashed a world record for typing out a 5,000
word speech. Worth it."
Though I admit that I do personally know someone who religiously uses such acronyms in his day to day speech, and do actually tolerate being seen with such a creature. Some of his inane utterances can almost be forgiven but his usage of LOL/variant, an initialism for expressing laughter when texting or instant messaging, in a situation where he is physically capable of actually producing laughter, well that cannot be forgiven. I would rather spend the remainder of my natural life trapped in a Michael Cera simulation. Mind you, he does prefer the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes over the original, so that should have served as a glaring warning sign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)