A dollop of fun today, a touch dissimilar to rants past. Your mission, and I think you’ll find it amusing, is to scan my paragraphs and unmask what’s missing from my words that you would normally find abundant. It is my task also, to suss out if I can do it whilst maintaining a gripping account for visitors to my blog. Why do I do this? Curiosity, mainly; to find if it is at all within my writing skills. Do I fancy my output as wordplay on par with that of a craftsman such as, say, Nabokov? Hardly. Most vigorously not, in point of fact. Triumph in this pursuit, or falling short, will signify nothing important, or lasting. It is, truly, just for kicks.
Pray, what to talk about today? Our world is a cornucopia, rampant with judicious topics: a sampling might contain a follow-up to All Hallows’, political turmoil abroad and on our own soil, institutional ramifications of Kim Kardashian’s imploding nuptials, or sonic vistas from Coldplay’s album Mylo Xyloto. Or my familiar go-to if nothing can catch my imagination on that day, Aaron Sorkin’s vast portfolio of writings. Anyway, I’ll go for a story I find particularly irritating.
Much was said about Ms. Kardashian’s 72-day sham, mainly and rightly, that it is folly to proclaim in this day of our ongoing commoditization of stardom that any should look upon gay unions as a singular hazard to that most holy (said with sarcasm) institution of matrimony. Is it not individuals such as Kim who turn such important rituals into ridiculous “shows” for cash who should catch our communal scorn? Why do loyalists to a particular political inclination go on fighting to bar gay unions if straight Kim and company can flaunt what is so important to so many loving pairs with such disdain? A high point of hypocrisy, I would think. Not that it’s a shock coming from such sorts. It’s always about “saving our morality,” a worn-out justification to attack things out of favour with a diminishing group of old right-wing layabouts.
A propos of our villain in this saga, you cannot totally fault Kim. Truly, all of us must swallow our own wrongdoing in popularizing Kim’s antics and crafting a mass craving for additional clowning around; purchasing stacks of flimsy publications thanks simply to Kim’s mug only adds to this “famous-for-nothing” lady’s kingdom of public domination. It will not stop until common man opts to turn his focus away and to topics of vital import. Until that day, Kim Kardashian and ilk will maintain an unnatural hold on our discussion and grow rich, with a continuing sum contribution of nothing to civilization’s gradual growth (or stagnation).
I shall stop my rant at this point and ask you again to look back at this post and say what is missing. For my part, it was good fun to craft. You may submit your thoughts in our usual way. Alas, naught but bragging rights to our victor. Good luck though, and happy hunting!
5 thoughts on “Fun with words: What’s missing?”
This post was brought to you by the Sesame Street Workshop and the UN-letter E… 😉
Congrats Kana! You got it! Not a solitary “E”. Thanks for stopping by!
THE. A word so common that it almost seems impossible to speak without it. We have grown so accustomed to using it frivolously in everyday speech, that it almost seems rude not to use it now…
bEsidEs which, it has that pEsky lEttEr E in it… 😉
Sorry dude, Kana’s got it. Thanks for playing – enjoy your Rice-a-Roni! 🙂
Comments are closed.