SWEARING WILL SEND YOU TO HELL!!

Yes, I should know, I read it on an evangelical magazine being handed out at my train station. And it detailed how swearing "disrespects the Creator of language. Imagine if you gave your friend a shirt, or a blouse, and then saw them using it as a doormat or rag. How would you feel? God feels the same way when we swear", etc. Which, to be brutally frank (and condemn myself to an eternity in Hell), shitted me just a bit.

I guess it's because I've slowly divested myself of the Christian belief I was loosely raised on, and took on seriously in later life, because I can no longer see any purpose it serves for me. And I would argue, that there are cases when swearing does add a certain "je ne sais quoi" to certain situations. I thereby present:


GELATI GECKO'S GUIDE TO SWEARING:

Swearing has a reputation as being nothing but foul, filthy and abhorrent misuse of the English language. But this fails to recognise the ways in which it can create humour in various written scenarios and serve as collective nouns.

Note the following story:

Billy woke to a sunshine filled morning. The bird which so frequently woke him with its sweet song that twittered throughout the green grassy glades surrounding his humble cottage was singing away, filling the air with glorious music (which to be honest, rather annoyed Billy).


If there is any humour to be found in this passage, it would lie in the contrast of the idyllic rural and natural environment, and Billy's lack of awe or appreciation. He is in fact "rather annoyed". But if we add some excellent expletives:

Billy woke to a sunshine filled morning. The bird which so frequently woke him with its sweet song that twittered throughout the green grassy glades surrounding his humble cottage was singing away, filling the air with glorious music (which, if Billy were to be quite candid, was a performance of nature that fucked up his morning).


The sparing use of a well placed obscenity heightens this contrast between the pleasantness of Billy's morning in his natural environment, and the actual annoyance (which has now become something much stronger) which he feels towards it. The elaborate sentence before the so called "dirty word" set the reader up to expect something a little bit open and rude, but probably not so much as that which is before them. This unexpected treasure find is most pleasing and humorous to many people.

Other similar uses include juxtaposing swear words against what is otherwise the height of politeness, to the effect of seemingly oxymoronic sentences:


"I think we put the alphabetised files in the cabinets in Office G," replied Genevive politely, with a genial smile.


"I think we put the alphabetised files in the cabinets in Office G, dumb fuck," replied Genevive politely, with a genial smile.


And lo, the swear word has transformed our previously bland response into a fiery and sarcastic quip.


I guess what I'm trying to say, is that swear words are not just obscene and filthy. They have long lost the meanings which were initially attached to them. They have instead become taboo words, and have great potential to transform writing, if used sparingly.

The other use with which we are frequently employing words of an offensive nature for collective nouns. For example:


"Betty collected her books and other belongings and made her way out the door."

"Betty collected her books and crap and made her way out the door."

This easily facilitated collective noun saves us a lot of unnecessary speech and time, while intimating a casual, comfortable, genuine and unpretentious tone in our writing. Other collective nouns which may be employed are "shit", e.g

"Tom got his shit together and ran from the room."

Also consider the use of swear words to express a grevious mistake made by one person. For example:


"My perfomance was well below par in that exam," sighed Megan.


"I fucked up that exam," sighed Megan.

These are just some of the versatile uses to which these words can be put.

I would end with a swear word if I wanted to be a bit of a smartarse, but I think I'll just end by patting myself on the back for raising such pertinent and vital discussion point, which hopefully will encourage you to take greater risks, and think more about how the simple choice of words can influence an entire piece of writing.



Here endeth the lesson.

Dystopian Essay

Here is an essay I found from a "bored" student who was required to write an essay on the prompt:

"People's visions of the future show that those who try to beat the system invariably end up failing."

While visions of the past show us the heroes from Tale of Troy and Robin Hood, and the realm of fantasy offers hope with heroes such as Frodo Baggins, who overcomes immense hardship to overthrow the Sauron establishment through peaceful protest and lobbying, the future dystopian texts portray a world where nobody can defeat the “all seeing eye”, as in 1984.

Winston is unable to “throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom” (so to speak) as he lacks moral fibre. Frodo, on the other hand, is much like Jesus, in that he carries a burden (the ring, or all the sins of humanity), and nearly dies (or in Jesus’ case, actually dies.) But he is not like Jesus because Frodo never says he is the son of God, nor does he turn water into wine. In fact, when they run out of lambas bread, Frodo is unable to produce more food from anywhere. Frodo is also nice to Gollum even though Gollum is a bit mean, and I think Jesus would be nice to Gollum/Smeagol too. But in 1984, Winston is unable to defeat the system. Why, I hear me ask?

Because humans are depressed about our future. We look at our children and go "oh...is that all?" and realise that the next generation will screw up the world massively. Either that, or there are key elements to human nature such as greed for power, knowledge and stability which will send society in a general direction until we reach extremes such as the society of Brave New World. And because these worlds are depressing (supposedly, although I like soma give me soma EVERYONE BELONGS TO EVERYONE ELSE), and so people try to rebel. But why do they fail so much?

Because mankind is inherently cbs. John the Savage, from Brave New World, for example, hangs himself cos he cbs trying to change the world or himself. But I think that the society in Brave New World is nice. Lenina thinks so too, because she's nice, and I'm sure Frodo would agree because we all know he liked to have a bit too much fun. But this isn't about Frodo. Or lambas bread, delicious though it may be (*mental note: buy some lambas bread*). It's because people can't change the world.

There are also technical reasons why people can't beat the world. In 1984, it's like Winston and Julia vs EVERYONE so they were never going to win. The government had too much cameras and telescreens and stuff for them to win. Technological power in the hands of authority allows complete domination through fear. Fear prevents people from acting. To go off on a tangent whose line is equal to the equation y = 4.5x + 78.9, in World War II, propaganda was used in Germany, and fear was instilled in those who didn't go with the flow. And so people didn't fight against Hitler so much. With more power, governments are so much more able to eliminate and contain risks or dangerous people wanting to destroy the establishment.

In conclusion, Frodo was very brave, but he could never defeat Sauron in a dystopian novel. Sauron would have:

a) really good army, not just stupid orcs (which are actually Elves that have been tortured, did you know that? But how do they breed...I don't know) He would have robots with silver shields and armour that shoots lasers

b) high tech surveillance equipment instead of just one massive eye. This would be more energy efficient, and slightly less conspicuous

c) a reliable tracker on his One Ring, to prevent Frodo from taking it and running all the way across Middle Earth

d) propaganda with rewards for the ring's capture, so that Faramir would definitely take the ring instead of being "noble"

e) he would also have a tracker on Gollum once he released him, or a microchip

f) he would trigger tsunamis to prevent elves from escaping to the Grey Lands

So as you can see, he would crush everyone. So that's what dystopian stories are. And why you can never beat the system.

Conversation Overheard on the Train #1

As I got onto the train, there was a large beefy man with tattoos, sitting with a somewhat thin woman with long hair. The train was otherwise quite empty.

Woman: And so I had to stand, and when there was a seat, I could only sit down for one bloody stop.

Man: That's not right...they have those fucking signs on the train, you know.....for the pregnant.....and elderly.....and disabled.....they should have them on the bus.

Woman: Well afterwards I was thinking, maybe I should've asked for a seat. And my legs were sore afterwards...and it's just not right.

Man: Yeah, you should ask for a seat. Tell 'em you're fucking pregnant.

Woman: Yeah, nah. It's not good for the kid if I'm tired and sick, is it...

And so then when they got off, the woman PULLED OUT A CIGARETTE AND STARTED TO SMOKE....

I Have Exams, You Know

So that's why I've not been posting anything. Yet still people are asking me why the blog has been so neglected. So, in fear of losing readership, I will put something up. Conveniently (and, some may argue, offensively cheaply) I have a piece of writing I was required to do for English, and so will fob you off with this. It is a "feelie" review, based on the world from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.



Enjoy...or not.



Alpha Times
“I’m so glad I’m an Alpha!”
Savage Me offers a pertinent message for today’s society, writes Shaun Foster


Savage Me, the latest feelie to be released this year, from Alpha plus debut director Bernard Marx, has been met with praise and adulation, with some comparing it with what is generally recognised as the most popular feelie ever made, A Steamy Month of Passion, by feelie directing legend Thomas Ridshaw.


Marx based Savage Me on the events from two years ago surrounding the man known as “John the Savage”, who was brought out from a Savage Reserve, along with a woman who claimed to be his m****r. John the Savage’s bizarre and illogical attitudes towards having people, and civilisation in general, sparked a large degree of media interest in his situation, which eventually culminated in his suicide. His fascination with Beta Vaccination Worker Lenina Crowne, who afterwards would say that “He both seemed to want me, and yet felt it would be wrong to have me,” forms a focus point of this state of the art new feelie.


In Marx’s reworking of the story, the lovely Lenina (played by Fanny Crowne) is rescued from the possessive attentions of John the Savage (Steven Bates), by Marc Bernard (Harry Green), a hypnopaedia specialised psychologist. He is able to condition the Savage eventually, who finally realises the error of his ways, and has several women before the feelie comes to a close. Artistic director Sarah Brown explained their decision to rework the plot in an exclusive interview with the Alpha Times this week. “We decided in the end to provide the more fulfilling and conventional ending, which left no moral ambiguity as to the concerns and lessons to be learned from the feelie. As John the Savage was a key character, it would have been remiss if we did not correct his social abnormality – and after all, I know I wouldn’t want to go to a feelie where there’s nobody being had!” She added that “an orgy porgy ending provides the perfect climax to the feelie, while reminding the audience that everyone belongs to everyone else!”


Bernard Marx admits that there are elements of himself in his suave and sophisticated hero Marc Bernard, as “We were both quite close to John the Savage, and understood him despite the obvious social problems he faced when an integration with civilisation was attempted. Marc is a gentlemen, and has at least one new woman each week – I wanted to contrast his upright moral character against the volatile and “monogamous” traits of John the Savage.”


Key scenes to watch out for include the scene where John interacts with, and at one stage “embraces” his m****r, Linda (the first time ever in feelies history that a ‘family’ scene has been included). Special effects director Gavin Touch explained that they were required to recreate the so called “love” that John felt for Linda. “We understood it must be an uncomfortable feeling, to make someone behave so irrationally, and “love” was often spoken of in relation to the heart. We combined the sensation of a heart attack and being gored by a bull to provide what we believe is a real and unsettling first hand experience of “love” for the audience. The love making scene between Marc and Lenina underwater was also an ambitious request, as was the one in the anti gravitational chamber. But I think you’ll find the results most pleasing.”


Taking feelies to new heights...or depths...

Challenging, controversial, and more than a little bit titillating, Savage Me has all the makings of a classic feelie, and is well worth the trip.


Other news:



Mombasa reaches new record of 18, 074 individuals from single ovary – Page 2


Debate over the Civilising of more Savage Reserves continues – scientists argue “we are not finished studying” – Page 3