I noticed a Judge on Television the other day, it was one of those pseudo-real courtroom trash “dramas”. The Judge was laying down some holier-than-thou edict on the hapless Geraldo refugees. As usual, these human irrelevancies had some banal conflict concerning the questionable identity of the father of a fetus as well as the location and relationship of the supposed fathers to the mother.
Seeing the Judge as some reference to Judge Judy with extra loathing made something click in me. Judge Judy, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Dr. Laura. Geraldo Rivera, Phil Donahue, Maury Povich, Jerry Springer.
Two sides of the same coin. On one side are the Demagogues, the fire and brimstone holier-than-thou loathers. These humans begin, continue, and end their day with a simple phrase, “I am right and the only point to life is to drown the airwaves with my views”. The other side features the Defeatists, those who revel in human scum, who sneer and barely hide their contempt.
One side presents a humanity that clearly should be told what to do, and the other side tells that humanity what to do. A cute combination.
Humans watch their TV. They listen to their radio. They have no Sieve. They become puppets. They begin to loathe themselves, and when they get arrogant they become the next Demagogues and Defeatists, being “generous” to what they used to be.
Yes, a considerable slice of humanity is not exactly intelligent, or firmly ethical. This doesn’t strike me as exactly new. So are you finally reassessing your stance of “all information has to be made universally available”, like “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, or “Mein Kampf”?
If yes, you can hopefully finally tackle your problem with random capitalization. :)
The sieve is his magical mystery answer to any and all problems in perception or understanding. Having trouble tolerating the bullshit of life? You need to perfect your sieve! Unable to comprehend how people can be this fucking stupid? Work on your sieve! It creats a wonderful world where you only see and hear what you want to, where a raving loon can be, let’s say, the most respected thinker on this forum, by far.
Get the picture? Personally, I prefer the filter. It’s what I’d like to be able to use on people like you, Brian.
Crap. I read his explanation for capitalization. I’m now five minutes older, and I have nothing to show for it except for a fool’s explanation for why he can’t be bothered to use proper punctuation.
Well, since I already spent five minutes reading the damn thing, might as well comment on it. Koontz, communication is an inherently shared medium… and developing your own personal idiosyncracies is retarded. It both defeats the purpose of and misses the point of communication, which is to communicate an idea from one person to another. Your idiosyncracy adds nothing to the communication process except for an extra layer of obfuscation… and considering how much confusion happens between two people who are having a good-faith effort to communicate, adding an extra layer of complexity that isn’t understood by both parties is not wise.
Well, now I’m eight minutes older than when I first clicked on that link. Time to go do something productive with my time.
and developing your own personal idiosyncracies is retarded.
I dunno. Language is not merely the pursuit of total sameness of expression from person to person… some degree of idiosyncracy can be fine, nay desirable. After all where do you draw the line between “personal idiosyncracies” and “personal style”?
When you break the convention in a way not understandable by your audience. Thus, I have a distinctive personal style… rather sarcastic, very abrasive, and with certain characteristic turns of phrases and vocabulary. DrCrypt has an even more distinctive style. However, both of us are usually understood. And, near as I can tell, our styles don’t prevent people from understanding us. Although I would not by any means claim to be a perfect communicator, I don’t think my style ever gets in the way of understanding, although it might piss people off to the point where they don’t care if they understand. Which I accept, and I’m fine with.
However, Random capitalization doesn’t Add any meaningful Level of communication. To Koontz and Koontz alone it does, but to all of his readers it’s just distracting. If he did The capitalization Thing once in a While, and Made sure everyone Understood what Was going On, it might be a “Personal Style” thing. But he’s explained it Once, and I have a Feeling most people Aren’t going to be as Foolish as I was and wade through his Poorly Written explanation.
Basically, I think style is working within the commonly accepted norms of communication and using those norms to best express yourself, while idiosyncracies go outside the norms of communication, and only serve to make the writer feel special. They sure as hell don’t aid in expression, unless you consider the audience to be irrelevant in “expression”… which is exactly the definition of self-absorbed navel-gazing. Which, not coincidentally, Koontz has been accused of several times.