it's over. move to somnia.

(prev) i kiss boys (next)

 
Meet the Parens, or Appositively Ridiculous: an Explanation, of Sorts*

I know, I know. I use a lot of parentheses in my writing. In moderation, they can add zest to a text. When overemployed, they are recast as the mark of a writer who can't follow a linear train of thought. I'm guilty of the latter more often than I care to admit. But the truth is that there must be someone else to blame! I'm not going to shoulder the responsibility of ordering my ideas in a way intuitive to the reader! You're here because you want to see what I have to say, not what you expect from me. (Of course, if you expect discursive ramblings lacking in thoughtful conclusions, maybe you should...y'know...give me a sign that I've become predictable.) OK, and that--that was an appropriate interjection, was it not? Yeah, I thought so.

See, the truth is that my mind is a playground buzzing with activity, and all these different topics and points and connections are competing for my attention. If ignored for even a few seconds, they are likely to give up and go away, and then I'm left with the empty, troubling feeling that there once was a thought there, which for reasons of its own, dematerialized. If I try to order these thoughts and points and such, it's just like...well, to use my favorite simile, it's like herding cats.

I think this might tie in to why I'm so into maps: it's so non-linear. Bits of information are sprinkled around, and further ideas are communicated through the overall impression of the image. I've always imagined communication media being hierarchical in how much information can be sent and processed at a time. (I'm limiting this to language only, since music and image--and touch, for that matter--are harder to quantify in terms of data.) When someone is speaking to you (or when you're listening to a recording), all that is available at a time is the word you are hearing. When reading printed matter, the entire page is there to be scanned (and re-read, if necessary)** at once. I imagine the next level of cognition is taking in all the words and ideas of a book simultaneously, and frankly it blows my mind and makes me think there's a religious element of this line of thinking that I'm not considering. (If you have any suggested readings, please comment!)

Yet when I'm reading, I prefer to be taken somewhat linearly down the plot's path. I know what foreshadowing is, and I know that most people involuntarily guess at outcomes, but I like being surprised. (Spoilers suck, kiddies.) I'm always on the lookout for new information, new ideas, new ways of thinking. Of course, I suppose if I actually stopped for a bit and tried to process what I take in, and formed opinions and questions about it, then maybe I'd be a little more comprehensible in turn. Maybe I'd have more direction and ambition. Maybe I'd contribute more.

But who wants that?


*In case you're curious, a Google search on "positively" reveals that there are a lot of people out there who don't have any idea how to use an adverb. In other news: fall is coming, tempers flare in the Middle East, and the sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

**Although I suppose one could consider electronic text or sign language, which can be presented one word at a time (like audio)--but printed text is much more commonly what we consider "reading"...and (to cheat a bit) this discussion is about parentheticals, not footnotes, right?
peachy as always, Mike at 2:55 PM