Writers

Anthologist

Blogger

Columnist

Diarist

Editor

Freelancer

Ghostwriter

Humorist

Imaginist

Journalist

Karacter Killer

Librarian

Mythologist

Novelist

Observer

Poetess

Questioner

Raconteur

Storyteller

Typist

Underminer

Vocabularist

Webspinner

Xeroxer

Young Adulter

Zelda

What Is My Superpower?

Writing obtuse, obscure, and obsurd poems.

What does that mean?

It means I like alliteration (I wrote a semi-poem about it called “Ode to Alliteration”) so I was shooting for “obtuse” and repeated the “ob+consonant” for “obscure” – which is like alliteration on steroids, IMHO.

So you like to read poetry?

To be completely honest, if I did enjoy reading poems written by others, I’d probably prefer the obtuse and obscure to the superficial and prolific. Speaking of which, who would you say is the Thomas Kinkaid of rhyme (other than Shakespeare, who’s anything but)?

And to change the subject from ME and MY superpowers, tell me about YOU and YOURS?

Daniel Day-Lewis and Other Writers

I want to ask a question of The Writers here on WordPress. I don’t qualify as one because I only play one on TV, and even that’s just over on my own YouTube Channel with only 15 concrete [but who knows how many potential and therefore relentlessly harassed!] subscribers. (?)

So my question is this (and I already know you’re going to catch me in multiple “grammar fails” throughout the duration of this, so I’m just gonna save us both some time by going ahead and copping to it):

When YOU write, do you prefer the dark to the light, the pain to the joy, the HEAVY to the LIGHT-AS-A-FEATHER? Because it all comes down to just being human, doesn’t it?

And what’s our alternative to THAT, even with all the “slings and arrows” that come with said territory? We can’t become dolphins, after all. And honestly we probably wouldn’t want to: it’s terrible what happens to them when they get tangled up in nets and the next thing they know, they’re all cut up and part of your tunafish sandwich. So think about that for 1 or 2 seconds!

#startingtomaybeunderstandthis”kharma”biznessbutnotsureI’mthereyet

Anyway, I ask all of this of you because lately – and at a not-young age – I’ve noticed that ditching my feelings of shame and [reasonable? unreasonable?] guilt by writing about them on my blog has led to some strange feelings of nearly-unbearable lightness.

In fact, for my younger writers, there’s actually a movie about that very same topic from the early ‘90s featuring a SMOKING HOT 🔥 Daniel-Day Lewis. His name is Tomás in the movie, and he WILL try your patience, I can assure you!

I’ve never really understood what the movie’s about, though. And I’ve even read the book predating the movie by Milan Kundera. A couple of hundred of times!

I think it’s about LIFE getting so bad for the characters that they become “lite” as a way to cope. Or that everyone responds that way when they’re exposed to seemingly-unsurvivable suffering. Like I said: I honestly can’t remember! I was probably just looking at Daniel Day-Lewis, anyway. 🤷🏼‍♀️

So anyway, my point is I don’t know what Your Muse looks like. As for me and Mine, we kind of feel like we’ve [maybe? possibly? hopefully? please?] just finished 15-20 years of all that pain. And all that “seemingly-unsurvivable suffering”. All the time, or as I’m fond of saying: 25/8/9,162.

So I just kind of feel like it’s finally my time to be Lite in all Matters of Mind, Body, Heart, Soul, and Spirit.

And I’m having so much fun I can hardly stand it❣️ There’s something very inspirational in The Unbearable Lightness of Being.

Man’s Description of The Divine & the Verbal Ubiquity of “Literally”

Man saying he’ll only believe in a Supreme, All-Powerful Force once he has human-approved, scientifically robust evidence of His Divine existence is like a slug defending his critical analysis of Shakespeare’s views on immortality using slug trails only. It’s absurd on so many levels, I hope they don’t require written elaboration.

The above is a SIMILE

As a slug defends his critical analysis of Shakespeare’s views on immortality using slug trails, so man shakes his fist at the Cosmos and demands human-approved, human-defined evidence of a Supreme Divinity in order to believe in its existence.

The above is still a SIMILE

The Man who demands evidence of the Divine in small, digestible terms he can understand is a slug convinced he can describe Shakespeare’s views on immortality using slug trails.

The above is a METAPHOR

A man who literally demands evidence that God literally exists is like a slug literally thinking it can imagine conceptual themes in literature, like Shakespeare’s views on immortality and then literally describing them using slug trails alone. Like…literally.

I don’t know what the above statement is an example of other than how we leech every ounce of meaning from a word once it goes “viral.” I took a test in high school that asked the following question: “What is the opposite of literal language?” The answer was “metaphorical language.” I am not arguing the Strunk & White correctness of what we learned. I AM bemoaning the fact I can’t make it through a 24-hour-period without hearing the word “literally” proceed forth from at least 8 separate sets of human lips.

And that just bugs me in an intolerant way I neither like nor understand. Even though I realize it’s like any other go-to, overused term that Society at Large latches onto, only to discard 20 years later from Our Collective English Lexicon..

So, please forgive me, Millennials, Genexers, and All Other Souls from Every Living Generation:

It’s not as if I don’t have more far important things to worry about than the words that trickle out of your mouths. All day, every day, 25 hours OF that day.

I warned y’all “Black & White Thinking” Jennifer can get really bitchy and opinionated when it comes to All Things Trivial and Inconsequential. And literally All Things Significant.

But damn! Could you maybe just start THINKING about how you use this word?

Because it’s literally starting to affect my blood pressure. Honestly. Like, literally. I shit you not. Literally [but not “literally”].

#grammatocrats, #etymology, #lexicology, #morphology, #semantics