Archive for ‘Non-Fiction’

08/02/2011

Formulating the Ultra-Bromide

bro·mide [broh-mid] -n. 1. Chem. a. a salt of hydrobromic acid consisting of two elements, one of which is bromine, as sodium bromide, NaBr. b. a compound containing bromine, as methyl bromide. 2. potassium bromide, known to produce central nervous system depression, formerly used as a sedative. 3. a platitude or trite saying. 4. a person who is platitudinous and boring.

I tend to think that any word with multiple meanings should possess all those qualities at once. Working from this basic fallacy, I shall attempt to scientifically formulate a cliché so powerful that it will cause anyone hearing it to fall into a coma. In order to do this, I shall first acquire the elements required in order to create the compound. It goes without saying that these platitudes are highly volatile and should only be handled by trained wordsmiths.

The first ingredient is a fairly new discovery, but one which has been shown to be extremely potent.

It’s like Marmite – you either love it or hate it.

While it originated in an advertising campaign, this simple phrase has captured the public imagination and is now applied in any circumstance that requires a choice – i.e. any situation ever. It’s been co-opted by the British National Party, as well as other less dangerous but equally moronic dullards. The rapidity of its integration is due in no small part to the fact that it is the greatest lie ever told, scoring almost a perfect ten on the Hitler Scale (which is the standard dataset for lies vs gullibility of mass populations). Time and time again, objective studies have shown that the majority of people have no strong opinions either way on the taste of brewer’s yeast, and yet individuals buy into the falsehood rather than trust their own senses. Thus, the potency of the Marmite lie makes it an ideal base ingredient for our concoction and shall be ascribed Mm in all subsequent formulae.

Such instantaneous insipidity can be volatile, however, without a complimentary element to balance it out. It seems almost paradoxical to speak of depth in regard to clichés, yet there is a powerful dullness to our next ingredient, which is much loved by readers of self-help books (and ogres).

It’s like an onion. There are layers that need to be peeled away

Many things have layers, but the onion has become the standard bearer of all concepts of stratification. While it is true that onions do have layers, the use of this particularly trite piece of wisdom has another onionish quality – namely that it induces people to cry uncontrollably like Glen Close in Fatal Attraction (often while holding a knife, although the blonde bubble perm is a matter of personal preference). The addition of the onion metaphor adds the illusion of depth to our ultra-bromide formula and has been assigned the symbol On.

While the layers of the onion metaphor give depth, the quantities produced are insufficient to thoroughly saturate the recipient in vacant pseudo-knowledge. To rectify this, a multiplying element must be introduced. With this in mind, there is only one ingredient that can possibly fit the bill.

It’s like buses – you wait ages for one and then three come along at once

While the truth or otherwise of this statement may vary depending on geographical or historical circumstances (London buses for example, were notoriously unreliable in the latter half of the twentieth century, but have undergone somewhat of a renaissance under the Transport for London regime of the early 2000s), the enduring legacy of the bus maxim is now accepted as universal truth. As with all laws of nature, it can be applied to anything in any context and its purpose within the ultra-bromide is that of a mathematical multiplier. Rather than assigning a symbol, we take the integer values from the aphorism itself and apply them to our pre-existing elements Mm and On.

There is a danger, however, that using a multiplication factor could duplicate any small grains of truth contained in the constituent parts and transcend the confines of cliché and enter the realm of the truism. Thankfully, such an occurrence is negated by the use of the bus maxim, in that the initial waiting period indicates that while waiting for one (1) bus, no (0) buses are present. As multiplication by zero produces zero, there is therefore nothing to be multiplied when the three (3) buses finally appear. Hence we arrive at the complete equation, thus:

Which, when translated into plain English, reads something like this:

It’s like an onion covered in Marmite – you spend ages trying to peel off one layer, then three come at once.

Studies are ongoing.

28/07/2010

Benedict Bloody Cumberbatch

As a first year undergraduate at the University of Manchester, I was flung towards a random collection of strangers and told that I had to share a flat with them for a year. Such is the fate of all those living in halls of residence and, for the most part, it worked out well. Despite being a hugely antisocial person, I got on well with people and in that time made several friendships that have endured over the years. One of the first people I met was a drama student called Boycie (yes, like in Only Fools and Horses), a first year drama student with a worldliness that I found slightly intimidating. He alluded to all sorts of colourful exploits and was the first man I ever met who cleansed, toned and moisturised. We had our differences, but we quickly bonded over a shared love of vodka and B&H.

As the year progressed, Boycie took part in many a student production and the rest of us would hear tales of his new, fabulously bohemian lifestyle. One evening, he told us about a young actor who had the lead in the production of The Front Page running at the Student Union.

“He’s great,” Boycie told us. “Very talented. Quite good looking, but not a pretty-boy. But he’s going to be famous. “

We asked his name and the rest was history.

From that point on, Benedict Cumberbatch became a mythical figure in our household. We knew, logically speaking, that he was probably the same age as us, but somehow the name felt like it belonged to someone older; a grizzled theatrical stalwart who had been around for yonks. We pictured him as half deaf, half mad, absolutely soused and forever dining off anecdotes about treading the boards with dear Larry. And he was always Benedict Bloody Cumberbatch, as in:

“BOYCE? IT’S BENEDICT BLOODY CUMBERBATCH! I’VE GOT TREVOR NUNN WANTING ME TO PLAY ESTRAGON AT THE NATIONAL. I TOLD HIM TO SHOVE IT UP HIS BLOODY ARSE!”

“HELLO? HELLO? IS THAT YOU, BOYCIE? IT’S BENEDICT BLOODY CUMBERBATCH. I’VE GOT PETER AND RICHARD COMING ROUND FOR TEA. I NEED YOU TO BRING ME A MALT LOAF AND A BOTTLE OF ETHER.”

“BENEDICT BLOODY CUMBERBATCH HERE. I CAN’T BE SURE, BUT I THINK I HAVE YOUR TROUSERS.”

And so on. It was nice to while away the hours, imagining this eccentric old ham shouting at all and sundry. Eventually, of course, we went to one of Boycie’s student productions and got to see the man himself. While he was obviously a fantastically talented actor, all of us felt a little disappointed to find out that he was only human, after all.

Now, of course, he’s now doing frightfully well for himself, having been on the telly and in proper films and everything. I can only hope that he has a long and fruitful career, full of incident, applause and no small dollop of bad behaviour. Hopefully, in forty or so years time, I can contrive a reason to speak to him and he, now as addled as he first was in my mind’s eye, can say the words as they were meant to be said:

“TOM? IT’S BENEDICT BLOODY CUMBERBATCH!”

23/12/2009

Sarcastic Punctuation

Text can be difficult, particularly when it’s used casually and without proper context. With text messaging, email and social networking, I would argue that people are actually writing a lot more than they used to, albeit often in truncated form. Standard text messages have a limit of 160 characters (Twitter shrinks this further to 140), social network messaging rarely extends beyond a line or two and while email does lend itself to longer messages, the advent of always-on connections have shifted the form from a epistolary form to that more closely resembling CB radio, where messages ping back and forth at stilted intervals.

As communication increases in volume but diminishes in depth, some things get lost along the way, most notably nuance and it’s here that the problem lies. Various factors, such as time, availability and access conspire to transform all of our fabulous new ways to communicate into petty battlefields of misunderstanding. All to easily, messages are misunderstood and the remainder of the conversation is reduced to ascertaining whether a particular statement was meant seriously, or whether it should have been taken with a pinch of salt. Those who misunderstand are labelled as stupid, while those in the know come across as unbearably smug. This is seen most often in message boards and forums, where much of the conversation is based solely around previously posted messages and thus descend into ouroborean recriminations about who said what and what was meant by it.

It is in order to prevent this spread of petty name-calling that I propose a specific punctuation mark designed to indicate sarcasm. This should be used to indicate that a statement is not intended to be taken seriously and does not indicate the true feelings of the writer. The use of such visual indicators might seem heavy-handed, it is my belief that through use of this typographic cue, we would save a lot of fuss and bother. It could be argued that good writers should be able to make their intentions clear, but this proposal isn’t intended for the Will Selfs of the world. It’s intended for idiots who post on forums without thinking and send emails without proofreading. Idiots like me.

My first experiments with sarcastic indicators were based not upon punctuation marks, but text styling. It was my belief that in an irony-laden internet that it was more important to indicate piss-taking than it was to use bold, underline or italics. Examining a chart of CSS text decoration led me to believe that the overline could become the new indicator of flippancy, as seen in this example.

I saw a lot of films this year. Of them all, Twilight:New Moon was the best.

Initially, this seemed fine, but an isolated sarcastic statement on the internet is a rare beast indeed and when the overline is used more extensively, the problems become apparent.

There were a lot of good films that came out in 2009. Most thought-provoking of all was 2012, the film of the year. I doubt there’s a film-maker alive who’s better at handling subtle emotional scenes than Roland Emmerich.

Used in a longer paragraph, it becomes confusing as to what is being underlined to indicate emphasis and what’s being overlined to indicate sarcasm. In addition, overlining has certain technical requirements that could prevent its spread. While the CSS code can be inserted into webpages, it’s unusual to see such extensive text formatting in the average email client, forum input box or similar. If sarcastic internet punctuation mark was going to flourish, it would have to be usable in any context, and this meant it would have to be applicable in a plain-text environment.

With this in mind, I looked at the keyboard in front of me and thought about the keys I never used. There was the tilde(~) which didn’t see much action, but some research indicated that it was often used by game developers to bring up the control console and had become somewhat established in this context. It also has its uses in Linux and Windows command lines, which could lead to both technical mishaps (typing a message into the wrong window and accidentally deleting files, for example) and perhaps a reluctance on the part of geeks to learn a new use for a symbol they are already so familiar with. (For people keen on learning, geeks can be remarkably resistant to change.)

It was then that I noticed a key towards the top-left of my keyboard, just below the Escape key, bearing a symbol that I couldn’t remember ever using.

¬

I had no idea what it meant, but it seemed to be in a prominent position and it didn’t require an arcane combination of Alt-Ctrl-Shifts to produce, so it had to be something useful. Being the lazy internet slug that I am, I looked it up on wikipedia and discovered that in mathematics it indicated negation. Put simply, writing ¬P indicates notP.

Perfect. If we are to use this as punctuation, then anything following a ¬ is not what is written. Therefore ¬Twilight:New Moon was the best film of the year is, in case you hadn’t guessed, an utterly bogus statement.

However, misunderstandings can still occur. It’s difficult to tell where the sarcasm stops, both in the case of the above statement, but more generally with the internet as a whole. Therefore, I would advocate that negation marks should encapsulate the statements so as to provide a definite start and end to the mockery. Otherwise, Lynn Truss is going to get angry with us and have to write another book. ¬Not that I’d mind. I really respect her.¬

A potential stumbling block for the use of ¬ as a punctuation mark is that, while it is easily accessed on UK QWERTY keyboards, other layouts place it in less obvious positions. The symbol is nowhere to be found on a standard US keyboard and while I could make a smug comment about Americans never being able to grasp irony, I will instead point out that it can be accessed by using the AltGr+\ key combination. While this lacks the immediate appeal of the UK designation, it does allow Americans to devlope empathy for their non-English speaking friends who have to use all sorts of strange key combinations to access their variant letters, where we Anglophones have them all laid out in front of us.

Whether the accessibility of ¬ proves to be a stumbling block to its usage remains to be seen. What’s more likely is that nobody will ever take up the idea and misunderstandings will increase in both size and severity. With an increasing amount of social and political interaction taking place online, the consequences of these crossed wires will become ever more severe and will, perhaps, lead to a fall-out of apocalyptic consequences. The seas will boil, the skies will fall and Michael McIntyre will finally be revealed as the Antichrist. He will lead an army of darkness that will fight the war to end time and billions will die in the process, all of which could have been avoided if people had just heeded my warning and made it clear when they were being sarcastic on a bloody message board and not wasted my time with their STUPID jokes…

¬