To %&)()*(*%% or not to )&&_)**%%(, that is the question.........

I've decided to become a writing critic and review my own style of writing. In comparison to others I have read, I see how different I come across, not so much in adherence to proper english and prose, but in my out and out bluntness. I pretty much write the way I think, although I do tend to attempt to dress it up a bit. I guess you could say it's pretty much the way Kerry speaks versus Bush, only Bush isn't allowed to let loose with as many expletives as he might do in private conversations. So when I use such terms as "asshole", "ignoramus", "fucking idiot", and the like, these are not words I would use in mixed company, but would feel free to spout with close friends and family in the relative safety and dominion of my own space. The fact that I "lower" myself to using these expletives in my posts might be considered lowbrow by some, but I like to think of it as being real. The more educated the author, the less you will tend to see of four letter words, and that is not a good or bad thing, depending on how they give emphasis to and lend weight to the particular points they are trying to make. Now, I agree, that writing this way, or even speaking such, to the point that every other word is a curse word, is rather juvenile, and can grate on the reader who is not used to it. I have left many a blog behind that made use of the "F' word with reckless abandon, as it seems the author knows no other way to express himself. I use it simply because I use those words when the emphasis needs to be heavy, and it seems effective when used in that fashion. I am not a course and profane person. But I am passionate. I am opinionated. I prefer to state my convictions in no uncertain terms. If the four letter words serve no purpose I prefer not to use them. But I will. Thus, when I say that not only is George Bush an idiot, but a FUCKING idiot, I am making a point that requires the impact, the passion, the conviction of the expletive to get my point across.

One advantage I would like to think my writing style imparts is that it is not laborious to read. At least I don't THINK it is; I could be wrong. Some blogs I suffer to enjoy, for the authors choose to demonstrate their verbosity in a rather extreme and unnecessary manner. It would pain me to have to actually have a discussion with them in person if they actually choose to speak this way. It's not that I would not be capable of understanding them, but it would take twice as long for them to get across the simplest concept, and by then I might well be asleep. I believe creative and flowery eloquence belongs in the realm of story telling, rather than idea-sharing. That's why nobody believes a thing that comes out of a politicians mouth; for all the information you'd expect them to impart, it comes across as a story rather than direct and honest communication.

If you were to eavesdrop on a group of average teenagers talking, every third word would be an expletive, and there's a reason for that. Expletives are a form of rebellion, of gaining independence, of impressing others, at least in the mind of the juvenile. However, despite all the psychological reasons you might be inclined to come up with, the most basic reason is that teenagers actually lack the vocabulary to fill in the blanks, something they will pick up as they venture out into the world and be forced to communicate with others in a more benign and polite fashion. You will notice a juveniles' language laziness most often when they use their cell phones and computers to text message each other, relying on the most abbreviated codes they can come up with to talk to each other, and even then, these discussions will contain precious little actual content of any value whatsoever. In their world, it's talking with their friends that matters most, not actually saying anything.

So, with my limited formal education and my advanced years, I am left with utilizing the language in a manner that best suits my need to communicate what I'm about and the things that matter to me. Hopefully, my passion in doing so does not paint what I wish to get across with false emotions, because you, the reader, do not see my facial expression or my body language, important factors in accurate communications. I think we need to be grateful that our leaders have not adopted e-mail or instant messenger for diplomacy purposes, for I honestly think that would have started a major conflict by now. Then again, Ichat AV, Apple's video chat system, with it's excellent visual and audio capabilities, would work great in a pinch to call up the Chinese premier and convince him it's not really a good idea to lob a missile our way.
So, anyway, that's my explanation for THE Michael's course style of writing, and I'm sticking to it. It won't earn me a Pulitzer, but you'll certainly get my drift.