I would like to draw your attention to the title of this post. It’s not by fluke I chose this heading. I wanted to have a go at a specific person, and in such a way that he does not immediately realize what I am trying to say. Sometimes when I think that putting an opinion in simple words can have an immediate backlash, I try to veil it through a play of words in order to delay or better still, diminish the trouble altogether. This is also a style of writing. Point Number One.
I was reading a blog of some unknown human specimen. For the sake of convenience, let’s call him (Yes, it’s a him) Sir. I found the comments and the reasoning behind his statements so amusing that it compelled me to do what I am doing right now , i.e., wasting my time.
He was trying to analyze a ScholsAve article. A ScholsAve article dealing with a particularly sensitive issue. To be honest, there was only one thing that I liked about the rather detailed analysis. He did a pretty good job of making his baseless, irrational opinions look like absolute facts. At this point of time, I feel the need of mentioning some of Sir’s points here.
“I can't possibly imagine how such a badly written and completely useless article was accepted for publication; and that too as a "Special Feature". While the article is nothing short of garbage, I have some comments which I hope you might be interested in hearing. The comments are mainly on the presentation as there is not sufficient content in the article to make any useful remarks about it.”
So we can safely conclude that Sir has not been able to make out any of the content in the article. Keep this in mind. We might need it later.
Okay, so now he pastes the entire article on his blog. Fair enough. (By the way, you can find the entire article on www.scholarsavenue.org). I am not pasting it here.
“The article opens with multiple undefined references to something, and it takes till the end of the paragraph to resolve the meaning of it. This is so completely annoying for any reader. The editor seems to have lost himself, so fully, in an ostentatious display of irrelevant words and phrases that he/she has forgotten to define it.”
More details coming in. Sir does not like multiple undefined references. He wants everything to be spoon fed in the first line itself. This sounds okay (given that different people have different assimilation capacities). But wait, he has something more to say. He pompously makes declarations that the article has irrelevant words and phrases .More importantly, he makes this fantastic assumption that no reader will like it. Point Number Two.
He, it seems, has failed to consider the possibility that maybe the editor wanted it the way it is.
Moving on,
“The first sentence makes no sense.
Sometimes it is existent, like an inconspicuous needle in a haystack, sometimes like an ostentatious parade of unity.
Also it has to be worst line ever. That it found it's way into an article is shocking; but that it begins an article is just disturbing.”
Sir has, by his own admission, not understood the first line. Am I the only who seems to be detecting a pattern here? Anyway, let’s explain to him the meaning of the first line. Ragging is sometimes undetectable. Although it might be going on in full bloom, it is still difficult for outsiders to detect a single soul. At the same time, you will sometimes see a crowd of people (read 2nd years on a 2.2 or in a common room) who will make a show of unity, and deny any trace of ragging. Are they not contrasting situations which deserve a mention in the sentence the way it has?
Taking up his next profound analysis:
“ inconspicuous needle in a haystack?
The number of useless adjectives in this article is just frighteningly large.
... A vast majority ...
Majorities are, by definition, vast.”
Sir seems to have a twisted sense of logical reasoning. He is not aware of the fact that adjectives sometimes add to the impact you are trying to make. If we go by Sir’s advice, all the following words would become meaningless.
1. An unending skyline
2. A fuel guzzling SUV
3. A fast racing car
4. Tall Skyscrapers
And I would like to bring to Sir’s attention the fact that there is actually something called slight majority and similarly, there is something called vast majority. Try googling.
” of today's Indian society perceives it as an occurrence which must be eradicated under all circumstances. However, a seemingly equal majority, ...
Also, how can there be two majorities? The constant switching between both sides of an argument is irritating. Especially when presented without facts. How can you speak for the Indian society without facts to support what you say? And even if you have sound reasons to believe in such things, why can't you say it simply like:
A majority of the Indian society disapproves of ragging.
Besides,
... today's Indian society perceives it as an occurrence which must be .”
sounds like it can be perceived otherwise, possibly by other societies. And stating that ragging is an occurrence is again useless.”
Sir looks a little confused here. He’s not sure about his question. Is the constant switching irritating him, or, is it the lack of facts? Doesn’t it seem ironic that a person, who in the very first line of his blog post, makes an assumption that no reader will like this article, is suddenly asking for facts? Facts which are definitely there, but do not deserve a mention in an editorial. As for the switching, it obviously makes a reader think more as well as leaves some things to his/her imaginations. The writers were definitely not looking for a lullaby here. Regarding the question of two majorities, the word “seemingly”, as far as I know, was added to create the right kind of vagueness to negate this problem.
“So what is the precise meaning of this term which is oft used so unwittingly? Or a more relevant question, in the present scenario, would be-What exactly is ragging perceived to be? Is it a ritual firmly
First, the article doesn't define the precise meaning of ragging. Second, if there were a more relevant question then why not ask that first? The ", in the present scenario," is completely useless -- obviously the article applies only within it's context. If you're enthusiastic about using commas, regularly, and, preferably, without reason, then I, seriously, suggest not writing articles.”
There’s a prominent box stating the precise definition of ragging. Does Sir want that box to be repeated in the article? And Sir, we do not ask the more relevant question first because we have to show that it is the more relevant question. There has to be a comparison, and at the same time, the message has to be sent that the first question is irrelevant. Point Number Three.
And how come the phrase “in the presently scenario” is declared useless, and that too completely? Is Sir trying to say that ragging was very much the same in olden days, and has not undergone even an iota of change?. The question of perception arises because of the present state of affairs. How can one eliminate this phrase? I ask you.
And if Sir wants really simple form of sentences, I, seriously, suggest him to read Hardy Boys not ScholsAve. Wait, Nancy Drew would be better.
“would be-What exactly is ragging perceived to be? Is it a ritual firmly rooted in the belief system of students and a reflection of a deeper malaise plaguing the society? Or is it a term being misused and more often than not, being clubbed with villainous criminal activities? Is it a euphemism being used to shield hideous, condemnable acts taking place on college campuses? Or is it one of those propitious, if not amiable, platforms for healthy interaction with the college seniors?
Why so many questions? Are you going to answer any of them? If they're rhetorical, then I don't see the point in even one of them. You are simply listing out all the possible things it could be -- something that serves no useful purpose. The article, comes off as being thoroughly bland and fully lacking a single meaningful remark up to this point. And yet, I can see a huge number of infrequently used words punctuate the article. Why?!”
Why so many questions? Hmm. How about letting the users ponder over the questions while the paper refrains from making any judgments? How about just playing the role of catalysts, and in turn, providing fodder for the readers to think on? From the pattern that I observe, I know that it’s very difficult for Sir to think of such a possibility. Not his fault.
You don't even tell what ragging in the Subcontinent amounts to. So nobody has any idea what the heck it is that you're talking about. And to top that, you call it villainous and criminal. Or do you expect your readers to share some global, unified view of what ragging entails? Throughout the article you talk of some undefined monster, which you continue stack adjectives on top of. And describe it as something that is firmly rooted in the belief system and is a reflection of a deeper malaise plaguing the society.
Well, an article on ragging can go on and on for pages. Sir needs to realize that the writers might be trying to focus on one aspect of it. Besides, what is the definition of ragging in the box for? Not for decoration, I assure you.
”Why on earth would you prefer
Or is it one of those propitious, if not amiable, platforms for healthy interaction with the college seniors?
to
Or is it a platform for healthy interaction with the college seniors?”
Why not, Sir? Why not? The word propitious has a meaning. The word amiable has a meaning, too, and the two sentences are definitely not equivalent. I know that you are having interpretation problems but the words here are trying to convey something important. I am sure Nancy Drew would be able to satisfy all your whims and fancies. Or if you are lucky, maybe ScholsAve will someday come up with a separate edition just for you.
“When you write an article there is an idea or an argument you wish to convey to your readers. The constant incoherent rambling throughout the article makes it unclear to ascertain what it is that you're finding so much difficulty in saying. It looks like your main goal is to show usage and you think you can invent content on the way. The entire article is a big mess of adjectives and a pathetic attempt at describing something relatively simple.”
Sir has again managed to make a hilarious assumption. Describing the age-old menace of ragging as something “relatively simple” shows complete ignorance and lack of awareness. People in KGP tend to lose a bit of way, and so I refuse to blame him in totality. It’s pretty clear what the article wants to say and the usage also has a message (applicable for knowledgeable readers). Every person, unfortunately, has a different take on this delicate subject. And each one wants this topic to be discussed to a different extent. What Sir might term as an article lacking content, others might bash, and have bashed, it for an excess of content .Point Number Four.
The article was written keeping various dimensions in mind. Some delicate points were put across in a unique way. What Sir terms as a “big mess of adjectives”, the writers would want to call it sufficient padding to withstand any protest on content. The article’s intention was to entangle all (and only) the Sirs in a web so that they don’t start irrationally questioning the content and the cruel, ulterior motives behind the content. However, at the same time, sufficiently intelligent people will get the message the article wants to convey.
I also noticed, and this probably applies to other articles in SA, that most sentences are far too long, use too many commas and complicated words where they are completely avoidable. I personally don't have the time to nitpick every sentence in the article, but if you do review the article more closely you will notice that there is absolutely no flow to any sentence. Sentences continually break every few words to allow for editorial wisecracks between paired commas and parenthesis. It is almost like the writer wrote this not expecting anyone to read it. Some sentences are entirely inconsequential and the article can do best without.
Sir needs to be reminded of the fact that long sentences, which have a lot of commas, are not "bad". It’s question of preference. Why would one want to avoid it in the first place? Certain sentiments are best expressed in long sentences. The breaks in sentences are, without doubt, intentional. The writer may want the reader to stop at regular intervals and reread the sentences. That way, the reader ends up spending more time on the article. It’s a different style. Good or bad is a matter of perception. None of the sentences are, I repeat, inconsequential. If Sir has come to this conclusion, then I would suggest him to reread the sentences in question. I would suggest Sir to watch movies like Memento or, among the recent ones, movies like Inception. The continuous breaks add to the fun and more importantly, force the audiences to use their grey cells. Coming back to my previous point, just because writing smooth sentences is a conventional thing to do, doesn’t mean it’s the best thing to do. Point Number Five.
“All this was indeed to the purpose, and to give me satisfaction, though, by the way, I was not so scrupulous, had he known all, but that I might have taken him without it. However, I looked them all over as well as I could, and told him that this was all very clear indeed, but that he need not have given himself the trouble to have brought them out with him, for it was time enough.”
Sir, do you see the long sentences here? This is an extract from a book written by a very famous author. Do you want me to give more such instances? I certainly understand this fact that long sentences irritate you. However, do not get me wrong here; a lot of people do prefer long sentences.
Writing about what seemed to Sir a detailed analysis of an article, might have taken him a lot of time. I give him full respect for the effort. But the entire blog post does not seem to be making any valid points except one ,i.e., Sir had a problem in understanding the article. My deepest sympathies.
This unwarranted loss of my valuable time would, I hope, enhance the reassessing capabilities of Sir.
Oh, crap! I need to make it simpler.
I hope this wastage of my time would help Sir in future critical analysis.
Not working… need to simplify it further….
Okay, I give up. You win Sir. I can’t make it simpler. Carolyn Keene(s) is your only solution. The Final Point.
