Express-Delivered Expression

Everyone expresses, but is everyone express? Express, as in the mode of transport. Express, as in quick and expedient. We are a species hard-wired to accept the success of those that rush.

Movement is an interesting thing, requiring us to be expedient or verbose with haste. Things that express can range from how passionately we feel to how loud we shout, but what about movement? We express ourselves in New York much more than Florida, and I don’t mean by how loud we speak. Everything in this city is fast and hasty, never stopping and always pushing ahead. We see this everywhere we look, since many people want to make the most out of their lives.

We don’t hand out things to the slow or the lazy, since we rapid individuals see it as wasteful. We were told that society in this capitalist world cares only about those that can take care of themselves, and that they deserve none of our sympathy if they can’t keep up. From this we believe in our minds that the expedient inherit the earth, so haste is key.

From this logic, we try to write faster, work harder, and create machines that allow us the ability to do so much with as little wasted time a possible. The industrial revolution, the stock market, and the baby boom are all ways we praise the efficient.

So, at the end of the day, we are given one final question: is speed essential for survival? In this world of globalization and homogeneous culture, we tend to attribute success with how much money we have. With our life so full of opportunities, it can be hard to understand that we are not a species that require brisk, expedient moves to keep ahead of the pace. Sometimes, we just need to take life as it comes.


Inverting The Bias of Introverts

extroverted vs introverted

All our lives we’ve been taught the benefits of being an extrovert. We’re told that life gives nothing to those that keeps to themselves, and continues that the outspoken and charismatic have made great strides in history. This has skewed, in more ways than one, the opinions we have towards introverts as a whole. The prefix intro-, then, shares a negative stigma due to this label…or does it? Truly, we see introverts as a less enthusiastic and enjoyable alternative to extroverts, but does that mean that the prefix intro- has to be negative? The short answer is no.

Intro- is a prefix that we need greatly. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to introduce ourselves to those we wish to befriend. Of course, introduce and introvert have nothing to do with each other. Only one, however, comes with a negative connotation. Why is that? Well, one major reason is that extroverts are much more outspoken (clearly) with their accomplishments, while introverts are content with their feats and don’t see a reason to brag. When Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine, he refused to patent it, his reason being “would you patent the sun?” This is just one example of how introverts strive for personal victories, not ones that gave them renown or fame.

We prefer the extrovert because we only know of the extrovert. The people that survive horror movies aren’t usually the shy, innocent ones, but instead the pretty, outgoing people instead. We label them as isolationists, content with books and their own thoughts instead of being part of a group. Different should not mean bad, and yet we use it to call them deviant. If deviant is generally considered a bad thing to be, then how could we use it interchangeably and expect it not to be? The sad fact is that many consider those that don’t conform to be weird. Weird is bad, and since introverts are strange, they’re bad too.

The prefix is only being given such a negative name because of how our society labels abnormality. Truly, if we want intro to be a completely positive word, we as a people can. It is not given a label my nature, and can surely change over time. Similar to how pink used to be a boy’s color, times change and so do interpretation. Just because we consider antisocial people to be strange in this timeline does not mean it must stay that way. We are not dealing with the prefix non- where it is clear that the word can only be negative…but then you have strange cases like nonviolent. Isn’t that a positive word given to a negative prefix? If so, who says that words must abide by their prefix’s bias? I say we should Invert The Bias of Introverts and come to terms that not everything can be given a label.

bigstock-One-fish-swim-in-opposite-dire-43043434 (800x534)

A Subtle Juxtaposition of Language (Blogpost 1)

When I think of a comparison and contrast piece, the first thing I imagine is “polar opposites”. The clear cut contrasts like Democrats and Republicans, Carnivores and Vegans, and even more start contrasts like Christians and Atheists. What one does not think of nearly so often is what I am going to discuss: Sachi and Stephen Fry. Sachi’s Flashy Words and Stephen Fry’s Language are quite similar. Both strain from the same belief: don’t take language so seriously. While Fry believes that language is a person pursuit to the love of individual language and acceptance, Sachi draws a more pessimistic “Language shouldn’t matter because language just doesn’t matter!” They are much more similar than someone as starkly contrary to this duo, Weird Al and his piece, Word Crimes. While comparing two opposing forces, with each other giving context and validity to each side, comparing similar themes allows us to delve into the subtle changes. People so often will compare Star Trek to Star Wars, but who compares the comic book Star Wars with it’s Movie counterparts but those already part of that group? Things such as this push entire beliefs and opinions together, assuming that the most liberal Republican is no better than the most conservative Republican from an outsider perspective. My blog post seeks to debunk this and show that no matter how similar two pieces can be, their differences put them on two different worlds in and of themselves.

Stephen Fry sums up his statement in “Language” regarding usage of words and the anal retentiveness of linguistic entrepreneurs by saying “Context, convention, and circumstance are all.”(1) This comes about due to the aggressive nature regarding those with a degree or pedigree above others thinking that those they perceive as commoners are destined to be subject to a tongue lashing about the correct usage of words for the sake of political correctness and proper grammar. He advocates against the use of hostile speech on the sheer basis of “it just doesn’t matter”, referring to the liquidity of language and how it has changed over time. He believes, simply put, that those that know how to correctly portray English have no right to be uppity and presumptuous, for it ruins the love of language…the language that they cherish so dearly. He cites Shakespeare, and how while many presume his words to be golden, he would be the recipient of great arrogance by these elitists of wordage on the mere notion of his delivery. Shakespeare used nouns that we would consider verbs, and regardless of this bastardizing of our beautiful dictations, we hail him as the harbinger of screenplays. In the end, the reality of Stephen Fry’s words are that he seeks to remove the competitive nature of language, and to instead focus on the wonder that language brings.

Sachi, on the hand, debunks the exact science that language gives us. He attempts to speak of how our desire to articulate strings from a particular desire to matter in the world. It begins by exclaiming that the world is not as it is on paper, and that regardless of how nice it sounds to be a well-articulated individual, the real world doesn’t care. He explains this by saying homonyms such as “piece” and “peace”, as well as “mine” and “mind”. His moral is that while words may help others in fiction, reality has no time for Flashy Words, and that’s just one of life’s sad truths. His more pessamistic belief brings us to a point where we must thing how alive words really are, and either agreeing or contesting with him will allow you truly understand the relationship you have with what you speak.(2)

We are now gathered here to put to rest a debate started a long three paragraphs ago. We came to remember how Mr. Fry exclaimed through excited bellows that the world is not made to cling to correct punctuation, and that tis better to love the art then to critique the colors, and that it all boils down to personal belief and complete control over your actions regardless of opinion. This belief was challenged by Sachi’s words, which ring out “Words just don’t matter!” In the end, he exclaims through staggering breath and desperate intention that we the people are just trying to live, and no manner of flashy imagery of the linguistic fashion can give us the solutions to our own stories which chug along regardless of what we want. He demands that in the end, the success or failure of our adventures through this generation are done through actions, not articulation.

In the end, both are the sole representation of how words can have meaning beyond what we perceive. Fry was under the impression, whether legitimate or not, that how one uses words words is not as important as the emotions put into them. Sachi, on the other hand, was of the firm belief that words had no meaning, and trying to force meaning and emotion into them were pointless. While both had different degrees of emotion towards words that had too strict of enforcement, but both agree that words should be jested with, not used as a sole essence of one’s personality. While on the same subject and following similar paths, it is clear that these two are not apples from the same tree.

1. Rogers, Matthew “Stephen Fry Kinetic Typography – Language” September 30, 2010


2. Shihan. “Flashy Words Written By Shihan.” Sachi’s Life In Words. N.p., 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 16 Sept. 2014.


My First Post:

So here I am at Hofstra, and I am blogging about this new bit of responsibility. Writing online makes me feel at home with my fingers, since this (as well as my iPad where most of my formal papers originate) is a very natural state for me to be in. While my laptop is not nearly as powerful as my desktop back home, it does make for a makeshift device to complete my assignments. I have been writing this way since high school, of which I was homeschooled from 3rd grade until graduation. As a Junior in college, my ability to articulate and come across information to do assignments and papers has benefited me greatly, and allows me to focus on my studies instead of my written papers. I feel making this blog at the request/requirement of my new class will give me a chance to build upon my writing style, so is the intent of this first post.

   Dorm life has treated me well, this having been the second semester that I am dorming. I enjoy the high rises, having been on the 14th and 12th floor of Constitution, and the view is just amazing. Taking German this semester may be a challenge, but nothing can’t be overcome if I just keep my head down and focus on my studies. The good thing about having a crappy computer is that I cannot use it to shirk my responsibilities, and that means that there’s nothing BUT time to read and prepare for classes.


   So, this post seems to be dragging on, so I shan’t prolong what need not be explained. My life has been a good one, and I hope to expand my knowledge in this class. As one of the few un-edited pieces of work I have been assigned, I can’t wait to see what others think of my writing style, and ways that it may be improved. Alright, see you all next time.