Everyone’s
a critic.
Not only that, but they are always
right, and more importantly, you are always wrong—at least, that has been the
trend among the mentalities of the masses in the past generations. So afraid
are we to admit fault or uncertainty that the language of our generation has devolved
to a state of inaccuracy and the grasp on what was reality versus what was opinion,
a difference often indistinguishable, became tenuous without even a remedial
realization that the arrogance that plagues us may not always be reasonably
incurred. Instead, we are an oblivious people, bigoted in our own ways and made
sure of every small thought our minds can create with some quick, measly
justifications. This, on that note, is nothing more than what I can justify it
to be—an attempt, and an essay, as it were. Christy Wampole believes in this
plight on modern culture—the stigma against the uncertain and the belief that there
is a direct correlation between confidence and correctness. She knows the
origin of the essay to be the French root for “to try,” and not, as one might
theorize, “to convince.” While her attempt may be too far in the other
direction, almost implying that writing should be never used persuasively, the
accuracy with which she pegs society is intriguing. Essays are designed,
nowadays, to present a point and convince the reader of some thought or ideal
that the author often holds himself. This “essayism” attacks reason and
introspection—it perpetuates what Wampole describes as “meditative deficiency.”
Then there are the Matt Richtels of
the world. He, seemingly, agrees with Wampole’s assessment of the strictness of
the modern essay, but makes no comment on the issue of expression versus persuasion.
He comments on a different battle—expression versus semantics. As technology
continues to pervade in modern culture, its presence can no longer be denied in
the educative realm. With that given, technology appears to have a degenerative
effect on the language of its users, with autocorrect and vernacular
undermining the classical teachings and corroding the minds of each generation
slightly more than the previous one. Indeed, the necessity to express our
opinions through microblogging and social networking has caused considerable
regression, and both Richtel and Wampole notice such a danger. Richtel, though,
harbors concerns more practical and relevant to the progression of society’s
functionality rather than simply concerns regarding the preservation of a
language and a sociological tendency.
Wampole and Richtel present apt
points regarding the state of the English language and its slow evolution, but
I disagree with a few points in their arsenal. Brilliance being the operative
word in Richtel’s final paragraph, how might the expressive art forms shine
with the mud of conformity seeping in? His concerns regarding a
creativity-deficient language are not unique to the field of writing. The multimedia
world and the music world, particularly, suffer from the same demise, as “sex,
drugs and rock and roll” can now be more appropriately adapted into “sex,drugs, and loud bass.” With multimedia, videos in particular, edging more
towards the absurd, and the glamour of being labeled “crazy” if it lands you a
spot on tosh.0, it seems conformity is a degenerative condition common to many
forms of modern expression. Writing suffers from its difficulty. As multimedia
begins to dominate, and formulaic language becomes the curriculum in schools,
society is left to its blissful regression—to its nut-shots and Ms. America pageants.
We are content to sit idly, singing “la, la, la” with our fingers in our ears, alienating
reason and intelligent cognition.
