Contradictory to the general preconceived notion that you might or might not have assimilated having had a slight glimpse of the heading, the article isn't meant to tickle the proverbial funny bone, so you may proceed if you should without the slightest anticipation of entertainment.
Given the current state of affairs , I feel that if "lol" hadn't been invented ,it would have been inevitably harder to pretend being modest, much less , sane, on google chats. I mean ,when somebody tells you a joke , you have to laugh more because you're expected to and less because you want to. There is absolutely no other option than to be compelled to put in those three letters , and get exonerated of the slightest risk of being termed a " bore" or more dangerously , of being type cast as somebody who lacks the intelligence of getting a joke. Now again , it's immaterial whether one actually meant it , and again, to what extent it was pretentious and obligatory is an elusive mystery in itself. However, if at all, the idea is to deprecate your opponent , not appreciating the joke considered to be, precisely, "the" strategy, the archaic path. But then, if you really want to deprecate him and put him in further diminutive light, wouldn't you want him to live in that illusive world , where all that kicks his adrenaline is the fact that he has in his pocket a "potentially funny" joke. This way , he would be more than encouraged , to share his thoughts with the junta ,and the further audacious he gets in spreading the profligacy of his joke, the bigger fool he makes of himself.
I was just wondering , that if at all the root of this "lolistic" invention was to be traced, what it would be like. But, there's no absolute point tracing it and hence I wouldn't. Obviously , there is no dearth of good jokes, jokes that command that awe and appreciation on their very mention. In that case however , not only the word "lol" truly means itself but is generally coupled with a sumptuous addition of " hahahahas". And it is precisely then that one realizes that it wasn't that bad a mention.( :D ).Just a pinch of digression. I remember being taught a cognitive strategy in my earlier years , for I had always had this inherent confusion between left and right. Despite frequent mug ups, they were just too hard to decipher for me. In fact, I had this notional faith that the Right Path( from this right I mean ,correct) Path is always the Right Path( from this right I mean the direction) and this was ,I should say tersely, the cornerstone of my decision making in directions. Now , the fact that my name means " The Master of the right path " , shines out to be one of the bigger ,much less ,brighter ironies to have struck me. So the idea was to associate a picture to the words -right and left, and then overtime I was neatly sorted. Since then I've , more subconsciously, had this habit of associating pictures to commonly used words. Ever since 'lol' became a part of general vocabulary , both oral and written, I was more than compelled to attach an expression to it. So here it was, as and when people on chats typed "lol", I could automatically start visualizing them laughing their brains out sitting across their respective computer screens and I should add here , sometimes the very thought of some people laughing so blatantly used to make me smirk myself.
Now, the visualization of "hahas" is a little more complicated, for it can be perceived differently with different expressions attached to it. The idea is basically , how you say it? It could that sullen " ha--haha--hahaha " where the intention , more generally, is not to appreciate but to depreciate. An almost equally glum pattern is " ha ha ha ha". To be able to imagine a laugh with an avalanche of hahas is a little difficult , but I guess trying to imagine a guffaw would be more accurate. Again , trying to imagine some people guffawing at a joke , is not only entertaining but also enthralling, because some of these people are the ones who have literally hidden themselves in the canopy of subtlety , by the virtue of which the public display of unrestricted laughter is considered "inappropriate". Be it as they like it for themselves , it hardly bothers me. on the contrary , I feel indebted to these people , for if they hadn't been that , what should I say, out of the box , I couldn't have managed to gather my food : the food for thought.
Given the current state of affairs , I feel that if "lol" hadn't been invented ,it would have been inevitably harder to pretend being modest, much less , sane, on google chats. I mean ,when somebody tells you a joke , you have to laugh more because you're expected to and less because you want to. There is absolutely no other option than to be compelled to put in those three letters , and get exonerated of the slightest risk of being termed a " bore" or more dangerously , of being type cast as somebody who lacks the intelligence of getting a joke. Now again , it's immaterial whether one actually meant it , and again, to what extent it was pretentious and obligatory is an elusive mystery in itself. However, if at all, the idea is to deprecate your opponent , not appreciating the joke considered to be, precisely, "the" strategy, the archaic path. But then, if you really want to deprecate him and put him in further diminutive light, wouldn't you want him to live in that illusive world , where all that kicks his adrenaline is the fact that he has in his pocket a "potentially funny" joke. This way , he would be more than encouraged , to share his thoughts with the junta ,and the further audacious he gets in spreading the profligacy of his joke, the bigger fool he makes of himself.
I was just wondering , that if at all the root of this "lolistic" invention was to be traced, what it would be like. But, there's no absolute point tracing it and hence I wouldn't. Obviously , there is no dearth of good jokes, jokes that command that awe and appreciation on their very mention. In that case however , not only the word "lol" truly means itself but is generally coupled with a sumptuous addition of " hahahahas". And it is precisely then that one realizes that it wasn't that bad a mention.( :D ).Just a pinch of digression. I remember being taught a cognitive strategy in my earlier years , for I had always had this inherent confusion between left and right. Despite frequent mug ups, they were just too hard to decipher for me. In fact, I had this notional faith that the Right Path( from this right I mean ,correct) Path is always the Right Path( from this right I mean the direction) and this was ,I should say tersely, the cornerstone of my decision making in directions. Now , the fact that my name means " The Master of the right path " , shines out to be one of the bigger ,much less ,brighter ironies to have struck me. So the idea was to associate a picture to the words -right and left, and then overtime I was neatly sorted. Since then I've , more subconsciously, had this habit of associating pictures to commonly used words. Ever since 'lol' became a part of general vocabulary , both oral and written, I was more than compelled to attach an expression to it. So here it was, as and when people on chats typed "lol", I could automatically start visualizing them laughing their brains out sitting across their respective computer screens and I should add here , sometimes the very thought of some people laughing so blatantly used to make me smirk myself.
Now, the visualization of "hahas" is a little more complicated, for it can be perceived differently with different expressions attached to it. The idea is basically , how you say it? It could that sullen " ha--haha--hahaha " where the intention , more generally, is not to appreciate but to depreciate. An almost equally glum pattern is " ha ha ha ha". To be able to imagine a laugh with an avalanche of hahas is a little difficult , but I guess trying to imagine a guffaw would be more accurate. Again , trying to imagine some people guffawing at a joke , is not only entertaining but also enthralling, because some of these people are the ones who have literally hidden themselves in the canopy of subtlety , by the virtue of which the public display of unrestricted laughter is considered "inappropriate". Be it as they like it for themselves , it hardly bothers me. on the contrary , I feel indebted to these people , for if they hadn't been that , what should I say, out of the box , I couldn't have managed to gather my food : the food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment