Replacing Naughty Words


“What is funny?” I asked the laughers at the tail end of our discussion. “Glenn just said he went to the post office, and the clerk didn’t give him enough stamps. Why is that funny?” If the laughers were honest, they would say, “I don’t know.” If they study the rhythms and beats of humor to the point that they drain all of the fun out of it, they know it’s all about the swear words. “If I told the exact same story without the swear words, do you think it would be just as funny?” Everyone knows the answer but no one wants to say.

Some will venture into the field with an, “Spare me your outrage.” When I clarified that I’m not interested in the moral quality of the joke, “I’m only interested in your definition of humor.” The guy knew me and my peculiar focus on tone, word choices, and emphasis, so he backed away from the charge. “I’m fascinated with how you think a story is funny when a Glenn drops swear words into it, and Mary doesn’t.”

“When Glenn complains, his complaints are the same as ours,” I added, “but we give more weight to Glenn’s complaints, because he swears.”

“He just tells it like it is,” someone said.

The obsessive language nerd, who studies the effects and affects of swear words, knows swear words are one of the best vehicles we’ve ever invented to properly convey exaggerated emotions, and hard-core truths. As George Carlin once said, “They offer excellent punctuation.”

We don’t know much about linguistics, but we know our swears, naughty words, and vulgarity. We know them, we love them, and they are ours in a way that defines us, as much as we define them. We didn’t know a whole lot about them when we were younger, but we were eager to meet them. And when our rascally uncle Jim introduced us to them, we laughed harder than anyone in the room, because we wanted him to think we were all too familiar with them. We also thought our uncle Jim was the coolest person in the room, because he wasn’t afraid to swear in front of children. We thought that meant he was treating us like adults, and we loved him for it.

Repetition eventually breeds familiarity, yet we know nothing about their history. We don’t care where they came from or how old they are, and we still don’t. We might grow to know a lot about how to use them now, how they permeate and penetrate, but most of us have no idea that our favorite swears are probably the same ones our authority figures used to tell their authority figures off. Depending on our age, they might be the same words that our great-grandfather used to tell his authority figures off. Does that matter? It doesn’t. They may have been theirs then, but they’re ours now.

We don’t rent them, or lease them with a plan to buy. We own them. Yet, when we assumed ownership, we didn’t look under the hood, examine the tires for wear, or notice the ‘as is’ sticker. They felt new to us, or new enough. The idea that they were used didn’t matter to us then, and it doesn’t matter to us now, because they’re ours now, and putting our own miles on them provides intrinsic ownership qualities.

We use these words to shock and offend our authority figures into recognizing that we’ve arrived, and we have some power now. We want them to know that we know these words now, and we’re not afraid to use them anymore. We find these words rebellious and liberating, and we plan to use them in a manner our parents have never heard before. Check that, we know they’ve probably heard them before, but they’ve never heard us say them, not like this … (kapow!) We’re not afraid to use these words to inform them that we now reject everything they hold dear, and we’re no longer afraid to violate how they once viewed us. We might understand, on some level, that their provocative nature contains evergreen qualities, but does the idea that our grandparents knew them, and probably used them in the same shocking, offensive manner give the words more power or less? Is it all about their provocative, shocking qualities, or does it have something to do with the foundational familiarities that we all have with them?

That bomb you just dropped on your mom to express your intense rebellion to her matriarchal constructs was probably the same word she used on her mother to try to accomplish the same thing. When we attempt to shock her with our provocative use of offensive words, are we smashing the matriarchy, or are we carrying on a family tradition?

We have a relationship with these words, and we know our relationship isn’t monogamous. We’ll use whatever word comes to mind to suit our needs, and we don’t mind it when someone else uses and abuses them in the same manner. We might even bond with that straight-laced, church-girl, from a neighboring cubicle, who just causally dropped a big bombastic word on her co-worker. “I didn’t know you cussed,” we say, leaning over the cubicle wall with a gleam in our eye. Now, we may not become besties over one swear word, but it could open the door to respect that could lead to a level of bonding that probably wouldn’t have happened without that swear word.

Dropping the perfect swear word in the perfect place, with learned intonation, can also provide excellent punctuation. Proper usage can garner the attention and adulation from those listening to an otherwise boring story about our trip to the post office. They can provide an interesting or funny comma, if we know how to pound our point home with a more offensive and exciting exclamation point. The proper technique involves a one-step, two-step, shock, shock, shock! series of steps that we should follow with a casual, blasé open turn that suggests this isn’t half as meaningful to us as it is to you.

I have an almost inbred need to seek the countervailing winds, and when I saw everyone begin swearing as often as they could, I joined in. Hey, even a rebel needs to fit in when we’re all young and vulnerable, and we need them to pay attention to us, and we savor their laughter.

I learned the way of the words from a sweaty, greazy, and hairy Gary who worked the line at a restaurant where we worked. Gary was twenty-five, I was fifteen, and in our little world, he was the master chef of comedy. Yet, Gary’s recipe of comedy was so effortless that it appeared almost unintentional. He had some unique internal wiring I’ve only met a few times since that could make a trip to the post office to buy stamps not just funny, but knee-slapping hilarious, and he, and his stories were not vulgar-reliant.

Gary swore, but he used them as a master chef might use paprika or oregano, knowing how powerful a subtle burst of flavor can be when using them as a topical ingredient, or garnish. The problem for the rest of us is that once we develop a taste for spice, we can’t help but add so much that we all but kill the meal. When it became obvious to me that few of my peers followed Gary’s recipe of subtle, judicious use of spicing, I noticed that swearing in a joke or story was not just expected but required for laughter, and I began to reevaluate.

The Reevaluations

Having a child led to another level of reevaluation. If we don’t want to hear swear words coming out of their mouth, we have to be more careful about what words we use around them. Some don’t agree.

“It’s a word,” parents, say. “I can think of a thousand other things, right here and now, that I don’t want to hear coming out of their mouth. That was just a word. Quit being so stuffy.”

In this second reevaluation, I became more aware of the situation specific nature of my lewd lexicon. If we’re building something with our kid, and we hammer our index finger, what do we say to effectively express our temporary but excruciating pain? If we experience situations that call for exaggerated emotions of urgency, anger, disappointment and frustration, how do we express these exaggerated emotions if we’re not going to swear? How do we move our audience in an offensive way to properly convey disdain, and inform the world that we have a painful bobo, if we’re not going to swear? If we’ve ever had such discussions with ourselves, we’ll realize that we’ve been cursing and swearing so often and for so long that somewhere along the line we became vulgar reliant. When this need to express ourselves meets our desire to influence others through language, we realize that we need to fill our situation-specific gaps with something.

My solution was to sarcastically invent my own swear words to convey these emotions. Some, like fooey monsters and fudge nuggets, worked, but most didn’t. In the midst of this pursuit (which increased tenfold when the offspring, my little demon, announced his entry into the world), it dawned on me that playful substitutes always hit roadblocks.

I never considered the value of swear words, until I tried to introduce playful substitutes, but I found that traditional swear words provide pitch-perfect stress that we need to provoke and offend. It’s the way of the words. In order to replace the traditionally shocking and offensive words, I realized we need replacements that can shock or offend slightly before the confusion sets in. Even as I was playing with this whole dynamic, I realized the the words I would use needed to be spat in anger, disgust, or whatever emotion I deemed specific to punctuate that situation to lead everyone within earshot to recognize my reaction. To arrive at a suitable replacement, I knew I needed to study the irreplaceable swear words our ancestors chose to convey emotions.

The study was brief and not very thorough, but I found that most of these words are so much older than we thought. The next thing we find, when we try to invent new, offensive words, is that our ancestors obviously knew what they were doing when they chose those offensive, therapeutic, and therapeutically offensive words. For some reason, using hard consonants, such as a hard (‘F’), an enunciated (‘T’), or the unpleasant (‘K’) sounds, work surprisingly well in certain situations. The (‘K’), in particular, can prove to be quite the crowd-pleaser, if we hit it hard and hold it for a second.

I don’t know if it’s all about the ingrained tradition of seeing and hearing older, cooler kids use them so often that we copied them, or if it has something to do with the machinations occurring in the back office of our brain, but it just feels a little better to yell a word that begins with a hard (‘F’) that is punctuated with a hard (‘K’) when we accidentally strike our index finger with a hammer.

We also discover some of their internal, medicinal benefits, when a lover dumps us. It feels so good to tell our friends what we called our ex- a name that they agree is excessive and deliciously harsh on his way out, so everyone will view it as retribution for everything he did to us. If we do it right, our friends might even give us a high-five.

“So, he dumped you on the curb, like a sack of rancid cranberries, and you called him a name?” I asked her, sitting between the two parties, “And you think you’re even now?”

The Indelicate Index

There are so many different, and somewhat boring, theories on the etymologies of these words. Some suggest the origins are very specific, and that the power and definitions simply snowballed over time. Others suggest that they started from vague and difficult to determine origins. No matter what I read in my research, I concluded each reading with a big, fat “Who cares?” Who cares what they meant in Ancient Rome, the Middle Ages, or whatever sources of antiquity the researchers discovered. If our ancestors didn’t really know what they were doing, and these words were, for whatever reason, chosen at random, it just doesn’t matter now. The only thing that matters now is what matters now, because we’ve built our own iconographic walls around these words.

Most of us don’t remember the first time we heard our first swear word, but we remember hearing them at their best … at the movies. The scripts that called for the actors to say something awful to punctuate their acts of violence were so cool. We can try to diminish their effect, as we age, and we can say, “That seems so 6th grade now,” but we cannot deny how cool it was when we were in 6th grade. “That swear word punctuated that scene so well, and they were so pitch-perfect that I gotta get that in my next situation.”

Do you remember that first time you told that perfect joke that involved the perfect swear word? I tried it early on, and no one laughed. Why? I don’t know, but I think it had something to do with the idea that I sounded like a little kid trying to use swear words for the first time. I learned, through trial and error, how to perfect my tones and stresses, until I eventually learned how to upgrade a relatively adequate joke into the perfect joke. I did it in front of my uncle Jim and his friend, and their laughter made me feel like I finally arrived. I’ll never forget that feeling. 

Some jokes and stories just don’t feel complete without quality swear words peppered throughout, particularly in the punch line. We develop a personal history with these words that feels so intimate they’re almost familial. If we feel a need to replace them how would we do it without relying too much on the tried and tested models?

We so remember the first time we dropped a big one on our primary authority figure, because we felt a peculiar sensation that is difficult to describe. We know that that sensation was all about power though. We gave them a small, knowing smile that would have made you proud, and with that, we made an announcement that “We don’t care anymore. We’re no longer children. We now have these words in our arsenal, and we’re not afraid to use them.” We learned that the strategic use of profanity can turn a period into an exclamation point. We also learned how to use tones, rhythms, and stresses to maximum effect. Then, we learned the proper facial expression to wear when delivering a haymaker to rattle our ancestors down to their foundation. We learned how to convey emotions early on when no one took us seriously, by learning how to articulate swears!

After we discovered how to use these words properly, we discovered that using profanity also requires a level of balance. When our goal is displaying a rebellious truth, too much energy and too much intent can shift the balance of power in such a way that dilutes our meaning. When we swear, we hope to vent, as opposed to internalizing our anger, but doing so too often can lead to laughter, as it shows the profane character might not have the confidence to know when and how to use profanity properly. If swearing provides excellent punctuation, in other words, excessive punctuation can lead to a clumsy presentation. The power of profanity, we find, comes with great responsibility. Excessive profanity can also lead the audience to believe the speaker is profane, and thereby unable to properly express themselves due to a lack of quality education. As we age, we learn that Gary the line cook was right on the mark, swearing should be oregano and paprika, as opposed to the main course. 

The Dysphemism Treadmill

It doesn’t matter how awful the swear word is, every single one of them will eventually run its course, individually, culturally, even sociopolitically. Our individual experience is such that we enjoy saying and hearing these words, as they define our breakout, we incorporate them into our lexicon, and we expect our peers to also do so, until we arrive at a place where everyone we know expresses themselves through a variety of the same situation-specific swear words. The selection of certain swear words eventually becomes so agreed upon that it’s expected, and when it becomes expected, it becomes commonplace.

Someone far smarter than the author of Rilaly.com developed a term for this cyclical experience that he called the dysphemism treadmill. The dysphemism treadmill, as opposed to Steven Pinker’s euphemism treadmill, suggests that what we consider profane in one frame eventually becomes commonplace. A euphemism is an innocuous word used to replace a derogatory term, a dysphemism, by contrast, is a derogatory expression. The use of the treadmill suggests that a profane word has a life cycle for each party involved. They/we regard it as an offensive taboo in the beginning, with a here, there be dragons designation, until it becomes so commonplace among our peers, and in the culture, that we begin to use it. At some point further down the road, it becomes so commonplace that extensive use drains it of any power it once wielded. Then, I add, when our kids use these terms, and use them against us, they start the cycle all over again. It’s the dysphemism treadmill. Prior generations started this cycle, we joined it, and the next one will too.

We probably didn’t know someone developed a term for it, but we know it when we see it. We hear it too, until we don’t hear it. When we’re younger, and we hear people swear in movies or TV, it’s exciting, fun, and funny. “He just said, what?” LAUGHTER “Yay!” “That movie had seven swears, two ‘F’ bombs, an MF, and four ‘S’ words!” The older we get, the older they get, until they go from an acceptable form of communication to commonplace, to a final stage where we don’t even hear them anymore. The kid was in bed but obviously not asleep in the back bedroom. The next day, he reported that he heard “everything they said” on the TV show we were watching. What did everything mean? “They said some awful awful things.” It shocked us, because we didn’t hear it, because we don’t hear it anymore. It goes in one ear and out the other. It’s such an accepted form of communication for us now that we don’t know if we still consider using offensive language a question of morality anymore, but we do not want our children hearing such language from us.

“Well, he’s gonna hear it somewhere,” people reflexively say whenever they accidentally swear in front of our kids.

“And I think we both know, there’s nothing I can do about that,” I reply. “I can only control what I can control. I cannot control what he hears at school, or among his friends. I have some control over the shows he watches, but I recognize the limits there too. I can only control what I can control, and as his primary influence in life, I can control my language when I’m around him, and you can too, Grandpa!” When his friends say them, it’s funny, naughty and rebellious. When parents say them, however, it can lead to a premature sense of commonplace on their treadmill, and they’ll learn to use those words accordingly. I also think language is a staple of youth, and by cleaning up my language when I’m around him, it might help make some small, seemingly insignificant elements of his youth last just a little bit longer. My meager efforts in this regard might be so relative as to be insignificant, but as they say every little bit helps.

Hundreds of Years Old

Those who study the origin of words suggest that some of the words, most famously listed in George Carlin’s Seven Words you can Never say on Television, are at least hundreds of years old. They question whether these words had the profane power they do now, but they state that the words are a lot older than most would believe. My guess is that this study was put forth to suggest that these words aren’t that bad, and I would flip that around and say, “Words don’t have power, until we assign them power. If they’re not that bad, why are they our go-to when we’re extremely angry, frustrated, and sad? Why do we use them on a sliding scale to properly convey extremes, if they aren’t that bad?”

When they suggest that they didn’t have the same power hundreds of years ago, in Chaucer’s or Shakespeare’s day, I cede that notion, but they’re currently as powerful as they were in the 60s and 70s when standup comedian Lenny Bruce was getting arrested for saying them on stage, and when George Carlin wrote the Seven Words you can Never say on Television. Did my great-grandpa use one of these words when he hammered a finger, probably not, but I’m pretty sure my grandpa either used them or tried to avoid using them based on the power they amassed in his era. So, the modern young people who want to carry on the tradition of burning everything that came before them to prepare the world for their new generation are probably using the same naughty words that their grandmothers and grandfathers, or great-grandparents, from the 60s and 70s, used in similar situations.

Put in that frame, it’s noteworthy that no generation, after the mid 60s to the early 70s generation, took the taboo to another level. Those who used foul language from the Carlin/Bruce generation expressed themselves in a radical manner, and audiences walked out on their shows aghast and shocked at the profanity they used in their shows. Does that still happen? 

Young people and teenagers might still be fascinated with offensive language, but adults place them on the commonplace portion of the treadmill. They don’t leave these shows, they aren’t offended anymore, and they’re probably in the same place I am in hearing these words so often that they don’t even hear them anymore. We obliterated those taboos so often that the trend in modern, comedic movies that the taboo progressed to swearing in front of children, and that only happened after the little old lady with a foul mouth ran its course. When swearing in front of children ran its course in comedic movies, they moved with the taboo to having children swear in movies. It’s the dysphemism treadmill.

Bruce and Carlin not only expressed themselves with profanity regardless what “the man” said, they fought any and all censorship of expression, and they faced legal consequences for doing so. Some might call them trailblazers, but when that generation crossed the Rubicon of thirty years of age, and they became parents, why did the next generation follow the exact same trail they blazed? Most generations speak of torching the trail of the previous generation, to build a new one, rather than follow it obediently. Why did the successive generations copy these particular words for future use?

A Profane Concept

Are the concepts behind vulgar and profane words so revolutionary that they’re evergreen and immune to change? If an enterprising social critic started trying to change the fabric by using new and different words to offend and shock parents, would they be laughed out of the building? How could anyone update such concepts? What words would they use to better, or uniquely, describe lewd activities and disgusting bodily functions without being subject to ridicule? It would be an almost impossible chore, but the one thing we love about enterprising young souls is their ability to make the impossible possible.

The avenue to doing it in such a way that reaches young people, now, would be through YouTube. The first question this provocateur would have to answer is why do it? Is there some financial reward for changing the language in this manner? The second question would be why do it? Curse words are beloved in their own way, and they’re familiar. If we are going to revamp, revolutionize, or just tweak the lewd lexicon, we better prepare for the backlash.

“I’m not giving up on my swear words that easily,” a YouTube commenter, named Smurfette’s Rainbow, adds in the reply section. “They’ve served me well in moments of frustration and angst, and they have managed to make some of my otherwise lame jokes pretty (expletive deleted) funny.”

If the influencer wanted to provide proper alternatives, he would need to understand the science of swear words. Among the many things they find will be the psychologically pleasing, offensive qualities of certain hard consonants. The hard (‘F’) is the most obvious consonant to use, but they would also have to incorporate hard (‘T’s) and (‘K’s) in their new words. They would also have to abide by our need for syllables. A simple expression of anger requires one hard consonant syllable, but an elevated level of anger requires three, sometimes four syllables to properly express ourselves, and these revolutionaries would have to be mindful of that.

“The best swear words I’ve found have hard consonants,” the influencer might say, soon after he lays out his mission in the intro. “Spraken ze Deutch (German for do you speak German?), for example, is one of my favorites. After listening to German friends of mine speak, I realized that many German phrases make great cuss words, because almost all German phrases have hard consonants. Try it out the next time you drive a hammer into your thumb. Spraken ze Deutch. There are probably too many syllables for required punctuation, but I think you’ll find using it in some contexts quite therapeutic.”

“My friends simply won’t accept any of the alternatives you’ve listed here,” Tripping the Light Fantastic replies in the comments section, “and I don’t care how many hard consonants or syllables you mix in. Our reputations are on the line here fella. Why don’t you go mess with someone else’s vocab (insert influencer’s name). We got nothing for you here.”

“How are we supposed to tone these words?” a third, somewhat eager commentator, named Fertilizer Spikes, asks. “You provide us with some situations, and I appreciate that, but we need more situations, so our tones suit the situation better. I’m all for introducing a new paradigm, through a new set of swear words that describe reproduction, our reproductive organs, and the movement of our bowels, but you have to remember how many years of practice it took us to learn how to use and tone the more traditional swear words properly.”

“You’re right, Fertilizer Spikes,” Uncle Shemp agrees, “swearing isn’t innate. It’s learned behavior, and our influencer here doesn’t seem to recognize that.”

As with all efforts of this sort, this first influencer would probably hit an epic fail, as their audience might view it as some sort of spoof ridiculousness. His failure wouldn’t be absolute however, as he would sprinkle the seeds for the second influential voice to take the baton. The second enterprising young entrepreneur might follow many of the steps laid out for the first, but he would find a unique, individualistic way of offending the other generations. Some guys are just offensive. We don’t know why, and we don’t know how they do, but our parents say, “I just don’t like him.” That’s the type of guy who could convince the next generation that his words are the “new words you cannot say.” It would likely have to start out tongue-in-cheek, but if they do it right everyone will be using the words and repeating them, whether they get it or not. How many movements started out a joke that accidentally caught on? What if the next generation believed their parents genuinely found words like “Funderbunk!” or “Fudge Crackers!” offensive? What if it caught on so well that they used one of the second influencer’s words when they hit their index finger with a hammer? Let the revolution begin!

The first answer to “Why do it?” can be answered by typing the word of choice in a search engine followed by “How old is it?” Once we learn that these words were probably used by famous radio broadcasters, before the advent of TV, wouldn’t that characterize future use as redundant? The moment after my dad or my grandma informed me that they liked a musician or band I did was the last time I “officially” listened to them. I hated meatloaf growing up, butter brickle ice cream, Neapolitan ice cream, and anything and everything my dad liked. I did not set out to loathe everything my dad liked, it was just what I did, and it’s just what we do when we’re carving out our own identity. This might fall under the umbrella of rebellion, because it is, but we don’t do it with righteous fists held high. It’s just kind of what we do. Yet, if their brand of music makes our skin crawl, and the sight of butter brickle ice cream and those little neapolitan ice cream bars causes us to gag almost involuntarily, because they remind us of our parents, why doesn’t their vulgarity have the same effect on us? We do everything we can to be different from our parents when we’re young, and we consider our grandparents so irrelevant that they’re not even worth rebelling against. Yet we still use the swear words they used when swearing at the three channels they watched on black and white TVs. When we’re brand new adults, we’re dying to break the shackles of the matriarchal and patriarchal constructs that define and confine us, so why are we still using the same offensive words to shock our ancestors with the same taboo language that they used to shock theirs?

Guy no Logical Gibberish V


We’ve discussed the idea that the human inferiority complex could drive our belief that aliens from another planet are intelligent beyond our comprehension, but we’ve never discussed the basis of our comprehension. The natural instinct when discussing intellect is to gauge it by comparing it to our own. We could achieve some level of comparative analysis by giving the aliens an I.Q. test, but we might consider that an unfair standard by which to judge someone or something from another planet, depending on the test. Another definition of intelligence might be the ability of a being to harness their surroundings to use them for a designed purpose. An example of this might be when humans use every natural and manmade element at their disposal to create a product. When an alien aircraft lands on earth will the product that transports them be born of greater intelligence or just different intelligence, based on different elements from their home planet?  

Abbot and Costello vs. The Alien Amazons

Are individual, modern comedians funnier than the comedians of, say, the 1930’s? Or are they just different? When we watch Abbot and Costello today, we probably don’t find them as hilarious as our grandparents did. A current teen, who has an altogether different frame of reference, might not even find them humorous. Some comedy is timeless, such as the Who’s on First? routine, but Abbot and Costello had a different frame of reference, a different base, and a different mainframe from which they operated.

When a radically new comedian, such as a George Carlin or Andy Kaufman took the stage, they were so different initially that we consider them brilliant and ingenious. Are they that brilliant and ingenious, or do they just change (sometimes radically) the landscape and language of comedy?

Is a Jimmy Fallon that much funnier than Jack Benny was, or is the comedy of a Jimmy Fallon more of a product of a different era that Jack Benny helped define in some ways? If we were able to flip them around on the timeline, and Jack Benny was everything the modern Jimmy Fallon is, would we regard Fallon as funnier than Benny? This switch would have to incorporate the time and place elements of comedy, the influences that led Fallon to the stage, and all of the prior comedians who changed the face of comedy prior to Fallon. If we incorporated all that into a more modern Jack Benny, would we regard him as funnier than a 1960’s Jimmy Fallon?

When the aliens touchdown on our planet, will they be superior intellects, or will their knowledge be so different that we don’t know how to comprehend their intellect? Will they be carbon-based, as we are, or will they be silicon-based, as some science fiction films theorize? Some scientists deem that impossible, as a Scientific American piece suggests that “silicon oxidizes, and it cannot support life.” What if the aliens introduced us to their line of alien products, our intrigue would initially lead us to believe that they’re intelligent beyond our comprehension, but what if their home planet operated from an entirely different periodic table? We assume that all life, comes from the shared mainframe of the periodic table, but when we find out that’s not the case, it will shock us, and lead us to marvel at whatever they do outside human comprehension. When, and if, we find out our assumption that all life operates from a shared premise was incorrect, we’ll be shocked into believing that they’re better and superior, when it could be as simple as just being different.

***

If you’ve read as many interviews with musicians as I have, you’ve run across the one-more-song phenomenon. I’ve read numerous musicians say they sweat blood and tears to compile enough songs to complete an album, only to have some record executive say, “It’s great and all that, but there’s something missing. We need an oomph song to put it over the top. Do you have one more song in you? We want another song to help unify the album thematically. Put simply, we want a hit.”

The musicians greet this directive with resentment and disdain, as they regard the exec’s request as flippant, as if it’s so easy to just write another song, and a hit song at that. The idea that the record exec would approach the main songwriter in such a flippant manner builds resentment between the two, until the songwriter approaches the other musicians and the producer with the request, “It looks like we need to go back to write another song,” in tones that mimic and mock the record exec. “We need a hit, so let’s go back to the studio and write a hit, because we obviously didn’t do that the first time out.” If you’ve read as many interviews as I have, you know that this musician eventually reconvenes with the other players in the studio, and they resentfully write “another song to appease the masters of their universe” and they haphazardly, and almost accidentally, create a song that ends up defining their career.

The conditions of the creation of this throwaway song are such that the artists involved often end up despising it throughout their career. Almost every musician wants the deeper cuts they spent decades compiling to define them and their brand, yet every audience member wants to hear “the hit” that the band probably spent three days writing, composing, and singing. The song has no meaning to them, yet they’ll spend the next twenty years playing it in concert so the audience will feel like they got their money’s worth. 

I’ve read about this happening so often that I think there’s something to it. It can be as simple as the difference between writing a complicated song about the fall of the Roman Empire and a simple ditty they write about their walk to Burger King. For some reason the Burger King piece hits, and their artistic dissertation on the Fall of Rome falls by the wayside. I don’t think it’s breaking news that most silly, little ditties about love and rocking every day and partying every night sell well and the important pieces usually do not. It might have something to do with the fact that people work so hard in their daily lives that when they get off work, they don’t want to think anymore. It might have something to do with the messenger, as opposed to the message. “Who’s this guy, a rock star? I’m not going to take the views he develops between bong hits too seriously.” The difference might also have something to do with the artist, as they try so hard to write an important piece that they try too hard, and it shows.    

It’s so difficult to predict what will hit, and most of my favorite artists often say they don’t even try anymore. They probably started out trying to appeal to our interests, but they realized that the best course of action is to create the best art they can, and if the audience loves it that’s gravy. When it happens with a song, story, etc., that didn’t require any effort on their part, the artist can feel the frustration in their answer. The complicated, brilliant works required them to jump through all the hoops of creative expression, and it was as difficult for them to be covert as it is to be overt at times, so they seeded and spruced their creation through the gestation cycle, until they decided it was ready to enter the birth canal. Pffft. Nothing. Then they wrote that little ditty about something interesting that happened to them on a walk to the local Burger King, and everyone went crazy. Writing the former was hard, as the perspective changed six different times, and the artist went through as many as twenty-five edits before they finally reach some form of satisfaction. When they wrote the Burger King ditty, they did it in a day, and they didn’t care about it as much. They’re all their babies, of course, but the artist works so hard on some of their material that they find it depressing when no one recognizes them for how important, intelligent, and well-informed they are. What does any of this mean? No one knows, and fewer care. As I wrote, it might have something to do with an artist trying so hard to write important and meaningful art that their effort shows. It might also have something to do with the fact that these simple little ditties, filled with silly and stupid lines, are more pleasing to hear, and read, because all we really want in life is to do is dance.  

Guy no Logical Gibberish IV


“Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the fattest of them all.”

“Not you, ma lord, for you still have a rock-solid chin, and it’s normal for a man your age to have bosoms.”

I believed him. I saw that picture I took ten years ago, and I believed my mirror when he told me that not much has changed since. Then the hair stylist spun me around to face a brand new mirror and a brand new form of reality.

“Hey, who’s the beer guzzling, Cheeto lover doing the Jabba the Hut impersonation?” The stylist pretended she didn’t hear what I said. I couldn’t tell if her delicate response was a result of her dealings with the mirror phenomenon, or if she didn’t know what to say. Whatever the case with her was, she found that the best response was to say nothing. Don’t add to the joke, don’t sympathize. Say nothing. 

The little, square sunglass mirrors in department stores don’t tell us anything either. I used to think the mirrors were strategically small due to the limited space their manufacturer’s rented in department stores. If you think they want to display as many sunglasses as they can on the spinning rack, that’s what I used to think. The more I look into those mirrors, the more I think their manufacturers designed them to help us avoid seeing our double chins and everything else that a pair of sunglasses cannot fix.    

***

Waste drives me batty. I’m not just talking about the more customary concerns we have about the amount of food we waste, or the amount of water we use. I’m talking about little things too. I’m talking about an obsessive quality that focuses on doing things like hanging your coat in a closet in the dark, to save electricity. I’m talking about finding something I love (as opposed to need) in a department store and putting it back to save money. My rule is if I still want it two days later money, and I think it’s worth the drive back to the department store I purchase it. I’m also talking about cleaning my plate, no matter how full I am, because I won’t waste food. Most of my obsessions, save for the latter, are quite healthy, but they also evolve some admitted obsessive traits. If I drink a bottle of water, for example, and someone else throws it away with some remnants of water sitting at the bottom, I might think about that amount of water for hours, sometime days.

“Why don’t you drink that?” I asked a friend who was prepared to throw his bottle away with remnants of water at the bottom.

“Because I don’t want it.”

“So, you’re just going to throw that bottle away with perfectly good water sitting at the bottom?”

“Yes, yes I am,” they said before throwing it away.

***

Friends of mine who watched Buggs Bunny as often as I did know that I’ve been ripping that show off for decades. Those who haven’t find me somewhat, sort of funny in a peculiar way. 

Those of us who have watched at least 4,000 monster movies know that if we have the correct worldview, savage monsters will not attack us. We also know that when it’s not convenient for the plot, they won’t attack.

When aliens attack, I suggest that we try using bullets and any other technological artillery available to us on them. Our leaders might try to achieving some sort of peace accord with them, and our scientists might suggest a methodical approach based on reason. If the aliens are as intellectually superior as sci-fi movies suggest, however, the nature of beings suggest that they evolved into intellectual beings at the expense of their physical strength. If that’s the case, we should introduce them to brute force to see how they react. We can be sure that most of our moviegoers, and other creative minds, will insist that bullets won’t work, but what if they do? What if, in our exhaustive search for their vulnerabilities, we find that they’re just as susceptible to bullets, and all of the technical artillery, as we are. Would we pursue that? We might in the streets, as those battles would involve personal confrontations that lead to survival of the fittest, but would our world leaders follow suit? If they eventually did, and we achieved victory would it ring hollow for us? In the immediate aftermath we might celebrate our victory. We might hold parades for our heroes, and one of the heroes for a day might take to the mic and drop a Ghostbusters’ phrase on us “We came, we saw, we kicked their butts,” and we might repeat that glorious phrase for a day or two. After the glory of victory dulled, and we all returned to our daily routines, many of us will recharacterize our victory. The idea that we were able to devastate their inferior forces will leave many of us feeling disillusioned, and we will experience survivor’s guilt. They will recharacterize our victory as primal in nature, and they will suggest that, as a species, we haven’t progressed much since Genghis Khan. Some of us might even start campaigns that focus on asking the aliens to give us another chance, and the alien’s second planned assault will capitalize on that sentiment to divide and conquer us. 

*** 

The Machine is a sci-fi flick in which a team of scientists devise a mode of communication to help us remember. They do not have the technology to develop internal mechanisms that could be inserted biologically, and even if they did, they decide that they won’t pursue it, because that might create some form of compulsory participation. These scientists are wary of anything having to do with compulsory participation that could lead us to characterize their intentions as ominous. They simply want to develop a intangible means to help us communicate in a way that we never forget.

“This might not be such a good thing,” Paul says. Paul’s team of technological scientists are devoted to the communication platform of the program. Paul’s concern addresses the programs of the remember team.

“Why,” Paul asks rhetorically to deflect any suggestion that he is jealous of what the remember team is creating, “because the power to forget is almost as vital to mental health as the power to remember. Some psychologists say that if we weren’t able to forget our worst memories, or our worst thoughts, as we grow, it might stunt mental and emotional growth in such a way that we might all become basket cases forever trying to correct the past. 

“I saw a documentary that interviewed people with a memory syndrome that is the opposite of amnesia and other forms of memory disorders listed. It’s called hyperthymestic syndrome. Sufferers suggest that they remember everything that ever happened to them so well that they relive them in real-time with real-time and acute emotion. Some of them are miserable, and some of them are basket cases because of it,” Paul adds. “If our program allows people to never forget, I submit, they never will, and they will pay the cost for it in ways we cannot foresee.”

“Perhaps, we shouldn’t have bad thoughts then, Paul,” the lead scientist proposes. “Perhaps the collective can teach other people not to have bad thoughts.”

Taken aback Paul says, “With all due respect sir, I don’t think you recognize the totality of what you’re saying.”

“Let’s not forget the primary directive of [the machine],” the lead scientist deflects, mentioning its temporary name. “It’s communication. Communication in a way Alexander Graham Bell couldn’t even dream. The acute memory function of our [machine] is not its sole purpose, but I think everyone here, except Paul, will admit it will be a wonderful byproduct.”

Paul does not concede on the issue, but he agrees to shelve his concern as they devise a way to pitch it to corporate leaders. “I don’t like the name The Machine first of all,” Paul says. “We need to develop a name that suggests that The Machine can bring communities together. A grandmother can keep tabs on their grandkids without having to call their estranged children, long distance friendships can be maintained, and a number of other communications of the sort. We need to focus on that. We need to describe how people can use this utility to gather together in intangible ways that supersede the telephone.”

“I take it you have an idea for a name,” one of the other scientists says.

“I don’t,” Paul replies humbly facing down the challenge, “but I think the name should involve properties equivalent to a net or a web that brings people together.”

“A worldwide web?” the scientist asks. “That sounds a little ominous, like if you step into the web you’re trapped there.”

“I agree with Paul though. The idea of a worldwide gathering sounds compulsory,” a fourth scientist says, “it can lead one to think if they’re not interacting, they’re missing out, which has its own marketing possibilities, but it can lead, as you suggest, to a more ominous sound. How about we focus our presentation on the idea and power of two people interacting? You can interact with your grandmother in a way different than by phone. Interacting, interweb, or internet?”  

***

Why did one group of people separate from the primary group of their day and eventually start speaking an entirely different language? When one ancient tribe splintered off from the primary society of the time, their language began to deviate from the primary language. The idea that they developed different customs is not as remarkable, because they did so to adapt to the climate of their new land, but why did they develop a different language? The initial deviations were probably subtle at first, but some began to deviate so much, over the course of hundreds of years that they sounded nothing alike. English and German, for example, might have some similarities, but for the most part the sounds are so different, they almost sound like communication from different beasts. Then, we have the stark differences in sounds from the neighboring countries France and Germany. French sounds fluid and poetic, and German sounds anything but. This is to say nothing of various forms of communication heard in countries that speak Mandarin, Arabic, and any of the other guesstimated 6,909 + languages now spoken throughout the world. Were the initial transitions so gradual that the communicators found them unremarkable at first and thus not noteworthy, until they incrementally evolved into a different language?

As we spread our search our search for answers out, we eventually find ourselves back to some point of origin, or the initial, primary form of communication heard throughout the relatively small world of communicators. There are a number of theories regarding the when, where and how various languages started, including the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and it’s Greco-Roman parallels, but at this point in history, linguists have no definitive, documented history of transitions people made to other languages and other forms of communication. The history of languages is well documented, of course, but in my research there are no definitive answers, and I must admit I’m almost as uninformed as I am curious about the transitions in language that led to the phenomenon of so many variations people around the world have for describe the nouns around them and the verbs of their every day life. 

***

If I ever achieved some level of notoriety as an artist, I would learn to pick my battles. In the beginning, I would probably view every battle as germane, as people questioned everything from my art to my integrity, but after a while I’m sure I would learn to disregard some pot shots. 

A popular artist has to deal with many battles, on many different fronts, on a daily basis. As we see in customer reviews on Amazon, and elsewhere, every piece of art is either too something or not something enough. Most artists would say, as Don Schlitz once wrote, “You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.” Pick your battles, in other words. One battle I would draw up troops to fight is the ‘fake’ charge. When discussing artistic works, or artists, the ‘fake’ charge is often the last refuge of a critic who cannot express themselves well. Fake is such an arbitrary charge, and it’s subjective, but once it begins to gather moss, it’s so hard to defeat. Music aficionados probably hear this charge 100 different times about 100 different artists when discussing music. The contrarians often say fake and sellout in conjunction with one another, and most of just roll our eyes and walk away, knowing that the person actually knows little to nothing about music, but there are times when it sticks. A friend of mine said he thought the music bands Green Day and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (RHCP) were fake. I never enjoyed the music of Green Day, but I did like the RHCP at one time. I probably considered them susceptible to the charge, but after that man dropped the ‘fake’ charge on RHCP, I couldn’t listen to them without thinking how artificial they were. I didn’t consider them fake over night, of course, but with every listen I became convinced that if they were more organic in the early years, but they lost it over time, in their efforts to prolong their career. Saying that an artist is fake is so arbitrary and impossible to prove, of course, as anyone could say as much about any artist who ever created more than one piece of art, and it’s almost as impossible to disprove. I don’t know the legality involved, but if an influential critic from a major magazine levelled such a charge against me, I would probably expend all resources to challenge that assessment. I know the man’s opinion would be protected by the First Amendment, and the critic could say that it was just his opinion, but I would take that fight to the stage, in the media, and anywhere and everywhere I could to defeat that critic’s charge in the court of public opinion. My motto for this fight would be, we just can’t let this go, because once it sticks we’re done.