Reading commentary on events and ideas, I often find that the writer first wants to explain how irritated or enraged they are by the item they are going to explain. This happens often enough that I feel used to it. I assume they are moved by feelings or by insight enough to write something. Beyond that, I don't especially want much detail about the level of disgust or fear that they are about to relate. I am not capable of simply taking their emotional level for my own. I need to find out what they are writing about, get a satisfactory grasp of the situation and then make my own decision and have my own emotional reaction.
I definitely don't do well with instructions about how to feel about the item before the item itself is described. One common "pre-tag" is something along the line of 'please be as appalled as I am while reading what follows'. Trying to set me up first before telling me what is being related bugs me. I want to tell such writers to just hold their "appall", at least until after they have delivered a report of the item they are telling about. They may correctly intuit that I am not going to be appalled, maybe not even interested. I feel that is just the way things go. I don't see things their way, am not convinced of their politics or worried about their fears. I may be willing to entertain their writing for a short time but I retain the right to form my sort of reaction.
The bumber stick that says if I am not appalled, I haven't been paying attention is even worse. The ad that goes even further describing the very exciting movie and showing scene after dramatic scene but waits until the last moment to reveal the title of this stinker is just as bad.
Please hold your appall to the end. In fact, no appall's, please.
--
Bill
Main blog: Fear, Fun and Filoz
Main web site: Kirbyvariety
