Author: jnorth

Speaker’s corner

February 7, 2015 / / 1 Comment

Note: Bold are the things I will probably need to change when re-editing

Do you like books? News flash. Most of the newer generation probably have a different opinion. I’m not talking about babies or five year old’s. I’m talking about the generation of people who are currently in their teen years, my generation of people. Why do you think they don’t share the belief of enjoying books? Let’s not trap ourselves in our own little bubbles and just face the facts. My generation dislike (or in some cases hate) books. I will analyse, answer and explain some of these reasons that are just plain stupid. This problem will ultimately lead on to a generation of idiots who rely on technology too much and will just turn out to be an epic fail.

‘Books are boring’. This is the opinion of many people that I know and (I’m sure) many people of my generation. I can understand that as technology advances, movies become better, life quality so on blah blah blah, but seriously?! Some people have never even read a book. Now why do we think this is? It’s because they think books are boring and crap and this is partially the fault of the older generation. As we were growing, some of the older generation  tried to cram books into our heads, not saying they had ill-intentions, but this eventually lead to an association between books and school/education. At some point every school boy/girl would have thought that school is boring and eventually thought “Well, books are boring”. They are mistaken. Everyone has a book that appeals to them. Books are only as boring as you let them be. My generation only know the books that they hate and not the books that they will truly like. This was the mistake the older generation committed.

‘They’re long’. Have you ever heard the saying ‘time flies when you’re having fun’? Well, same applies here. When you hate a book or dislike it, you’re going to find it long, boring and will have no initiative to continue reading. However, if you really love a book then you will be literally begging for extra time to read it and trying to cram it into whatever time possible, probably wishing the book was longer. It’s like saying “summer holidays are so long.” sometimes the longer the book, the better.

‘Movies are so much better’. Um…since when was an imitation better than the real thing? That applies here. Movies will not be better than the books (bar the odd exception) because most movies are based on books. Also, what really pisses me off is when someone hasn’t even read the book of a movie and just say the film is better.  I mean, seriously? You cannot just assume that. Especially if you’re one of the people who have never read a book. Books are mostly better than movies because when you’re reading books your brain creates the scene that you’re reading, so it is your perfect scene. On the other hand, when watching a movie, you are seeing someone else’s idea of what is happening. I’m not saying movies are bad. Believe me, when you finish the book, you will be dying to see the movie. I really love movies, but that does not mean that movies are better than books.

So then, as I have said before, there is a book for everyone – and I mean everyone – so if you’re listening to this and you hate, dislike or have never read a book. Look for your book. I guarantee you will find it….so shut up and read a book.

 

Response – Second Draft

October 7, 2014 / / 2 Comments

The exchange of Slang does not impede the clarity of communication, nor is it an accurate identifier of one’s intelligence. I disagree strongly with Isabelle Kerr’s article “Twerking, selfie and unlike? Young people don’t speak like that – I should know” This article rants about how great the old English language was and how more recent generations are destroying this old tongue.

Kerr spends time in her article explaining her problems with the term ‘twerking’: “I actually had to Google this word.” Uh oh. In your great article on how degrading slang is, you actually used slang yourself. “Google” isn’t a real word, it is slang terminology for using the Google search engine, changing the Noun ‘Google’ into a verb. So how can this article even be valid if the person presenting it is showing clear signs of hypocrisy? Preposterous.

Kerr blames the ruin of the English language on the youth of today; she often draws upon stereotypes to tell us that  “young people” as a group are at fault, stating they face a “constant battle” to

“prove we’re not all apathetic, ASBO-wielding yobs who can’t communicate properly.” Excuse me? In this statement, you’re implying that most young people that utilise slang can’t communicate properly.

Properly: “adverb 1. correctly or satisfactorily.”

Communicate: ” verb 1. share or exchange information, news, or ideas.”

So, how does slang hinder the exchange of communication? Is there even a proper way to communicate? To communicate properly, I mean? To correctly share information? Who is to say whether communication, the method and means, the clarity with which I express myself, should be judged?  Surely, communication is subjective.  We are each senders and receivers, shouldn’t we all take some responsibility for these reciprocal roles that we take part in?

This quotation caught my eye, “And I’m not alone. Some young Twitter users have expressed their rejection of the new words, with one young follower tweeting, ‘what has the world come to?’” Kerr seems to be implying that there is a constant battle for all young people to not be portrayed as the people they seem to condemn. This, again is an act of hypocrisy.

Throughout Kerr’s whole argument, she states that these slang words are a negative contribution to the English language. You also say that “your generation” only worries about image, reputation and sex and that the slang words are only used to portray such negative things. In reality, you are doing the same thing. You, alongside your young Twitter writers, are worrying about image and reputation by constantly trying to prove that you’re not like the “young people” which you seem to hate. So you’re going to rant about image and then obsess about image in an attempt to make yourself look like you’re not obsessing over your image. Where is the logic?

 

Kerr continues on to affirming, “Words like tweaking, unlike and selfie are nothing more than slang which, just like any fashion trend, come and go. After all, when was the last time you heard someone describe something as ‘groovy’?” The flare that set off your rant is the fact that slang words such as “unlike” have been added to the English dictionary. Then you’re using an example to support your argument through the word “groovy” not being used and that slang is a trend, is just dumb. Regardless of “groovy” being a trend, it has still been added to the dictionary as slang. This goes against your argument that although it being a trend, it has still been added to the dictionary, so why shouldn’t the other slang terms be added? Is it because the term “groovy” was invented before you were born that you have some sort of biased opinion when comparing modern day slang with older slang? Did you actually think that your generation created slang? Hahaha, don’t make me laugh. Slang has been around for as long or even longer than the English language has been in existence.

The article finishes with Kerr announcing that “Shakespeare will be turning in his grave.” Excuse me? Are you being serious? Are you so devoid of knowledge that you didn’t know that Shakespeare is considered an innovator of slang? How can you even use him in your argument? Well, you got one thing right. He is turning in his grave to come back and set your argument straight!

 

By Daniel Alvarado