Friday, March 24, 2017

The 21st Century riff feuilleton words

   As I noted in previous posts of this blog, this 21st century of change and chaos uses words to indicate more than the literal meaning and combine words in a way that says another thing.
   Recently I had some free time to read from my stack of The New York Times “Book Review,” and when I read the September 6, 2015 review of the recent translation for Joseph Roth’s Hotel Years, George Prochnik, the reviewer said, “Roth excelled at the feuilleton—a short-form, first person report riffing on whatever struck the writer’s fancy…”
   Looks to me like Mr. Prochnik has a 21st century concept of these two words, because he uses the word “riff” in combination with “feuilleton."
   However, the synonym for ”riff” is  “interpretation.”
  And whatever the current POTUS tweets, the zealous press wants to take it literally—like the tweet  “wire tapping”  POTUS says is in quotes for a reason.
   The average person doesn't know that a "riff" is an interpretation, but the zealous press shifts the meaning of the word "riff" for whatever purpose they need to write their headline and politically inspired "feuilleton."

   The 21st century conundrum comes when words and meanings are shifted to emphasize the political bias.

    An average person living in 21st century must read the context of words and take words as “entries” into understanding like a reading measurement test at school.
   I always read each paragraph as presented and then I answered the multiple choice questions.
   My reading test score in grade school beat every student in my school district.
   I don’t believe anything has changed since then but I bring to my understanding a sense of the world that I live in.

Should everyone living in this 21st century read words within the context of a particular political party?

Monday, March 6, 2017


   Do you think the word “state” is attributive?
   If you do believe that “state” can be used in a way to make the word “state” descriptive, then it can get complicated.
   Because when the word “state” is attributive, “state” is a noun that modifies another noun and “state” is used as an adjective when “state” is used in the “attributive” sense.

   The above is another example of the 21st century word corruption that often borders on insinuation and results in the following, which can use the word “state” in a way that accents the “talking points” by both sides of the political sphere.

   For instance, in the 2017 political discourse the word “state” often has a nefarious meaning in conjunction with another word.
   I can say, the “state” of corruption is like a swamp, it’s bottomless.
   The deep “state” has penetrated into every aspect of our lives.
   Washington is in a “state” of frenzy because POTUS is constantly using his twitter feed to tell his followers the truth.

The value of words and the meanings attributed to words are now in flux.

  In this 21st century the general public suffers with a form of word destruction and attribution that turns into “fake news” when put forth by a media dominated by journalists who have their own agendas.
   For the moment, how to interpret a word like “state” depends on which side of the political sphere is using “state” as either the highest authority, or as something vicious and destructive.
   Nevertheless, now the media uses it’s power as a fourth estate, and the word “state” is used to convey an agenda that is aimed at swaying public opinion.

I say, let’s get back to words & meanings that aren’t meant to sway, but to tell the facts in a dispassionate and truthful way.