If I were to smile at you, how would you react? Presumably favourably; if you could ignore the gingavitis, at least. Either way, it's unlikely you would fail to register my expression as one of contentment and pleasure - it's equally unlikely that you would fail to understand just what my smile indicates, surely? Now, call me anal, call me an idiosyncracie stickler, call me an over reactionary to frivolity - call me whatever the hell you please; it wouldn't matter - my face and emotions are unable to register shock, nor any other feeling. Why? Because, yes, that's right, facial expressions are not universal. Can you believe it? It's deplorable, I know. If I smile at a Tazmanian, mayhap I will receive a bayonet through the gullet (if tribal Tazmanians happen to be using archaic English-imperialist weaponary). Were I to frown at a Frenchman, perchance I will receieve acclamation and a shower of confetti (if French urbanites happen to be recreating a scene from Love Actually at the time).
I personally couldn't believe it. I was so utterly flabbergasted, I had to choose the only facial expression left to me, from my arsenal of reactions, I looked nonplussed and mildly disinterested. If this were IM, I would be :| <>
First things first: Think of the children. Is it not widely credited that babies struggle with facial expressions that are not wildly over the top? Does not a broad grin garner a reaction, whilst an inquisitive frown meets frank ambivalence? How are we to communicate with the future? I'm lost. Is it not also true that a smile is recognisable at a much farther distance than a look of nonchalance or a upcast eyebrow? How are we to communicate over the moors? Must we resort to infantile babbling to accompany our expressions? At work, will I be forced to look at a donation and apply a look of total lethargy to my work, whilst babbling a stream of unfathomable rubbish?
"I have this donation."
"*Bland face* Hallelujah! To the heavens with you do we go." That's the verbal equivalent of feigned interest. It's going to be a nightmare. How will getting on the bus be? "£3.60, please mate", "*Mannakin* To the pit of eternal damnation with you, spawn of Satan, may the furies of wrath rain down a plague on all you care about"? How is this going to look? We'll all be sectioned.
My advice? Caution and a reticence to travel.
And onto my second 'explanation' - let's take it slow, for I feel frail. Not only does this throw into confusion our entire education and innate learning, but it also begs the question: How on Earth does this qualify as news, in any sense of the word? It simply beggers belief that a) People have researched this, and b) I read this (mainly because I was so shocked that it had been published). It reminds me heavily of an article with one of the most misleading headlines ever: "Exercise doesn't help you lose weight" (loosely paraphrased). The article, naturally, went on to specify that this is only because exercising makes you hungry, and thus you eat more, and overcompensate to satiate the pangs of hunger. I'm struggling to see the link between the two; perhaps we should apply this sense of labelling to all of our products? It would certainly make shopping much more enjoyable. "Darling, should we purchase some 'fuel of the economy', for John?", "No, dearest, I feel that smoking is only hurting him"; "Grand-pa-pa, can we have some bloating snacks?", "No, child of my child, for rye is most harmful when consumed non-stop, all day."
So there it is: Two fucking stupid stories, two revelations which blow apart the veil between lunacy and grounded-interest; two issues which will shake the foundations on which we are so deeply footed. Scared? I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment