“I saw your face listening to the words.”
Initially this observation resulted in a chuckle or two, and a subsequent share on Facebook. And dismissively I filed this comment under the linguistic-blunder category.
Yet today I have cause to revisit this comment.
Though this wasn’t a comment I made, rather one that I received, my spring-loaded reaction was ridicule. However, there is a case to be made for the validity of this comment.
When presented with a stimulus, lets use pain as the initial example, “Ouch!” or a teeth clenching grimace, equally reinforce the same idea. A furled brow, and “I’m confused,” equate to roughly the same thing. Raised eyebrows and a nod are the equivalent of “I’m considering that seriously.”
What should one infer when an observation of doubling, or daresay, tripling the expression occurs? Consider the reaction to something humorous, “Oh my god, that’s hilarious!” But, couple this with a hand and forearm across the stomach, and simultaneous pounding of the foot against the floor.
Isn’t the initial comment enough to elicit the desired response, which inherently trends slightly towards narcissism?
Do the ancillary actions add to the severity of hilarity?
My contention is that, in fact, they detract from the sincerity of expression.
Suppose an acquaintance attends a movie with you. In this movie there is a particularly sad portion. The person starts to weep and you feel empathy for that persons feelings. The proceed to force out from their mucous draining nostrils and post-nasal drip throats, “Oh MY GOD, It’s so sad!!!” They then begin to wail and sob uncontrollably, all amidst air-wrenching gasps, and snot-retracting sniffling, followed by maniacal blubbering.
One of the three utterances is enough to convey the emotion. The rest are overkill. Unless this movie was a depiction of a funeral for a close relative, that your friend was inexplicably unable to attend, but strangely able to obtain a recording of, there should be little tolerance for this sort of overacting, narcissistic behavior.
If you say “That’s funny!” and I don’t immediately agree with you, laughing hysterically after a few seconds won’t sell me on it.
If I make a quizzical expression and then maintain my course, it only meant that I considered the interface or stimulus worthy of a casual thought, not a “How did you feel about that?”
Our points, feelings and emotions are presented in minutiae, not in exaggeration. It seems that social consensus insists that those with the most boisterous and invasive social presence are the most deserving of immediate attention.
But it doesn’t matter how many words you string together, nor the numbers of social media channels you push your message through, nor the myriad of ways you call attention to yourself. What matters is the sincerity of your message and whether we accept it as such.
Can I accept you face to face, or word for word, or expression for expression? And can you do the same for me? Abolish the multi-layered considerations, can we just accept each others simplicity?
Humbly yours,
J