On Formality and Informality

TV Tropes Mission inspired me to come to the following conclusion regarding the level of formality we should maintain in this Wiki's articles. Please forgive the over-the-top metaphors...

One can be informal and relaxed without being an unhygienic slob that has their sphincters constantly open and is covering the environment with their drool and genital juices. I exaggerate, of course, but, academically, the opposite of Anal-Rententive is Anal-Explosive, as coined by Freud. We should not embrace either extreme.

The informality is for the sake of reaching out to the reader, distributing information in an engaging and accessible way. It is not for the sake of completely unrestrained logorrhea*

The goal is to reach out to, inform, and entertain, as many people as possible: stuffiness gets in the way of that, but so does splashing around in your own shit like swine, especially if you know that you like your shit, but most people don't.

That's very interesting, and while you seem to have hit the high points, you have also dropped a few low points yourself. I'm not sure we need to pursue this phrased exactly as such.

Please develop that. I know I should tone down the language of that post, but are you also suggesting I should abandon some of the content?

edited 22nd Apr '12 1:35:27 PM by TheHandle

No, the content is fine. The phrasing is a bit more lurid than we are interested in.

Strangely enough, Lurid redirects to Macabre in Wikipedia... I though "lurid" meant "titllating" and "enticing", as in "luring" and "alluring", which was totally not what I was going for: I was trying to express the repulsiveness found in vulgarity in the most graphic, primary, visceral, and universally understandable way. I also forgot to add tears and snot to the fluids flung around.

I will try to rephrase it in a cleaner way, which would go on a page, I suppose, if it's pleases the Powers That Be, and I hope we can keep the "primal" version as reference for recalcitrant elements who panic at censorship.

How about now? I've sanitized the fecal metaphors, and circumscribed them to easily removable hottips. I think, however, that, in their current form, they would do quite well as the touch of informality that would make the article self-demonstrating: even the greatest writers have indulged in the occasional crudeness without having that detract from the overall quality of the work.

edited 22nd Apr '12 2:09:38 PM by TheHandle

It sounds like "no gushing". Anal gushing should be included in that, no?

You mean anal as in "anal-retentive" or as in metaphorically anal?

EDIT: Wait, I see what you did there...

edited 23rd Apr '12 2:50:57 AM by TheHandle

The anal references make a good counterpoint to the home page's quantification of our informality as "a buttload."

So, is it ready for YKTTW?

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Would you be willing to put it in plain English?

The anal metaphors are both obtuse and childish. I get the gist, more or less, but I don't think we need the metaphors. We want to strike a balance between formal and informal, right?

Since when was this ever a matter of needing? If it comes to that, we don't need this wiki to exist, either. "We don't need X" is a terribly poor argument. "X gets in the way of achieving goal Y" make much more sense. If you comment on a show like Panty And Stocking With Garterbelt, South Park, Law And Order, or The Thick Of It, in the style of Wikipedia, that is, with perfectly clean and neutrally-worded descriptions, you'll end up looking ridiculous, and it will get in the way of giving the reader a proper understanding of the media involved, something which Wikipedia articles routinely and systematically fail to do. The "informative" part of our mission, when it comes to artistic industry, doesn't stop at stating facts, but also at carrying over feelings. There is a place here for shows that contain crud, we just have to make an effort not to make it look like we enjoy wallowing in it.

Which part don't you understand? How can I make this plainer for you?

Well, to begin with, it would help if you would be willing to employ metaphor without going as far as twirling in place while singing the national anthem at the top of your throat, so to speak. While I understand the appeal inherent to the soft meowing of intricate semantic formulations acting as a dam to prevent the rivers of bluntness from pouring out, as Dr. Seuss would put it, the opposite of Meowing Dam is Barking Mad, and you should not latch onto either extreme with such exquisite and reckless abandon, given that there is an ominous shadow of an overcasting doubt on the edge of the horizon that perhaps this decidedly florid approach caters mainly to the writer of those aforementioned words rather than the reader, who indeed is likely left as though stranded on a lone island of incomprehension adrift at a sea of loquaciousness, searching in vain all around him for that small, elusive creature known as the point the original author might have ostensibly been trying to convey, which may be forever lost within the crashing, foaming waves of analogy-wrought chaos and words borne of triple-word squares.

Does that clear things up?

Triple Elation, I would be tempted to hand a to you for that exquisitely sesquipedalian diatribe, but in fact this entire thread is pretty much pointless. We'd like to keep the conversation focused on productive things, not quibbling over semantics. Or Santorum anal leakage.

Edit: forgot lockage

edited 24th Apr '12 10:10:17 AM by Fighteer

Roger.

I liked your style there. You should use it more often.

edited 24th Apr '12 10:07:07 AM by TheHandle