There’s no need to make the reader feel uncomfortable. Isn’t that the Jewish strategy when designing holocaust museums or writing about Jewish concerns? It’s too manipulative.
People can handle the truth. It’s when you attempt to influence their interpretation of the truth, that the truth becomes stressful to the reader.
Absent the writer telling the reader what and how to feel, the reader navigates through their own feelings to make sense of the piece on their terms, without embellishment.
Embellishment is not the writer’s friend.
Madison Avenue wants to keep the reader stressed, so the reader remains alert to the advertisements when reading an article. If too comfortable or engrossed in the read, they become oblivious to the ads.
Leave the judgment adjectives in the minds of the reader where they belong.
If you purposely glide too much without a change in cadence it makes the reader feel less comfortable than what is normal for them to feel, creating a chaotic, more stressful thus uncomfortable feeling.
This the Jews do to make the reader not forget their Holocaust by associating it with an uneasiness that’s difficult to describe, only that when they hear about the holocaust, any holocaust, that associative ill at ease feeling creeps in to take over their thoughts. They want the knowledge to haunt you by the way in which they communicate it to you.
Don’t copy that style. We earthlings have enough to feel badly about in life without writers intentionally wanting to put the reader in an uncomfortable frame of mind. It’s a form of enslavement that I protest. It’s a hustle. Your life on earth has nothing to do with what somebody else did to somebody else. The hustlers however, want to draw you in as a recruit to their cause or their advertisements, thus they own a part of you, the haunting part that will make you sway in their favor. You don’t even know it’s happening – that’s the enslavement part.
Telling the reader the gruesome and then using words to comfort when the reader doesn’t want or need comfort displaces the event in the psyche making one feel ill at ease. It also robs the reader of comforting themselves in their own way, which is always best. The reader needs to know where to put the knowledge, without the writer telling them what to do with it.
It’s a form of brainwashing or controlling the emotions along with the words meant to influence in a certain direction. It’s not enough that they give you their opinion, they want you to have the same opinion and they use techniques to do that.
Example of inappropriate adjectives:
- “In order to arrive at its perverse conclusions, FAO had to change its own definition of a family farmer. And it discounted or ignored recent FAO and other reports proving that peasant farms produce more food and more nutritious food per hectare than large farms. Agribusiness dislikes the 70% figure so there may be pressure on FAO to act more in line with their new alliance with agribusiness group Croplife.“
excerpt: When I read the word perverse and dislikes I tune out. The writer is trying to influence my view before I’ve even read the article.
Nobody wants to be told what to think before they read the article. Why should we the readers trust the writer’s views on whether something is perverse or what an industry dislikes? Let the reader decide for themselves.
Controlling the emotions and opinions in headlines by the use of subjective adjectives is an industry-wide occurrence. It looks like the government taking over the media to control the thoughts of the readers.
Why? That one should have to ask why, proves the intent. Why put the word perverse onto something? This isn’t creative writing, it’s journalism.
However, even if you want to influence, adding adjectives is not the best way to go. Direct paves the road. Ease up on transitional sentences or paragraphs. People get bored with the transitions and skip over them anyway.
Till next time, don’t work so hard at forming the reader’s opinion; form your own so the reader finds it interesting.