thank you to those who bore my ranting of yester-eve. i hate being kept ignorant.
i remembered the topic that i had intended to write: writing, specifically, the dangers of writing with passion. for the record, i’ve managed to frighten at least two men with my well-intent letters; both letters were completely platonic, and meant to tell the person how i am grateful to have him as a friend, and how he has positively impacted my life. evidently German stoicism can’t handle a letter signed, love, Hannah. even more egregiously, i seem to have lost a potential romantic suitor because he thought “[Hannah] used words that were too big and florid and [he’s] looking for someone more down-to-earth”. my mother was the matchmaker, so it may be fortuitous that my might-have-been-beloved didn’t materialize. this has made my mother’s matchmaking success rate a sound zero percent.
now that i have jeopardized both my friendships and dating life by my words, it is time to reconsider the repercussions of writing:
1. i shan’t write love, or mention love, or imply love, in forms subtle or salient, in any platonic letter to a male associate. love is equivalent to plague, delirium, panic, and may result in side effects including but not limited to sudden and completely incommunicado from the other party and curt replies of i-am-not-in-love-with-you-so-please-don’t-be-in-love-with-me.
2. words such as discombobulation, abet, motley, and verily shall be excluded from correspondence vernacular: rates too high on the academia scale and thus too low on the down-to-earth scale.
3. the f-word is strictly prohibited. feelings. feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings. there are no feelings.
4. modify praise, lest i sound obsequious.
5. modify teasing, lest i sound suggestive.
in conclusion, my letters might be too robust. take with caution and a serving of alcohol to mitigate potential side effects.
wait, i shouldn’t use mitigate. too florid.
maybe i shan’t use florid either.