The 'oomph' factor

I just had a chat with Justine on MSN. It has been a long time since we have had any decent chat together. Thus, the experience was reinvigorating. I have to say that I always had a canny bond with her whenever we spoke online. This bond was almost telepathic in nature that it was utterly freaky! Therefore, what I’m going to say next can be quite disheartening.

As we were chatting, suddenly our subject matter focused on the issues that I have posted here on my blog. According to Justine, I have lacked ‘feeling’ when I’m expressing myself in my last few articles (I sure hope this criticism doesn’t extend to the entire blog itself). If anyone reading this is confused, I reckon, what she means to say is that my article lack the necessary character or the ‘oomph’ factor. She highlighted a few points, which she felt may have handicapped the emotional side of my page. Perhaps, she opined that my legal training had contributed to the lack of individual colour and has subsequently impaired my page with a deficiency in emotional strokes, unnecessarily substituted by linguistic flair and arcane wordings. She contended that:

1.I have a tendency to use old or arcane words to romanticize my page. As a result, she equates such a tendency with being a ‘sucker’. While she appreciates my effort at trying my utmost best to be articulate, she wonders why I put myself in such trouble in the first place.

2.I do not invest enough of my emotional side into my articles.

3.The language tends to be too formal like the wordings of a contract.

Well, in my defence, I have to argue that I don’t even realise that I use old or arcane words at all, thus, there cannot possibly be any intent on my part to use such words to confuse my readers or to romanticize the page. In mitigation, I do not deny I could have used such words frequently in my blogs but only because I have become so used to them. I try to be articulate not because I have any such duty set upon me. Such effort is only pursued with the hope that my feelings are expressed in the most correct manner. As a matter of fact, my attempt to be as articulate as possible in my blog is my way of ensuring that enough of my emotional side is being conveyed sufficiently and efficiently to the readers of this blog. The 3rd allegation is presumably the most difficult to refute. I have to admit that my legal training may influence the way I write, speak and think. Therefore, I’m most probably guilty as charged! But, isn’t this a ‘crime’ committed by all? I’ve heard of friends in different courses such as accounting also using their jargons without discrimination. Thus, my only hope is my readers bear with such inadequacies and remind me from time to time if I exceed the boundaries where my article becomes to0 legalized and utterly mundane.

Anyway, I would duly appreciate if anyone else will comment on what Justine has already highlighted. Justine, if you’re wondering whether I’m posing this article in agitation, if I have to say that the only reason I’m writing on this is to discover if others share your sentiments. Your views are still taken with high regards on my part.