Though transitional phrases do not ask (in any de facto sense nor by their very nature) to be singled out or examined, sometimes it just happens: sometimes they just get weighed alone.
"Moreover," for instance, though layered and potent at times, is usually weak, well, or weaker than many of the others; sure a well-placed "moreover" can be taut and gripping, but it's usually not as versatile as a hot subtle "one day" or an awe-inspiring "meanwhile." What's more, they're too easily shot down, as in the case when an interrupter snidely interjects: "Um, howza 'bout we end it right there at the 'Moreover,' hmm?"
Yes, folks, a "meanwhile" has been percolating in committee, "committee" being the place where all updates go before they're born.
That I even have a "meanwhile" or two in me is testament to life's bounty.
"Meanwhile" is a loaded term. A portent? Perhaps. Probably important or why the interruption? I usually get the feeling that stuff's about to be interlarded or interlaced when I see a "meanwhile." And by "stuff" I mean what's immediately before and immediately after this seemingly unprepossessing nine-letter word.
And yes, I most certainly am alluding to a kind of synergy here, too. It's not only that two things are going on at once: it's that they're somehow also connected. To each other.
Now I know what you're thinking and I've got a "now hold on, there" for you. That's right: I will not be deterred by the threat or specter of Deconstructionism. No, I will not be smudged with that label. Not when I'm trying to bring more understanding to this transitional term. Not when I'm trying to shed more light on how this term shapes or alters our induction or digestion of the amalgam of 1) what preceded it, 2) what followed it, and 3) what's interwoven viz. it between what preceded it and what followed it.
Jacques Derrida, arguably the lead architect of Deconstructionism, describes threads, patterns and materials of "the stuff" that elaborately protects our eyes from seeing the nakedness of the emperor. Derrida admirably describes the measured movements of the tailors. The tailors are indeed weaving in a manner that would appear to be borne of intelligence: yes, a pattern. And, yes, sewing happened. But sometimes fine threads are not readily visible to the Philistine or the hillbilly.
Take two guys viewing a naked emperor. While one will "see" skin and hair, the second might remember all the effort those tailors exerted while designing the emperor's new outfit, and what this second guy notices are the "trails" of where the tailors had been sewing. Anyway, either I'm a man of unrefined tastes and proclivities (hillbilly), or Jacques Derrida's Deconstructionism is little more than an updated version of "The Emperor's New Clothes," where goofy French guy tries his best to convince anyone who'll listen that that naked guy's actually not naked a tall.
like this guy for instance: he's not nude, he's "wearing" water
When I break down a transitional term like a "one day," or a "meanwhile," however, I'm not trying to define that term into another plane of existence. Neither am I trying to put meaning where it's not; I'm not trying to s t r e t c h meaning. Although I might be accused of it, I maintain I am not trying to "pull a Derrida" when I break down these and other transitional terms.
I suppose I can't really know what I'm trying to do when I break down these terms, but I think I'm trying to unlock some of the flavors of the spices of the components of this Information Recipe Delivery System we are currently sharing. When cooking, a chef can toss all his ingredients in the pan at once, or he can sauté his spices first, then later add the remainder of his ingredients to that same simmering pan. The moreovers, the one days, the meanwhiles: these are the spicy nuggets that can be mulled over, and with this extra mulling more of their flavor can be released and appreciated earlier and more often.
On the one hand, there's everything associated with ascertaining the health and whereabouts of salsa guy's choking victim: Googling Kevin and Tiffany B., watching them shop and mingle, Googling those with whom they've mingling, etc. On the other hand... well, that's just it: does transitioning from the Wal~Mart incident to fleshing out something from my personal life merit a "meanwhile"? Am I squandering a "meanwhile" if I do so?
Of course "meanwhile" is as serviceable in either case. But is the latter usage as deserving as the former?
This is why and where I'm attempting to zero in on the interconnectedness of the before and after of the deployment of the loaded term "meanwhile." I like using a "meanwhile" when jumping from one salsa guy development to another salsa guy development. Also, I enjoy employing a "meanwhile" to transition from describing something about, say, my job to describing something about a newspaper article that I read on the job, an article about a missing person. [Though the article refers to a missing woman (i.e. for us, it's just another dead end), similarities in modus operandi made me read it twice.]
But what about transitioning from a "Wal~Mart incident" development to something about my rather vanilla life? Is that worthy of a "meanwhile"?
I like a subtle "meanwhile," one that delivers more than it has to. I have fond memories of an update that included a decidedly sublime "one day." It's around here somewhere. I'd hyperlink it, here, now, but I forget where, precisely, it is.
FORWARD to what happened next
BACK to what happened first
OVER to HerbNation HOMEPAGE