It was Shakil who slept with her, claims Diana

Raggie Jessy

Now that I got your attention, I bet you’re here because of Shakil and Diana, two names you wouldn’t have given a hoot about should the title have read “It was Shakil who taught me yoga, claims Diana”.

You know, it’s just incredible how promiscuity remains the mother of all curiosities. For all it’s worth, I haven’t the faintest idea who Shakil or Diana is, or for that matter, if Shakil did or did not sleep with ‘her’, whoever ‘she’ may be. And right about now, I’m guessing that some of you may just be that much pissed.

So I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if disgruntled factions decide to take the piss out of me in the comment section below. That’s right, the usual: “What a dumbass”, or “I just lost one minute of my life, which I’m never going to get back.” And this one’s my favourite: “Can someone please help get this dumb-dodo of an ass a life??”

But all the same, I got your attention. I did, because my article bore a title with a negative ring to it. Now, some of you would never have reached this point if the title to this article had read ‘Santa spotted in ABC Plaza on Deepavali’.

You see, reading this article may have everything to do with your predisposition towards pessimism. Actually, just take my word for it; you may be a pessimist.

Let me put it to you in yet another way; if the title of this article had read ‘Dato’ Din organises gotong royong in Putrajaya’, getting some of you to read the article would be akin to getting Queen Elizabeth to confer a knighthood on Lim Kit Siang; it’s plain inconceivable.

Now, even if you had Dato’ Din’s portrait pinned to the ceiling right above your bed, you’d be the least likely candidate to read this. And neither would those averse to Dato’ Din or his brand of politics be reviewing this piece.

But then, being averse almost always connotes to being negative or self-righteous. For instance, a certain Ahmad may simply denounce Dato’ Din for being an ostensive visionary seeking political mileage by coming off positively. “He’s a bloated trickster trying to gain favour from the electorate,” Ahmad may say. And all it would take is a title to bring Ahmad round to such a preposterous idea.

On the contrary, staunch adherents of Dato’ Din may be ready to take on a hundred Ahmads. Such people usually refuse to bother themselves with technicalities, so they fight shy of the article and instead, aim their canons at Ahmad. That is to say, they read the title, but stop short of reading the rest of the article, just like Ahmad. What matters to them is that the title appears positive.

So on the face of it, Dato’ Din is doing something positive, and to his apologists, that is good. And before you can say crap, they turn to their kind and say, “Let’s roast that Ahmad fella on facebook. If he isn’t stopped, Dato’ Din may lose his credibility.” And all hell breaks loose.

But both groups would have something in common; while some would second-guess contexts within which the title applies, others would find reading the article a humdrum routine that isn’t likely to redefine their allegiances. Rest assured, none would comprehend the significance to whatever it is I intended to hash out through my article.

So while the likes of Ahmad are those capable of turning ‘Mother Teressa’ into ‘Charlie’s mother’, Teressa’s adherents would flock in from nowhere and into her defence by telling Ahmad that Teressa never really had sex and therefore, hasn’t a child. So Charlie doesn’t exist. As far as they’re concerned, Teressa’s honour must be restored, or she may forever be disgraced by society.

For all it’s worth, Teressa may well be a duck. But that wouldn’t matter, because to some numbskulls, upholding her reputation is worth much more than getting to know if she exists.

You see, while pessimists take the gloomiest possible view of everything, you will always find those on the defensive seeking to take these prophets of doom down, for reasons that are themselves pessimistic. And both factions would be more than willing to strike each other’s fists with their faces, given the chance.

Anyway, you probably can now fathom why just about everybody seems predisposed to pessimism.

Ok, let’s go through that again. A title means everything, because positively constructed titles may really be a bad thing. That is to say, positively constructed titles often turn people off like body odour would. And when people don’t read, they’re inclined to talk cock for cockamamie reasons.

You see, hardly anybody appreciates a monotonous article any more than he or she would a dead fish. They’re plain boring. As a matter of fact, you’d be better off reading the incredible adventures of ‘Raja Bomoh’, who’s always somewhere between cloud nine and Timbuktu to deliver you a flush of excitement.

I think you get my point. An exciting and gripping title may well be the superlative among challenges that await a well-meaning author. And negatively toned articles may really go a long way in saving Malaysia from a lot of cock talk and averting public dissension. A preposterous notion, you think?

I think not.