Society Only By Name- Part One: The Darlings

1) No-one is as renowned as much as they are hated as a darling. They sweep through all and change, they amend status quos with status quos, they pile on new expectations for all to lead by example. Likewise, they inspire an almost political jealousy, petty one-up-manship and proceedings doused in narcissism and with recycled phrases such as, "a means to an end".

2) Darlings often make blistering- yet also impressively subtle- attacks on those who disagree with them or their ideas. They can also give verbal beheadings to a smidgen of scepticism, let alone an entire critique of their motives.

3) The darling cannot win, even when conditions have been mechanised in their favour so that they can never lose. Perhaps it is this that catalyses their paranoia. After all, on the one hand they are surrounded by yes men, and often only yes men. The tension begins when even a balanced, constructive comment on them or their abilities are interpreted as an attempt to assassinate their character (though a darling with character is oh so rare!).

4) Of course, even darlings get undeserved attacks, especially from an unwanted or unneeded scathing comment on their appearance or personality. Yet, it is all amplified by the reaction of the darling, often channelling their inner Hamlets. They are never alone, despite their towering social oppositions- oh no, they are never alone; for the darling has a secret weapon: a culture of mobocracy dedicated to witch hunting those the darling suspects of barking up the wrong tree. These legions of white knights and bloody minded crusaders stand up for their idol like ants protecting their queen. There, controversy begins and controversy prevails. Controversy that only serves as entertainment!

5) Many liberties are taken with the darling, to such a wide degree that it no longer becomes an exception to the rule but the rule itself. The rule, you may ask? The rule is the darlings can do this, but nobody else can. The darling is allowed to spit venom into the eyes of the many for the betterment of the few. However, let us not be mistaken by the darling's venom. The darling is not a cobra; its hood is made of paper mache. It is an ailment, not a life-ending concoction.

6) The anti-venom for the darling is a life-ending concoction, though. It is the venom, the sting of someone who does what they do by craft and not merely by celebrity, or is celebrated but is not influenced by the vanity that comes with celebrity. It is the antithesis of the darling. Hence, when the darling breaks another, it is a matter of projection. They project their weakness, their bullying and often vindictive nature.

7) The darling is not merely the one you think they are. They can be well-read, perhaps, but they are not a wordsmith. They can be practitioners of their chosen hobbies, but they never excel. They can be silver-tongued, but never witty enough to inspire genuine laughter. On the topic of being well-read, the darling is superficially modest. This modesty makes them appear to be greatly read. They have sailed two of the seven seas, but despite never sailing the other five, they assert the image that the other five are under their belt. We believe them, but why? We believe them because we simply trust them.

8) The nicer the darling, the "kinder" and "gentler" they are perceived by a general audience, the more cruel they really are, the more true and surprising their colours appear to an unbiased eye. Their private selves, which they milk for public display- how touching- are bogged down in confessions about the meanings of their worlds and their words. They espouse their rhetoric on varying platforms, either on social media or in presenting it to others in conversation, but if we actually sit down and observe what they are actually saying, their personal stories, their "honest and amazing lives" and explorations of their pasts, the darling is either incredibly boring or they have severe entitlement issues. The distinction remains unknown to them.

9) Perhaps I am presenting all darlings of our pseudo-society as malicious, one-sided cretins. That is fairly inaccurate. The mature darling, the world-weary and often authoritative but un-bossy darling, no longer reacts with arrogant self-deprecation, but with an acknowledgment or a negative comment. Problem is, this breed of darling is rare. This is a darling which has gone through the immaturity and entitlement of the early, new darling unscathed. This breed of darling, however, must also survive a potential worsening of age or a process of burning out, which most darlings never survive.

10) The darling's popularity only endures by chance, if the pre-determined trends are compatible with their ambitions. Their statuses may live on for a while after not fitting in with a trend, but they have to retire. They are exiled by internal forces from the spotlight of "fame".

11) Of course, the darling can do their occupations well. That is, perhaps, their greatest revenge- they often deserve their accolade, at least initially. Even at that stage, hyperbole is their enemy, employed by their friends and aspiring successors, the masses of people who skim-read descriptions of them and their character and their achievements. They interpret what they want and insert their own meanings, making their accolades a reflection of their good taste.

12) More often than not, the darlings are not social prophets. Their opinions are nothing new or spellbinding. They merely echo their influences, often obscure or forgotten. By intention or not, the darling presents themselves as successors of them, or pass these influences off as their own.

13) A small proportion of darlings do not actually want to be darlings. These darlings are rebellious, in the sense that they actually aim to achieve and not to brag about achieving very little. They also have a personality which considers egotism not as something foreign, but uncommon. They often wish to diminish their own authority, not for others, but because it isn't right for them. An honest darling! How rare! They get rarer by the day, unfortunately.

14) The majority of us have icons, which we uphold with respect. However, one darling every so often idolises themselves to the point of martyrdom- even when this is stupid! Oh, what fools! They bleed themselves dry to enhance their pretentious ideas with their restless melodrama. These darlings want to save all of us- from what? Our own desires? Oh, they are textbook moralists. In their bubbles, they are gold medalists of the oppression Olympics of our time. They make laws which they break so they can punish themselves, punishment for us all, but which only advances their agendas and make themselves the centre of attention which they crave inside, but are oh too modest to reveal. Even in confidentiality, the truth is never out.

15) Darlings are necessary to the pseudo-society, and may even have relevance in the society of neutrality, but are not enough on their own to sustain it. Appraisal only goes so far and eventually new ones come along with new ideas and new methods of poisoning everything. This can only be aided by the opposition.

16) Even in the simplest of minds, darlings are complex. Yet, only they can close off all grey areas to replace with binary oppositions. They are here to convince the weak-minded and vulnerable that they are the pinnacles of society, and the others are mere dogs. They are the Objectivists of self-appointed cultism. This over-simplification of everything also seeps it way into the practices of the darlings' hobbies, who try to appease those it considers inferior, as well as masking the fact that they are not participants but figureheads used for popular support.

Comments & reviews · 3
Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.

User avatar
Mea
Review
Mea wrote a review · Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:58 am

Hey there! I'm here for a quick review.

So, I like this piece, but I can see why it's hung out in the Green Room for a while, as it's a bit difficult to review. Your way with words is impressive, but I'll do my best anyway.

I had two main problems with this piece, and I believe they are related.

1. At the end of it, I felt like I had read a whole paper written by someone who was super-smart and knew what they were talking about, but none of it had been absorbed. None of it felt concrete. All the right words were there - the construction of the paragraphs was exemplary, each point felt distinct, but in the end I came away not really sure what I was supposed to take away from it. It has a problem I've noticed a lot in things like articles on social stuff - it's full of what seem to be very specific, very descriptive words, but when I peer closer, as a whole it doesn't seem to mean anything.

And to be honest, I haven't figured out why this is the case. I think it may have something to do with an inherent problem in talking about society and/or morality - differences in worldview and vocabulary. For example, I'm sure you've noticed that if you read articles by people on different sides of the political spectrum, each side has its own set of "buzzwords," it's own set of terms to describe the way they look at the world, and those don't make sense to anyone who doesn't have a similar worldview. (I think this is also why both sides bash each other a lot.)

A good example of this is that when you say "Objectivists of self-appointed cultism," that's great. I'm sure you know exactly what you're talking about and I'm sure it's a brilliant insight. But words like "objectivists" have little to no meaning to the layman, to those who don't spend the time you do talking about those sorts of philosophies. We can guess that they're people who like to be objective, but that's a ridiculously general term. And what on earth is "self-appointed cultism," and in what way is it different from normal cultism?

2. You really should clarify what you mean by "darlings." I understand if you may have wanted to construct a definition of darling throughout the piece, but "darling" is one of those terms that could literally mean anything in the context you're using it, and the "empty" feeling of the rest of the piece doesn't help. The best I can figure is that they're people loved by society or something.

Finally, this piece doesn't really have a conclusion. I was hoping there would be one, because I thought it would clear up a few things. Generally, conclusions are a good idea, to tie everything together.

I hope this helped, and good luck with future writing!

User avatar
Tecumseh
Comment

Although your work picks up quickly in quality of content and prose, the opening of your work is confusing because it's vague and grammatically nuanced in a way that obscures the meaning of the sentence. I personally did not catch on to any 'hook' in your writing, so perhaps it is worthwhile to check with other people to see if they also found the opening a bit odd and a poor sell.

Overall, I think you could benefit much from being more clear as to what a 'darling' is in the beginning, since the concept of what a 'darling' is develops veeerrryyy slowly over time. Perhaps building the concept over time is your intent, but in this work, the pace is very slow, almost off-puttingly so.

I like the syllable pattern, the brutal connotations, and the alliteration in "They can also give verbal beheadings to a smidgen of scepticism," it's a very strong sentence and definitely a keeper. "They make laws which they break so they can punish themselves, punishment for us all" is also a great sentence, and "In their bubbles, they are gold medalists of the oppression Olympics of our time" made me grin. Were it not for these highlights, I really would have just stopped reading because of the slow pacing I personally perceived, but I can tell you've got something up your sleeve that can really shine if you clean up your opening.

There are a couple of confusing points that merit pointing out:
In point #3 , "their paranoia" is stated as if it were already a factor. It's confusing because it sort of exacerbates the problem where your opening states that darlings are a thing and that people hate darlings, but not what a darling actually is. So, we don't know they have paranoia until you tell us, and here you're telling us as if we already know.

In point #11 , " That is, perhaps, their greatest revenge- they often deserve their accolade, at least initially" -- I really like 'their greatest revenge' as a phrase since it sounds great, but revenge for what, exactly, is untold. It's a sort of continuation of a problem like the mention of 'their paranoia' that makes the work feel very disorganized. Accolades is used twice here, if you care about that sort of thing.

In point #15 , I am not sure what a "the" pseudo-society is, if this is a work for a targeted audience who knows what that is, then cool! But the "the" suggests that this pseudo-society is a specific thing that I should have a notion of by now. Maybe it's just me.

User avatar
Gristlecharm
Review

Hi there.
I have read your work and I think the tone and style is very prim and concise. I like that because it makes it easier to read. Your content is very telling and also seems quite passive-aggressive in nature - that's just the way it's been presented. However, it does follow that the points you make can be represented in real life.
I like this piece, although sometimes it can be a little word-heavy and you use a lot of big, complicated phrases such as: "They espouse their rhetoric on varying platforms..." I understand what you mean, but I have to think hard to work it out. Perhaps that was done intentionally, but if not, I would consider that you're already probing your reader's moral opinions, with this style of language you're challenging their comprehension of it too.

Keep writing.



In the winter months, gale storms in Svalbard can reach wind speeds of 130 km/h. Accompanied by or following snowfall, such storms can reduce visibility dramatically, more so in the winter months of the polar night. During these storms, travel is not advised.
— The Documentarian