A Christmas anecdote

*
I was walking down a long hallway in the research complex where I work and spied a pleasant co-worker approaching me from the opposite side of a set of double doors. He is a pleasant fellow, as I mentioned, but sometimes just a bit too breezy in communication style to conform to my expectations for professional interpersonal communications.

I said to myself, "I'll bet this joker is going to say 'Happy Happy!" as a greeting when he walks by me, so I must restrain the demon within me that wishes to laugh in his face or even, on a cranky day, punch him in the neck. Yet also I must reply with an appropriate degree of Yuletide good will in order that I not mar or dent his high spirits."

So this gentleman straight-arms the double doors, bursting through immediately with the following tidings: "Have a Happy and a Merry!!!"

"Same to you!" I replied, and I really meant it at the maximum sincerity level of which I am capable in such exchanges.

As we walked our separate directions, I heard him saying, "I fully intend to... if only the weather will cooperate... murble snurble muf noff etc...."

Holiday Greetings from StuporMundi. Have a Merry and a Happy!!! It has been so decreed. Long live StuporMundi.

International Journal of Nana Studies 1(2)

Background and Objective

Nana enjoys making conversation that employs special forms of logic of her own origin. The objective of this report is to examine nanoconversation Way 2, known as Pretzel Logic. This way of nanoconversation may not be dismissed as an artifact of Nana's inability to apply communal forms of reasoning to a simple set of facts, but it is better understood as a highly refined mode of social interaction where no obvious basis for such activity is in evidence.

Analysis

When employing Nanoconversation* Way 2, Nana begins with a statement festooned with more hooks than a Rapala jigging shad rap, any one of which may snag the living flesh of a person temporarily attracted by the glint of it. Then, once nanoconversation is initiated, Nana will use her free-range associative capabilities to advance the talk in any direction that simulates a logical interaction.

The following example is a typical application, wherein Nana comments upon an invitation to Sunday breakfast, telephoned to her on Saturday evening:

Nana: I almost broke my neck getting to the phone last night. I'd just gone to bed.
StuporMundi: Don't you have a phone in your bedroom?
Nana: No.
StuporMundi: Would you like me to put one in there for you?
Nana: No, I have another phone somewhere.
StuporMundi: Well, I can hook it up in your bedroom for you if you want.
Nana: No, it would always be in a place I couldn't get to it.

Discussion

As with other ways of nanoconversation, the central motivation for Pretzel Logic is to construct a controversy, a mystery, or another rhetorical framework designed to maximize interaction based on the minimal amount of substance. In the example above, the rhetorical framework was an implicit unjustified admonishment. The genius occurs when an attempt to correct the imaginary transgression (i.e., installing a telephone in a convenient bedtime location) is rebuffed with a logic that indicates no corrective measures are possible under conditions normally prevailing in the universe.

Conclusion

Nana enjoys maximal conversation with minimal intellectual or factual input. Nanoconversation Way 2, Pretzel Logic, enables Nana to insert drama into a mundane event, imply external blame or responsibility for said event, then rebuff offers of help or reparations with the sort of recursive reasoning that drove Hal 9000 into a fateful series of illegal operations.
_____________________________

*Erratum [Int'l Journ. Nan. Studies 1(1)]

In the subject issue of this journal, the term nanoconversation was incorrectly conflated completely with nanoconversation Way 1. That variety of nanoconversation is correctly identified as "smallest talk". The editor regrets the error, and this erratum has been posted as a late update to the subject issue of this journal.

International Journal of Nana Studies 1(1)

Background and Objective

Nana has several ways of "making conversation." The objective of this report is to examine Way 1.

Analysis and Discussion

Way 1 consists of the following steps:

1. Make a statement that is preposterous, ambiguous, or shocking.
2. Wait for other person's inevitable request for clarification or more information.
3. Pretend not to understand why any clarification is necessary, thereby prompting more needless preliminary conversation.
4. Eventually make the actual statement that was intended, which always turns out to be mundane and just barely warranting a reply.
5. Hope for further response from the other person, especially expressions of perplexity or frustration.

The following example is a typical application:

Nana (chipper voice): There was a murder here at our complex yesterday... right in our back yard.
StuporMundi: What do you mean in your "back yard"?!
N: What I can see right out my window.
SM: What?! You sound awfully cheery about...
N: Pigeon.
SM: What? It was a pigeon?
N: Yes.
SM: Then why would you say there was a murder...?
N: There was a murder. It looks like a hawk or something got it. There was a big pile of feathers....

Conclusion

Nana enjoys "making conversation," and will do so irrespective of whether there is anything to talk about. This general philosophy of making conversation is often referred to as "small talk." Way 1 is most useful when wanting to make conversation about subjects that are even too small for small talk.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Nana Conversational Methodology, Way 1, be referred to as "Nanoconversation."

Late update (2 January 2008): Erratum

In the above recommendation, the generic term nanoconversation was incorrectly conflated completely with Nanoconversation Way 1. This variety (i.e., way) of nanoconversation is correctly identified as "Smallest Talk". The keyword list for this posting has been amended to reflect the correct nomenclature. The editor sincerely regrets the error.