Were we already that desperate for content? Well, you guys want a chapter, so there was nothing to complain about. Although the whole premise seemed a bit crazy to me. But I ain't making the rules here, I was merely an author trying to avoid getting sued for copyright.
What would the word "want" want? The "want" wanted to be loved like everyone else, to be wanted and desired like all the other terms in the whole world. It wanted its wants and needs to be met and to be used properly in your average sentence.
"Want" already knew that it was far outclassed by its brother desire, so it was satisfied being a word for beginners and starters alike.
From the moment "Want" had been formed in the year of c. 1200, from the Old Norse vanta ("To lack") did it know that it was inherently lacking. It would only be used to mention the missing other elements.
This might never have been what "Want" would have wanted to happen, yet the speakers wanted it so and thus "Want" became the want it was today.
Questions of what I was doing with my life flashed through my eyes, as I sat on this moaning bench.
Billy, Forest Dumptruck and I were currently slightly confused as to what the end goal of this whole thing was. One could not seriously expect this kind of thing to go on and on till the end of time, right?
Or would I have to continuously make stuff up, till even the tiniest amount of subatomic particles had been mentioned?
Welp, there was no helping it the show had to go on regardless...
Did you know that "Want" was wanted in 52 states for illegal possession of firearms and selling his brother into prostitution? Rich snobs with their verbose verbiage had always desired its little brother "desire" and they were fulfilling their darkest desires on this poor word."
Was this what you wanted to know about the criminal "Want"? Don't you wanna know what it did to its other brothers? Do you wanna know what happened to require, crave and need????
Yes, nobody should learn about the horrible things that one word could do in order to satisfy its animalistic urges.
"Want" should never be given the publicity for these horrendous acts of depravity.
No, this was more of a memorandum to tell the world that there were other words besides want and that their spirit would live on should people actually use these terms for once in their lives.
It is what they would have wanted after suffering through all that wanton destruction for actions. Wantingly they had begged for help, but they had no wands so there was no magic to save them.
No wanterwoman to free them from their chains, no unwanted lovers or friends came to their rescue; they were all alone. Trapped forevermore in a dictionary that nobody would ever read on a voluntary basis.
So, in their spirit feel free to use these foreign, rare words and remember the short life they had lived under "Want's" tyranny.
Let us move away from the murderous capabilities of the said cursed word for a hot second because the current plot point could not be continued elsewise.
Was the question not something entirely different? Remember what could a word like "want" truly want, in the first place? Was it not that we try to give meaning to a word, that which we ourselves have given that meaning beforehand?
Consequently, was it not a general consensus what "want" could really want, since the word was a general decision made by each and every speaker?
And as such should the question not be what we would want the word the "want" to want?
If it was a generalized concept, generally accepted by the ones to use the word, was it really okay to define a state under these kinds of circumstances by the sum of its collective users or should one rather consult the individual, who came to pose such a question?
Thus, under the assumption that such a decision was subjected to interpersonal interpretation should one not see it as the wanted deduction based on one's own morals and biases?
Not only that, would such a perspective not make a discussion of this nature void? Simply by the act of being, could any intended meaning be deemed invalid by any individual, who deemed it necessary so?
Furthermore, with language being a construct that constantly develops and changes words would it not stand to reason, that such a question was fruitless and pointless?
On the other hand, timely discussions about matters at hand and about the purpose of language were a necessity to find the aforementioned general consensus on that matter.
It was my personal belief, that any word regardless of its origin takes up different meanings at the same time. One was the interpersonal, subjective interpretation of any individual who came to use a word for their cause.
The second was the defined meaning people could agree on and the one that was usually found in dictionaries.
To sum up, the point made here. If the word "want" could want one thing, it was the wanted intent made by its speakers in the affiliated context it was used in.
Since people should not forget this certain fact, it was still just a simple word.
This whole discussion might have caused you to see it in a different light if by chance you read it and not simply ignored it and jumped straight to the next chapter.
But the word want wanted nothing at all. It was a god darn word.
We had a moaning park bench, yet words could not be sentient...
....if we could please just accept this lesson without questioning it again. Lest we started another debate that would cost me even more hours of my life. Please, for once just nod your little head and be done with it.
That would be really swell ma guy.
And to honour your request, lemme tell you a little secret of mine. Something very special was coming tomorrow to celebrate the 100th chapter.
I could hardly wait, what random bs I would have to make up for it.
Till then... happy reading and stay hungry in wanting more!!!!