It's been said that March is "mad" or displays a certain "madness," if you will. What I plan to show over the course of a few short sentences is that any and everyone who uses this terminology is a damned liar.
The little people who want you to believe that March (or any month, for that matter) can express emotion or would allow someone to anthropomorphize its weather patterns are out of their tiny minds. Last time I checked, March was an abstract idea, an amalgamation of days (themselves abstract) decided upon by a forgotten pope thousands of years ago. No way can it express how it feels, and I doubt that it would choose "mad," because that word can be interpreted many ways: "Bill was mad at Tony for bringing flan to the bake-off." Or "Madge was mad from hunger." Or "The plague spread madness to the far-outreaches of civilization."
If March was a person (it's not) and I could invite it to come over for fondue (which I can't) and we got to talking and reminiscing about when Villanova beat Georgetown in '85 and how great Glen Rice was when he went to Michigan, I believe I would call March "friendly" or even "knowledgable."
I would never call it "mad" or that it suffered from "madness"--unless it didn't like fondue and told me so, or it didn't agree with me about Glen Rice's college basketball career. But I probably wouldn't use "mad" or "madness." I would probably call March a "little pouty cry-baby" and that it was "crazy." But definitely not "mad." It's just not an apt description.
Posted by Ben Henry on March 25, 2004
Tags: Blog
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)