And, he loves him some french press coffee.

Frank is thinking that Farhad might actually know what he's talking about. For once.

I'm glad I don't use Facebook, if this is the sort of dopey stuff it causes you to think about.

"Joseph is of the mind that Flaubert was superior to Proust." versus "Joseph club bird drag knuckles get bloody." Totally even playing field, guys!

Seriously, content is what matters, and a half-assed linguistic gymnastic maneuver (which I've had to pull myself) is no substitution for wit, nor will the freedom from same lower the level of "dialogue."

I'm of the mind (there's that phrase again) that Facebook had little reason to keep the forced "is" in the status update template; perhaps they enjoyed the verbal pretzels we had to make when we played along, and/or the mangled wrecks of baked dough we created when we didn't.

Why must I pay for this pathetic drivel.

For once I agree with Farhad. Strictures do encourage creativity, and the writer must be more clever in submitting to the limitations.

Here's an example. For years I've had great fun writing drabbles, which are stories told in exactly 100 words, with titles no more than 15 words in length. The experience of writing one of these runs the gamut from relatively easy to incredibly difficult, depending on the subject and the complexity of the story one wants to tell. That very difficulty is what's so intriguing about writing one of these. At times, you have to comb carefully through your vocabulary to find the right word that will allow the whole thing to fit into the requirements. It's great fun.

But recently I've been noticing that a lot of people have decided to redefine the term "drabble" to mean stories of 125 words, or 150, or 200 or 136 or whatever length they ended up with before they got tired or bored and decided they wanted to stop. Instead of giving up and admitting they can't (or won't) complete the task, they cheat and change the rules.

Okay, it's not a huge deal, but I have to wonder why so many people are so impatient or lazy or just uninterested in our language, in words, in communication, that they'll automatically go for the easiest way even if it's not the most accurate, or doesn't communicate what the writer really wants to say. I'm no big fan of the passive voice, but Farhad is right in that because the rule limits a particular part of the sentence (the verb), it automatically forces the writer to consider just how to use that one verb to cover any circumstance. Perhaps the people who use Facebook aren't particularly interested in having their writing skills or linguistic agility challenged and possibly improved.

Don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with being challenged—writers almost always have to work within constraints of one kind or another. Everything from a business memo to a multi-volume fantasy epic requires writers to be cognizant not only of stylistic expectations but often stricter rules. I'm currently working on a 600-word feature with a number of constraints, and since it's a new form for me I'm forced to learn a lot about compressing a lot of information into a short essay in a way that's compelling.

A drabble does the same, and while I don't think it has to be 100 words necessarily, I do think that one of the values is that the limit is fixed ahead of time, requiring the writer to challenge him- or herself.

But a Facebook status update? If anything, the "is" requirement teaches writers to use the weakest construction in the English language. But more likely than not it has little, if any, effect on writers except to be annoying. If you're so committed to the passive voice in your own updates, then use the passive voice. But suggesting there's some higher value in forcing everyone into the passive voice in a situation so trivial is pretentious nonsense.

Jazztao is laughing aloud and greatly appreciates this blog-post! Thanks, Farhad.

For the letters so far complaining that facebook makes you use the passive voice... it doesn't.

Here's a quick and dirty guide to what is and isn't passive voice:

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/passivevoice.html

I can't believe anyone even cares... there are about 10 billion more important things to discuss than something this ridiculously anal and trite.

That link doesn't really refute what you suggest it refutes, shop. Many of Farhad's admittedly amusing examples are in the passive voice. "Farhad is hoping Facebook reconsiders" made me laugh, but in another context, that construction would just be another example of what I think of as creeping J.K.Rowingitis.

Valuable information at the link though.

My own initial comment was meant mostly as a gag, though I tend to agree with the fellow who argues that forcing the use of the "is" construction doesn't really challenge writers. While it is certainly true (ahem) that use of the "to be" verb form doesn't always and irrevocably result in the passive voice, and while the passive voice shouldn't be viewed as one hundred percent verboten, the fact remains that passive constructions tend to be weak and too many writers rely on them, to their detriment.

In the end, Farhad's examples entertain, but, this is Facebook we're talking about here. Who actually cares? (I mean, aside from Farhad.)

Creativity thrives within limits. Remove limits and you don't need to create so much.

"Is" was (ha!) a nice restriction that put people into the mode of stating behavior, position or some other physicality. That's an interesting thing to bring to a medium that is nothing BUT option and state.

"[Some silly girl] likes to dance"? Who cares?

People who are friends already know these things, but often like to know what their friends are up to, or where they are, etc.

Facebook just got more myspacey.

So Farhad AND God of Biscuits (great handle, by the way) care.

Exactly! Though one might argue it was pointless keeping the "is" since everyone was ignoring it anyway and creating monstrous linguistic abominations in the process. But the point of it was that it DID force you to be creative in constraints. Everything is the same as nothing - the fact that you were working with a limit forced you and other people to pay more attention to that limit. So when I typed "the walrus" to have "Alex is the walrus" show up on my page, the deliberate incorporation of the constraint came off at least slightly witty, whereas the same thing typed without said constraint is just a pointless reference entirely lacking in context. Props for picking up on these linguistic subtleties.