 |
To
the unitiated, the title of
this essay might, at first sight, appear to be something of a misnomer.
After all, there are two common definitions of the word
"gratuitous", neither of which fit the central conceit of the theory
being described. In law terms, gratuitous is defined as, "that which
benefits one party only"; a definition not applicable to a theory
describing a mutual contract; that is, one intended to benefit both
parties.
More commonly, gratuitous is defined as, "that which is done or given
for no purpose". This definition has even less relevance to the theory
which we are dealing with. Indeed, it may even appear contradictory,
since the Theory of the Gratuitous serves a very definite purpose. A
purpose apparently complex (this is its intention) - yet on
closer inspection, stunningly simple.
The title of this essay is, in fact, highly accurate, thanks to a definition of gratuity (the root word from which gratuitous derives); "an acknowledgment of service". This definition perfectly encompasses all that the Theory of the Gratuitous sets out to demonstrate; and can therefore be offered as a verbal (and spiritual) example of the "ulterior motive" that is the theory of the gratuitous' raison d'etre.
Certainly, an element of risk is involved in such a scenario; but provided it is satisfactorily executed, with style and with stealth (the drawing in of the sucker, the gradual realisation that this is their role, the continuation of the "con", even beyond the moment of denouement), the results can (financially, as well as artistically) be truly spectacular. We hope so, at least.
The title of this essay is, in fact, highly accurate, thanks to a definition of gratuity (the root word from which gratuitous derives); "an acknowledgment of service". This definition perfectly encompasses all that the Theory of the Gratuitous sets out to demonstrate; and can therefore be offered as a verbal (and spiritual) example of the "ulterior motive" that is the theory of the gratuitous' raison d'etre.
Broadly,
the
theory of the gratuitous can be described as follows: if "A" decides
(by means of
deception)
to extract the assets of "B", some
form of enticement must be utilised; a means of attracting B's
attention and holding it long enough to gain his
interest. If successful, the chances are immeasurably increased of
individual A going
on to extract such assets as are desired from B (also known as the
"sucker"). It must be
said, however, that the more amusing and
entertaining the initial enticement, the likelier it is that A (also
known as the "hustler") will succeed in retaining the confidence and
trust of the sucker; in which case they will continue to serve as
a
likely source of income. Indeed, if the hustler
succeeds in achieving the Theory of the Gratuitous' highest goal
(letting the prospective sucker in on the fact that they are being
enticed, while continuing to retain their trust), not only will the
most noble levels of artistry in the area of denouement/deception have
been attained, but the sucker will also thereafter be a form of "easy
meat", with which the hustler will be able to do
whatever they damn well please.
Certainly, an element of risk is involved in such a scenario; but provided it is satisfactorily executed, with style and with stealth (the drawing in of the sucker, the gradual realisation that this is their role, the continuation of the "con", even beyond the moment of denouement), the results can (financially, as well as artistically) be truly spectacular. We hope so, at least.
