Loaded Words

[Parson]

I have been thinking about word use and the freight they carry. Although I write little, I speak much, and word choice is always critical. This was really brought more sharply into focus for me yesterday when Donald Trump called the impeachment "evil" and "wicked." Those words hit my very hard. In my profession "evil" and "wicked" carry a lot of freight which I understand might not be so for the "normal" or "common" person. If I were to characterize the impeachment proceeding from the view point of someone who felt that Trump had been a victim, I would have used words like "unfair" and "mean spirited." So my questions are these: Am I out of touch to view those differing sets of words as having very different meanings and tone? How much attention needs to be paid to the literal meaning of the words verses their popular understanding? How do you get a handle on how other people will understand a word and how much freight they will put on it?

 

[The Judge]

Personally I'd only use "evil" and "wicked" for things which really are, though I'm aware the latter, at least, has/had a meaning of great and marvellous among the young, at least for a time. But then, I'm probably as out of date as you are, Parson, when it comes to such things!

Words do carry weight, and I find it objectionable when their use is degraded. But even I have to acknowledge that words change in meaning -- "sophisticated" has changed dramatically since it was first coined, let alone more commonplace words like "awful" and "terrible". When I write I do pay attention both to the original meaning of a word and its common use, but usually its modern meaning is the one that has to hold sway even if I'm writing in the equivalent of the Middle Ages, which often means I won't use a word as its connotations nowadays won't fit with what I want.


With my mod's hat on: although Parson has picked up usage by the US President which has brought about this thread, please remember that we don't talk politics here, so we shan't be referring to Donald Trump again, nor any other politician. Please keep this thread to a discussion of word use, nothing else.

 

[farntfar]

I would agree with you, Parson, that the use of the word evil is on an entirely different level to the use of unfair or mean-spirited.
Although not one who really believes in the concept of evil as a force, accusing a person or group of being evil is a very great accusation, implying that their very nature is corrupt, rather than simply their choices or judgements.
Of course after his tendancy to call anyone who disagrees with his slightest word nasty etc., expressed as always with such bitterness in his voice, I suppose using unfair or mean-spirited would come over rather mildly.
But such is the problem with superlatives. Once you have used worst, there isn't anywhere to go. (The sort of "better than best-ever whiskas" that we hear so often in advertising.)

 

[sknox]

I try not to use such words as if everyone agreed upon their denotation, still less their connotation. If a word like evil comes up in a story, I would try to let the reader know what the word meant *to that character*.

To move away from the realm of morals and ethics, consider a word like dragon. It would be a mistake for an author to drop in that word assuming that everyone would be picturing the same thing. It's incumbent on the author to describe that particular dragon, to create the sort of impression the story needs at that particular point. The impression could change over the course of the story. Or it could also be unimportant how the reader envisioned the dragon--for example, if it's merely a term dropped, or it's a statue of a dragon that has no impact on the story.

So it would be with fairness, evil, and that whole family of words. If it's important to the story, it needs context and nuance. The only thing wrong to do would be to have it be important but unexplored by the author. IOW, the load is entirely on the author.

 

[Elckerlyc]

People may use certain words because they feel they're appropriate given a certain situation.
People who do not care or fully understand their meaning and/ or the impact it may have on others.
Then there are people who use such words purposefully to taint a situation or be hurtful.
And overuse and over time de-valuates or changes the meaning of words.

You will need to look at the person, age, background and his/her possible motives to understand why they speak as they do. To get a handle on that means getting knowing the person better. But personally, if I have the choice, I would be more inclined to go out of the way of people who speak like that so easily and casually.
'Wicked' means something different to young people nowadays, I believe. But in combination with 'evil' there seems little doubt how it is meant.

 

[Parson]

But such is the problem with superlatives. Once you have used worst, there isn't anywhere to go.

This is a very good point. And I would agree that it's something that modern society as a whole is leaning into. Everything is extraordinary to the point when something even more comes along there is no place to ramp up to. Does this mean that somehow we who use words professionally might need to set an example here? Or is the over superlative so dominate that anything less sounds half-hearted?

If it's important to the story, it needs context and nuance. The only thing wrong to do would be to have it be important but unexplored by the author. IOW, the load is entirely on the author.

I love this! In our story telling it is important that we set boundaries and contexts in such a way that that the import of what is being said is graduated in such a way that our listeners comprehend what is being said.

'Wicked' means something different to young people nowadays, I believe. But in combination with 'evil' there seems little doubt how it is meant.

Another important point! When a word has a range of meanings (and it seems to me that most do), it is critically important to point our audience in the direction of the appropriate meaning. This is likely why "evil" and "wicked" struck me even more strongly than either of them by themselves might have.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Trump’s rhetoric (and others, Johnston is another) remind me of selecting Amazon key words. Unjust is not hard hitting enough to gain attention but evil is. The use of language is being changed by SM and also attention spans that must be grabbed and held and not more nuanced thought

 

[tinkerdan]

My only comment is that there is a lot of this type of word usage coming from that person and it begins to sound divisive. I'm deeply afraid that(with no one tempering the output)we are heading in some dangerous territory.

It is highlighted by a similar choice of words for those in his own party who speak against him. I am convinced that this is by deliberate choice(knowing what the words are chosen to do). Even when he misspells and makes up words.

This is my reaction to it; however I'm a democrat and that biases me.

 

[Elckerlyc]

... and also attention spans that must be grabbed and held and not more nuanced thought

Yes, the world today is too agitated and hectic for there to be room for nuances or putting things in perspective. It's BANG and move on.

 

[Parson]

The use of language is being changed by SM and also attention spans that must be grabbed and held and not more nuanced thought

What does it say about me that I had to look up SM because my first reading of that went entirely in a different direction? Anyway, good point! Our world is definitely winding up the rhetoric to the point that @tinkerdan is almost modest when he states the following:

I'm deeply afraid that(with no one tempering the output)we are heading in some dangerous territory.

As I finish writing this I see that @Elckerlyc makes the very same point.

But how should we react? Is there someway we can help to turn down the volume? Or should we even try?

 

[The Big Peat]

Much as I love precise language, I feel like ensuring everybody understands exactly what I mean by a word, the exact pitch of emotion and everything, is hard to the point of impossible if one is trying to communicate across the entire Anglosphere. To pick a few easy examples - mad has different usages on each side of the pond; the slang usage of batty as crazy that I'm familiar with from my youth probably wouldn't fly so well in the Caribbean community; wicked has already been touched on...

And that's without considering what might be the real thrust of Parson's post, which is the moral and emotional bars that people have to cross to use words. There certainly are people who throw around the word Evil far more readily than Parson does - which doesn't actually necessarily mean they hold the word in any less value or weight than he does, but could mean they seek to be more provocative and less measured than he would. More light heartedly, a male teenager's stereotypical willingness to use the word love when talking about a song vs their friends is different to that of an older man. And so on and so on. Actually, forget the first paragraph that I can't be bothered to delete. I agree with him that people do approach certain words differently while agreeing on the exact same definition but would say it is really hard to get accuracy on the why and how across demographics.

I do however think that in terms of giving individual characters depth and verisimilitude, knowing how they weigh their words has a certain use to say the least.

 

[Parson]

And that's without considering what might be the real thrust of Parson's post, which is the moral and emotional bars that people have to cross to use words. There certainly are people who throw around the word Evil far more readily than Parson does - which doesn't actually necessarily mean they hold the word in any less value or weight than he does, but could mean they seek to be more provocative and less measured than he would.

Parson shakes his head. How is it that someone else can see a truth about me that I myself can't see? I would say after reading it that @The Big Peat has nailed the unrecognized emotions behind my original post very well. I try to be a circumspect person, especially in my use of words. I am all too aware of how words can hurt worse than the person using them imagines. So I try hard for measured language. But maybe that's a mistake? Maybe in order to be heard we have to be wild, controversial, and out there on the edge. Maybe I when I preach I should channel my inner George Whitefield and preach passionately about "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." ---- I wouldn't because my rule is that you have to be yourself or you are a phony.

But is measured a good trait to be noticed as an author or a politician?

 

[farntfar]

But how should we react? Is there someway we can help to turn down the volume? Or should we even try?

The only way we can possibly react is by example.
Whether in writing or sermons and public speaking, or just general conversation, using words and ideas with different nuances rather than simply the BANG BANG of modern soundbites, as Elckerlyc says, will hopefully show that there is far more power and meaning in the long term by doing so, even if extreme words have a more immediate impact.
The danger is that the more superlatives are used on all occasions, the less they end up meaning.

As one who used expletives with little care in my youth, I know how hard it was to find a particularly good one when it became really necessary.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Perhaps @Parson its about the why and not the how. If we have a strong message maybe we need to convey it so it can be heard.

 

[tinkerdan]

I've no doubt that social media does influence the usage of terms; however there are some people who are ducking behind the 'protection' stream of social media while using those words with full knowledge of what they mean to say; and I'm of the opinion that it is dangerous and already out of control.
I've no idea how to address it...and I'm not sure if ignoring it will make it go away.

It's as though we have gone from peer pressure to stop public flaming on line, to acceptance of the more subtle public flaming.

Again just my opinion.

 

[The Big Peat]

Parson shakes his head. How is it that someone else can see a truth about me that I myself can't see? I would say after reading it that @The Big Peat has nailed the unrecognized emotions behind my original post very well. I try to be a circumspect person, especially in my use of words. I am all too aware of how words can hurt worse than the person using them imagines. So I try hard for measured language. But maybe that's a mistake? Maybe in order to be heard we have to be wild, controversial, and out there on the edge. Maybe I when I preach I should channel my inner George Whitefield and preach passionately about "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." ---- I wouldn't because my rule is that you have to be yourself or you are a phony.

But is measured a good trait to be noticed as an author or a politician?

I believe it should be, and that if we want it to be, we must live as though that is possible - although a measured individual must still recognise there are times where the correct measure is a very big one, and probably even more times where it is a controversial one. If we notice our words do not grab as much attention, then we must use them to the correct people, and use our close relationships with people to get people to pay attention.

In any case, I do not believe the world mostly desired by those who are careful of the hurt that can be caused by accident can be achieved by wild anger. If it is the only way today, we must find another one.


p.s. It is always easier to see other people's problems clearly!


Actually - extra thought.

I recently finished Karl Marlantes' "What It Is Like To Go To War" and there is a passage that I think might resonate:

"The substitute for war is not peace; peace is a seldom-achieved political state of being. The substitutes are spirituality, love, art, and creativity, all achievable through individual hard work".

We can't expect all the people with loud brash opinions - the social warriors - to embrace circumspection and measured speech; that's not who they are, or their times are. And sometimes we harm ourselves if we try to hold too hard to being measured in reaction. The answer is instead to take that passion to creative, positive ventures and spend it there.

 

[-K2-]

I have been thinking about word use and the freight they carry. Although I write little, I speak much, and word choice is always critical. This was really brought more sharply into focus for me yesterday when Donald Trump called the impeachment "evil" and "wicked." Those words hit my very hard. In my profession "evil" and "wicked" carry a lot of freight which I understand might not be so for the "normal" or "common" person. If I were to characterize the impeachment proceeding from the view point of someone who felt that Trump had been a victim, I would have used words like "unfair" and "mean spirited." So my questions are these: Am I out of touch to view those differing sets of words as having very different meanings and tone? How much attention needs to be paid to the literal meaning of the words verses their popular understanding? How do you get a handle on how other people will understand a word and how much freight they will put on it?

The over use of such words, coupled with actions, is a scenario that is novel worthy

@-K2- does that give you any ideas?

Why yes it did, 3 years ago for that matter... Now if i can just get the editing finished

BTW @Brian G Turner and others have critiqued my over use of verbs, but appropriately to this discussion, the over use of adverbs and adjectives in my MS. Well I'm here to tell you, though your all's suggestions bore weight, the real turn for me came when reviewing some of the wacky things my Mad Clown character *ahem* says... If there has ever been a model example to NOT use excessive adj/adv, or exaggerate, my... Mad Clown CHARACTER, is it

K2

 

[Pyan]

...appropriately to this discussion, the over use of adverbs and adjectives in my MS.

A lot of that (IMHO) is down to the modern taste for pared-down, show-don't-tell, adjectives (and adverbs)-lite writing. I really doubt if something like this would get published today...

Paris rawly waking, crude sunlight on her lemon streets. Moist pith of farls of bread, the froggreen wormwood, her matin incense, court the air. Belluomo rises from the bed of his wife’s lover’s wife, the kerchiefed housewife is astir, a saucer of acetic acid in her hands. In Rodot’s Yvonne and Madeleine newmake their tumbled beauties, shattering with gold teeth chaussons of pastry, their mouths yellowed with the pus of flan breton. Faces of Paris men go by, their wellpleased pleasers, curled conquistadores.

James Joyce - Ulysses

But I think the Parson is right - ne quid nimis.

 

[sknox]

I can't really speak to the nature of public discourse. Oh wait, yes I can. That phrase just did it for me. "Public" made me think "pub." I'm not at all convinced that the sort of things being said in social media are really all that far from what could once be heard in the local pub or at the village well. I can certainly point to some very public medieval correspondence that's as vitriolic as anything we hear today, and the temperature level only rose further during the Reformation.

But I kinda sorta don't care. I'm focused on writing. And there I wanted to respond to
>mad has different usages on each side of the pond
It does, but more to the point it reverberates differently from one reader to the next. And even with the same reader at different stages of their life. The author can't know.

Which is why I rattled on about context. We can't just say "mad" or "evil" or "orc" and expect the reader to see what we see, feel what we feel. I see this sort of question get asked all the time by new writers. "I can't think of another word for X" or something along those lines. It's not the word itself that matters, it's how it's used. If "mad" is what I'm after, I should be constructing the scene to deliver that word. Indeed, I ought to be able to have the scene without even needing the word (whatever it may be).

This isn't an absolute rule, of course. There are places where ambiguity is wanted. There are places where the word itself isn't all that important and the author doesn't care if there's a range of interpretations. There are also times when layers of meaning get added over the span of chapters. Such would be the case with orc or elf.

Precision in language is imprecise, which is precisely my point. Writers, more than anyone, are aware and embrace the many forms words can take, and the echoes they can sound.

 

[-K2-]

A lot of that (IMHO) is down to the modern taste for pared-down, show-don't-tell, adjectives (and adverbs)-lite writing. I really doubt if something like this would get published today...

Yes, but if you ever listen to... err, I mean read, the Mad Clown character, your appreciation for the enhancement adj/adv. can bring would be forever sullied.

K2