Board of Aldermen

Some silly people decided that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to writing, so with my moderate amount of power I've decided to fix the readership's attention on some basic issues of verbal expression.

I'd like to call attention to my title, ecriture. This, of course, means writing in French. Why, you might wisely ask, would I choose to use a French word when its English cousin is perfectly adequate and easier to grasp? There are a number of possible reasons: I thought "writing" was boring; I'm trying to prove I know some French; I like the idea of ostracizing my readership; I need to display my merit badge of a liberal college education; I really like Sartre. It's also possible that I have some fancy underlying meaning, which will only become apparent after you, the reader, spend some time unraveling the clever knot I have tied. Perhaps.

However, more often than not, the culprit in this situation is one of the first three reasons listed. Of those, our imp of the perverse usually manifests itself as the second or third. Note the obscurity that begins to overtake my clarity, as I both discuss abstractions and abstract myself further from them. Quite quickly you find yourself in a tornado of virtual non-meaning.

While I've demonstrated a number of undesirable textual situations, word choice is the one I want to draw your attention to. At this point, you can either read the rest of this or go find yourself a copy of "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell; I won't say much that he doesn't say, and he says a great deal more (and says it a great deal better) than I will.

I'll make this as clear as I can: writing an obscure word proves nothing positive about your character. Using an obscure word over a common one proves nothing about your intelligence. However, the habit of misusing large, obscure words--of mispronouncing them, of misapplying them--demonstrates a great deal about the insecurity of your character and the looseness of your intelligence.

Unless of course you are trying to trick your reader. If that is your concern, if you enjoy spending mental energy writing badly so that your reader will leave with a headache, then go right ahead--contrary to what some suppose, your reader will not beam with admiration at the size of your vocabulary, unless he is rather dim.

Or perhaps you happen to be the government. If this improbable situation is the case, first of all, let me say, hello, welcome to the blog, not really sure what you're doing here, most of us aren't very happy with you. Second, if you are the government, then verbal trickery is one of your specialties, and might be a necessary tool of your trade. Proceed.

If, on the other hand, you are an idealist, someone who, as often happens with those blessed with a liberal education, hates elitism, loathes the wealthy, and believes in some version of the Marx's proletarian revolution, then WHY WHY WHY would you choose to write with the largest and most disgustingly obscure and marginal words possible? Why would you, the anti-elitist, set up a hierarchical relationship between you and your reader as soon as possible? Why do you, O liberal minded philosopher, choose to preserve and maintain the same metaphysical and political relations between people that have endured for thousands of years? If your goal is to empower the disenfranchised, why do you make it impossible for them to gain anything from reading you?

Your answer will of course be something along the following lines: "there are words in Greek, Latin, French, German, and Russian that have no equivalents in English, and so unfortunately I must employ them." To this I respond, we all know that the Eskimos have twenty or thirty words for snow, that the Greeks have three or four words for love, etc. You're such a good multiculturalist. Have a cookie. While you eat your cookie, consider how you will define these terms for your readers so they will have some idea what you are talking about. If you cannot, then you are not competent to use the terms; if you "can," I will not be surprised if you misuse them, as this seems to be the usual state of affairs, and that still doesn't make it the best word.

I can talk about Bush's hamartia, or I can talk about Bush's arrogance, his narrowmindedness, his refusal to accept reality. Which alternative carries more weight? Which conveys something to the greater number of potential readers? And although it is nice to compare Bush to Oedipus or Achilles (actually it does them a disservice), which descriptors actually say something relevant and vivid about now, about Bush, about our political situation?

Don't get me wrong; it's delightful to sprinkle one's writing with terms from philosophical and literary theory. I try to make a regular habit of it. But from a simple rhetorical standpoint, it is simply silly to contradict your message with the form of your delivery--and this happens in the majority of class oriented manifestoes.

Then of course there is the globally misunderstood impact of curse words. Argument not strong enough? Call that guy a bitch! Everybody falls in line. And it's funny to be crass. After a while this gets old, and you look sloppy and vapid. A crazy drunk poet, one whom we might expect would encourage cursing in prose or poetry, once told me that curse words are lazy; they allow the writer to avoid actually saying anything. It's the equivalent of reaching the end of a sanctioned debate and then punching your opponent in the face.

Word choice of either form signifies the same thing--you have very little to say, you are concerned with your masculinity, and you have something to prove. And since you say next to nothing and most of what you do say is incomprehensible, the only person you've proven anything to is yourself.

Here it is, in all its bare-bones glory: stop waggling your penis in people's faces and actually consider your audience. The writer's goal ought to be communication, not masturbation. If you want to inflate your ego, a multitude of other media and activities surround you.

Fuck! Veritas! Shit! Gynocriticism! Mazarinades!

I feel more convinced already!

EINFUHLUNG

so........ghot oony ef thuse coikeses lerft? ife sho, watt kand? FYI, that confused and forlorn audience consists mostly of me....you sons of a bitches.

Aye, that crazy drunk poet had some suprisingly insightful things to say on occasion (and an unparalleled love of "The National Anthem").

On word choice, "waggling" is the most spot-on perfect word possible. Well done.

FK, they're peanut butter and they're all gone.

Just wanted to let you know that I have gotten more out of this piece than anything previously posted here or otherwise. Very insightful Professor.

I thought about putting something immature here to escape too much seriousness and real emotion, but it doesn't seem right. Let's just say it would involve me tattooing Veritas on my genitals.

You whet my appetite on two accounts. First, and what one might simply object to your argument, how do you respond to the openly elite? Is it perfectly within his intellectual commitments to touch up his words?
Next, I assume you erect a point past which it's acceptable for a professional to use his artistic language but must jettison it when he approaches the commoners. Am I right in this?

curses (words and gestures) should be used sparingly, else they further lose their already diluted meaning. in the past they held tremendous meaning (sword fights resulting from thumb bites) that's fizzled out through our raping of them in everyday speech. many the yokel replaces any good descriptor of his choosing and subs in the F-bomb further diluting the meaning of the curse. most youths belt curses out with a mighty fervor, under the impression that it makes them sound grown up which, sadly, just further entrenches them in juvenility which may or may not be a real word. it takes a wise mind to understand all that curses truly imply. I trust that if Leto, LHP, Luftwaffe, or the man with the same name as a Clint Eastwood movie chose to insert a foul word in a paper or post, that they would understand the curses true intent and use it to accentuate, not spoil. In short, have a valid reason to cuss or bite your tongue (advice i should take). Let’s put the bite back in the bastard bitch! now then, i believe PR asked a Q and i beseech Leto to whip up a fresh batch of peanut butter num nums.

Albino-Jocky:
Yeah, I have no particular truck with the elitist. His language is shrouded in the clouds of the well read and the SAT. He mixes his metaphors. He's obscure. He does this to separate himself. Fine. His writing is "artistic." Of course any writing is artistic, but certain artistries (?) end up being difficult and obscure (the bible, thomas pynchon, ron popeil), so if one wishes to convey, he has to take this into account.
Maybe you feel that certain words are neglected; maybe you delight in obscurity. The point is mainly not to ignorantly contradict your message in order to serve immature needs. And certainly don't pat yourself on the back about it.