Disappointingly poor engagement H67 ... not exactly a positive contribution nor conducive to further pleasant discussion
My initial reaction to your exposé, of the deviant behaviour allegedly engaged in by members of this site, was one of stupefaction and incredulity - to the extent that I questioned if I should be exchanging views with such miscreants. My usual state of pyrrhonism kicked in, however and I settled for taking your 'revelations' with the ancient antidote for poison as translated in Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia, 77 A.D. ... You are correct, however, in that I do have a love of language/words/expressions and the English language in particular has so many magically expressive words and quaint phrases - I would guess, more so than any other language and certainly more than my own native idioma. I think it is a shame then that language in general appears to be constantly 'dumbed down' to cater for the lowest common denominator which in the end can only mean the loss of many wonderful words and expressions. The BBC1 programme 'Eastenders', for example, is anathema to me as I cannot bear to listen to it's constantly angry characters throttling out their version of English. Indeed, it seems to me that the Scots and Irish both, generally, speak and write English much better than the English themselves. I read somewhere that between 200 and 500 words are used in a typical newspaper and up to 700 used in the more intellectual broadsheets - amazing to contemplate that so few words can inform the masses of all that is happening in the world. One would also have thought that learning any language would be relatively easy if that is the case but of course there is much more to it than that ...
As I've started to read the same authors over and over again in their different efforts at various subjects I've noticed that in general they stick to the same (surprisingly somewhat limited) vocabulary, even if it does initially sound like an impressive one. After just pulling out my Kindle I can quote a few words which I have underlined including 'soliloquies', 'quixotic', 'demagogy', 'irredentist', 'misanthrope', 'lugubrious', 'philoprogenitive' and most recently 'cogito' (hate the concept). I imagine some of these words automatically spring to the minds of others as being easy but they were for some reason worthy of note to my humble self at some point during my travels - and then because I went to the effort of taking note of them I started to notice them many other times in other publications, especially from the authors who originally spouted them, on irritatingly regular occurrences...
Interesting that you have described those words that are unfamiliar or not in general common usage but which are being used more regularly by some/the same authors, as becoming repeated in somewhat irritating fashion. If you think about it though, why should this be the case as, presumably, the common everyday words repeated over and over again by everyone do not evoke such reaction. It is exactly the uncommon usage by people in general which makes such words stand out and they are, as you say, worthy of note and testing to the point of having to be 'looked up' by anyone who is not familiar with them. I even find fascination with the new 'proliferation of a plethora of neologisms' - the modern trend of combining words and phrases to make new ones. While some are just plain ugly to me, others sit ok and are self-explanatory but of course, I do have to look up the 'Urban dictionary' for the meaning of most of them. Words such as 'chillaxing' (to describe an ultimate feeling of relaxation and chilled outness) may become common in usage and even eventually find their way into the official education system. As such they will then add to the rich and continuous expansion of language. My particular fondness, though, is for the old words which will die out if we don't keep using them. There is, of course, the odd exception in my wish to keep old words alive ... old, ugly, words such as 'Rangers FC' I am quite content to see disappear altogether ...
I think I was going an around-about way of saving that what seems like an impressive vocabulary at first becomes less so when you hear the same people reuse the same words so many times to the point where you think their overall vocabulary is numerically as large as your own, only they use different words to say the same thing - or the suspicion that they sometimes gravitate towards saying a particular thing on a particular subject because they know they have a big word ready to be used in that context which makes them appear clever. It's a bit like watching the same comedian too many times - when you start to hear the same jokes being rhymed off over again the whole pretence of the show breaks and the performance moves from a naturally funny guy, delighting you with his humour, to being a set up stage show rhyming off a pre-thought-out script. Anyway the fact that I've had to use two posts to articulate what I was trying to convey in the first place is probably a good indicator of my own limited vocabulary.
Forgive me for saying so Mick but methinks you protest too much. Your vocabulary is obviously, at very least, above average and given that you appear to be a prolific reader I would think it is wider than that of most people. As for the authors and comedians to which you refer, I think you may be a bit harsh and a little too judgemental in your assessment. Whilst I understand the point you have made, the 'comedian' analogy doesn't quite fit for me. Their routines are obviously, in the main, just that - routines which are rehearsed, the skill being in the ability to adapt and draw on lines and experience in any given situation and as you intimate, if you follow one regularly and long enough, unsurprisingly, what at first seemed original will, undoubtedly, become jaded. As for the authors, I would opine that while their style or topics may also eventually become wearying, the more they can use different words for 'the same thing' that would simply evidence a wider vocabulary than most of us. You may be correct in the suspicion that at times using 'big' words may be a case of trying to show how clever some of these authors are but then again that point of view may say more about the inferiority hang-ups of the person holding it than any motivation for the authors' usage - I prefer to admire the ability to use a wider vocabulary and being expressive in different ways. In the end, of course, we are, as with everything else in life, all 'limited' in our vocabularies to greater or lesser extent - memory playing a large part and thanks to the abundance of vino tinto I have consumed over the years, mine is, to say the least, not quite what it was. Strange as it may appear, that leads me to state my belief that spontaneous originality, to any large degree, is very rare in any case, if it exists at all. It seems to me that 'originality' in any field (including that of comedy and literature) generally grows/evolves in small steps -every step being capitilized upon and added to by those capable of doing so. Every so often someone takes it forward in just a big enough step as to be given all the credit and appear to have a unique outlook or be a genius who has come up with a new concept from scratch, all the smaller but vital contributions by others along the way being overlooked in the eagerness to hail the all-conquering pioneer - until eventually, over-exposure makes him/her seem enervated and so it goes on ... <Memotoselfnotenoughumourstopbeingsoboringlogo>
If I have this correctly, which must surely be the case, you took my revelations with a pinch – or grain, more accurately – of salt, although you somehow managed to use 72 words in saying so. <swoon> Short of doing a sex-mistake in my trousers, I’m not entirely sure how to express my agreement more enthusiastically. Well…..yes and no, I suppose. Up until a few weeks ago, I hadn’t watched an episode of Eastenders for roughly ten years. But I was channel-hopping, a desultory and gratifyingly revolting habit, and chanced upon the show as it homed in on a (familiar) character called Ian Beale who, to all intents and purposes – the straggly, wild-man beard and hobo hat straight from central casting somewhat gave the game away – had evidently fallen on very hard times. Hooked. (It must have been an omnibus edition, as it lasted an eternity – and I still don’t know what happened to him.) Anyway, I used to quite enjoy occasionally watching it. And one of the reasons I used to quite enjoy watching it was precisely because the characters would throttle their Londony version of English. I’m not sure who the writers were, and I was never all that convinced by their credibility-stretching storylines, but they might be said to have had a gift when it came to putting realistically mundane words into the mouths of realistically mundane characters against a backdrop of realistically mundane and angry desperation. I really admire that skill. The natural preponderance of Londony accents may (irrationally) wreck my ears, causing an instinctive (and unjust) distaste, and you’re right to say that the angry destruction of the English language can feel like a knife in the heart, but there is often a well-crafted articulation of inveterate inarticulacy – and the problems this may cause - to be found on display in Eastenders, if such a thing can make sense? I vaguely remember reading (or was it writing?) an article some years ago in which it was argued – with specific reference to Eastenders, and as a very specific rebuke to the tut tutting disapproval of the middle classes – that the depiction of seemingly irrational and suddenly disproportionate anger in the show was a valuable addition to the cultural landscape; and that this anger invariably (and realistically) had its roots in, or was at least (partially or wholly) aggravated by, comprehensive inarticulacy. Which is to say, when people are shorn of the ability to fully (and calmly) articulate a sentiment/feeling/fear, frustration levels will understandably rise – whether they’re aware of this fact or not – often leading, predictably enough, towards emotionally-driven explosions. Yes, okay, it perhaps felt more interesting at the time and I’ve maybe rather forgotten what I was going to say, but it was fascinating, Espania, fascinating. As a side note: have you ever noticed how frequently fights break out on the internet due to misunderstandings based on outright inarticulacy and/or an inability or unwillingness people may have to explain themselves - or seek to understand others – clearly and fully? Mesmerising. And quite corrosive, really, in this day and age, with the exponential rise of social interactions being conducted through the written word, be it on Twitter, Facebook, blogs or whatever; and when so many struggle with the most basic levels of written expression, whilst simultaneously failing to recognise (or care) that punctuation is a helpful courtesy to the reader. But ho hum, innit. Need to speed up here.... Controversial. Very, very, very generally, however, this chimes with my own experience. (And don't get me started on why Robert Burns so effortlessly surpasses Shakespeare.) No way? That's pretty stunning. MalteseMick – give me ten minutes. Need to try and find where we were.
Hmm. Yes. I can’t say that I would particularly “struggle to weigh up the moral differences” you mention, although I would almost certainly struggle articulating them - to the extent where it may become impossible to do so satisfactorily. I feel the moral difference acutely, however, and this will sometimes just have to do (in spite of what I said to EspaniaCelt mere moments ago about the potential dangers of inarticulacy). Tricky. Where’s the cut-off point? It’s amazing how often that question becomes relevant in any number of moral dramas - not least whilst assessing the dangers of mission creep that may accompany the banning of certain songs or banners at football matches, for example, whilst balancing the sharp necessity of allowing “offence” to be caused in a free society and concurrently minding out for the offended. Am I allowed to simply say “tricky” again? It’s about the best I can come up with. I suppose, in trying to come at these things from various angles, we might ask what on earth is “humanity” and how did it come to pass that any of us might feel that this is our gift to “bestow”? Interesting enough, maybe, but I feel that you – or other people with similar concerns – will surely be coming from a good place with your worries and that such questions may become a distraction (or needlessly confrontational sticking points), however intrinsic they may ultimately be to our internal moral bearings. They do need to be asked and answered at some point, it seems, although it may be possible to do this alone. Slightly off on a tangent, but I don’t like being called “pro-abortion” – the notion slightly horrifies me – preferring the far more accurate “pro-choice”. I’m also made deeply uncomfortable by the sight of men dictating to women how they might use their own bodies and would entirely resent the intrusion if the roles were reversed – as would most men, we might hazard a guess, whether they choose to admit to this fact or not. No, I don’t have any answers, either, except for those feelings that may work for me. I would also become automatically suspicious and would resist taking instruction from anyone who might lay claim to such a thing. I think it does give some people an excuse to fill this void with a god, I just don’t see how it gives them a reason. But still, with only a few other minor quibbles, I’d generally go along with what you just said. Right, back to everything else later.
you want to try Management Consultancy. The **** we talk in reports is on another level, you have to get yourself into a different frame of mind to write those things
Sorry I missed this before Psycho bumped the thread. My original point was really one of my own experience - and was in reference to some authors appearing to have an impressive but limited vocabulary. I may promote myself as well read but that is really a very recent thing (as I said earlier, in the last 3 or 4 years I've found myself with long commutes and a more conservative social life with nothing better to fill my time with but books). Because heavy and consistent reading is such a recent thing I am still at the point of discovery, where it did come as a genuine surprise to find that a lot of seemingly highly rated authors can come across as repetitive or even predictable in their words as well as ideas. We were talking about vocabulary though and I guess a simple point would be that some words that are used no longer impress me given the ability for those words to be easily learned and repeated - I feel I'm more interested in the idea behind the words or the style and character of the writing, which may not necessarily include an expanded vocabulary. Also.. the comedian analogy might not work for you and I understand your reasons - but it works for me because a little bit of the magic of the initial performance feels broken when I hear the same lines repeated from the same people, in different surroundings.
Oh dear. Be sure not to watch any recordings of Christopher Hitchens debating on Youtube, then. Big mistake - especially if you watch a number of them in quick succession. After the first one or two I was going "yes, this is great", but after that I was made disappointed by the fact that he expressed his (usually excellent) ideas in the same way whilst often using exactly the same language, imagery and stories. It becomes an agony, particularly if you're a fan. Very true, but short of inventing new words and ideas - a thankless task if ever there was one, surely - it's hard to see what they might do about this. Edit: save for shutting up, of course, which is always a fairly good cure for those afflicted by the unavoidable curse of repetition.
Sadly for the first time ever, around two weeks back, I Googled Christopher Hitchens, landed on the various Youtube pages and was massively inspired to make the points I have done in the later part of this thread about authors sometimes ruining the magic. In one YouTube fueled session I almost fell out of love in about 1/1000th of the time it took me to fall in love. Honestly, I managed to read around eight of his books before ever bothering to listen to him speak in person on any form of multimedia - probably shouldn't have done that. It was only temporary though, I started reading 'god Is Not Great' again on Thursday evening, after they finally released it for Kindle (gave my paperback away some time ago to god know's who) and 7 chapters in he has barely wasted a paragraph, brilliantly forgivable.
I'm up late tonight doing some work and I need another break (after sorting you and Espania out) so I fancy tackling this one. I'm going to guess the reason you are struggling to articulate this one - it's because putting your fingers around a baby's neck and strangling it does seem morally somewhat different to an abortion. I mean in one scenario you are perpetrating the act of extinguishing that life yourself with your thumb and forefinger, while on the other occasion you are participating in a standard medical procedure. Let's think of a rather mundane (and inappropriate) comparison: You are just about finished work for the evening in your office when you remember that you have a form at home which needs filling in for some personal but important reason, like medical insurance or something similar. You remember that you couldn't find a pen at home last night, but you make a quick gaze around your office and spot a Bic lying there... would you take the Bic to bring home to fill in your form? The universal answer, is usually, of course. Now take the scenario whereby there was no pens in the office because the stupid secretary had forgot to order some in. You still need that Bic for an important reason, but there are no pens. You know that the shop next door sells pens for 20p each, you check your pocket but you have absolutely no money. As you walk past the secretary's desk though you notice a jar full of petty cash which has 20p in it - do you take 20p out of petty cash to pay for a pen next door? The answer is, usually, no. So despite the fact that in one situation you are stealing a 20p pen from work in your head you judge it much differently from stealing a 20p coin from work. The human mind needs some sort of mental disconnection from the actual cost of the crime situation to lessen the seriousness of what it is engaging in. You won't steal a 20p coin and you won't strangle a baby.
Oh, you poor bugger, Iâm sorry to hear that. In future, though, it would probably be best if you asked my permission before heading off to Youtube on your own volition. I could have kept you straight on this, Administrator - âIs it alright if I watch Christopher Hitchens on Youtube, daddy Psycho?â âNo, my precious darling, read a book.â â and your world would be a better place for it. (I hope you take this imagery to bed and struggle to get to sleep.) â....he has barely wasted a paragraph....â Precisely. His writing is (was) amongst the very best of his generation. I think even his detractors must recognise this fact. Okay, I really need to get to sleep. Good luck with the work. xxx
