This Word, That Word, Any Ol' Word

I’ve been thinking a lot about language lately; useful if you’re a writer paid by the word. Words count. Every one of them. That’s why we charge you for each.
That’s why, when I watched this opening passage from an episode of The West Wing this morning, this exchange really tickled me. They’re talking about a pianist set to play a concert in the White House.

LEO: He’s North Korean, God knows how he managed to even learn. Their music’s all hymns to the barley harvest, not that they ever have one.
C.J.: To busy reprocessing plutonium to feed anybody.
LEO: Why they’re a rogue state.
C.J.: “Rogue” state… makes them sound bravishly charming. Should be “thug” state; “psycho” state.
LEO: We’ll ask the UN to re-designate.
C.J.: Punk state — that’s what they are, a bunch of punks.
LEO: Bunch of punks, with what could be six nuclear warheads.

(west wing transcripts: here)

There’s a lot of weight behind them there adjectives. Each one changes the matter drastically.
As far as North Korea and the adjectives go, the “rogue” is the Count of Monte Cristo. I don’t mind him, a namby-pamby guy, not scary.

Perhaps if he had asked for assistance with a more well-thought sentence, we wouldn't be laughing at his untimely demise.


The “thug” conjures images of 50 Cent. Not a fan, he smacks of “itchy trigger finger.”
Then, with “psycho,” it’s Norman Bates; translation: “don’t ask for pillow service.”
Finally, you have “punk” Sid Vicious, which I guess makes South Korea their ‘Nancy.’ (Which takes on still more interpretations when you consider the British slang of “nancy.”)
The last three dudes: Ixnay the ombbay, eh?
Exactly who I don’t want to have a finger on The Button.
Speaking of people I don’t want with a finger on The Button: For anyone thinking cultural terms are as interchangeable as Lego blocks, I give you Sarah Palin. The Alaskan village idiot’s speechwriter sure got a lesson in that one when Sarah Palin made her ridiculous hyperbolic claims of “blood libel,” regarding the “target poster: let’s-get-Palin” fall-out after the Arizona shootings.
It’s just another Tea Party attempt to paint her in a Messianic light, but it’s also a cruel insult to Jews, who’ve had century after century of persecution, of which this term speaks, when it’s someone as privileged and plain-Jane white as Palin claiming that brand of persecution. And she’s being persecuted only for her own choice to employ irresponsible rhetoric, too!
Then there’s the recent oh-so-asinine choice to willy-nilly swap out “nigger” for “slave” in Mark Twain’s lamentable “New South” edition of the classic Huck Finn. Like my friend says, such a context-lacking blanket noun switch is completely irresponsible. It ascertains that all slaves are niggers, and therefore all niggers are slaves. Hello?
Word choice is critical. Language is powerful.
Sadly, in an age where everything moves at the speed of light, people take too little responsibility for things said anymore — or too much. Either flippancy precedes everything and words zing across social networks with zero regard for their permanence, or else people are so terrified of permanence that they add very little of any consequence to the dialogue, or they magnify the least relevant detail because of perceived slights in the language.
I realise much of what I’ve said in the past few years can, and likely will, come back to haunt me, but considering the truth in what I try to say, and the standards I hold for myself, I can’t say I have a lot of regrets for putting my truth out there in as choice of terms as I have.
Do I wish I perhaps took the paid-by-the-word attitude of precision when choosing those words? Well, sure, that might cover my ass a little more, but it is what it is.
Sometimes we have to take a bigger-picture look at language. Instead of microanalysing every little word, take the whole of it together.  It’s often akin to a symphony. A piano can do wonderfully on its own, but really has so much more to give when played against, and with, other instruments. So too with any word you offer; they play importantly both ways — solo and ensemble. I like how mine play, either way.
But with so little regard paid to much of what we say these days, I’m afraid that, both ways, we’re often largely at a loss.
When it comes to language, think of words as your tools. Not just any screwdriver will tighten that couch leg when it wobbles, so why are we so given to such casual word choice?
Think. Choose. And then mean what you say.
Maybe then our conversations will offer more of consequence, more to be gained.

8 thoughts on “This Word, That Word, Any Ol' Word

  1. Trish

    Great post – I’ve always held that our words matter. Perhaps I fall too much on the side of those who perhaps concentrate a bit more on some of the (less-important? I don’t know) details of language, but I feel more and more that that’s because of the massive lack of attention to those details from 99% of the population.
    Translation: I wouldn’t be such a prick about language if the majority of people gave a fuck about what they say and how they say it.
    Maybe. 😉

  2. Rob Jones

    I think there is a worrying trend that’s reared it’s head recently, perfectly exemplified in Palin’s “blood libel” statement, and that is the trend of public figures making phrases up. That’s what, I’m sure, Palin was doing when she used those two words together. I very much doubt that she was even aware of the historical context of those two words together. In this paradigm, it’s not what the words mean – it’s how they sound.
    Of course, this stems from an even more worrying trend; that those who are eloquent are to be distrusted, and that ‘elite’ is somehow a bad thing. For me, I tend to cast these kinds of sentiments in the ‘that’s rich coming from you’ file, just because if anyone is elite, it’s many of the people who seem to want to demonize the term in a political arena, and (maybe more importantly) on TV. I mean, these people are the HAVES, and yet they appeal to the have-nots in many cases, just by the power of rhetoric. This demonstrates another example of how powerful language, and rhetoric in general, can be. It can give a member of elite society the power to convince an uneducated electorate that they’re down with them through the use of folksy phrases, while pinning all of the negative connotations of the word ‘elite’ onto their opponents.
    Thanks for the post!

  3. Matt

    I feel special: Steff quoted me again 🙂
    And don’t even get me started on people simply mis-hearing what they THINK they heard and then getting their panties in a knot over THAT. Long on opinions… niggardly on brains.

  4. Jan Karlsbjerg

    Interesting associations that opening dialog gave you. To me it’s not about words (words are easy :-)). To me it’s a showcase of US arrogance, here exemplified by two of the most powerful people behind the scenes in the US.

    LEO: He’s North Korean, God knows how he managed to even learn. Their music’s all hymns to the barley harvest, not that they ever have one.

    Of course North Korea has harvests. Word is that North Koreans are hungry and starving, not that they’ve all been dead for decades (in fact the population is growing). But the main crops are rice and vegetables, not barley.

    C.J.: To (sic!) busy reprocessing plutonium to feed anybody.

    Luckily spent plutonium is a scarce resource, and while reprocessing it may be difficult and expensive, it’s not consuming everybody’s time.

    LEO: Why they’re a rogue state.
    C.J.: “Rogue” state… makes them sound bravishly charming. Should be “thug” state; “psycho” state.
    LEO: We’ll ask the UN to re-designate.

    Come again?! Has the UN designated North Korea with any adjective?! No, it’s just US name calling. Terms like “The evil empire”, “Rogue states”, “axes of evil”, etc. are just the US equivalent of Iran referring to USA as “The great Satan”, etc. etc. (I’m sure at one point the US was also called “the mutinous colonies” or something like that by the Brits). Big words invented by speech writers. Lots of symbolic value, but only for the local audiences.
    “Thug state”, because North Korea runs all over the local or global political scene and rattles their sabers and has declared and undeclared wars with various countries. Oh no wait, that’s the US.
    “Psycho state”, because North Korea is unpredictable and irrational and weird. Weird, totalitarian and oppressive, yes, I’d agree with that. But objectively, are they so different from other brutal dictatorships in rapid decline throughout history?
    Besides that unusually big gun in their belt, of course:

    C.J.: Punk state — that’s what they are, a bunch of punks.
    LEO: Bunch of punks, with what could be six nuclear warheads

    Punk in this context isn’t about music. It’s a derogatory classification of somebody as being young, small and underpowered, both physically and morally (and maybe mentally, too). Somebody who could and should be dealt with harshly and “taught a lesson”. Unfortunately this/these particular dumb, morally corrupt weaklings have a gun with up to six shots in it… So they can’t be easily expected to just do as they’re told and bullied into submission. How inconvenient and annoying.
    I’m sure North Korea would object to the implication that they’re young – by people from a country barely 200 years old. The North Koreans probably consider themselves as the rightful continuation of Korea over the centuries (over the US-occupied South Korea rebel province (or other language to that effect)).

    1. Matt

      Psssst, Jan… it’s just a TV show! It’s WRITTEN to make the politicians sound thick and arrogant.

  5. Jan Karlsbjerg

    He, I know it’s just a show, I’ve seen it end to end.
    I’m not sure what you mean by “thick”. If you mean dumb, then I disagree. Most of the characters in The West Wing were highly intelligent and observant. In general the show wasn’t afraid to appear smart and intellectual. For one thing it had a Nobel Economics Prize professor as the sitting president, while in the real world the president was George W Bush whose re-election campaign was based on war (TWaT) and on how he was a nice guy whom voters “would like to have a beer with” (despite the fact that he was known to be a (supposedly sober) alcoholic)).
    And that makes the arrogance and ignorance expressed in that opening more glaring. The idea that this is how powerful, smart, righteous, moral, uncorruptable, powerful, highly connected Americans would talk.

  6. Smbosslady

    You are a wonderful writer. I’ve done some digging through the archives and just wanted to thank you for your honesty. Will be back often.

Comments are closed.