Tweaking Twain
Posted: January 5, 2011 Filed under: Language, Literature, Southern Words, Vocabulary | Tags: banned books, Censorship, Huckleberry Finn, Literature, Mark Twain, n-word Leave a comment »
New Edition Of ‘Huckleberry Finn’ Will Eliminate Offensive Words : The Two-Way : NPR.
Read the story linked above and see what you think. Here’s what I think:
For years, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been banned in many schools because it contains the n-word. To rectify that, some scholars are coming out with an edition that replaces the n-word with “slave.” It also does away with “Injun.” I understand the motivation–to get Huck back into the schools of Backwater, Alabama, where it can do some good. But I think it does a disservice to the literature itself and to history, and it waters down the whole transformation Huck undergoes when he begins to see Jim as a full-fledged human being in a world of conflicting moral codes. In Huck’s world, the moral thing to do was to return Jim to his rightful owner. But in the end he couldn’t do it, declaring that he would “burn in hell” and help Jim go free. “I knowed he was white inside,” Huck says, in his own ethnocentric sense of humanity. This is not a racist book; it is a story about racist people.
Conflicted a bit, at first, about this tweaking of Twain, I decided to ask the author, Mark Twain, what his feelings on the issue are, and then ask a high school student in Backwater, Alabama, his take.
First up, Mark Twain:
“The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”
Ah, good point. Now the student:
“What the f-word? Do they think we’re G-word d-word babies? What a bunch of s-word.”
And if that’s not a good enough indication of the general sentiment, you can refer to NPR’s poll asking readers if they think it is okay to change the text if it will introduce more young people to Huck Finn. With more than 12,000 readers participating, 4.19% say it is okay and 95.81% think it is still the wrong thing to do.
This isn’t the first time the n-word has been expunged from a prominent book. Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None was originally Ten Little Indians in the US and Ten Little Niggers in the UK. You can go here for more information about that. The use of the n-word in that book was unimportant–merely referring to an old nursery rhyme that gives the book its murderous structure (the verse that the guests mysteriously receive became “Ten Little Soldiers”). The title was also racist in every sense. But in Huck Finn, the n-word is used some 219 times; it’s part of the book’s fabric. It makes the characters who they are, the times what they were, and the book what it is. The fact that the story is narrated by Huck, himself, makes things even more complicated. When you alter these words, you alter the character of the storyteller. Who do we think we are, the author?
For additional insight, here’s a good article on the San Francisco Chronicle blog: The N-word, Huck Finn and You
Wordcracker: Copywriter
Posted: January 4, 2011 Filed under: Copywriting & Creative, Wordcracker, writing | Tags: Advertising, business writing, Copywriting & Creative, creative, freelance writing, marketing, Origin of copywriter, writing 1 Comment »An advertising writer is called a copywriter. But why? Why “copy?” The story starts a long time ago, even before advertising as we know it. While “copy” can mean an imitation or facsimile, it can also refer–according my trusty Oxford English Dictionary–to the thing being copied. A copy, then, can be “the original writing, work of art, etc., from which a copy is made.” We can find this usage as far back as 1481.
So what does this have to do with advertising writing? Plenty. Fast forward to the moveable type printing press and the printed newspapers it spawned. The manuscript written (and later typed) by the news writer was called a copy because, we can now deduce, it would soon be copied by the typesetter and printer. In fact, a “copy boy” was often employed to run the manuscript from writer to editor to typesetter. Eventually, the “a” was dropped, so a copy became simply “copy,” used in much the same way we use the word “text.”
So, you keep asking, what does this have to do with advertising writing? Everything! To pay the journalists and the pressmen and make a profit, newspapers sold advertising (why do you think advertising courses are so often buried in our colleges’ schools of journalism?). Someone had to write the verbiage–the copy–for the ads they sold. And the copywriter–and a title that differentiated him from the journalist or news writer–was born.
The unfortunate similarity of “copywriter” and “copyright” causes consternation for many. You’ve got to be a lawyer to deal with copyright issues, and that I am certainly not. In fact, I have a hard enough time just coming up with a company name or a snappy slogan that has the potential to be copyrighted. Try coming up with an original website domain, for example. It isn’t easy. Because of this confusion and because not that many people know where the word “copy” comes from in the first place, I prefer to say I am an advertising writer or a marketing writer. And when I am feeling particularly smug, I simply say that I’m a writer, knowing that it will evoke all sorts of romantic notions in people’s heads. That, of course, often backfires, and they ask, “Oh, anything I might have read?”
Probably not. Not yet, anyway.
Cock a hoop and other expressions
Posted: December 9, 2010 Filed under: Expressions, Language | Tags: beyond the pale, cock the hoop, Expressions, swing the lead 1 Comment »In his response to yesterday’s entry, a good and witty reader strung together several archaic expressions that sparked my curiosity. Here they are and where they came from.
Cock a hoop
“Cock a hoop,” as a verb phrase, means: to remove the spigot (the cock) from a barrel or cask and place it on top (the hoop), thus allowing the drink to flow freely. A bit like having an open bar today, but messier.
It can also be used as an adjective. If someone was cock-a-hoop or cock-on-hoop, they were “at the height of mirth and jollity,” according to a 1690 explanation in the OED. Seems to me they would be dead drunk. Anyway, what a great expression! Here in this 1529 reference, setting cock on hoop seems to be a literal description and not yet an expression: “They . . .set them downe and dryncke well for our saviours sake, sette cock on hoope, and fyll in all the cuppes at ones and then lette Chrystes passion paye for all the scotte.”
However, the OED warns that “on the hoop” was used on many pub signs with and without “cock.” There was an Eagle on the Hoop, a swan, a hen, a crown, a bell, and many other things on the hoop. So, “cock” could be referring to the fowl. In such a case, nobody really knows what “on the hoop” means. It could just be that those pub owners no longer understood the origin of the phrase–the point of my previous blog entry, really. And since valves are still referred to as cocks in many applications and barrels are, indeed, made with staves and hoops, I have no reason to doubt our definition. In fact, I’ll drink to it.
Swinging the lead
If someone is swinging the lead, they are not working very hard. It refers to depth sounders on boats whose job it was to drop a lead line to the bottom, measure the water’s depth by counting the knots or marks in the line, and then call out the depth to the captain. By the mark, five! Or in Samuel Clemens’ case, Mark twain! Some say the phrase evolved because lead sounding was considered an easy job. Lead is heavy, so I’m thinking that it wasn’t easy. In fact, it was often referred to as “heaving the lead.” Sounding had to be carried out in every kind of weather. The cavity in the bottom had to be filled with tallow which would pick up sediment from the bottom and allow the sounder to ascertain the nature of the terrain below. The ship and crew often depended on the sounder’s accuracy for their very lives.
Others say it comes from swinging the lead over the side but not really letting it down unless a superior was looking. Maybe so. That would certainly be lazy, but I wonder about that one, too. Seems a big risk to allow a ship to hit ground just because you didn’t want to haul in the lead. Of course, slacking off every five or six soundings wouldn’t hurt, would it?
Regardless, if you must swing the lead, it’s best not to get caught doing it, and certainly it’s something to guard against after cocking a hoop.
Beyond the pale
Obviously swinging the lead after setting the cock on the hoop is going beyond the pale, but what does that mean? Pale, in this case, refers to a palisade or fence, which is made up pales or pickets. Going beyond the pale is going beyond accepted boundaries.
Expressions become much richer when you know their origin. For more good fun here at Wordnut, check out More expressions than you can shake a stick at.
There’s no here there
Posted: December 8, 2010 Filed under: Expressions, Language | Tags: Expressions, hear hear!, spelling 4 Comments »I have noticed a lot of folks on Facebook concurring with someone else by offering up a hearty “Here, here.”
Now, I’m pretty sick of all the “pet peeves of language misuse” that people bandy about, so I thought twice about even bringing this up. However, this is a case of using an expression without thinking about what it really means and, as a result, misspelling it. I think it is important to have an appreciation for where words and phrases come from and why we use them in the forms we do.
For the record, the proper spelling is “Hear, hear!” As in, “listen to what this guy is saying; he’s right on!” The Oxford says it is derived from “Hear him! Hear him!” “Hear, hear” has been the accepted form of cheering in the House of Commons for centuries.
It’s a little thing. I make all kinds of mistakes, myself, especially on Facebook (I swear they mess up the words as I type them). But I like an expression to actually make sense literally, if possible. It’s pretty cool that people are using such an old expression in such a new medium. So it just seems a shame to get the spelling wrong.
If you’re down with that, say “Hear, hear!”
Bubble and froth, slobber and cream
Posted: October 25, 2010 Filed under: Language, writing | Tags: Matthew Rogers, Stephen Fry, typography 2 Comments »Pure word joy.
Wordcracker: Ground Zero Mosque
Posted: August 24, 2010 Filed under: Dysphemism, Ethics, Euphemism, Language, Publishing, Wordcracker | Tags: ground zero, journalism, media, mosque, writing 8 Comments »
What do you call a phrase like “Ground Zero Mosque?” Loaded language, for sure. Actually, there is a word for it: dysphemism. Dysphemism is roughly the opposite of euphemism. While euphemism is the softening of language or ideas to make them less offensive, dysphemism is all about making the language or idea more offensive. That, of course, has been the motive of “journalists” who have used the phrase “Ground Zero Mosque” in their headlines. You can read (and listen to) more about that here at OnTheMedia.org.
What makes it dysphemism? For starters, when you put those three words together, it sounds as if the mosque is going to be right at Ground Zero. There is nothing separating the word “Mosque” from the words “Ground Zero.” In reality, however, there are two New York City blocks separating Ground Zero from the mosque building site. A word like “near” would certainly have helped preserve the truth: “Mosque Near Ground Zero.” But the news writers chose to be less precise and more sensational.
This is no basic form of dysphemism, however. An example of regular, run-of-the-mill dysphemism would be calling a printed paper edition of a periodical the “dead tree edition.” There’s nothing untrue about it. It merely seeks to create a negative reaction in the reader by focusing on what might be seen as a drawback of printed publications when compared to their online counterparts. But “Ground Zero Mosque” is more diabolical because it also makes use of hyperbole. It exaggerates the truth. It dispenses with those two blocks and puts Ground Zero and the Mosque within one typed space of each other.
This is much the same sort of dysphemism as “snail mail.” Compared to email, the postal service is slower. But is it really as slow as a snail? Of course not. Exaggeration. The difference here, however, is that nobody really believes mail is delivered by snail or that it is really that slow. “Snail mail” is dysphemism in search of humor. “Ground Zero Mosque” is dysphemism in search of division and fear.
Whether you are for or against a mosque being built two blocks from Ground Zero, I hope we can all agree that it is irresponsible for news agencies such as the Associated Press and Fox News to use “Ground Zero Mosque” in a headline. Both did. And it is equally irresponsible for the public to allow itself to be manipulated by such headlines. You may say that sticks and stones will break your bones, and that words will never harm you. But it is most often words that start the sticks and stones to flying.
I am afraid that “Ground Zero Mosque” just may be ground zero for something that threatens this free country even more than terrorism. The slow death of objective journalism and, even scarier, our ability to recognize it when we see it.
For another great example of dysphemism check this out, which chronicles the transformation of the “estate tax” to the “death tax.”
Going crazy over going verdant
Posted: December 2, 2009 Filed under: Copywriting & Creative, Ethics, Vocabulary | Tags: Advertising, Copywriting & Creative, environmental writing, green marketing, sustainability 2 Comments »If you ever listen to NPR, no doubt you hear how the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is “committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.” That word “verdant” always makes me smile. Why? Because every company on the planet is talking about sustainability and going green. Believe me, I know. I’m writing environmental statements, composing sustainability reports, and naming green initiatives on a regular basis. Everyone is talking about it, and yet we are all looking for ways to communicate our sustainability in some original fashion. It seems everyone is looking for their own shade of green.
Unfortunately, that isn’t sustainable. I mean, we’ve already run out of words, haven’t we? Take your pick: sustainability, green, eco-this or environmental-that. Oh, and verdant. It’s like somebody at the MacArthur Foundation said, “whatever you do, don’t use the word GREEN!”
Recently I wrote a sustainability brochure for a major corporation. We wanted to talk about sustainability in three contexts: environmental stewardship, financial accountability and social responsibility. So I came up with this snappy idea: People, Prosperity, Planet. Nice, huh? My client thought so. In fact, she wanted to turn it into the name of their program. Just one problem. Well, perhaps a half-dozen problems. My client Googled it and found those three words strung together all over the internet, sometimes in that exact order. In fact, one company had the nerve to trademark it.
So, my advice is this. Spend less time avoiding the word “green” and more time finding the real truth in your sustainability messaging. You are probably not “saving the planet.” So it isn’t wise to exaggerate. Don’t greenwash. Make sure your sustainability message is believable (because what you are saying is true) and substantial enough to be notable. Whether you think global warming is a hoax or a threat, it’s best to err on the side of environmental responsibility from a marketing standpoint, so don’t be afraid to address the needs of our environment in constructive ways. You may not be Al Gore green, but you can at least muster up a good chartreuse. And remember, it’s not so much what you are doing to ensure a sustainable future that’s important. It’s what you can help your clients do that resonates most.
A deep dive on office buzz words
Posted: September 20, 2009 Filed under: Expressions, Language, Vocabulary | Tags: Language, office buzz words, Vocabulary, words Leave a comment »
Officespeak, that constantly changing language of buzz words and phrases heard around corporate conference tables, is an interesting paradox. It is universally deplored yet universally deployed. Remember facetime and interfacing with clients? Having to think outside the box and pushing the envelope? It was all about being on the same page.
Nowadays, someone is bound to ask how much bandwidth you’ve got. They’ll want to reach out, drill down and circle back. You might hear “value-add” as a noun and “impact” as a verb (remember when only teeth got impacted?). And no-doubt there are times when, no matter what you are doing, you’ll be asked to take it offline.
To be successful, you’ve got to promise the right deliverables while staying within your core competencies. Optimize ROI. Look for a way to grab the low-hanging fruit. How? Well, you’ll need a roadmap going forward. You’ll need to incent employees. You’ll need ideas that can piggyback on mine. Ideas that are actionable. You’ll need to add a new thread. Take ownership!
At the end of the day, what you are really looking for is a gamechanger, a paradigm shift, perhaps something viral. (I’m feeling a little viral, myself.)
In the marketing business, we hear folks talk about marketing concepts that are “channel-neutral,” meaning ideas that can work for a variety of media–direct mail, print advertising, web, and so on. Just the other morning, I heard it called “channel-agnostic.” What’s next? Channel-atheistic? If that’s the case, we can all just go home.
Got any others? Why not touch base? Leave a comment or shoot me an email.
Better yet, just shoot me.
Wordcracker: Coo-pon or Cue-pon?
Posted: September 4, 2009 Filed under: Language, Vocabulary, Wordcracker | Tags: Coupon, Language, pronunciation, speech 4 Comments »Now for something fun and pertinent to our recent economic upheaval. If you live in the United States, please participate in the following poll. To aid us in our research even further, please leave a comment restating your answer and providing any explanatory information you might want to offer, especially what part of the country you are originally from and what part of the country you live in now. I’ll leave this poll active indefinitely in hopes of accumulating enough answers to draw reasonable conclusions. Thanks!
Short words
Posted: August 1, 2009 Filed under: Language, Vocabulary, writing | Tags: Gelett Burgess, Language, short words, writing 2 Comments »
Gelett Burgess, a technical drawing teacher turned writer, penner of silly poems, and editor, published an essay back in the 30s called “Short Words are Words of Might.” He wrote the whole thing using one-syllable words. It reminds us of the power of our own Germanic language roots and how early words seem to have evolved from emotion itself. Come to think of it, some of the best words we have are four-letter ones.
Big flowery Latinate words are quite stupendous in their place, but as my 11th grade English teacher would tell you, never use a 50-cent word when a nickel word will do. Burgess demonstrates that our nickel words really are our most valuable by far.
Here are some excerpts:
“Short words must have been our first words when the world was young. The minds of men were raw… Their first words were, no doubt, mere grunts or growls, barks, whines, squeals like those of beasts. These rough, strange sounds were made to show how they felt. They meant joy or pain or doubt or rage or fear…
“But these sounds came, in time, to grow more and more plain as real words. They were short words, strong and clear. And these first short words, used by our sires way back in the dark of time, still have strength and truth. They are bred in our flesh and bone. We may well call such words the life blood of our speech.”
“Short words, you see, come from down deep in us — from our hearts or guts — not from the brain. For they deal for the most part with things that move and sway us, that make us act… That, I think, is why short words tend to make our thoughts more live and true.”
