Is a Rose Still a Rose?

I'm a writer. I like words. I don't have a particularly extensive vocabulary, but I'm working on it. As a writer and lover of words I should probably appreciate etymology a little more. While I find it interesting, sometimes even fascinating, how words come to be, I apparently don't like watching it happen. I'll explain.

I was working on my novel the other day and one of the characters said that she was 'empowered.' I cringed after I wrote that and sat back and considered it. The woman had gained an important lesson and, consequently, life skill from a dream she'd had. She came away from that dream truly empowered. I have new-agey images that come to mind with the word empowered. I see people rolling their eyes and waving their hands in the air, "Oh, she was empowered, was she?"

That's too bad. I kept the word because that's what I meant because that's what she was. When a word is overused, used in the wrong context or is associated with a certain stereotype it loses impact, even definition.

I don't like seeing what is happening to words like appropriate. I'm so aggravated with parents who watch their child hit another child on the head with a sand shovel and say, "Now, Titus, that's not appropriate." Do they know what the word appropriate means? 'Suitable for the situation' is my definition. Just when is it appropriate for little Titus to hit little Carlos over the head with the sand shovel, mommy? Call it what it is: it's mean, it's cruel, it's wrong, it's (gasp) bad.

But we don't like using (truthful) words like that, do we? Oh how we are cheating the coming generations out of a recognition of truth and clear, truthful speech. When adults use words haphazardly like that, they miss out on wonderful teaching opportunities. Teach Titus that, though he is a good boy it is a bad act to hit Carlos on the head with the sand shovel. Why would a good boy like you, Titus, do something like that?

That way, Titus not only learns that he is good, though a living contradiction at times, he learns that good people can do bad things. Maybe mommy hasn't learned this yet.

The next time, and I bet I won't have to wait long, I hear a gay couple introduce each other as "my partner," I'm going to ask, innocently and wide-eyed, "Partners in what?" That ought to bring about some stuttering. Why do they insist on referring to each other as though they are half of a law firm or vaudeville team? Why can't they introduce their lover as their lover? They obviously aren't ashamed of their love since they have come out as a couple. I don't get it.

I'm disturbed at how many times people describe an area hit by a hurricane or earthquake as "a war zone." I'm betting most of those have never been in a war zone. Maybe I'm wrong. I've seen pictures from war zones and earthquakes and, yes, I see how alike the aftermath can look. I just think it's not a good idea to toss out the comparison between man's atrocities in war to nature. I know we like short cuts. We don't want to take the time to say, "houses are leveled, bodies are strewn, cars flipped over into ditches, burned out buildings . . ." I fear we may be missing out on the impact it has had on those who suffered the tornado, or whatever natural disaster. Those people see every bit of the destruction I listed (and more, probably, I don't know) bit by bit with every step they take through their neighborhood. They don't have the luxury of abbreviating anything now. They must collect every body, haul away every piece of debris, rebuild every house. (Instead of that sentence, I almost wrote that they must 'deal with' the aftermath, but that, too would have been an inappropriate shortcut.) Perhaps if we reported more truthfully - what actually - happened we'd have more empathy.  If we're short on time just say, "It was utterly destructive."

I'd like to, even just once, see a sign at a business that, instead of reading "Sorry for the inconvenience" says "Sorry we failed to think ahead." Or, "Sorry we're too dependent on computers, which we know to be are unreliable, and they're down right now ."

The attention-grabber of the month is not usually 'speaking out,' they are being interviewed (likely for pay and a make-over) or relishing their 15 minutes. Speaking out sounds like they have something to contribute that is unknown or hasn't been said. Too many of those people are just on the show for ratings, self-glorification or public pity-party.

Awesome is a word that particularly bugs me. Awesome got popular during the time in my life I was getting serious about God. A skateboard trick is not awesome; God is awesome. A picture your child drew for you is not awesome: a lightening storm is awesome. The home run you just hit is not awesome; an approaching habub is awesome. I love the definition of awe. It's a blend of "reverence, fear and wonder" according to the New World Dictionary. I guess a skateboard trick could be awesome, like the acts in Cirque du Soleil. I still say the word is overused, no - misused.

Since I was raped I take the time to tell people that, no, the bank didn't rape you with all those fees, they charged you or they over-charged you. Know your audience folks when using dramatic language or it has strong unintended consequences.

One more. Discovering that your skirt got caught in the top of your thong undies is not horrifying to you, it's embarrassing. Now if we're talking about me and I've managed to tuck my skirt into my thong and you use the second definition of horrify, "shock or disgust" (again New World Dictionary) then it is indeed horrifying for those who can see it, but not to me. To me it remains to be embarrassing.

I do understand exaggeration, I really do. What I want to know is why isn't being embarrassed strong enough? Why bring horror into it? Actually, I think I have the answer. It's the same reason the word 'excellent' won't do for some, that it must be 'awesome'. And the same reason someone wants to say that being robbed was like being raped. We want to dramatize our experience so we exaggerate. Those exaggerations become overused, popular catch-phrases that others grab at rather than thinking of how to express themselves. We are guilty of a limited vocabulary. And we are not utilizing our creativity in expressing ourselves.

Instead of reverting to 'awesome' (in the above situations), how about 'fabulous' or 'Picasso would be proud,' or 'Just like Al* taught me'.

Instead of saying over-charged, robbed or raped, get clever. I had a friend who miscalculated his expenditures and the bank bounced about a dozen checks. His issue was the order in which the bank bounced them. There was one check for a couple thousand dollars and twelve for under $100 or so. The bank processed the largest check first, in effect emptying the account, then proceeded to bounce - and charge fees on - the rest of them. He called the bank and said, "Do you want me to sing the 'I'm stupid' song? I'll sing the 'I'm stupid' song for you right now." They reversed the charges on all but one. (I don't know what he sang.)

If embarrassing isn't good enough when you find yourself exposed, try "It was like I was open for business." It will be much more meaningful, showing that you can laugh at yourself. And memorable, though there are some things we'd prefer lost in the cosmos of time.

*Alex Rodriguez. For those readers who, like me had I not written this, would have no idea who this is.