E Pluribus Unum Factor

Word Fight At The OK Corral

A Rose By Any Other Name

View From The Virgin Islands.

 

By John McCarthy

Moderate Voice Columnist

 

I spend a lot of time thinking about words.

Kind of goes with the territory if you consider yourself a writer.

And if you know your Mark Twain you know that “the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”

Le mot juste is what the French call it – and for my money that’s the best way to say what I’m getting at – and that is partly the point, when it comes to words, the English language is the most generous foster family the world has ever known.

Albert Camus may have been ribbing Gustave Flaubert when he made one of his characters in “The Plague” so word conscious that he was never able to write more than the first sentence of a planned novel.

So if your duty calls for words, having more than one million words at your disposal certainly makes for a palette of “colors” that even the greatest artist would find daunting.

This column was supposed to be about the words that I see catapulting themselves into contention for most used high-end words of the year – and if you know me – you know I don’t like the adjective “high-end.”

Nearing the half-way point of the year, the words “traction,” “muddle” and “whiff” are near the top of “new” old words that are most used – to good and bad effect – in 2014.

I had brilliant examples of each word being used in Associated Press news articles, box office busting movies like “Django Unchained” (which I say spawned the current “muddle” fascination and even current ad campaigns for drugs such as Zyrtec “Muddle No More” is the drug’s new tagline.

But as much as I sought out the late William Safire’s “On Language” column in the Sunday New York Times, I also remember – as good as those pieces were – how they were often a struggle to finish.

As I tried to write that column what seemed even more important was keeping up with all of the new words that are coming off of today’s scrivener assembly lines. According to the Global Language Monitor (GLM) English got it’s millionth word “web 2.0” at 5:22 on June 10, 2009.

And GLM says a new word is created every 98 minutes or about 14.7 words per day. By contrast, the French language has about one-tenth the amount of words as English – weighing in at about 100,000 words.

The scientifically minded amongst us always told me English had the most words – and GLM seems to bear that out. When I did a “Word Power” quiz in a Reader’s Digest a few years back and got such marvels as “bling bling” and “beater” as the words I needed to identify with definitions – I realized that the language is constantly changing [“labile” to a word-o-phile (“logophile” for purists)] – and I needed to do more verbal calisthenics if I hoped to keep up.

The most recognized word on the planet is the brutally efficient “OK” which no one seems to agree on how to spell or its word origins in English.

Some say it goes back the newspaper printing process in Boston spelling out “oil korrect” in 1839 – others say U.S President Martin Van Buren was nicknamed “Old Kinderhook” when the campaign slogan “Old Kinderhook is OK “swept the nation – others say it is from the native American word “okeh” in the Choctaw language – and still others go further back to ancient Greece where “ola kala” means “all is well.”

But if you think “American English” is only used on this side of the pond, you only have to watch your favorite British TV show to wince through a few “don’t go there’s” and other typically U.S. urban words and expressions that have been appropriated anachronistically for use by our so-called language-conscious Redcoat cousins.

One of the most disappointing moments of my life was when I first purchased a copy of the Sunday London Times only to find out that instead of getting the deep dish and lowdown on what Mick, Keith and the Royal Family were doing – they instead had articles on Sylvester Stallone and Eddie Murphy.

So it’s not just our words that are being exported – but, as witnessed by “Big Bang Theory” being the number one TV show in America (and China) – it’s also our culture. People around the world want to know what Angelina Jolie, George Clooney and Hillary Clinton are doing – maybe in THAT exact order.

The British gave birth to America – and thanks to the two things we do better than anyone in the world (TV shows and new word order) – we now instruct THEM in the proper use of the English language. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Having spent several months in a Spanish-speaking country last year – I know first-hand that many cultures and languages actually resent the would-be intrusions of English into their respective languages. English, however, does not share that compunction.

Still, in that Spanish-speaking country I noticed that the word “OK” has been adopted into their language as one of its own. I asked Spanish speakers about this at the time and they just sheepishly shrugged their shoulders in embarrassment – knowing that I had caught them in an Americanization of their hallowed language.

With the advent of social media, I didn’t want to be the one to tell them that that uber-efficient word had evolved to being one letter less – because whether you text msg, instant message or email – OK is now “k.”

OK?

  

© 2014 John Francis McCarthy/Secret Goldfish Publishing House, LLC

John McCarthy is an investigative reporter, artist and photojournalist based in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Please send questions and comments to: johnfmccarthy807@msn.com

 

 

 

The More Things Change

OLD SCHOOL IS THE NEW SCHOOL IN TV:

AN UNBLINKERED LOOK AT THE FUTURE:

THE VIEW FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

 

By JOHN McCARTHY

MODERATE VOICE COLUMNIST 

 

    In the movie “Truth or Dare” we got a glimpse into the future of TV.

     Only we didn’t realize it when we were watching it in real time.

     “There’s nothing to say off camera,” Warren Beatty complains in the 1991 film. “Why would you say something if it’s off camera? What point is there existing?”

     Beatty’s irony seemed spot on then – but although he’s a gifted writer, director and actor – he couldn’t predict the future of television any more than he could figure out whether or not he should take the lead in a Quentin Tarantino flick (Kill Bill) – (he may have been right on that, though.)

     It seemed outrageous at the time to think that a celebrity – in this case Madonna  – would choose to exist only when the cameras are rolling. In a way it was contrived –

 but in another it was cinema verite – the good, the bad and the ugly of her on and off-stage life would be revealed for what it was.

     So as we are “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” we realize that 23 years later – the Material Girl had a crystal ball into the boob tube – just like the Wicked Witch in “Wizard of Oz” trying to pick up Dorothy on early GPS.

     Andy Warhol is given credit for saying that: “in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” But in 1968 who could predict the future? Not Bobby Kennedy.

     Just a year after “Truth or Dare,” reality TV was born as major network television tried to stay one step ahead of the writer’s strike. We have all been survivors of the launch of Paris Hilton’s career (not the one on videotape) – and the resuscitation of a rock star who by all counts should have died before Keith Richards – Ozzy Osbourne.

     I would not have know that the Kardashians’ show even existed were it not for a stay at my sister’s house a couple years ago. Eye candy might be the answer to the question why so many of us are fascinated by the ersatz dramas dreamed up by Kim, Kourtney, Khloe, Kendall and Kylie.

     But Honey Boo Boo and “Duck Dynasty” prove that you don’t have to be beautiful or rich to be successful in the modern-day ratings wars – but with a parallax view of the future have we reached the saturation point of reality TV? The good people among us hope so.

     If reality TV began when Madonna was at her apex, the real good stuff came about ten years after we were introduced to “Big Brother” and MTV’s “Real World” –

maybe as a reaction to what we are already feeling today – that as more and more desperate housewives get ready for their close-ups – hopefully more and more well-written series like “Lost,” “The Sopranos,” “The Wire,” “Deadwood,” “House, M.D.” and “Nurse Jackie” are in the works.

     In the entertainment business, it used to be the ultimate put-down to say that a film was shot “in real time.” They were the kind of movies that made you regret spending two hours of your life stuck in a movie theater.

     Let’s hope that we have reached the point of no return when it comes to America idolizing shows that allow you to vicariously dance with the stars or show that you have talent – even though when the show’s over the majority of the contestants are still poor and not famous. Anybody can upload to YouTube a bear falling out of a tree onto a trampoline – but how many times do you want to “just press play” and watch that?

     Madonna, at the height of her career following “Truth or Dare” released a coffee table book of herself with other women in various states of undress in “Erotica” – an electric, vibrant and sometimes shocking personality reduced to an age-old still life just didn’t fly with the public – and her career stalled. Warhol, at the apogee of his fine art career turned to films and showed us where the future really lies with reality TV.

     The eight hours of a moving pictures of a static building in “Empire” demonstrates where this is all going. Do you have the patience to wait several hours for the lights to go on at the Empire State Building in New York City? (Andy also said that his movies are better talked about than actually seen.)

     As we sit riveted to our iPhones and tablets while pretending to watch what’s on TV, maybe that’s all we are doing – keeping one eye out – or an ear, so that when someone asks us about it at the office the next day we can say: “Yeah, I saw that. It was cool.” When we all know it wasn’t.

   Everyone remembers where they were when Tony Soprano blinked off on the TV screen. Our JFK moments can now happen in riveting television dramas. But they have to be good ones, not collages of sound bites that are cobbled together by editors in a production booth.

     Warhol’s artworks covered up the warts and moles of the celebrities we all know and love. His pancake makeup silkscreens told us that Leo Castelli had good bone structure – and Liza Minelli, Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn were still relevant. But his “screen tests” revealed when Dennis Hopper got nervous or Bob Dylan was bored. Dan Rather said “the camera never blinks.”

     As we get closer and closer to a type of TV that Andy invented, where the filmmaker simply turns on the camera and walks away – what will that reveal about us as human beings?

     Don’t blink or you’ll miss it.

     Just like The Sopranos ending.

 

 

© 2014 John Francis McCarthy/Secret Goldfish Publishing House, LLC

 

John McCarthy is an investigative reporter, artist and photojournalist based in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Please send questions and comments to: johnfmccarthy807@msn.com

 

 

 Image