didn't adjectives use to mean something? I mean, didn't they once serve to enhance meaning? A writer was supposed to use them sparingly and think very carefully about how they were employed. Nowadays adjectives reveal more about writers than their subjects. Though what they reveal I can barely imagine. I recently read an article, for example, about Ted Kaczynski's first video appearance in court. He was described as looking "relaxed," "well-trimmed," "well-groomed" and "fit." Huh? Is he supposed to be a poster boy for Most Improved Grooming? So his lawyers gave him a haircut and made him take a shower before he appeared on national television in the trial for his life — is that in itself news? Then there's the political use of adjectives. The adjectives applied to President Bush during the height of the pre-production phase of the Gulf War had an (dare I say) eerie similarity to those used to describe the (I can't stop myself!) alleged Unabomber: "relaxed," "fit." We cannot draw any conclusions from this beyond the obvious: the word "fit" has two different meanings when applied to potential mad bombers and former U.S. presidents. In the first case, the word "fit" is meant to make us think,"Say, that guy's not so bad. He's got a sports coat!" In the second case, "fit" is designed to make us think, "Say, that guy's not as nervous as I thought! Maybe the Gulf War won't signal the end of the world as we know it !" The word "tense," used to describe a movie thriller, becomes an entirely different adjective when applied to a Secretary of State. In the former case, the adjective is designed to make you want to leave the house for in a once-in-a-lifetime entertainment experience in Dolby and 70 mm film. In the latter, the adjective encourages you to hide under your bed and hope you have enough bottles of water to last for the prolonged global crisis that will surely come. Certain adjectives are now reserved exclusively for (forgive me) Beltway types. Most politicians, in the course of their careers, are eventually and inevitably described as being "determined," "grim" or "savvy." And every time you read the adjectival phrase "behind-the-Beltway," remember that politicians will come and go, but journalists live behind the Beltway forever. The other big adjective abuser is, of course, Hollywood: "feel-good," "roller-coaster," "thrilling," "moving," "suspenseful," "surprising" and "frank" (or even "surprisingly frank") are among the many modifiers movie critics, flacks and marketing types use to make themselves more indispensable to us than movies themselves (which, after all, come and go). For our purposes here, I don't wish to examine a neo-adjective like, say, "semi-autobiographical." I frankly don't know what it could possibly mean, anyway. Rather, I'd like to examine a phenomenon: certain adjectives whose lives have become linked inexorably with certain nouns. These particular adjectives and nouns have formed an unhealthy symbiotic relationship, and some form of intervention must occur before either descriptive term or thing described can ever experience recovery, closure or even a simple disconnect. Here's a partial (and random) list: Pyrrhic victory. Something else could be Pyrrhic once in a while, couldn't it? New, improved. These adjectives could be used to apply to something real, something that has actually been proven to be literally new and improved. Many things in our modern world, after all, are new, but whether they are improvements is debatable. Intensive. Today, this adjective can only be used with "care." We must reclaim it! Domestic. This word can only be used with "violence" or "worker." Fuzzy. Used only with "logic." Senior. Used only with "aide." Tough. Used only with "choices." Obsessive. When applied to a serial killer, it provides an excuse for his destructive bevavior. When applied to a movie producer, it provides an excuse for his constructive behavior. The word has lost all meaning. Active. Always use with "role." Animated. Only used with "film," "movie" or "feature." Human beings can no longer be animated. In my (humble) opinion, the following adjectives (this is just a sampler, mind you) should be removed from circulation for a period of time yet to be specified. If you have any other suggestions let me know. (I can be reached at mkessler@ix.netcom.com.) Inspiring. No it's not. Moving. Sorry. Infantile. Okay. What isn't? Riveting. What? I wasn't paying attention. Pompous. This is an adjective used by the pompous to denigrate others slightly less pompous than they. Obnoxious. Ditto. Lethal. This word has been part of a movie title (the "Lethal Weapon" series) and applied to public executions (i.e. "lethal" injections). It's an analog of "hip." Essential. Used only with "services." These services are about to receive a lethal injection; we must find a new use both for the poor and the essential. A final wrap-up: vigorous, memorable, powerful, smiling, relieved and strange. In my opinion, they should all be warehoused for a while. Oh, let's throw in sad, angry, confusing, technical and desperate. I'd like to retire the words caregiver, disconnect (as noun) and spin, but golly, a man only has so many words. It's tragic really. That's what I'd call it right now.

---

Last 5 columns:43 | 41 | 39 | 37 | 35 | Ill Humor archive
Bookmark: http://www.salon1999.com/weekly/shoales.html