Words that simply aren't used often enough

Okay, I admit it. I am a word geek. There, I have said it. There are some words which simply say things better than their more common counterparts. Here's a challenge for my readers: use these words in conversation during the next week.

>>> akimbo
with hands on hips, elbows bent outward.

Peter Pan stood akimbo whilst mocking Captain Hook. In comic books, the villains stand akimbo while laughing maniacally over their nefarious plans, while costumed superheroes stand akimbo, their country's flag flapping majestically behind them, after defeating nefarious malefactors. Don't just stand there, people! Be you good or evil, if you truly want people to take notice of you, stand akimbo!

>>> gelid
very cold, icy, frosty. Latin, 1600–10; gelidus icy cold.

Choosing to take public transportation rather than driving to work, I find myself being exposed to extremes in temperatures which challenge the wisdom of that choice. Most days, I don't mind; I relish the relative coolness of early morning in late summer or the "brisk" walk to the bus stop in the winter before the sun has risen. But there are days where the descriptions of "hot" and "cold" fall short. I discovered a splendid word last year. A coworker asked me how cold my walk in had been. I replied it was positively gelid. At his request I defined the word and he suggested I might be but one of a handful of people on the planet who would ever use it. Nonetheless, I insisted, for the day in question, no other word would do. A week or so later he pointed me to a story in the local paper where a sportswriter describe a recent game night using that very term. I felt justified; my coworker remained unconvinced. A couple months ago, I came across the word in Christopher Fowler's mystery The Victoria Vanishes. So I see the word isn't entirely extinct. However it might need help of people like you to give it the recognition it deserves.

>>> kerfuffle
a great commotion.

This is a great word I used once to quell an escalating argument among the children of some friends. "Hey!" I demanded, "What's all the kerfuffle about?" Each child immediately began to defend his own stance, and then the commotion petered out as the new word sunk in. I believe the meaning was readily discerned - after all, they knew they were squabbling, and that an adult would intervene for no other reason. But new knowledge rendered their arguments moot, and peace was restored, at least temporarily.

>>> malefactor
a criminal; a person doing harm or evil toward another.

As most translations of the Bible render Luke 23: 33, Jesus was crucified between two "criminals". At least one translation refers to the other men as "evil-doers", which comes closer to the Latin root malefactor: to act wickedly, do an evil. Both the King James version and the Darby translation give us a little extra flavor: "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left." Now doesn't that just sound more intriguing than "criminals"?

>>> nefarious
wicked, vile, from Latin nefarious, equiv. nefās offense against divine or moral law.

The sorts of deeds malefactors commit. Some criminals are merely bad; others are nefarious!

>>> rascal
a dishonest or unscrupulous person; a mischievous person or animal.

Whichever meaning you chose, unscrupulous person or mischievous person, this word has sadly fallen out of common use. How could this happen? I was reminded of this wonderful word by being referred to as such (second meaning, thankfully) a couple weeks ago. Not as common as they once were, but are still recognized by most people, are hooligan, whippersnapper and scoundrel. Meriting honorable mentions are rapscallion, varlet and miscreant.

So there you have it: a dozen words which not only convey specific meanings, but are fun to say and will make you the life of any party. Well, maybe not the life of the party. But using these words will certainly leave an impression upon others.

Re-read: "To Kill a Mockingbird"

This past July marked the 50 year anniversary of the publication of "To Kill a Mockingbird". It has long been one of my favorite books, one I read every five years or so. I had planned to re-read it this year before knowledge of the anniversary came to me, so the many news stories I heard on NPR made for a happy coincidence.

This time I had decided to listen to the audio version. I don't know how many times I have read the book nor do I remember how old I was when I first read it (I think I was around twenty.) Each time I read it my own life experiences give me the opportunity to experience the story with new eyes, and this time was no exception. Part of that might be listening to it rather than reading it. Having someone read to you is a delicious experience, especially if the narrator can speak in the character's voice. I don't mean voice imitations; I don't mean a woman narrator speaking like a man or vice versa, although that does add richness to the experience (anyone who has ever heard the myriad of voices Jim Dale evokes while narrating the Harry Potter books knows what I mean there.) Rather, I mean a narrator who draws the listener into the story so completely as to make it sound like you are hearing the story firsthand. Roses Pritchard narrated the version I listened to, and she is such a narrator.

The story is one of the handful of books Hollywood ever got "right". But as powerful as the movie was, and as wonderful as Gregory Peck portrayed Atticus Finch, the movie pales in comparison to the power of the book. It is of course a tale of racial prejudice and injustice and a small town's awakening consciousness. Some have criticized the novel for what they consider its one dimensional portrayal of African Americans, and for perpetuating a more subtle form of racism by an equally one dimensional portrayal of whites as saviors. If the story were set today, or even at the time the book was written, fifty years ago at the height of the Civil Rights movement, I might agree with that assessment. But the story was set in a different time, in post Great Depression America.

I am certainly not saying that the times made those prejudices and injustices right. They were wrong then just as they are wrong now. They did, however, exist, much more strongly and blatantly then than they do now. What rights were conferred by law and what actually took place were unfortunately different things. It took men and women of both races to stand up against their friends and courage to challenge society's beliefs - and their own - to make those laws a vibrant reality for all regardless of race. That is the second reason I challenge that one-dimensional assessment: the book is full of characters who did the right things despite being afraid or confused, despised, ostracized and even persecuted for it.

Atticus Finch defends the falsely accused Tom Robinson not only because he is court appointed to do so but puts his full efforts into it because it is the right thing to do, and he actively teaches his children Jem and Scout a better way to live than what the community is teaching, preparing them for greater challenges he knows are coming, and the way in which he handles bitter disappointments and failure. Despite their own flaws, Calpurnia, Reverend Sykes, Miss Maudie, Aunt Alexandra and Uncle Jack each teach the children something. Even "minor" characters Dolphus Raymond, Link Deas and Walter Cunningham Sr. prove themselves more valiant than they first appear.

The movie focused on the two main intertwining stories of Tom Robinson's trial and the mysterious neighbor Boo Radley, but left much out. The novel also explores the themes of drug addiction, social and economic class, fascism, and being a Christian not only in word but also in deed. Pretty heady stuff for a child to witness and try to make sense of - and the story is told entirely through the eyes of young Jean Louise "Scout" Finch. Wise beyond her years she may be, she is still growing up in a confusing, rapidly changing world. Still, make sense of it she does, through keen observation, loving relationships with her father and other adults, growing first apart from her brother and then drawing again closer to him, and finally, the passage of time and the greater understanding that brings. Perhaps that passage of time is why I myself see the story with fresh eyes every time I read it.

To Kill a Mockingbird

The Food Police vs. Common Sense

One of my pet peeves is those individuals who many refer to as "The Food Police". These are the people who don't simply tell you to eat healthy, but have grandiose guidelines which border on the insane. These are the people who appear to believe that the Common People are too stupid to realize that a small fast food restaurant cheeseburger has fewer calories and less fat that the quadruple patty with 3 ounces of cheese, battered and deep fried "Super Deluxe Special" burger does. These are the people who tell you that a large movie theater popcorn with butter has thousands of calories and a week's supply of saturated fat and you're "better off not going for that free refill!" Has anyone other than the Incredible Hulk ever eaten two large buckets of movie theater popcorn all by themselves?

I figure if someone thinks I'm stupid, they should tell me straight out, rather than hint at it.

I used to read these "Eat This, Not That" lists until I realized I got angry every time I read one. I didn't get angry because my favorites were in the "Not That" column (in fact, sometimes they were in the "Eat This" column.) Nope, my ire was raised by the comparisons themselves. Did you know that four ounces of all natural, no sugar added fruit juice is a healthier alternative than 32 ounces of a sugary carbonated soft drink? Gwarsh, Mickey! Okay, that's a slight exaggeration. How about this one: four ounces of all natural fruit juice is better for you than four ounces of fruit juice cocktail? Do the people who put together these list truly think nobody reads nutrition or ingredient labels, or don't know that "cocktail" means "a little bit of juice flavoring with a bunch of sugar added to reduce the company's costs"? Other lists compare eating a candy bar to the healthier rice cake with an eighth of a teaspoon of artificially sweetened jam. Hey, you've convinced me! Goodbye, chocolate bliss, hello strawberry flavored Styrofoam!

Equally annoying are the lists that compare only calories or only fat, and state that Choice B is better than Choice A because it has 30 fewer calories and 1 fewer grams of saturated fat. The reason the people making these lists think no one reads nutrition labels is because they don't read labels themselves. The (slightly) higher calorie and (marginally) higher fat choice has significant amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals that the "healthier" choice does not. It's all important, folks. Watching those fats and calories might give you that slim figure you're after, but it won't make you healthy. Yes, it's true that carrying around extra weight and clogging your arteries with trans-fats will shorten your lifespan. So will malnutrition. If you don't get sufficient nutrients your internal organs will get diseased and wither, and you will die. Your body, however, will look fantastic in your casket.

Recently a friend sent me a recipe for chicken prepared in a way supposedly comparable to a popular Chili's entrée. The recipe compared fat, calories, protein and other nutrients between the two dishes. Chili's is one of my favorite restaurants, so I looked closely at the comparisons. I checked out the nutrition information of that particular dish from Chili's website and added up the numbers from the individual ingredients from the "make it yourself at home and save money as well as fat and calories" recipe. The numbers-per-serving of the home recipe were pretty accurate. The numbers from the Chili's entrée -- well, a little bit of tweaking took place there. I can overlook the discrepancy in the initial counts, as the recipe was a few years older than the currently posted Chili's nutrition information; I reasoned that Chili's had adjusted their recipe over those few years which would account for the slightly lower amounts. But the real subterfuge in the Food Police's comparison came with what actually ended up on the plate.

The numbers cited for the Chili's entrée were "as served" - which means "served with two side dishes." As anyone who has eaten at Chili's knows, most of their side dishes are sautéed. Even those which are not are going to add at least calories if not additional fat. The numbers for the home recipe, however, were for an individual serving of chicken, no side dish included. In addition, the home recipe served four people and the Chili's recipe served one - with the same amount of chicken! Yes, folks, four servings do indeed contain more fat and calories than one!

These restaurant comparisons always assume that just because your server puts the plate in front of you, you have to clean your plate. Mom made you do that when you were growing up, but I've yet to eat at a restaurant which required it. With the exception of all-you-can-eat buffets, every restaurant will give you a bag, box, or carton to take home what you cannot (and probably should not) finish in the one sitting. Chili's is one of my favorite eating establishments but I seldom leave without taking home half the meat and sometimes a portion of the veggies as well. When I go out to eat with friends, those who don't ask for take-home containers leave the remainder on their plates for the server to take away. Places like Chili's give you a lot of food for your money. I'm sure many people do clean their plates. In my experience, most people do not - because we're not used to eating two or three meals all at once.

If those who made food comparisons made honest comparisons, I wouldn't be annoyed. I'd still eat whichever choice made my mouth and tummy happiest; sometimes that is the "healthier" choice and sometimes it is not, and I'm smart enough to realize a smaller portion will satisfy the craving just as effectively as a larger portion will. But you cannot honestly or accurately compare a serving of meat (regardless of whether it is skinless and broiled or still-skinned and fried) to a complete meal, or an apple to a box of jujubes, or a glass of water with lemon twist to a tall glass of lemonade.

Anyone - Food Police or those who buy into the subterfuge - who thinks such comparisons contain any truly useful information has been eating "healthy" for far too long, and the lack of proper nutrients has rotted their brains.