Emerson’s essay The Superlative is delightfully school marm-ish. In it, he lectures on why one should not use superlatives. I think he must have just returned from bad company and been a bit grumpy when he wrote:
We talk, sometimes, with people whose conversation would lead you to suppose that they had lived in a museum, where all the objects were monsters and extremes….They use the superlative of grammar: ” most perfect,” ” most exquisite,” ” most horrible.”… they are enchanted, they are desolate, because you have got or have not got a shoe-string or a wafer you happen to want, – not perceiving that superlatives are diminutives, and weaken; that the positive is the sinew of speech, the superlative the fat. If the talker lose a tooth, he thinks the universal thaw and dissolution of things has come. Controvert his opinion and he cries “Persecution! ” and reckons himself with Saint Barnabas, who was sawn in two.
I know several people like this, they drive me nuts. You probably know people like this too. Sometimes they can be entertaining especially when they are telling a story. But when you are out and about with them in the middle of the drama so to speak, it is not so very amusing. I veer.
Emerson believes the use of superlatives reveals a poverty of skill to convey quality information so the person tries to make up for it by quantity so no one will notice. The real problem with superlatives is that they are exaggerations of the truth. Why any fact needs to be exaggerated is beyond Emerson. Plain speech that is to the point is all that is needed, why even
Spartans, stoics, heroes, saints and gods use a short and positive speech. They are never off their centres. As soon as they swell and paint and find truth not enough for them, softening of the brain has already begun. It seems as if inflation were a disease incident to too much use of words, and the remedy lay in recourse to things.
There you have it, superlatives prove you have a soft brain. I wonder if there is a correlation between brain softness and frequency of exaggeration?
“Children and thoughtless people like exaggerated event and activity ; like to run to a house on fire, to a fight, to an execution,” writes Emerson. Can you imagine what he would think of nightly news broadcasts where the smallest things are turned into tragedies and the tragedies are turned into localized apocalypses?
Emerson does recognize that superlatives can be used for humor. He even gives a couple of examples that he clearly enjoys. The difference is that the speaker, when employing exaggeration for humorous effect, does not mean to be taken seriously. Someone who turns the spot of mustard she got on her shirt during lunch into the most horrible thing ever because she has a presentation to give to some bigwigs needs to get a grip. As Emerson so plainly puts it:
The firmest and noblest ground on which people can live is truth ; the real with the real ; a ground on which nothing is assumed, but where they speak and think and do what they must, because they are so and not otherwise.
Firm up the brain. Speak plain. Speak true.
Next week’s Emerson: The Sovereignty of Ethics
It sounds like he’s mixing two phenomena: people who are excitable but perhaps lack the vocabulary to express their feelings accurately, and people who are narcissistic and blow their experiences out of all proportion. I think we can’t fault the former but the latter is certainly tiresome.
I am sure he would find television a superlative hell. Although in his day, newspapers were probably already well-equipped with a full arsenal of mostests and bestests.
Why can’t we fault people who “lack the vocabulary to express their feelings accurately”? They can work on their vocabulary! By, for example, reading more. This is just the sort of self-improvement project Emerson could get behind.
In high school (’80-’83) I had an English teacher who bemoaned the destruction of the meaning of our words. Awesome came to no longer mean something that instilled a sense of awe, but rather became merely an acknowledgment that we heard the previous comment. To some extent I could accept his arguments, but I think he should have been more worried about our inability to differentiate between adjectives (myriad) and nouns (plethora): if I see one more AP article that mentions a myriad of anything, I will surely scream “at the top of my lungs”.
Congrats on surviving the read-a-thon. I noticed your synopsis was missing a lot of words, but assumed it was sleep deprivation.
Oh but exaggeration is fun; it’s where one gets to add emotion to facts. I do adore that line: ‘If the talker lose a tooth, he thinks the universal thaw and dissolution of things has come.’ That’s so me, I shall have to try to commit it to memory!
This sounds like Emerson veering a bit toward crankiness. I can understand his irritation, though. If people routinely exaggerate, then I begin to feel that I can’t trust them; they undermine their own credibility. On the other hand, is it such a bad thing to depart from truth a little bit, now and then?
I tend to agree. And while Sylvia made a good point, excitable people can be tiresome as well.
That being said, I spend a good bit of time weeding all the “verys” and extremelys” from my writing, so I probably am just as guilty.
I have started to keep a list of words that no longer mean anything. “Nice” is the premier word.
As for the comment about superlatives: we are not teaching our students to be critical thinkers. Critical thinkers are precise thinkers. People who speak in superlatives, think in superlatives, and they miss the point. I would much rather speak truth than effuse over beauty.
Yep, superlatives are great for humour, or for attracting attention, or for just winding up a boring situation. Also, in writing!
Most interesting. Whoops.
I like Emerson’s point. I won’t elaborate, my brain is soft enough.
Sylvia, he does put them both in the same category. He is more forgiving to the ones without education because they can learn. The others should know better.
Verbivore, right on both counts. Though I don’t think newspapers in our day have gotten any better.
Amateur Reader, you are right. Emerson would hope the less educated would work on improving themselves.
Bikkuri, we must have had the same high school teacher
If I hear screaming coming from your direction I’ll know you’ve been reading AP news.
Litlove, that is a great line, isn’t it? Emerson would agree with you on the exaggeration being linked to emotion and then he’d say that is one reason why he doesn’t like it–moderation and reason should rule the day.
Dorothy, that’s exactly it. We can’t trust people who exaggerate all the time, like the boy crying wolf story. I agree with you and Litlove though, a little mild exaggeration from time to time adds some spice.
Staci, I am a “very” and “really” weeder.
RRL, a very good point. Have you been channeling Emerson?
Shameless, you are–shameless
LK, LOL
Booksplease, I’m sure your brain is firmer than you give yourself credit for!
Ah yes, it would be more frustrating if one knew that the other person had a better vocabulary than they were using. I must admit I tone down my vocabulary to avoid confusing people, looking like I’m showing off, or threatening any sensitive egos that may be in the vicinity. Sometimes it’s just more politic to use tons of really cool superlatives!
I really enjoyed reading this post and comments, although I know I’m guilty of superlative abuse. I always appreciate Emerson, though, so I’m looking forward to next week’s post!
Sylvia, true, sometimes well used superlatives can get you through a tough situation.
Dewey, thanks! I think abusing superlatives is easy to do, I admit to indulging now and then
Plethora is only a noun but myriad can swing either way. I’ve actually never heard of anyone saying its wrong to use myriad as a noun. Is this published somewhere?
The Emerson essay is available online and is linked at the beginning of the post.