Editor’s note: Herschell Gordon Lewis, Direct’s Curmudgeon-at-Large, is a copywriter renowned as an authority on the use of words. This is one of an occasional group of articles on word use.
WHAT’S THE difference between pig, porker and swine?
Physiologically, none. Psychologically, substantial. Interpretatively, gigantic.
A mother might tell her dinner-gobbling offspring, “Don’t eat like a pig.” She wouldn’t admonish, “Don’t eat like a swine.” She might — if she used that highly pejorative word at all — use it to describe her alimony-delinquent ex-husband.
As I recall, it was Gilbert K. Chesterton who said, “When two words have the same meaning, one of them quickly disappears.” (To be fair, he also said, “The only way to be sure of catching a train is to miss the one before it.”)
Too many wordsmiths either ignore or never have discovered the psychology of word use. Sometimes, in creative workshops, I’ll point out the difference between apparent synonyms such as trousers and pants, or phrases such as keeps your feet toasty warm and keeps your toes toasty warm, when used in sales pitches.
Word overuse and word abuse are fraternal twins. Exemplifying overuse and abuse is the word thing. (Obviously, the more nondescript a word is, the more common is its overuse and abuse.)
So we say, thoughtlessly, “The thing is…” — followed by what we mean to say. On a more profound level, visualize the difference in emotional impact between “If I could give you one thing” and “If I could give you one gift.” Moving up the scale of specificity also moves up the scale of expressive power.
NO, THEY AREN’T IDENTICAL
If only because you’re on a professional level that warrants a subscription to Direct, I assume you know the difference between eager (positive) and anxious (negative). But do you put that knowledge to use in your professional communications as well as in your personal and spoken communications?
The non-parallel of those words typifies the mild challenge confronting us as we place tentative fingers to keyboards. (Suppose the wording of the previous sentence had substituted hesitant for tentative…or uncertain for tentative. Can you see how your own interpretation would differ? And, to add frosting to this tentative cake, suppose the sentence you just read had begun “Can’t you see…” instead of “Can you see…”? Wouldn’t that approach have been an irritant, suggesting you aren’t quite bright?)
IT’S NO BIG DEAL
Note that subhead — “It’s no big deal.” Did you also note the casual rhetoric, which in turn generates a non-confrontational response?
Suppose instead of “It’s no big deal” the wording had been “It’s no problem.” The emotional response that wording generates, however minuscule the difference, is, yes, a difference. And this is what we do — generate a specific rather than a nonspecific (or worse, inadvertently negative) response.
That’s why, except for communications in which we deliberately want to seem pedantic, we eschew words such as eschew. That’s why, when we’re listening to a speaker and out comes the word paradigm, we sag in our seats.
Writing to a target group that regards itself as intellectually superior is a major challenge, one worthy of creative tests. Do we use eschew and paradigm? Do we use utilize instead of use? Do we lard our messages with four-syllable words to show we’re on that same intellectual plane? No single answer exists, which is why word tests, whenever practical, are in order.
I once put together a direct mail package in which I wrote, “Ex pede Herculem, as they say.” Ah, that was when I was young and foolish. (Now I’m just foolish.) The phrase meant: By observing the foot of Hercules one can visualize the entire body. Today, I’d ask of whoever might write that way, “So what? Don’t you have a clearer way of making the point, especially since we’re in the no-attention-span, finger-on-the-mouse 21st century?”
Probably the writer, who in keeping with that deadly syndrome Writer’s Automatic Defense, would answer haughtily, “Exitus acta probat — the outcome justifies the deed.” Result: a solid “Huh?” And the deadlock automatically linking and separating logic and ego would be confirmed.
TECH TALK HAS ITS PLACE
Catalog copywriters have at once an easy and difficult time of it. The easy part is separating tech talk from selling copy: Just start with benefit, and subordinate features to bullet copy following the selling copy, not preceding it.
(Did you react to the word “Just” that initiated the previous sentence? “Just” was inserted to pre-establish receptivity to how easy the procedure is. Without “Just” you’re left to your own interpretation.)
The difficult time catalog copywriters have is condensing — or, on occasion, expanding — copy to fit a pre-established space. That’s a discipline more writers of force-communication messages should practice.
So don’t be afraid of tech talk. That isn’t what we do. Rather, we set up a receptive climate.
And setting up a receptive climate is, after all, what any professional salesperson does. Ignore that concept and you either aren’t professional‥or you aren’t a salesperson…or, sadly, you’re neither.
Hey, be happy. I’m referring to those other guys, who don’t know what we know.
(Oh, last point: See how “Hey” convivializes the close? And see how “convivialize,” although an invented word, is still comprehensible? And see how “is still” beats “nonetheless” for conviviality? And see…aw, that’s enough for this issue.)
HERSCHELL GORDON LEWIS (www.herschellgordonlewis.com) is the principal of Lewis Enterprises in Fort Lauderdale, FL. He consults with and writes direct response copy for clients worldwide.
Network
