I'm whelmed...
So I've been wondering this for a while. If you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed, then can you be simply 'whelmed'? For example, I just went to see X-Men: The Last Stand. As comic book adaptations go, it was a pretty fun movie, on a par with the first two instalments. Certainly, the special effects were good, but nothing spectacular; I wasn't overwhelmed. Some of the acting left much to be desired (honestly, Vinnie Jones??? Whose idea was that...?), but then again, it wasn't terrible; I wasn't wholly underwhelmed. In fact, I left the cinema with that certain feeling of having just seen a movie and being satisfied; I felt whelmed.
Or did I? It seems that according to dictionary.com, that actually wasn't how I was feeling at all. Apparently, 'whelmed' either means 'submerged/covered in water' or is merely an alternative term for 'overwhelmed'. This, of course, begs the question of why we need to be overwhelmed if, in fact, by merely being whelmed we must be feeling the same thing. Kind of like when people overexaggerate. How can one possibly overexaggerate? (A friend of mine recently explained to me that Americans certainly do overexaggerate, possibly because the norm in the US is to exaggerate, and so they need a term to describe those outliers.....)
You might think that this is merely a pedantic rant on my part, but I assure you that it has important implications. In much the same way as it has become the norm to exaggerate, I have no doubt that it has also become the norm to be overwhelmed. There is, for example, the word 'understate', which one might consider the opposite of 'exaggerate'. But the English language seems to lack a common word to convey the fact that someone is merely stating facts as they are. And so, ironically, lacking a word to describe things accurately as they are, we've resorted to exaggeration (in theory, we could also understate, but that rarely gets us anywhere, e.g., "global warming is just a minor aberration"). And so it is with 'whelmed'. There being no term to describe that quietly satisfying feeling of contentment, we have no choice but to be overly enthused or positively unimpressed. Which, I suggest, is why society is so in awe of mediocrity......
Or did I? It seems that according to dictionary.com, that actually wasn't how I was feeling at all. Apparently, 'whelmed' either means 'submerged/covered in water' or is merely an alternative term for 'overwhelmed'. This, of course, begs the question of why we need to be overwhelmed if, in fact, by merely being whelmed we must be feeling the same thing. Kind of like when people overexaggerate. How can one possibly overexaggerate? (A friend of mine recently explained to me that Americans certainly do overexaggerate, possibly because the norm in the US is to exaggerate, and so they need a term to describe those outliers.....)
You might think that this is merely a pedantic rant on my part, but I assure you that it has important implications. In much the same way as it has become the norm to exaggerate, I have no doubt that it has also become the norm to be overwhelmed. There is, for example, the word 'understate', which one might consider the opposite of 'exaggerate'. But the English language seems to lack a common word to convey the fact that someone is merely stating facts as they are. And so, ironically, lacking a word to describe things accurately as they are, we've resorted to exaggeration (in theory, we could also understate, but that rarely gets us anywhere, e.g., "global warming is just a minor aberration"). And so it is with 'whelmed'. There being no term to describe that quietly satisfying feeling of contentment, we have no choice but to be overly enthused or positively unimpressed. Which, I suggest, is why society is so in awe of mediocrity......
posted by CCT at 9:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home