Friday
Jun112010
A nasty little word to be avoided
Friday, June 11, 2010 at 7:58AM
It’s taken a couple of days for me to calm down sufficiently to write this. But I saw the word ‘etc’ in the Times the other day, honest. It was in the first ‘column’ written by their new World Cup ‘columnist’ the ‘comic’ James Corden, who I think appears on the telly or something and is one of the new generation of ‘celebrities’. Like most columns these days the subject is, of course, not the ostensible one, football, but principally the writer himself, in this case discussing how that TV classic Gavin & Stacey seems destined to dog him for life.
I shrieked, of course. About the use of ‘etc’ more than anything. Shrieked so loudly the dog went into hiding and only came out four hours later after a tempting offer of biscuits.
Etc? In the Times? I tell you if that paywall had been up and I’d forked out cash to see this monstrosity even biscuits wouldn’t have got that dog out.
Let me plead with you: except in extraordinary circumstances never use such a nasty little excuse for a word. Here’s why.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain is to give you an example of correct usage. It’s in The King and I where Yul Brynner expresses the pomposity and seeming ignorance of the monarch by declaring, ‘Et cetera, et cetera…’ at the end of every sentence he couldn’t be bothered to finish.
This was the habit of the real king, as recorded in the supposedly biographical Anna and the King of Siam, a book the Thais hate with a vengeance and say is utter fiction. In the musical this arrogant and comical habit is used to point up the king’s character. Whether Anna and the King of Siam carries a shred of truth or not, it’s certainly accurate to associate the term with monarchs.
Nicholas II of Russia’s official title was ‘Nicholas II, By the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera’. When you had that many dominions, you see, it got tiresome to list them all.
There’s a clue to the wastrel nature of this word in its loose spelling. It can be written in full as ‘et cetera’ or ‘etcetera’, shortened to ‘etc’ or even – shudder – ‘&c’. Real words generally have only one spelling. It’s Latin in origin, naturally, and simply means ‘and the rest.’
Unless you’re a monarch with so many dominions you can’t be bothered to list them ‘etc’ should always be avoided in journalism, fiction and most non-fiction too. Words are supposed to signify something. This signifies nothing. All it indicates is that the writer is too bone idle to spell out the items that the ‘etc’ stands for.
Why? If they’re important, take the time to write them. If they’re not, they don’t need mentioning in the first place.
The use of ‘etc’ is, ninety nine times out of a hundred, an indication of nothing more than laziness on the part of the writer, and laziness in writing deserves to be called out, always. Had someone submitted copy containing the word ‘etc’ when I was a writer on the Times back in the 1980s the newsroom would have immediately resembled one of those Bateman cartoons, full of shrieking hacks astonished and hurt any of their peers could wish to commit such an injury to the much-loved person of the Thunderer.
Someone should have a word with the equally idle sub-editor who allowed this dread monster into a serious national newspaper. Given how much ‘celebrity columnists’ cost these days, and how much the Times is losing, Rupert deserves more for his money than this.
I shrieked, of course. About the use of ‘etc’ more than anything. Shrieked so loudly the dog went into hiding and only came out four hours later after a tempting offer of biscuits.
Etc? In the Times? I tell you if that paywall had been up and I’d forked out cash to see this monstrosity even biscuits wouldn’t have got that dog out.
Let me plead with you: except in extraordinary circumstances never use such a nasty little excuse for a word. Here’s why.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain is to give you an example of correct usage. It’s in The King and I where Yul Brynner expresses the pomposity and seeming ignorance of the monarch by declaring, ‘Et cetera, et cetera…’ at the end of every sentence he couldn’t be bothered to finish.
This was the habit of the real king, as recorded in the supposedly biographical Anna and the King of Siam, a book the Thais hate with a vengeance and say is utter fiction. In the musical this arrogant and comical habit is used to point up the king’s character. Whether Anna and the King of Siam carries a shred of truth or not, it’s certainly accurate to associate the term with monarchs.
Nicholas II of Russia’s official title was ‘Nicholas II, By the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera’. When you had that many dominions, you see, it got tiresome to list them all.
There’s a clue to the wastrel nature of this word in its loose spelling. It can be written in full as ‘et cetera’ or ‘etcetera’, shortened to ‘etc’ or even – shudder – ‘&c’. Real words generally have only one spelling. It’s Latin in origin, naturally, and simply means ‘and the rest.’
Unless you’re a monarch with so many dominions you can’t be bothered to list them ‘etc’ should always be avoided in journalism, fiction and most non-fiction too. Words are supposed to signify something. This signifies nothing. All it indicates is that the writer is too bone idle to spell out the items that the ‘etc’ stands for.
Why? If they’re important, take the time to write them. If they’re not, they don’t need mentioning in the first place.
The use of ‘etc’ is, ninety nine times out of a hundred, an indication of nothing more than laziness on the part of the writer, and laziness in writing deserves to be called out, always. Had someone submitted copy containing the word ‘etc’ when I was a writer on the Times back in the 1980s the newsroom would have immediately resembled one of those Bateman cartoons, full of shrieking hacks astonished and hurt any of their peers could wish to commit such an injury to the much-loved person of the Thunderer.
Someone should have a word with the equally idle sub-editor who allowed this dread monster into a serious national newspaper. Given how much ‘celebrity columnists’ cost these days, and how much the Times is losing, Rupert deserves more for his money than this.
Reader Comments (15)
Mea culpa et cetera. Oh, and is it discussin, or discussing?
A great use of etcetera (and Latin for that matter) is in the 1971 version of Willy Wonka, where Gene Wilder explains to Charlie how he feel foul of the contract. I assume this is in the book etc.
As an aside, there seems to be an abundance of '&c' used in 19th century correspondence.
The subs should certainly have caught it (unless Corden's contract forbids any changes to his copy). One begins to worry; about a week ago a letter to the paper contained the words "an sentence". The letter was about the writer's perception of a decline in standards of written English (and the error was neither illustrative nor ironic).
Speaking of laziness, what about 'ninety nine times out a hundred'?
Surely: more often than not.
Or is etcetera really misused precisely ninety-nine times out of a hundred?
This is excellent! There is nothing quite like a linguistic pet peeve to get me fired up. I read about wars and poverty; and starvation: but all I see is the terrible punctuation?
Oh come on - it's a quick blog morning post, unedited, unrevised, unseen by a sub editor. Not an expensive column in a national newspaper that's supposed to go through some kind of editorial vetting process and several eyes before it's seen before the public who are paying to read the kind of writing that would get kicked back at GCSE level.
Is that the best you can do?
Surprising, as Corden was in 'The History Boys' for years, where the teacher Hector delivers a devastating tirade about the evils of 'etc'(admittedly in the context of the Holocaust). But let's not forget that Corden is an actor, so probably wasn't listening to anybody else's lines...
Well spotted I must say....
Thanks for the very interesting post! I think I've read something similar in "The Elements of Style". (I'm not a native speaker, but I have to write a lot in English, so I'm trying to improve by following such advice.)
David, what a touchy audience you have. I enjoyed your blog in its "quick morning post" nature and since you alerted me to an embarrassing typo I had posted on FB, I stand ready to defend you against all attackers--especially the....never mind. My editor won't let me use the word I want.
Today I have been reading Gordon Stables MD's 1891 "Girl's Own Book of Health and Beauty". He has strong views on 'Womens' Rights Ladies', corsets, exploitation of servents (noted to be worse in England than the treatment by Arab mistresses of their slaves in the savage African city of Lamoo), dust, tricycling as a cure for chronic ailments, quack doctors and many other things. He is proper in every way. He is also a heavy user of &c. ( eg item 13 on his list of suitable hobbies "Work for bazaars, &c, &c.")
I am enjoying his advice.
Point taken, but that's what you get when an Apple fanboy seeking redress spots an opportunity... :)
The Victorians did love etc it's true. But I suppose we had lots of dominions back then so perhaps they felt justified.
Suggestion: will you please take on the usage of 'gotten' as the past participle of the verb 'to get'? It's 'got'. [But I'm sure I'll hear a lot of flak about it.]
Okey dokey... but I may not say what you think.