"Mind-boggling" was first used by New York Times writers in the 1960s, got a boost from Senator Howard Baker when he used it to describe John Dean's testimony during the Watergate hearings in 1973, surged in the 80s and 90s, climbed to around 11 uses a month after the turn of the century, and in the last thirty days, in what looks like another surge, has been used in articles 36 times.
Before 1964 overwhelmed minds were mainly numbed, though after 1966 they could also be bent, and after 1974 blown. No mind between 1851 and the Great Depression apparently registered enough shock to bring forth from Times writers any special terms. "Striking," "extraordinary," "overwhelming," and "astonishing, used without reference to the mind," seemed to serve.
In the New York Review of Books a smaller and more academic readership could see minds boggle in 1972 and numb in 1975. They had been bending since 1968. Over the whole life of the New York Review, from 1963 to the present, minds were blown only four times.
I am grateful for "mind-boggling." It takes me up that notch that, with some things (like John Dean's testimony), I need to go. It's like calling, now, a fundamental shift or change "seismic." I hear there's been "a seismic shift in global politics." I'm right down there with the tectonic plates, feeling the support for everything move around. Talk about fundament! "Boggle" puts my mind in the same situation, with all the scenery shaking.
Is my reaction a sign that those special words will have legs? No, because I'm too worked up by them, so worked up that I'm conscious of how good they are, and, inevitably, of how good the writer is. That does no harm to the words in their early uses but it's definitely harmful later when I start to say, "Oh, another writer being good." Then, when writers can't stop at what deserves to be called "seismic" or "boggling," or take me up notches I shouldn't go to, they cut the legs right off their word. I get sick of it and turn with relief back to the ordinary words.
When my mother made that analogy between life and a box of chocolates, she meant that the first one you ate was always the best, and you shouldn't overdo it. Same with "boggle."
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of once at dinner during the mind-blowing 70's when Mother exclaimed (history does not record what she was talking about) "I could care less!" My father put down his fork, looked her straight in the eye, and said in a low voice "Laura: fab-o-wow sock-it-to-me baby."
This overuse syndrome also occurs in the sciences. A few mind-blowing examples are the following: 1) "complex and poorly understood" refers to a mechanisms that we don't yet understand. If we don't understand it, how do we know it's complex? 2) "taken together" refers to a synthesis of data to reach a conclusion. I like taken together, because that is what we actually do. However, I can't use it anymore because everyone uses it. 3) "crucial" is usually used when the writer is trying to convince the reader of the importance of their data. An example of the context is "understanding the pathophysiology of (whatever) is crucial to developing new therapeutics." What part of the physiology? What new therapeutics? What this really means is "in our dreams, we would like to think that our research and data actually mean something." There are more examples, but describing them may become mind-numbing.
ReplyDeleteThere's something for us in the humanities to think about. The hard scientists are as human as we are!
ReplyDelete