Yesterday, I was editing the Introduction to my “Rehabilitating Lochner” book, and I needed a word to fill in the following sentence: “Lochner itself is now considered the ___ of the liberty of contract cases, though the opinion has not always attracted such disproportionate attention.” After some thought, I came up with the word “apotheosis.” I thought it looked good, and, given that this was an early sentence in the book, made me sound erudite.
But then I remembered that I’m trying to write for the readers’ benefit, not to sound smart or well-educated. (William F. Buckley, who was an excellent writer but often used obscure words, was trying to sound smart, in part to counter the image that conservatives are ignorant.) And I noted that even though I have a pretty good vocabulary, I had to look up apotheosis to make sure I was using it correctly, which likely meant that many of my readers would be unsure of the word’s meaning. So I deleted apotheosis, and replaced it with “epitome,” a much more common word. The sentence may sound less erudite, but it’s much more comprehensible.
UPDATE: On further reflection, I changed the sentence to “Lochner has come to exemplify the liberty of contract cases, though the opinion has not always attracted such disproportionate attention.”
DJR says:
Good for you.
February 16, 2010, 8:30 amcorneille1640 says:
Bravo! I’m often tempted to use big words, and often fail to use the more understandable ones. It’s hard to do.
February 16, 2010, 8:52 amJerry E. Stephens says:
Your heading says it best. Thank you.
February 16, 2010, 9:12 amRoger Sweeny says:
Apotheosis, epitome; tomato, tomahto.
I don’t think this is much of an improvement. Many readers still won’t be sure what you’re trying to say here. Perhaps you need more than one word. Perhaps you need a differently structured sentence. Ask yourself, “What point am I making here? What do I want the reader to get out of this piece of my book?” (Yes, I’ve been accused of having the soul of an editor.)
February 16, 2010, 9:17 amCaesar says:
I disagree to some extent. As a general rule, your thesis is correct. But the uncommon word here or there adds flair and flavor. Language would be boring without variety.
Buckley would never have been Buckley–and would never have been as admired–had he used common words all the time.
The “fancy” word sometimes works, other times not.
February 16, 2010, 9:23 amIt’s a balancing act.
S says:
I’d say the ‘bete noire.’
If the context in which you use that sentence does not explain it, than you really have failed.
February 16, 2010, 9:29 amHouston Lawyer says:
While I don’t think we should emulate Conrad Black, we shouldn’t dumb down our writing either. Sometimes I use a word that people don’t understand. I don’t do this intentionally, but I don’t apologize for it either. My biggest block to using words is the lack of a spell check feature.
February 16, 2010, 9:31 amAllan Leedy says:
“Shizzle” might of been more better.
February 16, 2010, 9:31 amBD says:
I would have said “Cadillac.”
February 16, 2010, 9:31 amEric Rasmusen says:
Excellent post. I like this example, because it’s one where the fancier word actually would be better if everybody knew it and it were commonly used— it has the more appropriate meaning. But you did right to sacrifice it, for just the reasons you say.
On the other hand, if this were the *concluding* sentence of the book, it would be better to use “apotheosis”. By then, the reader would have gotten your general meaning, and his vague sense of what “apotheosis” means would carry him over the finish line.
As Caesar said, unfamiliar words add flavor. In most places we don’t want flavor, just nutrition. But there remain a lot of places where we care as much for the flavor in our writing.
February 16, 2010, 9:33 ambyomtov says:
I’m with Roger Sweeny. What are you saying about Lochner?
“most important..”
“best example..”
“starting point of a series of..”
Something else?
February 16, 2010, 9:35 amAnderson says:
Searching the Westlaw COA database yield 14 case hits for “apotheosis” (including one book title, one quotation from a newspaper, and one business name).
(Least expected use: “More recently, a number of celebrated theologians have viewed humanism not as the antithesis, but rather as the apotheosis of religion. Karl Barth, for example, declared that ‘there is no humanism without the Gospel’ (cited in 5 Ency. Brittanica 199 (Micropaedia) (1982) ); see also K. Barth, The Humanity of God (1960); H. Kung, On Being a Christian 530-602 (1974).” Grove v. Mead School Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1536 n.6 (9th Cir. 1985).)
Whereas “epitome” yields 199 case hits.
Point being that Prof. Bernstein’s intuition is correct, but that one needn’t always rely on intuition, at least if one’s law firm pays a flat fee for Westlaw.
(“Bete noir”: 2 case hits.)
February 16, 2010, 9:39 amJoshua Taylor says:
I would rather you did not sacrifice precision and style because you think some might be unfamiliar with your word choice.
I agree with responders above that the sentence seems awkward in any surmised context.
For the record, I had never seen “apotheosis” before.
February 16, 2010, 9:48 amChrisIowa says:
When you’re groping for a word that will make the sentence work, maybe you need a different sentence. or two.
February 16, 2010, 9:51 amAnon321 says:
I think the principle is right, but it seems to me that you may have sacrificed accuracy for perceived comprehensibility in this case. Specifically, to say that Lochner is considered the apotheosis of liberty-of-contract cases suggests that it was the high-water mark; to say that it is considered the epitome of liberty-of-contract cases suggests that it perfectly typifies the group.
I could be wrong, but I think the former is more accurate: that Lochner is (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be something of an outlier — the case that stretched the doctrine so far that it finally broke. If I’m wrong and Lochner is perceived to be simply the most representative iteration of the doctrine, then epitome is indeed the better word. If not, I’d consider revising the sentence again, perhaps choosing a noun phrase that expresses the meaning of apotheosis without requiring readers to turn to the dictionary.
February 16, 2010, 9:51 amPsychDoc says:
Was ‘S’ being funny? Because otherwise bete noir would seem to be the opposite of what’s being suggested.
February 16, 2010, 9:52 amJoe T. Guest says:
Joshua, your response expresses the apotheosis of unfamiliarity.
February 16, 2010, 9:52 amJoshua Taylor says:
Joe, it is amazing what we can accomplish in our ignorance.
February 16, 2010, 9:56 amDavid Bernstein says:
Actually, I’m glad you said that, because I was really going more for the latter meaning than for the former. Another problem with apotheosis was that it has several shades of meaning.
February 16, 2010, 9:56 amAnon321 says:
Ah, very good then. Carry on.
February 16, 2010, 10:07 amDavid says:
Well, I for one am disappointed that “apotheosis” is now considered too obscure to be used in an article destined for (presumably) literate readers with a modicum of culture.
Anyone familiar with the history of Rome would be familiar with the term: in its original meaning, it’s essentially synonymous with “deification”, and is often used to describe the transition from “First Citizen” to “(God-)Emperor”. I guess no one studies classics any more.
And, BTW, “epitome” doesn’t really mean the same thing as “apotheosis”, even metaphorically: “apotheosis” implies an ultimate, non-improvable achievement (“Barack Obama’s election is the apotheosis of black political advancement in America.”), whereas “epitome” simply means highly characteristic (“Barack Obama is the epitome of the post-racial, assimilated black man in America.”).
As to WFB’s supposedly “trying to sound smart”, he wrote an excellent essay–collected in “The Right Word”–in which he vindicates himself of the charge. You might want to read it.
February 16, 2010, 10:09 amNaG says:
Huh…when I first read the sentence, I was thinking of “sine qua non.” But maybe that wouldn’t have been the best choice.
February 16, 2010, 10:16 amSteven Lubet says:
I don’t see anything wrong with using an unusual word in academic or scholarly writing, especially if it accurately conveys your meaning. “Apotheosis” strikes me as more precise than “epitome,” but DB now says (in the comments) that “epitome” is closer to his intended meaning. If that is the case, of course, then “epitome” would be preferable even if it were less common — thus undermining the headline of the post.
In any case, why not say “best example” or “leading example,” if that is the desired meaning?
Finally, I think it is wrong to assume that readers dislike learning new words.
February 16, 2010, 10:17 amS says:
Psych: Ironic not funny.
February 16, 2010, 10:17 amSuperSkeptic says:
I first thought to fill in “cornerstone”, but I like “epitome”.
February 16, 2010, 10:21 amSuperSkeptic says:
I don’t think this is the assumption; rather, we like coming across them naturally, not artificially.
February 16, 2010, 10:23 amA. Criminal says:
“I think the following rules will cover most cases:
February 16, 2010, 10:23 am1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.”
– Orwell
David Bernstein says:
Because that’s not really what I mean, I mean that Lochner has come to stand for the whole series of cases. But I like “is the epitome of” better than “has come to stand for the entire line of” for brevity.
February 16, 2010, 10:29 amSteven Lubet says:
What is artificial about referring to Lochner as the apotheosis (rather than the epitome) of freedom of contract cases? And what would be a more natural use of apotheosis in any sentence?
February 16, 2010, 10:32 amwill47 says:
I’m not sure why the mere use of lengthy or obscure words should be viewed as an attempt to impress one’s audience (though I recognize that such is the case and tend to revise my works to remove such words from initial drafts). Most of the likely audience of this work has some sort of post-graduate degree, so they shouldn’t be terribly impressed anyway.
February 16, 2010, 10:32 amS says:
Insert ‘emblematic of ,’ and ditch ‘the’ and ‘of the’ for greater brevity.
February 16, 2010, 10:35 amSteven Lubet says:
Well, if you mean “epitome” then that’s the word you should use — but that has nothing to do with avoiding unusual words and everything to do with simple clarity of expression.
What if you actually meant “apotheosis”? Would you still say “epitome” for the sake of familiarity? I don’t think so.
February 16, 2010, 10:40 amAJK says:
That really is the original meaning of epitome, so I guess that makes it the right word to use. That does seem to undermine this example as an illustration of the point you were making in your post, however.
February 16, 2010, 10:42 amRoscoe says:
Never heard the word before, that I know of. If I had to guess at a meaning (prior to reading this post) it would be “villain on the SG-1 TV show.”
February 16, 2010, 10:50 amSuperSkeptic says:
Perhaps using “apotheosis” in this context is natural, but the broader point of “Write to Explain, Not to Impress” is that if you suspect you are being unnecessarily grandiose or highfalutin, it is best elucidate with a clearer, concise, (probably more regularly-used) word. I was merely taking issue with your perception that there exists an “assum[ption] that readers dislike learning new words” in the post – which I do not think is true.
February 16, 2010, 10:54 amSuperSkeptic says:
That is what I meant by ‘natural not artificial’ use.
February 16, 2010, 10:57 amThales says:
I think “epitome” rather than “apotheosis” is both more accessible and more precise, if I understand the general take on Lochner. “Bete noire” might also be accurate when describing the public view of the case, but it sounds like it makes a different point than what you want. Arguably Holmes’ caustic dissent accuses the majority of apotheosizing liberty of contract.
February 16, 2010, 11:18 amJoe T. Guest says:
What S said is correct, IMO. “Emblematic” strikes me as the word you were looking for in the first place, particularly if Lochner stands as a symbol of freedom-of-contract cases. “Apotheosis” has a shade of meaning that connotes a thing is the greatest of its kind, or perhaps also the last. I’m not sure Lochner is either.
February 16, 2010, 11:28 amyankee says:
I would not have been able to tell what you’re trying to say whichever word you picked. I’m most familiar with the definition of “epitome” as “the height of, the best,” so either way it sounds to me like you’re trying to say that Lochner is regarded as the best of the liberty of contract cases. What does it mean to say that one of these cases is better than the others?
Even the “representative example of” definition of “epitome” has a strong positive connotation, which would also leave me confused since Lochner is nearly universally derided. “Nadir” would be more appropriate as a description of the common view.
Either way, I doubt you’re trying to make a point about the quality of Lochner. I would stick with a phrase that clarifies what you’re trying to say most people think of the opinion. Perhaps “the most important of” or “the furthest-reaching of”?
I also think the structure of the sentence is a bit awkward.
February 16, 2010, 11:33 amThrobert McGee says:
Correct usage: ”O Fortuna” by Apotheosis is the ne plus ultra of early-’90s techno remixes.
(Ah, kollidge days…)
February 16, 2010, 11:41 amDavid Bernstein says:
Hmm, “emblematic of” or “the epitome of?”
February 16, 2010, 11:47 amThrobert McGee says:
Also, for the blank in the original sentence, how about “the most egregious of the liberty of contract cases”? That nicely conveys the idea of “immortally crap-tacular” — which, I gather, is now the prevailing opinion in legal circles, although I am not a lawyer.
February 16, 2010, 11:56 amDavid Bernstein says:
A little more context may be helpful: “Lochner itself is now considered the __ of the liberty of contract cases, though the opinion has not always attracted such disproportionate attention. In fact, after the New Deal’s constitutional triumph in the 1930s, Lochner languished in obscurity, cited almost exclusively as just one in a line of discredited cases invalidating legislation for infringing on freedom of contract.”
February 16, 2010, 12:04 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
“archetype”
February 16, 2010, 12:06 pm“most infamous example of”
Curt Fischer says:
I guess not enough people read Stephen King’s The Gunslinger any more.
February 16, 2010, 12:08 pmS says:
Yes, I like smooth’s suggestion of infamous given the broader context. In that case, strike “considered.”
February 16, 2010, 12:10 pmAdam Kamp says:
At first, I had the same reaction as Anon321–that “epitome” didn’t mean quite the same thing as “apotheosis,” and was thinking that “pinnacle” would have been a more suitable replacement. But then I read that you were looking more for the Platonic ideal sense, so I was mollified.
However, I also think that the average person capable of easily reading those two sentences you just posted is either not going to have difficulty with “apotheosis,” or is going to be generally confident enough with language as a whole to pick the meaning up from context or simply look it up. And it’s a cool word. So I’m not necessarily sure that deleting it would have been the proper tack.
I’d also like to note that the sentence you just posted that comes after the statement in question has wonderful structure. For the record.
February 16, 2010, 12:14 pmS says:
Also, strike ‘itself.’
February 16, 2010, 12:16 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I used to read a lot of King, but somehow never got to any of The Dark Tower. I don’t know why. Then I began to find him redundant, and haven’t been back since. People always told me there was an unusual flair about that series too. He has an interesting book “On Writing: A memoir of the craft” as well, if anyone is interested.
February 16, 2010, 12:25 pmMike McDougal says:
Isn’t reading them in a book “natural”?
February 16, 2010, 12:27 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Indeed, one of the most natural ways, I would say.
February 16, 2010, 12:39 pmOff Kilter says:
Perhaps “iconic”
February 16, 2010, 12:45 pmAndrew says:
I’d say “typical disaster” instead of “epitome.” The rest of the book should be adjusted accordingly, IMHO.
February 16, 2010, 12:49 pmKevin R says:
Not sure if it is good or bad that my main point of reference for that word is Babylon 5.
February 16, 2010, 12:50 pmvonneumann says:
This is the best essay on writing ever written. It is short, so I suggest it. By Bertrand Russell:
http://www.solstice.us/russell/write.html
February 16, 2010, 12:53 pmA. Cooper says:
After all, if you want to impress, you can always make a blog post after finishing the article.
February 16, 2010, 12:56 pmPedro says:
Wow. 56 comments about switching apotheosis to epitome. Typical lawyer mindset: debate and complicate the simple, to obscure reality. It is obvious, to anyone not “thinking like a lawyer,” that epitome is a much more common word than apotheosis and therefore its use in a sentence simplifies and clarifies to the reader, what the writer is trying to say.
You should see some of the briefs submitted to my court. Easy concepts are lost on the reader, usually federal judges and law clerks, because lawyers want to sound smart. When lawyers try to sound smart, they usually look dumb. “Keep it simple, stupid.”
P
February 16, 2010, 1:08 pmhttp://www.whoneedslawyers.com
Martinned says:
I guess my gymnasium education wasn’t entirely wasted, since I had to look up epitome but not apotheosis. Given this:
I’d have to say that I’d sooner read apotheosis in the former meaning than in the latter.
February 16, 2010, 1:15 pmscc says:
embodiment?
February 16, 2010, 1:21 pmStephen Lathrop says:
There’s also stylistic sensitivity to consider. “Apotheosis” used correctly, by Melville:
And now class, back to Lochner.
February 16, 2010, 1:49 pmMaistre says:
I think the problem was not that apotheosis is a fancy word but that it doesn’t make much sense in the context. How could Lochner have ever achieved apotheosis if it was controversial at the time and has been almost universally condemned in generations since?
February 16, 2010, 1:53 pm“Apotheosis” works best when you want to comment ironically that something or other has become universally admired, even though it shouldn’t be. Here, Bernstein wanted to do more or less the opposite.
S says:
Re the update: “Lochner has come”? No. “Lochner came . . .”
February 16, 2010, 2:28 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Nothing, but then epitome doesn’t mean “the height of, the best.”
February 16, 2010, 2:30 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Or watched Babylon 5.
February 16, 2010, 2:31 pmMJG says:
I applaud this effort. And hey, even if you had used apotheosis, it’s certainly better than this, clipped from a recent book on psychanalysis, “Is Oedipus Online?”
February 16, 2010, 2:46 pmAJK says:
“Epitome” also comes from the classical period — I’m surprised you didn’t run into any while you were studying Greek or Latin.
February 16, 2010, 2:54 pmChris Travers says:
Or toured the nation’s Capitol building.
(Honestly, I have never heard of “apotheosis” used to refer to anything other than a person.)
February 16, 2010, 3:03 pmleo marvin says:
When I went to law school, Lochner was a baker. Now he’s considered a pharmacist?
February 16, 2010, 3:12 pmJim Hankins says:
He mean Lexus, but he don’t know.
February 16, 2010, 3:40 pmThales says:
Or to be even simpler, “most representative of.”
February 16, 2010, 3:53 pmthethunderingherd says:
The dozens of people who will read your book will appreciate your editing efforts.
February 16, 2010, 3:53 pmJBM says:
I would think “has come to be the most widely recognized example of,” or “has become synonymous with” is actually more appropriate. It’s not clear to me that liberty to contract cases all have particular qualities which can be “epitomized” in the way the word is most commonly used.
Re: S on came/has come, came would be correct if he were talking about some specific point in the past at which this happened, which is not the case so far as I can see; the sentence is describing a current state of affairs which originated at an indeterminate point in the past.
February 16, 2010, 4:12 pmxyz says:
apotheosis would have been wrong anyway.
February 16, 2010, 4:28 pm“Becoming divine” != “epitome”
David Bernstein says:
It’s more likely to be hundreds, perhaps the low thousands, but if it’s at least as widely reviewed as my last two books, hundreds of thousands will read about the thesis.
February 16, 2010, 5:03 pmCJ Rouse says:
So many astute comments above that I offer with diffidence the following suggestion: “Lockner is now considered the very type [or simply, "archetype"] of liberty of contract cases, though . . . .”
Incidentally, it might be well to omit “itself” if the main sentence precedes the subordinate; better, however, to reverse the order — “Though the opinion rendered in Lockner etc., Lockner itself ….”
February 16, 2010, 5:10 pmAnderson says:
I changed the sentence to “Lochner has come to exemplify of the liberty of contract cases, though the opinion has not always attracted such disproportionate attention.”
I hope Prof. Bernstein changes it again, because “exemplify of” makes no sense that I can see; it looks like a word-processed spawn of “be an example of” and “exemplify,” of which the latter is preferable.
Also, shouldn’t it be “liberty-of-contract cases”? A reader could stumble and think what’s exemplified is the liberty, not the cases.
February 16, 2010, 5:54 pmCookiemonsta says:
Anderson is right. Change it again plz. :)
February 16, 2010, 6:37 pmSparky says:
Somebody buy Prof. Bernstein a thesaurus.
Smooth, like a Rhapsody pretty much nailed it: archetype.
You might also want to consider prototype, or quintessential, or paradigm. “Apotheosis,” on the other hand, just misses.
February 16, 2010, 7:20 pmElliot says:
Dan Brown used “apotheosis” several times in his latest book, and explained it in some detail as meaning the transformation of a man into a god. While the word has other meanings, I’d suggest the Brown juggernaut has to be respected.
February 16, 2010, 7:34 pmDavid Bernstein says:
The “of” is there by accident, left over from previous version of the sentence.
February 16, 2010, 8:07 pmChris Travers says:
I dunno. If your view is that it has been somewhat over-represented and made into more than it is, perhaps “apocolocyntosis” would have been a better word ;-)
February 17, 2010, 12:28 amStephen Lathrop says:
Sparky found it: not archetype (distant original), prototype (test pattern), or quintessential (most refined example), but paradigm (sets the pattern). Paradigm is it.
February 17, 2010, 2:40 amJeff Walden says:
“paragon”, “apogee”, and “epitome” all came to mind as potential words to use here. The former seems most idiomatic in the form “paragon of noun-ness”, and I’m not sure I see an easy way to use it that way here given the complexity of the concept in the description, so it’s out. “apogee” might fit — but if you’re not going for a “height” connotation but rather just for “highly representative” it seems only “epitome” really fits your intended meaning. I’m not sure it’s necessary to avoid “epitome” in favor of “exemplify” and some wordiness, but they seem close enough that it hardly matters much.
“apotheosis” is another word at the edge of my vocabulary that I’ve seen before (but less often than “aegis” of the other thread today) but whose definition I hadn’t fully internalized. I agree it makes sense to avoid it, particularly so early in the book.
February 17, 2010, 3:56 amChris Travers says:
In case anyone points out that “apocolocyntosis” isn’t in the dictionary, I suppose nobody reads Roman literature anymore…
If apotheosis is turning someone into a god, then apocolocyntosis is turning someone into a gourd (or pumpkin). The word is found, to my knowledge, only in the title of a short skit by Seneca satirizing the apotheosis of Claudius.
February 17, 2010, 11:11 amNumber 6 says:
I used to have arguments along these lines with my editor. My position was that I chose the words I use carefully, and if I use a scary, polysyllabic word, it’s because that word best expresses what I am trying to say. If you’re sacrificing precision of expression to avoid offending people who don’t like high-falutin’ words, you’re not gaining anything.
February 17, 2010, 11:30 amApotheosis is not an uncommon word, at least not among the audience for whom you are writing.
While it may sound snobbish, my gut-level response to people who dislike ‘big words’ is to suggest that they either buy a damn dictionary or read more.
Number 6 says:
One other note: the word must be right. I’m not familiar with the case being discussed, but unless you meant that the case was the highest expression of liberty of contract cases, you were reaching for the wrong word. As was noted above, I think archetype is the word you want.
February 17, 2010, 11:34 amSo-big words are fine if they express exactly what you mean. But you must know what the words mean before you use them.
Rich Rostrom says:
Chris Travers says: apocolocyntosis is turning someone into a gourd (or pumpkin).
That’s a great addition to vocabulary. I sometimes hear people announce their own imminent apocolocyntosis – usually around 11:30 PM at a party. Now I know the correct word to use.
February 17, 2010, 3:12 pmChris Travers says:
“Archetype” has the benefit of describing the relationship of precedent to current cases as well.
February 17, 2010, 3:59 pmChris Travers says:
I always thought ‘archetype’ was sort of like “original form from which copies are made.” Ideal in the Platonic sense.
February 17, 2010, 4:01 pmMichael B says:
Do we in fact know what William Buckley’s motives were? Isn’t it equally or even more probable that he was simply something of a promoter of and aficionado of the language?
And is it very likely that employing more obscure terms impresses others? Isn’t it more likely to have precisely the opposite effect, especially so when the word used isn’t fitting?
February 18, 2010, 10:08 pmSam Luchow says:
I’m new around these parts but thrilled to see such an active discussion over a word like “apotheosis.” Everyone missed the finest use of the word in American literature; from Melville’s _Moby Dick_:
“Take heart, take heart, O Bulkington! Bear thee grimly, demigod! Up from the spray of thy ocean-perishing–straight up, leaps thy apotheosis!”
“Apotheosis” seems naturally preceded with a “thy.” My two cents.
February 19, 2010, 12:23 am