Supine

Supine (pronounced soo-pahyn)

(1) Lying on the back, face or front upward.

(2) Inactive, passive, or inert, especially from indolence or indifference; displaying no interest or animation; lethargic, apathetic or passive towards something.

(3) Being reluctant to take action due to indifference or moral weakness

(4) Inclining or leaning backward; inclined, sloping (now probably obsolete except for poetic or historic use).

(5) Of the hand, forearm or foot, turned facing toward the body or upward: with the thumb outward (palm up), or with the big toe raised relative to the little toe.

(6) A technical rule in Latin; a noun form derived from verbs, appearing only in the accusative and the dative-ablative.  Often used to express purpose with verbs of motion

(7) A technical rule in English; the simple infinitive of a verb preceded by to.

(8) A descriptor (in English) for an analogous form in some other language.

(9) Inclining or leaning backward; inclined, sloping (now rare and used only as a literary or poetic device).

1490-1500: From the Latin supīnus (bent backwards, thrown backwards, lying on the back (and figuratively "inactive, indolent"), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European sup & up.  It was cognate with the Catalan supí, the Italian supino (on one's back), the Old French sovin, the Middle French souvin, supin & supin, the Anglo-Norman supin (which persists in modern French as supin), the Old Occitan sobin & sopin, the Portuguese supino and the Spanish supino.  The verb supinate dates from 1831 in the sense of "to place the hand so that the palm is turned upward" and was from the Latin supinatus, past participle of supinare (to bend back) and related to supinus (the related forms being supinated, supinating & supinators.  The adjective was from the Latin supīnus, the construct being sup- (in the sense of “under”) + -īnus (of or pertaining to).  The noun came later, from the Late Middle English supin (as in “supine of a Latin verb”) or the Middle French supin ((grammar) supine) all from the Latin supīnum (short for supīnum verbum (supine verb)) from supīnus.  It partially displaced the Old English upweard (upward, supine), from which Modern English gained "upward".  The now rarely used sense of "morally or mentally inert, negligent, listless, heedless" was in use in English by the early seventeenth century and the noun supinity is used in this context.  Supine is a noun & adjective, supination, supinator, supinity & supineness are nouns, supinate is a verb, supinated is a verb & adjective and supinely is an adverb; the noun plural is supines.

Lindsay Lohan supine from a photo-shoot by Terry Richardson (b 1965) for Love Magazine (2012).

The technical rule in Latin grammar: "the verbal noun formed from the past participle stem" is from the Late Latin supinum verbum (supine verb), the origin of which is undocumented but thought so called because, though furnished with a noun case ending, it "falls back" on the verb.  In Latin grammar, supine is best thought of as a practice rather than a rule and it’s observed rather than understood or applied.  The verbal noun is used in only a few syntactic constructions and occurs in only two cases, an accusative in -tum or -sum and an ablative in -tū or –sū although the accusative form is sometimes listed by scholars as the fourth principal part of the Latin verb, a fine distinction only they understand.

Although there was a war going on, the misuse of "supine" and "prone" (by fellow  physicians!) so disturbed Dr Edwin H Shepard MD of Syracuse, NY he wrote a letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) which was published in the edition of 27 May 1944.  Eighty years on, Very Well Health advises doctors the trick to remember the difference between supine and prone is: "supine contains the word "up", reminding you you are face up in this position while prone contains the word "on" which you can use to remember you are lying on your face or stomach."

So, strictly speaking, "supine" means lying face upwards while the words for lying face downwards are "prostrate" or "prone" but these have long been used loosely (probably increasingly so) for lying flat in any position.  Thus, the antonym correctly is "nonsupine" (or "non-supine") but "prone" is sometimes used, doubtlessly leaving many baffled, including, clearly, some physicians.  The synonym resupine is rare and may be functionally extinct.

Velleity

Velleity (pronounced vuh-lee-i-tee)

(1) Volition or desire in its weakest form.

(2) A mere wish, unaccompanied by an effort to obtain it.

1610-1620: From the Medieval Latin stem velleitās, from the Latin velle (wish, will), the construct being velle + ity.  (It Italian, velle is a learned borrowing from Latin velle, present active infinitive of volō (I want)).  The –ity suffix was from the French -ité, from the Middle French -ité, from the Old French –ete & -eteit (-ity), from the Latin -itātem, from -itās, from the primitive Indo-European suffix –it.  It was cognate with the Gothic –iþa (-th), the Old High German -ida (-th) and the Old English -þo, -þu & -þ (-th).  It was used to form nouns from adjectives (especially abstract nouns), thus most often associated with nouns referring to the state, property, or quality of conforming to the adjective's descriptions.  Velleity is a noun and velleitary is an adjective (velleitistic doesn't exist but probably should);the noun plural is velleities.

Velleities are volition in their weakest form; an indolent or inactive wish, in private life associated with good intensions like intending to give up smoking, something not infrequently said while lighting-up another.  It’s memorably illustrated by Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430) who, in the second edition of his autobiographical Confessiones in which he documented his seedy life in Carthage, recalled praying to God to “give me chastity and temperance, but not yet!”  Written between 397-400, Confessiones was an autobiographical work in thirteen volumes which traces Augustine's sinful youth and his conversion to Christianity by Saint Ambrose.  A mix of emotional sharing, a deconstruction of an intellectual journey and serious theology, it’s seems now a very modern approach to text and has been influential for a thousand years.  The lesson mean modern readers seem to take from it is that velleities between sinners in their cell and God in his Heaven are matters of private morality and consequences are limited.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Velleities however also are uttered by those administering public policy where consequences can be severe and global.  Alain Prost (b 1955; four-time Formula One Drivers' Champion) once observed of the driving style of Ayrton Senna (1960–1994; three time Formula One World Drivers' Champion) that “Ayrton has a small problem, he thinks he can’t kill himself, because he believes in God and I think that’s pretty dangerous for other drivers.”  When prime-minister of Australia Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022), a Pentecostal Christian who certainly believes in God, actually boasted of believing in miracles although, on election night 2019 when famously he repeated statement, he was being perhaps too modest, his victory very much a personal achievement against the odds although an opposition which seemed to have misplaced the script helped.  Still, maybe God helped and Scott Morrison, being closer to the Lord than most, may have been thought a deserved recipient.

Unfortunately, a cursory reading of his government’s climate-change policy suggested he expected God to deliver another miracle; there seemed no other way to account for the gaps in his government’s policy (The Plan to Deliver Net Zero: The Australian Way), the suggestion being that some 15% of the reduction was to be achieved through technology which didn't then exist and hadn’t yet been speculated upon, even conceptually; miracles clearly might be needed.  The breakdown of the sources of abatement in the plan was:

(1) Reductions already made up to 2020:    20%.
(2) The technology investment roadmap:    40%.
(3) Global technology trends:                     15%
(4) International & domestic offsets:           10-20%.
(5) Further technology breakthroughs:        15%.

Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021; US Secretary of Defense 1975-1977 & 2001-2006).

So, as constructed, the plan conformed to the government’s “Technology not Taxes” slogan although there was no discussion of the details relating to how much tax revenue was expected to be allocated to technology known or otherwise.  The 15% said to be solved by the invention of “further technology breakthroughs” was understood as part of the framework of knowledge made famous by the late Donald Rumsfeld who drew an often derided but actually useful framework of knowledge:

(1) Known unknowns.
(2) Known knowns.
(3) Unknown unknowns.
(4) (most intriguingly) Unknown knowns.

While the new technology could come from everywhere, the government was at least hinting miracles from (3) & (4) may be delivered.  Rumsfeld may or may not have been evil but his mind could sparkle and his marvellously reductionist principles can be helpful.  He reminded us there are only three possible answers to any question:

(1) I know and I’m going to tell you.
(2) I know and I’m not going to tell you.
(3) Don’t know.

There is a cultural reluctance to saying “don’t know” but really, sometimes it is best.  There was an argument it was wholly unreasonable to expect governments to offer a detailed plan to reach net zero carbon emissions in thirty-odd years and that for anything beyond a certain point it would be preferable to say “don’t know” because it has the priceless virtue of truth, although, as Mr Morrison (and, at least at some point in his life, Saint Augustine too) knew, if God really cared about folk telling lies, he'd have issued an eleventh commandant.

Nothing

Nothing (pronounced nuhth-ing)

(1) No thing; not anything; naught.

(2) No part, share, or trace (usually followed by of).

(3) Something that is nonexistent; non-existence; nothingness.

(4) Something of no importance or significance.

(5) A trivial action, matter, circumstance, thing, or remark.

(6) A person of little or no importance; a nobody.

(7) Something that is without quantity or magnitude.

(8) A cipher or naught; the quantity or quality of zero.  The value represented by the numeral zero (and the empty set: {}).

(9) As “think nothing of it” and related forms, a procedural response to expressions of thanks.

(10) In no respect or degree; not at all.

(11) Amounting to nothing, as in offering no prospects for satisfaction, advancement, or the like.

(12) In architecture, the contents of a void.

Pre 900: From the Middle English nothyng, noon thing, non thing, na þing, nan thing & nan þing, from the Old English nāþing, nān þing & naðinc (nānthing & nathing) (nothing (literally “not any thing”), the construct being nān- (not one (source of the modern none)) + þing (thing).  The earlier Old English was nāwiht (nothing (literally “no thing”), related to the Swedish ingenting (nothing (literally “not any thing, no thing”).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European ne- (not).  In slang and dialectical English there have been many non-standard forms including nuffin, nuffink, nuttin', nuthin, nuthin', nowt, nuthing & nothin'.  Slang has been productive (jack, nada, zip, zippo, zilch, squat, nix) as has vulgar slang (bugger all, jack shit, sod all, fuck all, dick).  Nothing is a noun & adverb and nothingness is a noun; the noun plural is nothings.

Lindsay Lohan wearing nothing (shoes don't count; everybody knows that).  Playboy magazine pictorial, January / February 2012.

The meaning "insignificant thing, a thing of no consequence" emerged circa 1600 (although as an adverb (not at all, in no degree), it was known in late Old English) whereas nothing in the sense of "not at all" had existed since circa 1300.  Phrases in the twentieth century were created as needed: “Nothing to it”, indicating something easily accomplished was noted from 1925 and “nothing to write home about” was really literal, recorded first and with some frequency by censors monitoring the letters written by soldiers serving at the front in Word War I (1914-1918); it appears to date from 1917, the extent of use apparently encouraged by it being a useful phrase exchanged between soldiers by word-of-mouth.  Nothing seems not to have been an adjective until 1961, an evolution of use (or a decline in standards depending on one’s view) which saw words like “rubbish” re-applied in a similar way.  A do-nothing (an idler) is from the 1570s, the noun an adoption from the from the verbal phrase and as an adjective to describe the habitually indolent, it’s noted from 1832.  The adjective good-for-nothing (a worthless person) is from 1711.  The term know-nothing (an ignoramus) is from 1827 and was later applied (though not deliberately) to the US nativist political party, active between 1853-1856, the bulk of which eventually migrated to the Republican Party.  The noun nothingness (non-existence, absence or negation of being) was first used in the 1630s but is most associated with the ideas around nihilism, the exploration of which became a mainstream part of philosophy in the nineteenth century.  Nothingness is distinct from the noun nothingarian which references "one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, a descriptive dating from 1789.  It's striking how often in religion, even when factions or denominations are in disputes with one another (sometime actually at war), one thing which seems to unite them is the feeling that whatever their differences, the nothingarians are the worst sinners of all.

The noun nihilist, in a religious or philosophical sense, is from the French nihiliste, from the Latin nihil (nothing at all).  Nihilism, the word first used in 1817, is “the doctrine of negation", initially in reference to religion or morals but later extended universally.  It’s from the German Nihilismus, from the Latin nihil (nothing at all) and was a coining of German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743-1819).  In philosophy, it evolved quickly into an extreme form of skepticism, the political sense of a "rejection of fundamental social and political structures", first used circa 1824 by the German journalist Joseph von Görres (1776-1848).  Most associated with a German school of philosophical thought including (rather misleadingly) GWF Hegel (1770–1831) and (most famously) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), the particular Russian strain was more a revolutionary political movement with something of a premium on violence (that would much influence Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924)).  Thus with an initial capital, Nihilism (Nigilizm in the Russian) as used in this context is specific to the movement of Russian revolutionary anarchism 1863-1917 and limited in that the meaning refers to the participants’ disapproval of all social, economic & political possibilities in pre-Soviet Russia; the sense they viewed “nothing” with favor.

A probably inaccurate representation of nothing.  

The idea of nothing, in a universal sense in which literally nothing (energy, matter, space or time) exists is difficult to imagine, imaginable presumably only as infinite blackness, probably because that’s the closest to a two-dimensional representation of the absence of any sense of the special, white implying the existence of light.  That nothingness is perhaps impossible to imagine or visualize doesn’t however prove it’s impossible but the mere fact matter, energy and time now exist in space does imply that because, were there ever nothing, it’s a challenge to explain how anything could have, from nothing, come into existence.  Some have mused that there are aspects of quantum theory which suggest even a state of nothingness can be inherently unstable and where there is instability there is the possibility of an event.  The argument is that under quantum theory, if long enough is allowed to pass (something which, bewilderingly, apparently can happen even if there is no time) then every possible event may happen and from this may evolve energy, matter space or time.  To speak of a time scale in all of this is irrelevant because (1) time may not exist and (2) infinity may exist but it can for administrative purposes be thought of as a very long time.  The intriguing link between time starting and energy, matter or space coming into existence as a consequence is that at that point (in time), it may be the only time “now” could exist in the absence of the past and future so everything would happen at the same time.  Clearly, the conditions operative at that point would be unusual so, anything could happen. 

That is of course wholly speculative but in recent decades, the “string theorists” have extended and refined their mathematical models to a degree which not long ago would have been thought impossible so some modelling of a unique point of “now” in nothing would be interesting and the basic framework of that would seem to demand the mathematics of a model which would describe what conditions would have to prevail in order for there truly to be nothing.  That may or may not be possible but might be an interesting basis from which to work for those trying to explain things like dark matter & dark energy, either or both of which also may or may not exist.  Working with the existing universe seems not to be helpful in developing theories about the nature of all this supposedly missing (or invisible) matter and energy whereas were one, instead of working backwards as it were, instead to start with nothing and then work out how to add what seems to be missing (while remaining still not visible), the result might be interesting and one thing which seems not much discussed is the notion the famous "dark energy" may be time itself.

It’s not a new discussion.  The thinkers from Antiquity were known to ponder the philosophers’ traditional concerns such as “why are we here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” but they also realized a more basic matter was “why does anything exist instead of there being nothing?” and for thousands of years this has been “explained” as the work of gods or a god but that really not a great deal of help.  In the Western tradition, this basic question seems not to have bothered angst-ridden Teutonic philosophers, the German Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) writing on the subject, as later would the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951).  Martin Heidegger (1889–1976, who was only briefly a Nazi) called it the “fundamental question of metaphysics”.  The English-speaking school, more tied to the empirical, noted the matter.

Debunk

Debunk (pronounced dih-buhngk)

(1) To expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

(2) To disparage, ridicule, lampoon.

1920–1925: An invention of US English, the construct being de- + bunk.  The de- prefix was from the Latin dē-, from the preposition dē (of, from (the Old English æf- was a similar prefix)).  It imparted the sense of (1) reversal, undoing, removing, (2) intensification and (3) from, off.  Like dis-, the de- prefix was used to form a complex verb with the sense of undoing the action of a simple one and the handy device has been most productive, English gaining such useful words as demob, degauss and, of course, the dreaded deconstruct & the lamentable decaffeinate.  It’s obviously valuable but the more fastidious guardians of English were of course moved to caution it shouldn’t be used because one was too indolent to find the existing antonym although it was conceded that some coinings were necessary to convey some special sense such as “decontaminate”, needed in those situations when something like “cleanse” is inadequate.  Bunk in this context was etymologically un-related to other forms of “bunk” and was a and was a clipping of bunkum (pronounced buhng-kuhm) which meant (1) insincere speechmaking by a politician intended merely to please local constituents and (2) insincere talk; claptrap; humbug.  Debunk & debunked are verbs, debunking is a noun & verb, debunker & debunkment are nouns and debunkable is an adjective; the noun plural is debunks.

Although the exact date in unclear, during sittings of the sixteenth United States Congress (1819-1821), a long, torturous debate ensued on the difficult matter of the Missouri Compromise, something which would later return to haunt the nation.  Well into discussions, Felix Walker (1753–1828; representative (Democratic-Republican (sic)) for North Carolina 1817-1823), rose and began what was apparently, even by the standards of the House of Representatives, a long, dull and irrelevant speech which, after quite some time, induced such boredom that many members walked from the chamber and other attempted to end his delivery by moving that the question be put.  Noting the reaction, Representative Walker felt compelled to explain, telling his colleagues “I’m talking for Buncombe”, referring to his constituents in Buncombe County.  Delivered phonetically, the phrase entered the political lexicon as “talking to (or for) Bunkum” and this was soon clipped to “bunk” meaning “speech of empty thoughts expressed with inflated or pretentious language”.  Later, the sense of bunk was extended to mean “anything wrong or worthless”.

Bunk in the sense of “wrong, worthless” probably gained its popularity from the phrase “history is bunk”, attributed to Henry Ford (1863–1947), famous for being founder of the Ford Motor Company and infamous for some of his more odious opinions.  His words first appeared in print in an interview, publishing in 1916, the context being his opposition to US involvement in the war in Europe:

"History is more or less bunk.  It is tradition.  We don’t want tradition.  We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we make today.  That’s the trouble with the world.  We’re living in books and history and tradition.  We want to get away from that and take care of today.  We’ve done too much looking back.  What we want to do and do it quick is to make just history right now."

Quite what Mr Ford meant has been much discussed over the years and the man himself did later discuss it, although there are inconsistencies in his explanations.  Historians have concluded he was expressing scepticism at the value of history as it is taught in schools and other educational institutions; his feeling being there was too much emphasis on kings & emperors, wars & empires, politics & philosophy and entirely too little on the lives of ordinary people who, in a sense, actually “made the history”.  Ironically, given his critique of what’s known as the “great man” school of history, he is regarded as one of the great men whenever histories are written of the early automobile and the development of assembly-line mass-production.

The verb “debunk” actually emerged from a work of what would now be called popular revisionist history.  In 1923, novelist William Woodward (1874-1950) published the best-selling Bunk, the blurb suggesting his purpose being to “take the bunk out of things” and debunk was soon adopted by academic historians who in the 1920s made something of an industry in writing books and papers debunking the myths and puff-pieces the propaganda of World War I (1914-1918) produced in abundance.  An obviously useful word, it was soon in vogue throughout North America and quickly made its way across the Atlantic and to the rest of the English-speaking world.  Pedants in England, rarely happy with anything new, of course objected to a short punchy word intruding where they might use a paragraph but debunk made itself at home and never left.

A more recent coining was "prebunk", used as both noun and verb.  The act of prebunking involves issuing warnings about disinformation or misinformation before dissemination and once done, the fake news is said to have been prebunked (in political warfare it's a pre-emptive strike and thus differs from something like an injunction which is preventive).  Very much a word of the era of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013), "prebunk" seems not to have been used until 2017, sometime after a spokesperson for the Trump administration formalized the concept of "alternative facts".  "Alternative facts" was not something new and had been part of the language of government probably as long as there have been governments but the Trump White House was the first blatantly to admit use.  Mothers with young children are familiar with "alternative facts" such as Santa Claus or the tooth fairy and the idea worked so well under Trump it became a core part of the Biden administration's media management although, if coming from Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) himself, it was hard to tell where "alternative facts" ended and senility began.

Servergate, the scandal about crooked Hillary Clinton's (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) home-brew mail server was as much about the cover-up which was her attempt to debunk the facts as it was about her initial wrongdoings.  For cartoonists, crooked Hillary was the gift which kept giving.   

Conspiracy theories have probably been around as long as human societies have existed but as means of communications have expanded, their spread has both extended and accelerated, social media just the latest and most effective vector of transmission.  Debunking conspiracy theories is also a thing although in this, there’s doubtlessly an element of preaching to the converted, the already convinced dismissing the debunkers as part of the conspiracy.  However, debunking can in itself be something of a conspiracy such as the wholly unconvincing stories concocted to try to explain away the curious business surrounding crooked Hillary Clinton’s home-brew mail server.  Trying to dismiss concerns about that as the stuff of conspiracy theorists was less a debunking than a cover-up.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap (1998).

A more conventional debunking was published by Nicki Swift which detailed the truly bizarre conspiracy theories about Lindsay Lohan’s “twin sister”.  It began after the release of the 1998 film The Parent Trap in which twins Hallie Parker and Annie James meet at summer camp after being separated at birth and, having been re-united, the pair embark upon a series of adventures in an attempt to bring back together their divorced parents.  Lindsay Lohan played both parts including many scenes in which the twins appeared together and while there had been advances in technology since Hayley Mills (b 1946) undertook the role in the 1961 original, the film was thought an impressive achievement in editing and stage direction, the body-double being Erin Mackey (b 1986, about a fortnight before Lindsay Lohan).

The conspiracy theory was that Lindsay Lohan didn’t play both parts and that she actually had a co-star: her twin sister Kelsey Lohan, variations of the explanation for the now absent spouse including that she was murdered immediately prior to the film’s debut while others say she was killed in 2001 after a mysterious (and well-concealed) disappearance.  BuzzFeed included an entry about this in one of their pieces about celebrity conspiracies, documenting the story of how after Kelsey died in a car accident (which, given her “sister’s” driving habits when young, was at least plausible) the Disney corporation “covered their tracks” by saying Lindsay portrayed the twins, her family corroborating this due to their obsession with celebrity.  Whether there was an intention to suggest Disney was in some was involved in the “death” wasn’t made clear but the wording certainly hints at the implication.  Surprisingly, nobody seems ever to have suggested the Freemasons were involved.

Mandii Vee (b 1996), for whom the truth is out there.

The idea of the Walt Disney Company as somehow evil has been around for decades and was the undercurrent in the helpful video posted on Mandii Vee’s YouTube channel, her explanation for the scandal being that Kelsey "mysteriously died" prior to the film's release and that put Disney in a predicament because they didn't want to release a movie starring a now dead girl.  Such things have been done before and sometimes with notable commercial success but according to Mandii Vee, Disney thought it would bring “bad juju” (a noun or adjective meaning “something cursed or haunted by a dark aura”).  Disney’s solution was said to be a high-finance version of comrade Stalin’s (1878-1953) “un-personing” or the techniques of erasure George Orwell (1903-1950) detailed in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), paying Lindsay Lohan's parents millions in hush money to keep the secret, never speaking of the unfortunate Kelsey again and denying she ever existed.  At that point, Disney would have pulped and re-printed all the film’s promotional collateral, re-shot the credits and publicized the story that Lindsay Lohan played both roles.  Finding the idea one actor could do both at the same time improbable, Mandii Vee extended her forensic analysis, delved a bit into physics and pondered whether such things were technically even possible.

The Edsel

1958 Edsel Citation convertible.  The range was named after Henry Ford's son Edsel (1893–1943; president of the Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) 1919–1943).

It has been suggested debunking needs to be applied to some possibly mythical aspects of the story of the doomed Edsel.  The name “Edsel” has become a byword for commercial failure, based on the sad story of the car, a brand introduced in 1958 by FoMoCo and so poorly received the whole venture was within three years shut down after having for 1959 been absorbed into the hastily concocted MEL (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) division.  Presumably it was thought not wise to name the amalgamation Lincoln-Edsel-Mercury (LEM) because there were already enough temptations for folk to dub the Edsel a "lemon".  FoMoCo would have been grateful had the country been prepared politely to forget the whole Edsel debacle had ever happened, but because one of the corporation's new V8 engine families had already been designated MEL, the reminders lingered until 1967.  Unlike the Edsel, the MEL V8s were a success and while too heavy to achieve much success in competition (except in power-boat racing where for a time they filled a niche), on the road they were solid, reliable (if thirsty) units although the decision to run the power-steering pump directly off the crankshaft baffled many and didn’t set a trend.  The conventional wisdom is the Edsel failed because:

(1) It was just another variation of the existing large cars sold by the corporation under the Ford and Mercury brands while the public's appetite increasing was for smaller, imported models (and within a few years Ford’s own and smaller Falcon, Fairlane & Mustang).

(2) This "variation on a theme" reality was a stark contrast to the pre-release publicity which had for almost two years hinted at something genuinely innovative and "new".  In the modern sense, the Edsel was "over-hyped".

(3) It was introduced into a market where automobile sales were in decline because of a brief but sharp recession, the mid-price sector, where sat the Edsel, especially affected.

(4) The build quality was patchy, as was the factory’s support for dealers.  The fact that quality-control by some of FoMoCo's competitors was as bad or worse was not a great deal of help. 

(5) The styling was judged unattractive.  There was much clumsiness in the detailing (although almost the whole US industry was similarly afflicted in 1958) but the single most polarizing aspect was the vertical grill assembly, controversial not because it was a regression to something which had become unfashionable in the “longer, lower, wider” era where things tended to the horizontal but because of the shape which to some suggested a woman’s vulva.  Some used the words “vagina” or “genitalia” but in those more polite times, many publications were reluctant to use such language in print and preferred to suggest the grill resembled a “horse collar” or “toilet seat” although the latter was (literally) a bit of a stretch and anyway already used of some of the trunk (boot) lids on Chryslers styled to excess by Virgil Exner (1909–1973); more memorable was Time magazine’s “an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon”.  Some found the debate amusing and some disturbing but few found the look attractive.  The anthropomorphic implications of the grill were toned-down when the range was restyled for the 1959 range and vanished completely for the short-lived 1960 season but by then the damage was done.

Too much, too soon and too little, too late: 1958 Edsel Corsair (left), 1959 Edsel Corsair (centre) and 1960 Edsel Ranger (right).

The failure is a matter of record but one figure that has often puzzled analysts is that Ford booked a loss of over US$250 million on the programme at a time when a million dollars was still a lot of money and, depending on how the conversion is done, that would in 2022 dollars equate to between 2-3 billion.  The extent of the loss would be understandable if the Edsel had been as genuinely new as claimed but it’s difficult to see where all the money went given that all the expensive components were borrowed from the existing Ford and Mercury line up:

(1) The engines, although some were of a unique displacement, were just variations of the existing corporate line-up used in Ford, Mercury & Lincoln models (the Mileage-maker straight-6 and the Y-Block, FE (Ford-Edsel) & MEL V8s).

(2) The platform, (core body structure & suspension) was shared with Ford & Mercury models.  Even the longer wheelbase numbers sometimes cited in the Edsel brochures was a bit of a fudge (though in a court probably defensible because literally true) given the extra inch (25 mm) was gained by the simple trick of locating the rear axle that further back on the leaf springs (something in the era done also by Chrysler).  The bodies and interior space were not in any way affected and if the extra inch delivered a "smoother ride", it doubtful many could tell the difference.    

(3) No dedicated factories were built for the Edsel, the cars assembled on the same assembly lines used for the Ford & Mercury products.

So the costs involved in the development were relatively less expensive endeavors such as body panels and interior trim.  The marketing expenses were presumably high and there were costs associated with the dealer network but the suspicion has long been the infamous quarter-billion dollar loss was Ford taking advantage of accounting rules, perhaps booking against the Edsel most of the development costs of things like the FE engine, something that would remain in production until 1976.  That the Edsel was a big failure is disputed by nobody but financially, the losses may have been both over-stated and to some extent transferred to the taxpayer, a long tradition in "free-market" capitalism (capitalize the profits, socialize the losses).

1960 Edsel Ranger Sedan.

However the accounting is deconstructed, there’s no dispute about the affair’s final contractual imbroglio which, remarkably, compelled FoMoCo to introduce a re-styled 1960 Edsel which was produced for only 34 days in late 1959; cited sometimes as a case-study in contract law text-books, it appears as a cautionary tale.  Ford had intended to axe the brand after production of the 1959 models was completed but received advice from in-house counsel the contract with the dealer network (executed on 19 November 1956) included as an “essential term” an undertaking to provide Edsels for distribution for three seasons (which in the US didn't align exactly with calendar years, “model years” traditionally running from September to August).  The solution obviously was to cut the losses by "buying out" the contracts and to that all but one dealer agreed.  What that meant was Ford faced the prospect of being sued for violating the terms of a contract it had written and the possibility a court could make an order for “specific performance”, meaning it would have to embark on a whole season's production of a car selling dismally.  In the circumstances, that probably was unlikely but after the troubles of the previous few years, the last thing Ford wanted was a embarrassing court case so the decision was taken to do a minor re-styling of the 1960 Ford and offer a limited range badged as Edsels; while that sounds as cynical as it was, it was a quick & dirty way to (sort of) satisfy honor on both sides.  Thus, to fulfil contractual obligations, the 1960 Edsel appeared, 2846 of which left what was by then a leisurely production-line between 15 October and 19 November 1959.  It was on that day the contract with the dealers expired and unilaterally it was terminated.

1960 Ford Fairlane 500 Sedan.

Even that wasn’t the end of the company’s problems.  Although in recent years there had been successes such as the 1958 and 1959 Fords (which benefited from Chrysler’s quality control issues and the styling of GM cars in those years which respectively had been thought dated and polarizing), apart from the disaster which had been the Edsel, the 1958-1960 Lincoln had sold poorly and Continental Division, intended as a competitor not for Cadillac but Rolls-Royce had been shuttered after two highly unprofitable seasons.  So hopes were high for the 1960 Ford until it occurred to someone it was 81½ inches (2045 mm) in width, meaning it would not be possible for buyers to register the things in those states which mandated 80 inches (2032 mm) as the maximum width for passenger cars.  To add insult in injury, being essentially a 1960 Ford, the 1960 Edsels were also affected.  Crony capitalism worked its magic and legal work-arounds were "negotiated" but it meant the 1960 body was a one-off, the next season’s cars coming in at a neat 80 inches.

1960 Edsel Ranger & Villager production.

A generation on, by 1977, FoMoCo must have been been content collective amnesia had overtaken the land because in that year the "Villager" option appeared for the Mercury Cougar Station Wagon, the package including (1) Medium Rosewood woodtone (ie DI-NOC fake timber) on body-side and liftgate, (2) Bright surround rails with Medium Rosewood woodtone inserts, (3) Rosewood woodtone narrow protective bodyside molding & (5) Villager script on liftgate.  The option was a microcosm of the of the method used to create the original Edsel.

1960 Edsel brochure showing three of models least produced in the range's 34-day existence in late 1959.

Although the 1960 Edsels lasted in production barely a month, to ensure compliance with contractual obligations was not only fulfilled but seen to be fulfilled, for the collateral documents were designed with the same care (though not printed in the same volume) as was lavished on those for the Ford & Mercury range.  The "nifty-thrifty" shtick was a response to the recent brief but unpleasant recession and the consumer reaction to the bloated cars Detroit put on the market in the late 1950s.  Economic boom times however returned and although smaller cars (imports and beginning in 1960 also domestically produced "compact", intermediate" & "sub-compact" examples) gained increased market share, the big (full-size) continued to get bigger and heavier until the first oil shock of 1973 compelled what John Foster Dulles (1888–1959; US Secretary of State 1953-1959) would have called "an agonizing reappraisal" (ie doing "not what were wish to do but what were are forced to do").

An unexpected twist in the tale was the convertible and two-door hardtop would in the next century be the most frequently replicated faux Edsels, built using the equivalent Ford as a base.  What the combination of the collapse in demand and the truncated season meant was the volume of the 1960 Edsels was low and some of the body styles were, by industry standards, genuine rarities and while the rule remains “rare does not necessarily mean valuable”, the emergence of the Edsel as a collectable at the lower end of the market saw the most desirable of the body styles attract a following, especially the two-door convertible (76 units), two-door hardtop (295), four-door hardtop (135) and nine-seat station wagon (59).  It took a while for the idea of the “Edsel as a collectable” to gain traction so the attrition rate of the 1960 cars was for a long time as high as might have been expected and probably little different from comparable Fords but by the twenty-first century what had emerged was something which would in 1961 have seemed bizarrely improbable: Fake Edsels.

1960 Ford Two-door Hardtop (left) and 1960 Edsel Two-door Hardtop (right); the elipse was one a popular shape for taillights.  One can debate whether the Edsel's rear styling was better or worse than that of the Ford but undeniably, compared even to some of the bizarre creations of the era, it was distinctive and achieved the desired "product differentiation", one of the factors which later would doom FoMoCo's Mercury brand. 

Like many communities, Edsel collectors are connected in clubs and on-line with the most prized of their cars being the rarities.  Thus, with so few 1960 Ranger Convertibles and Hardtops left, some resorted to creating their own and the commonality with the 1960 Fords which was so criticized when the cars were new proved advantageous, most parts simply “bolting-in”.  If one has a 1960 Edsel Ranger Sedan and a 1960 Ford Sunliner convertible, it’s technically not challenging for those with the requisite skills to swap components and re-fashion the rear to emulate a Ranger Convertible.  As long as the nature of the vehicle is disclosed, the result is likely to be admired but buyers have long been cautioned to check the VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) because such is the interchangeability of parts, done with sufficient attention to detail, it would be only the VIN which would confirm how the thing started life and even the trick of moving the axle an inch to the rear (the Ford Sunliner at 119 inches (3,023 mm) against the Edsel Convertible’s 120 (3,048)) can be done.

1960 Edsel Ranger Convertible.

The rear fender-skirts (spats) were in the era a dealer-fitted accessory but (like the dreaded "Continental kits") they have been re-produced and now appear on many more Edsels than had them when new, their attraction being they are thought a "period accessory" although fender skirts began in the 1920s as a aerodynamic aid.  When fitted to the Jaguar XK120 (1948-1954) they were found to increase top speed by 3 mph (5 km/h) because the "parachute" effect of the air entering through the wheel wells was removed but brake cooling was affected meaning they were ideal only for certain race tracks (had the XK120 ever run at Berlin's old Automobil-Verkehrs- und Übungsstraße (AVUS; Automobile traffic and training road) with its two straights each 6 miles (10 km) long, spats would have been fitted and they appeared even on some Porsche 917s).  They also precluded the use of wire wheels so in competition, some Jaguar drivers fitted them (using steel wheels at the rear) but used wire wheels at the front.  By the 1950s, fender skirts were mostly a "neo-classical affectation" but in the US mainstream they appeared on some models as late as the mid 1990s and they're since been seen on EVs (electric vehicles).

So, as in any market for collectables, when something is claimed to authentic, it’s a case of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) because there are counterfeit 1960 Edsels out there, the convertible said to be the most numerous although the nine-seat Villager station wagon was originally the one with the lowest production count.  With the odd exception (including the Mercedes-Benz 300 SLs (W198; 1954-1963) and certain Porsche 911s (since 1964)) it’s convertibles which tend to command a price premium and the emergence of the big station wagon as a niche in the collector trade happened only in recent years, almost two decades after the extinction of the breed.  More inventive still, some have even created “Edsels that never were” including two-door 1960 Villager station wagons and 1958 & 1959 versions with retractable hard-tops, using as a base the Ford Fairlane Skyliner models from those years.  The Skyliner iterations are more challenging to execute because there was in 1958 & 1959 a greater degree of differentiation between Fords & Edsels but it has been done and even the odd Edsel coupe-utility (built on the equivalent Ford Ranchero) has appeared.  Because the factory never produced any of these models, there should be no sense of them being counterfeit although, if represented to an unwary buyer as "a factory model", that would be an act of deception and in most cases actionable.

A J.D. Vance meme with sofa (in US memes referred to usually as a "couch", reflecting the preferred general use).

Memories of the Edsel’s grill were revived in 2024 during another debunking exercise.  In July that year, a post appeared on X (formerly known as Twitter) claiming there was a passage in J.D. Vance’s (b 1984; US vice president since 2025) book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (2016) in which the then Ohio senator (Republican) boasted of having enjoyed a sexual act with a latex glove, strategically placed between a sofa’s cushions.  It was fake news and nothing in the book even hinted at such an experience but quickly the post went viral; it once could take years for urban myths to spread between a few cities but in the social media age such things whiz around the planet in hours.  Quickly the tale was debunked but the sofa was a popular choice among the meme-makers and it says something about US politics that so many really wanted to believe "couchgate" was true.