Montreal

Montreal (pronounced mon-tree-awl or muhn-tree-awl)

(1) A city and major port in the south of the Canadian province of Quebec, on Montreal Island at the junction of the Ottawa and St Lawrence Rivers.  The French name for the city is Montréal.

(2) An ellipsis of “Montreal Archipelago”, an archipelago on the Saint Lawrence River in Quebec, Canada, which contains the island (known also as Island of Montreal, and Montreal Island).  It’s also the name of a number of rivers and localities in North America.

(3) An Alfa Romeo model (1970-1977), the appearance of which was based on a show-car built for the 1967 Montreal Exposition.

1705 (in the sense of the city’s name): From the French Montréal (deconstructed as Mont Royal (Mount Royal), the triple-peaked feature named le mont Royal by French explorer Jacques Cartier 1491-1557), honoring Francis I (1494–1547; King of France 1515-1547).  Although surpassed in economic activity by Toronto, Montreal remains a cultural, commercial, financial, and industrial centre and, with a population of 1.8 million (the Greater Montreal metropolitan area is 4.3 million), is the second-largest French-speaking city in the world, only Paris having more.  The city lies at the foot of Mount Royal.  Montreal and Montrealer are nouns; the noun plural is Montrealers.

Lindsay Lohan at Montréal International Airport, May 2009.

The surname Mulligan was of Irish origin and was from the Gaelic Maolagan and the Old Irish Maelecan, a double diminutive of mael (bald), hence “the little bald (or shaven) one”, presumably a reference to a monk and his tonsure (the practice of shaving part of the scalp as a sign of religious devotion or humility).  As an ellipsis of “mulligan stew” (a meal made with whatever was available), it’s listed by slang dictionaries as “early twentieth century US hobo slang” and is thought derived (for reasons unknown) from the name.  In various card games, it’s used to describe an opportunity (which under some rules can attract a penalty) for a player to reshuffle their cards and draw a new initial hand at the beginning of a game; by extension from this use it has come generally to mean “a second chance”.  The best known use of “mulligan” is in golf (used without an initial capital) where it describes “re-taking a shot after a poor first attempt” and while there are several tales of the origin of the tradition (said variously to date from between 1927-1949), the most accepted involves the Country Club of Montreal golf course in Saint-Lambert.  David B Mulligan (1869–1954), it’s claimed, was one of a foursome who each week played 18 holes and he was the one who drove them to the course over “rough & rutted roads”, his reward being “an extra” shot although whether that was granted in gratitude or was his price for doing the driving isn’t mentioned.  A notable variation claims Mr Mulligan simply hit a bad shot and immediately re-teed, taking another (claiming the second was a “correction shot” so the first didn’t count on his score-card); in response his partners decided to name the practice (not within the accepted etiquette of the game) after him.

Golfer Greg Norman (b 1955) with Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001), about to take (another) mulligan.

US presidents often have been keen golfers.  John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963) enjoyed pointing out to visitors the marks made in the White House’s polished timber floors by Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US president 1953-1961) who walked on them in his golf shoes which was bad form but there’s no record of the general ever having “taken a mulligan”.  Bill Clinton was certainly keen on the game but not especially skilled and took mulligans so frequently that among themselves his Secret Service detail would bet how many would be claimed in each round.  They called them “billigans” and unless at risk of causing a diplomatic incident, Mr Clinton would cheerfully and openly take as many as he needed to enjoy the day.

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) addressing the ball on the first tee during the pro-am prior to the LIV Golf Invitational, Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, New Jersey, 10 August 2023.

Mr Trump denies ever having taken a mulligan, explaining his prowess by saying “I am just a good golfer and athlete”.  That must be true because in 2023 he won his club tournament at Bedminster with an impressive round, posting on his own Truth social media platform: “I am pleased to report, for those that care, that I just won the Senior Club Championship (must be over 50 years old!) at Bedminster (Trump National Golf Club), shooting a round of 67”.  Aware some might be sceptical, he added “Now, some people will think that sounds low, but there is no hanky-panky.  Many people watch, plus I am surrounded by Secret Service agents.  Not much you can do even if you wanted to, and I don’t.  For some reason, I am just a good golfer & athlete - I have won many club championships, and it’s always a great honor!”  Apparently, Mr Trump always insists on the Oxford comma, even when technically not “required” (although, according to some, it’s never required).

Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader (centre), in his custom-built LWB (long wheelbase) golf buggy in candy apple green.

Impressive though Mr Trump’s score may seem, it would not have impressed Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941–2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea), 1994-2011).  According the KCNA (Korean Central News Agency, the DPRK’s energetic and productive state media), although in his entire life he only ever played one round of golf and that on the country’s notoriously difficult 7,700 yard (7040 m) course at Pyongyang, the Dear Leader took only 34 strokes to complete the 18 holes, a round which included five holes-in-ones.  Experienced golfers in the imperialist West cast doubt on the round of 34 (not commenting on the holes-in-one) but the KCNA had already pointed out the physiology of the Dear Leader was so remarkable he was not subject to bowel movements, never needing to defecate or urinate (it’s not known if this is a genetic characteristic of the dynasty and thus inherited by Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b circa 1982; Supreme Leader (originally The Great Successor) of DPRK since 2011)) but this seems unlikely because the Supreme Leader is known, while on visits to remote locations within the DPRK (ballistic missile tests etc), to be accompanied by a military detail with a portable toilet for his exclusive (and reportedly not infrequent) use.

The Alfa Romeo Montreal

Alfa Romeo Montreal Expo show car at Montreal International Airport, arriving from Italy for the 1967 Universal Exposition in Montreal.

The noun exposition was from the late fourteenth century French exposicioun (explanation, narration), from the twelfth century Old French esposicion (explanation, interpretation) and directly from the Latin expositionem (nominative expositio) (a setting or showing forth; narration, explanation) a noun of action from the past-participle stem of exponere (put forth; explain), the construct being ex- (in the sense of “from, forth”) + ponere (to put, place).  The familiar modern meaning came into existence in 1851 when the Crystal Palace Exposition opened in London while the now universal form “Expo” was first used in planning documents for the 1967 World's Fair held in Montreal.

The Soviet Union’s pavilion at the 1967 Montreal Exposition.  The initialization of the country’s nane appeared as both “USSR” & “URSS”, reflecting Canada’s status as a bi-lingual (English & French) nation, USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) the form in English while in French it was Union des Républiques Socialistes Soviétiques.  URSS was also used on the Iberian Peninsula, the Spanish being Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas and the Portuguese União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas.  In Russian, it was CCCP (Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik)), which translates as the familiar “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”; CCCP representing the Cyrillic script, which corresponds to USSR in the Latin alphabet.

The theme of the EXPO 1967 at Montreal was “Man and his World” (a choice which now would see the event boycotted (or at least “girlcotted”)) and the organizers selected Alfa Romeo to present a car which represented the “highest aspiration of modern man in terms of cars”.  It was a time when development cycles of new cars were measured in years but the company had less than nine months in which to complete the project so the decision was taken to use the platform of the existing Giulia Sprint GT (the memorable 105/115 series coupés, 1963-1977) with Carrozzeria Bertone commissioned to style the unique bodywork, Marcello Gandini (1938–2024) the lead designer.  Gandini delivered a elegant and streamlined shape, the most distinctive features of which were the distinctive louvred eyelids which half-concealed the headlights and the six air vents on each C-pillar which led some to assume a mid-engined configuration lay beneath.  The factory fabricated two identical specimens, both finished in pearl white and named, appropriately, the Alfa Romeo Montreal Expo, displayed at the Exposition, in the “Man the Producer” pavilion by means of a clever visual trick using mirrors, the image of the two infinitely repeated throughout the exhibition space.  Both cars still exist and are housed in the Museo Storico Alfa Romeo (Alfa Romeo History Museum) on the outskirts of Milan.

1973 Alfa Romeo Montreal.

From critics and the public (notably including prospective buyers) the reaction to the Montreal Expo was such the factory opted to bring the car to market as a regular production model.  Unusually for show cars which often have their tantalizing specification “toned down” for appearance in showrooms (the Jaguar XJ220 a notorious example), the production version was considerably more exotic than what was seen at the exposition, the 1.6 litre (96 cubic inch) DOHC (double overhead camshaft) in-line four cylinder engine replaced by a 2.6 litre (158 cubic inch) version of the 2.0 litre (122 cubic inch) DOHC V8 used in the 33 Stradale (a road-going version of the Tipo 33 race car, 18 of which were produced 1967-1969).  It was one of the last of the "small" V8s used in road cars during the post-war years, a breed which included the flathead Ford (2.2, 2.4 & 2.5 litre (also used by Simca and in production (off and on) between 1935-1969), the Fiat 8V (1996 cm³, 1952-1954), the Daimler V8 (2548 cm³, 1959-1969), the Glas 2600 (2580 cm³, 1969-1967), the Lamborghini Urraco (2463 cm³, 1972-1976 & 1995 cm³, 1974-1977) and the Ferrari 208 (1991 cm³, 1975-1981).  Compared with these jewel-like power-plants, the contemporary 3.0 litre V8s (the Ferrari 308 and the sonorous but flawed Triumph Stag) were almost “big”.

The Montreal V8 was fuel-injected and used a dry-sump, both then still rarities in road cars and, reflecting the race-car origins, was configured with a cross-plane crankshaft.

Visually, the mass-produced (it’s a relative term) touring berlinetta appeared little different from what had wowed the crowds in 1967 but placed side-by side, the differences are obvious and it was offered in some vibrant colors (which were very 1970s) including metallic gold, Verde Termico green, Marrone Luci Di Bosco brown beige and the famous lobster orange with which the car became associated because it was used for many of the cars provided to the press for testing.  However, exquisite though it was, commercially it was a failure.  Although displayed at Geneva International Motor Show in March 1970, the first deliveries weren’t made until 1972 and ironically it couldn’t be purchased in Montreal or anywhere else in North America because it proved impossible to tame what was a detuned race-car engine to the point where it would comply with the new US emissions regulations, then the most onerous on the planet.  The loss of the US market really doomed the Montreal which was a shame because it offered performance which was competitive with Ferrari’s Dino 246 and all but the most potent Porsche 911s, its traditional layout meaning it was an easier car for inexpert drivers to handle, even if the absolute limits of adhesion didn’t match those two.  So, despite the innovative design and advanced engineering, the Montreal became a footnote among the exotic machines of the era and it wasn’t helped by high production costs and the first oil shock coming just as full-scale production had been achieved.  Between 1970-1977, only 3925 were made but they now have a dedicated following among collectors and those for whom an Alfa Romeo’s special charms means many flaws & foibles (and there are a few) are forgiven.

Plethora & Plethoric

Plethora (pronounced pleth-er-uh)

(1) Superfluity or excess; an overabundance.

(2) A large quantity or wide array; a great abundance.

(3) In re-modern medicine, , a morbid condition due to excess of red corpuscles in the blood or increase in the quantity of blood (archaic except for historic references); an excess of any of the body’s fluids (archaic).  Medieval apothecaries offered plethora of potions and concoctions to treat “redd face”.

(4) In modern pathology, an excess of Excess of blood in the skin, especially in the face and especially chronically.

1535-1545: From the Medieval Latin plēthōra, from the Ancient Greek plēthṓra or plēthōrē or plēthṓra (fullness; satiety) from plēthein (to be or grow full), from the primitive Indo-European pele (to fill).  The original use of the word was in medicine; later adopted by pre-modern pathology to describe a specific condition.  The modern, figurative meaning (too-muchness, overfullness) was in use by the early eighteenth century.  In figurative use the synonyms include excess, abundance, glut, myriad, surfeit, superfluity & slew while in medical use they’re hyperaemia & hyperperfusion.  The non clinical description of the apothecaries redd face include flushing, blushing, floridity & ruddiness (the condition rosacea (a chronic condition characterized by redness of the face) is treatable but incurable).  Plethoric is the adjective, plethorically the adverb.  Plethora is a noun; the noun plural is plethorae or plethoras.

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

Plethoric (pronounced ple-thawr-ik, ple-thor-ik or pleth-uh-rik)

(1) In speech or text, overfull; turgid; inflated; pompous.

(2) By extension, excessive, overabundant, rife; loosely, abundant, varied.

(3) In medicine, a patient suffering from plethora (ruddy in complexion, congested or swollen with blood).

(4) In medicine, of, relating to, or characterized by plethora.

1610–1620: From the Late Latin plethoricus, from the Hellenistic Ancient Greek πληθωρικός (plēthōrikós), from πληθώρα (plēthṓra) (plethora); It deconstructs as plethor(a) +‎ -ic.  The -ic suffix was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  The use in medicine dates from the fourteenth century while the figurative senses (Excessive, overabundant, rife; loosely, abundant) in rhetoric (and later just about anything) emerged gradually after the seventeenth.  Plethoric is an adjective and plethorically is an adverb.

The apothecaries redd face

From Antiquity, through the medieval period and until as recently as some 200 years ago, it was medical orthodoxy that the plethoric (the primary symptom being a chronic reddishness of the face) was caused by an excess of the humor of yellow bile (xanthe chole).  Humoral (humor a translation of the Ancient Greek χυμός (chymos (literally juice or sap, figuratively flavor)) theory (known also as humorism or humoralism), was a system of medicine from Antiquity which provided a framework and description of the supposed workings of the human body.  It was the standard model for the philosophers and physicians of Ancient Greek and Rome and endured in Western medicine well into the nineteenth century when many of its assumptions about physical illness were disproved by germ theory and the understanding of the role of pathogens in disease.  The overturning of humoral theory was one of the landmarks in the origins of modernity.

In antiquity it was a concept rather than something with a standardized systemization and there existed competing models with more or fewer components but it’s because the description with four was that endorsed by the Greek physician Hippocrates (circa 460–circa 370 BC) that it became famous in the West and absorbed into medical practice.  The four humors of Hippocratic medicine are black bile (μέλαινα χολή (melaina chole)), yellow bile (ξανθη χολή (xanthe chole)), phlegm (φλέγμα (phlegma)) & blood (αἷμα (haima)), each corresponding with the four temperaments of man and linked also to the four seasons: yellow bile=summer, black bile=autumn, phlegm=winter & blood=spring.  In Hippocratic medicine, to be healthy, the four humors needed to be in balance and this, once achieved, was the state of enkrateia (from the Ancient Greek ἐγκράτεια (eukrasia) (in power), the construct being ἐν (en-) (in-) + κράτος (krátos) (power), a word which appears in the New Testament in the context of virtues (Acts 24:25, Galatians 5:23 & 2 Peter 1:6).  In the King James Version (KJV, 1611), it would be translated as "temperance", a word which went on to assume a life of its own.

Medieval apothecaries treated redness in the face (which may have been rosacea, sunburn, or a variety of internal or skin conditions) using a number of remedies based either on herbal medicine or humoral theory.  Some would to some extent have been have been efficacious, some worthless and some genuinely dangerous.  They included:

Herbal Remedies: (1) Rose water was frequently used both for it cooling and anti-inflammatory properties (applied directly to the skin to soothe redness and irritation), (2) Chamomile (one of medicine’s most ancient calmatives) was applied as a poultice or used in a wash to reduce inflammation and redness, (3) the flesh of the Aloe Vera plant was renowned for its soothing effect and was used to treat various skin conditions, including redness (it’s now recommended also as an alternative to shampoo and conditioner) and (4) cucumber was made into a topical paste and applied directly to the affected skin.

Cooling Agents: Diluted vinegar, often mixed with herbs, was applied to cool the skin and reduce redness. This was believed to balance the body's humors, particularly if the redness was thought to be caused by an excess of heat (choleric humor).

Minerals: (1) In severe or intractable cases (as chronic rosacea tends to be), Ceruse (white lead) was sometimes used to whiten and cover red or blemished skin (a treatment which would be though dangerous by modern standards) and (2) Calamine (a mineral compound) was used to treat skin irritation and reduce redness.  Calamine lotion remains one of the most effective treatments for minor skin irritations.

Humoral Treatments: (1) Until quite recently, it was common for skin redness (especially in the face) to be caused by an imbalance in the body's humors, especially an excess of blood (sanguine humor).  Phlebotomy (bloodletting) was often performed and there were specialists who practiced the trade exclusively (in the USSR (the old Soviet Union) it was still an orthodox treatment as recently as the 1950s, even comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) enjoying some sessions.  (2) Presumably as a result of empirical observation, a patient diet was identified as a contributory factor and the apothecaries followed the practice of the physicians from Antiquity, advising sufferers to eat “cooling foods” like cucumbers, lettuce, and melons, while avoiding “heating foods” such as spicy dishes and red meat.

Spectrum condition: The redness in the face of the honourable Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022) is used by his colleagues to gauge where his state of mind lies in the adjectival progression of the plethoric (left), the more plethoric (comparative; centre) and the most plethoric (superlative; right).  Mr Joyce’s symptoms (ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered) suggest an excess of yellow bile and to counteract this, Hippocrates recommended cold and wet foods such as cucumber or lettuce to bring the humors back into alignment.  Mr Joyce should adopt a cucumber & lettuce diet and it may be a good time for him to try it because he recently announced he'd given up alcohol, the abstinence inspired by a recent "incident" in which he was filmed lying drunk on the footpath (sidewalk) next to a Canberra planter box, conducting a mumbled, expletive-laden conversation with his wife.  He said he's since lost 15 kg (33 lb) and given up smoking (it not known if politicians lie about such claims).  Interestingly, political scientists seem generally to expect the well-publicized event (one of a number featuring Mr Joyce) would probably result in him increasing his margin at the next election (sprawled drunk in a city street making him "authentic" and "relatable").  When interviewed, the once "notorious drunkard" said: "Maybe at some stage I’ll have a beer again, but at the moment, nah".

Obliterate

Obliterate (pronounced uh-blit-uh-reyt (U) or oh-blit-uh-reyt (non-U))

(1) To remove or destroy all traces of something; do away with; destroy completely.

(2) In printing or graphic design, to blot out or render undecipherable (writing, marks, etc.); fully to efface.

(3) In medicine, to remove an organ or another body part completely, as by surgery, disease, or radiation.

1590–1600: From the Latin oblitterātus, perfect passive participle of oblitterō (blot out), from oblinō (smear over) and past participle of oblitterāre (to efface; cause to disappear, blot out (a writing) & (figuratively) cause to be forgotten, blot out a remembrance), the construct being ob- (a prefixation of the preposition ob (in the sense of “towards; against”)) + litter(a) (also litera) (letter; script) + -ātus (-ate).  The suffix -ate was a word-forming element used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as estate, primate & senate).  Those that came to English via French often began with -at, but an -e was added in the fifteenth century or later to indicate the long vowel.  It can also mark adjectives formed from Latin perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs -ātus, -āta, & -ātum (such as desolate, moderate & separate).  Again, often they were adopted in Middle English with an –at suffix, the -e appended after circa 1400; a doublet of –ee.  True synonyms include black out, eliminate, exterminate, annihilate, eradicate, delete, erase & expunge because to obliterate something is to remove all traces.  Other words often used as synonyms don’t of necessity exactly convey that sense; they include obscure, ravage, smash, wash out, wipe out, ax, cancel and cut.  Obliterate & obliterated are verds & adjetives, obliteration & obliterator are nouns, obliterature & obliterating are nouns, verb & adjective, obliterable & obliterative are adjectives and obliteratingly is an adverb; the noun plural is obliterations.

Social anxiety can be "obliterated".  Who knew?

The verb obliterate was abstracted from the phrase literas scribere (write across letters, strike out letters).  The noun obliteration (act of obliterating or effacing, a blotting out or wearing out, fact of being obliterated, extinction) dates from the 1650s, from the Late Latin obliterationem (nominative obliteratio), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of oblitterāre (to efface; cause to disappear, blot out (a writing) & (figuratively) cause to be forgotten, blot out a remembrance).  The related late fourteenth century noun oblivion (state or fact of forgetting, forgetfulness, loss of memory) was from the thirteenth century Old French oblivion and directly from the Latin oblivionem (nominative oblivio) (forgetfulness; a being forgotten) from oblivisci, the past participle of oblitus (forget) of uncertain origin.  Oblivion is if interest to etymologists because of speculation about a semantic shift from “to be smooth” to “to forget”, the theory based on the construct being ob- (using ob in the sense of “over”) + the root of lēvis (smooth).  For this there apparently exists no documentary evidence either to prove or disprove the notion.  The Latin lēvis (rubbed smooth, ground down) was from the primitive Indo-European lehiu-, from the root (s)lei- (slime, slimy, sticky).

Obliterature

The noun obliterature is a special derived form used in literary criticism, the construct being oblit(erate) + (lit)erature.  It describes works of literature in some way "obliterated or mad void", the most celebrated (or notorious according to many) being those which "interpreted" things in a manner not intended by the original author but the words is applied also to texts deliberately destroyed, erased or rendered unreadable, either as an artistic statement or as a result of censorship, neglect, or decay.  La biblioteca de Babel" (The Library of Babel (1941)) by Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) was a short story which imagined a universe consisting of an infinite library containing every possible book but all volumes are some way corrupted or comprise only random strings of characters; all works wholly unintelligible and thus useless.  The chaotic library was symbolic of the most extreme example of obliterature in that all works had been rendered unreadable and devoid of internal meaning.

Nazis burning books, Berlin, 1933.

Probably for a long as writing has existed, there has been censorship (and its companion: self-censorship).  Some censorship is official government policy while countless other instances exist at institutional level, sometimes as a political imperative, some time because of base commercial motives.  The most infamous examples are literary works banned or destroyed as political or religious repression including occasions when the process was one of public spectacle such as the burning of books in Nazi Germany, aimed at Jewish, communist and other “degenerate or undesirable” authors.   The critique: “They burn the books they cannot write” is often attributed German-Jewish poet, writer and literary critic Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) whose work was among the thousands of volumes placed on a bonfire in Berlin in 1933 but it’s a paraphrase of a passage from his play Almansor (1821-1822), spoken by a Muslim after Christian had burned piles of the holy Quran: “Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.”  (That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.")

The Address Book (1983) by French conceptual artist Sophie Calle (b 1953) was based on an address book the author found in the street which, (after photocopying the contents) she returned to the owner.  She then contacted those in the book and used the information they provided to create a narrative about the owner, a man she had never met.  This she had published in a newspaper and the man promptly threatened to sue on the grounds of a breach of his right to privacy, demanding all examples of the work in its published form be destroyed.  Duly, the obliterature was performed.  Thomas Phillips' (1937–2022) A Humument: A treated Victorian novel (in various editions 1970-2016) is regarded by most critics as an “altered” book, a class of literature in which novel media forms (often graphical artwork) are interpolated to change the appearance and sometimes elements of meaning.  Phillips use as his base a Victorian-era novel (William (WH) Mallock's (1849–1923) A Human Document (1892)) and painted over its pages, leaving only select words visible to create new narratives, many of which were surreal.  This was obliterature as artistic device and it’s of historic interest because it anticipated many of the techniques of post modernism, multi-media productions and even meme-making.

Erasure Poetry takes an existing text and either erases or blacks-out (the modern redaction technique) words or passages to create a new poem from the remaining words; in the most extreme examples almost all the original is obliterated, with only fragments left to form a new work.  Ronald Johnson (1935–1998) was a US poet who in 1977 published the book-length RADI OS (1977), based on John Milton's (1608–1674) Paradise Lost (1667-1674) and used the redactive mechanism as an artistic device, space once used by the obliterated left deliberately blank, surrounding the surviving words.

Some critics and literary theorists include unfinished and fragmentary work under the rubric of obliterature and while that may seem a bit of a definitional stretch, the point may be that such texts in many ways can resemble what post modern (and post-post modern) obliterature practitioners publish as completed work.  There are many unfinished works by the famous which have been “brought to conclusion” by contracted authors, the critical response tending to vary from the polite to the dismissive although, in fairness, it may be that some things were left unfinished for good reasons.  The Portuguese author Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935) was extraordinarily prolific and apparently never discarded a single page, leaving a vast archive of unfinished, fragmented, and often unreadable manuscripts, the volume so vast many have never been deciphered.  It’s interesting to speculate that had Pessoa had access to word processors and the cloud whether he would have saved as much; if he’d lived in the age of the floppy diskette, maybe he’d have culled a bit.

The obliteration of animal carcasses with explosives

Strictly speaking, “to obliterate something” means “to remove or destroy all traces” which usually isn’t the case when explosives are used, the result more a wide dispersal of whatever isn’t actually vaporized but there’s something about the word which attracts those who blow-up stuff and they seem often to prefer obliteration to terms which might be more accurate.  As long as the explosion is sufficiently destructive, one can see their point and obliteration does memorably convey the implications of blowing-up stuff.  The word clearly enchanted the US Forest Service which in 1995 issued their classic document Obliterating Animal Carcasses with Explosives, helpfully including a step-by-step guide to the process.  Given it’s probably not a matter about which many have given much thought, the service explained obliterating large animal carcasses was an important safety measure in wilderness recreation areas where the remains might attract bears, or near picnic areas where people obviously wouldn’t want rotting flesh nearby.  A practical aspect also is that in many cases there is no way conveniently to move or otherwise dispose of a large carcass (such as a horse or moose which can weigh in excess of 500 kg (1100 lb) which might be found below a steep cut slope or somewhere remote.  So, where physical transportation is not practical, the chemistry and physics of explosives are the obvious alternative, the guide recommending fireline devices (specially developed coils containing explosive powder), used also to clear combustible materials in the path of a wildfire. 

Interestingly, the guide notes there will be cases in which the goal might not be obliteration.  In some ecosystems, what is most desirable is to disperse the carcass locally into the small chunks suited to the eating habits of predators in the area and when properly dispersed, smaller scavenging animals will break down the left-overs, usually within a week.  To effect a satisfactory dispersal, the guide recommends placing 20 lb (9 kg) of explosives on the carcass in key locations, then using a detonator cord to tie the charges together, the idea being to locate them on the major bones, along the spine.  However, in areas where there’s much human traffic, obliteration is required and the guide recommends placing 20 lb (9 kg) pounds of explosives on top and a similar load underneath although it’s noted this may be impossible if the carcass is too heavy, frozen into the ground, floating in water or simply smells too ghastly for anyone to linger long enough to do the job.  In that case, 55 lb (25 kg) of fireline should be draped over the remains although the actual amount used will depend on the size of the carcass, the general principle being the more explosives used, the greater the chance obliteration will be achieved.  Dispersal and obliteration are obviously violent business but it’s really just an acceleration of nature’s decomposition process.  Whereas a big beast like a horse can sit for months without entirely degrading, if explosives are used, in most cases after little more than a week it’d not be obvious an animal was ever there.  With regard to horses however, the guide does include the warning that prior to detonation, “horseshoes should be removed to minimize dangerous flying debris.”  Who knew?

It’s important enough explosives are used to achieve the desired result but in carcass disposal it's important also not to use too much.  In November 1970, the Oregon Highway Division was tasked with blowing up a 45-foot (14 m) eight-ton (8100 kg) decaying whale which lay on the shores near the town of Florence and they calculated it would need a half-ton (510 kg) of dynamite, the presumption being any small pieces would be left for seagulls and other scavengers.  Unfortunately, things didn’t go according to plan.  The viewing crowds had been kept a quarter-mile (400 m) from the blast-site but they were forced to run for cover as large chunks of whale blubber started falling on them and the roof of a car parked even further away was crushed.  Fortunately there were no injuries although most in the area were splattered with small pieces of dead whale.  Fifty years on, Florence residents voted to name a new recreation ground Exploding Whale Memorial Park in honor of the event.

Reprobate

Reprobate (pronounced rep-ruh-beyt)

(1) A depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person; degenerate; morally bankrupt.

(2) In Christianity (from Calvinism), a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation and damned to eternal punishment in hell, forever hearing only their own screams of agony, smelling only their own decaying flesh and knowing only the gnashing of their decaying teeth.

(3) Rejected; cast off as worthless (archaic).

1400-1450: From the late Middle English reprobaten (condemn, disapprove vehemently; rejected as worthless) from the Latin reprobātus (disapproved, rejected, condemned), past participle of reprobāre (to reprove or hold in disfavour).  The construct was re- (back, again (here indicating probably "opposite of, reversal of previous condition")) + probare (prove to be worthy).  Used often in the form reprobacioun (rejection), the usual spelling in Church Latin was reprobationem (nominative reprobation (rejection, reprobation), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of reprobāre.  A doublet of reprove.

Notorious dispensationalist and reprobate, crooked Hillary Clinton in pantsuit.

The earliest use in English was as a verb meaning "to disapprove”; the specific religious meanings were adopted in the mid-fifteenth century, the general sense of an unprincipled person emerging decades later.  The sense of "reject, put away, set aside" dates from circa 1600 and the meaning "abandoned in character, morally depraved, unprincipled" is attested from the 1650s.  The specifically religious idea of "one rejected by God, person given over to sin, from the adjectival sense was from the 1540s whereas the generalized "abandoned or unprincipled person" was noted from the 1590s.  The use in theology was more specialised still.  The meaning "the state of being consigned to eternal punishment" was used since the 1530s and from the 1580s, this extended to any "condemnation as worthless or spurious" the more broad sense of "condemnation, censure, act of vehemently disapproving" used since 1727.  Other nouns once used in English include reprobacy (1590s), reprobance (c. 1600), reprobature (1680s, legal); never common, most are now archaic except a technical, historic terms.  Although the word has many synonyms (tramp, scoundrel, wastrel, miscreant, wretch, rascal, cad, rogue, outcast, pariah, wicked, sinful, evil, corrupt) it has always attracted authors who enjoy detailing the reprobacy of the habitually reprobative.

You are a heartless reprobate, sir; a heartless, thankless, good-for-nothing reprobate.  I have done with you.  You are my son; that I cannot help - but you shall have no more part or parcel in me as my child, nor I in you as your father.

Anthony Trollope (1815-1882), Barchester Towers (1857)

The fate of all reprobates.  The Harrowing of Hell (c 1499), by Hieronymus Bosch (1450–1516)

Christians are much concerned with the fate of reprobates, all of whom should be condemned.  Israel Folau (b 1989), a Tongan-born Australian football player (of the country’s three oval-ball codes) however attracted some condemnation himself when he posted on Instagram: “Warning – Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”.  There were many who rose to defend the homosexuals but all seemed oblivious to the feelings of the others on his list, the chattering classes content to let drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters rot in Hell.  Noted drinker and adulterer Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022) must have felt put-upon. 

Some have been more expansive on the matter of reprobates than Mr Folau, Loren Rosson on his Busybody page detailing in three tiers, the worst of the sins committed by man, according to Pastor Steven Anderson (b 1981), preacher & founder of the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement and pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona.  Anderson first came to national attention in August 2009 after preaching a sermon in which he prayed for the visitation of the Angel of Death to Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017).  In what he may suspect is a a conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, Anderson has been denied entry to South Africa, Botswana, Jamaica, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

Tier 1: The irrevocably damned. Those beyond redemption, God having rejected them eternally.

(1) Homosexuals/pedophiles.  Note the absent ampersand; in Anderson’s view the two are inseparable, it being impossible to be one without being the other; they are the worst of the worst.  Anderson believes sodomites are not only sinners, but actual reprobates, based on the Book of Romans, God having tired of them, he turned them into sodomising perverts:  “God gave them up to vile affections” (Romans 1:26); “God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Romans 1:28); “God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts” (Romans1:24).  This, Anderson argues, is the explanation for homosexuality and surprisingly he’s in agreement with the gay view that “God made me like this” though not “born like this” faction, God making them that way only when they rejected the truth and the light; God “discarding them by turning them into homos.”  As reprobates, sodomites, unlike most sinners (those in tiers 2 and 3), cannot possibly be saved, nor should anyone want to try saving them: “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Revelation 22:11).  The internal logic is perfect, God turned them into sodomites because of their God-hating hearts and it’s all their fault.

(2) Bible translators and scholars.  Anderson condemns these folk as irredeemable reprobates because of the Revelation 22:19, which damns all who tamper with the Word of God, ie altering the original text of the King James Bible (KJV 1611).

Tier 2: Especially wicked sinners:  These offenders are at least capable of being saved, if they accept Christ the Lord as their savior.

(3) Physicians who perform abortions, pro-choice crusaders; women who obtain abortions.  Anderson’s view is that all those involved in the abortion industry, the medical staff, the proponents and the women who procure the operation are simply those who murder the most innocent and vulnerable; they are reprobates. 

(4) Zionists.  Israel is the most ungodly nation on the planet according to Anderson and he calls the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 a diabolical fraud.  The Jews are not God’s chosen people and have not been so for two millennia, replacement theology a basic premise of the New Testament: “If the kingdom of God is taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, you’ve been replaced! You were the people of God, you were that holy nation of the Old Testament, but now you have been replaced. And today, the physical nation of Israel has been replaced by believers, by a holy nation made up of all believers in Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile, no matter what the nationality.” According to Anderson, Zionism is more anti-Christ than any other of the major world religions.

(5) Modalists.  Anderson hates and despises modalists more even that the atheists who deny the very holiness of Christ.  Modalism is a heresy that denies the trinity and maintains God is only one person or entity (there are factions) who has three modes (or faces, or masks) which do not exist simultaneously, and that He changes modes by assuming whatever mode circumstances demand.  Thus to modalists, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same person or entity, there not being the three in one but just one who shifts modalities as required.  This is of course heresy because Christianity teaches the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct. There is of course but one God but within God there are three entities which Christians call trinity.

(6) Atheists & evolutionists.  It’s not entirely clear if Anderson regards these two as interchangeable but it’s probably a tiresome technical point, both equally at risk of becoming reprobates who, if they persist in their rejection, God will turn into sodomites.

(7) Litterbugs.  Anderson might find some sympathy for this category.  Anderson hates those who drop litter whether on city streets or in the wilderness and can quote scripture to prove God too disapproves.

(8). Men who piss sitting down.  Anderson identifies this sin as one especially prevalent among Germans and other secular Europeans but any man who allows himself to be pussy-whipped into effeminate behavior in the loo is suspect.  Although among the less well-known passages in the Bible (KJV; 1611), “him that pisseth against the wall” (1 Samuel 25:22; 1 Samuel 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 1 Kings 16:11; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8), it's known to Anderson who cites as a symbol of proper manliness.  However, the original translators may have been a little more nuanced, scholarship suggesting it’s best understood as “able-bodied men”.  Anderson condemns preachers, presidents & potentates who “pee sitting down” and demands leadership of the country be restored to those “who want stand up and piss against the wall like a real man.”  Anderson assures his congregation he’s a "stand and piss man".  For men wishing to score points with God and obtain redemption, this is one of the sins most easily forever renounced.  However, don’t lie, for God knows how you pee.

(9) Physicians and technicians who perform in vitro fertilization; women who undergo the treatment.  Anderson explains those who conceive using IVF instead of waiting naturally to fall pregnant are stealing babies from God, a concept he expresses more graphically in sermons as “ripping babies from the hands of God”.

(10) Male gynecologists.  Anderson says men who do this are disgusting perverts; their medical qualifications are irrelevant

Tier 3:  Sinful Christians. Those who preach or espouse these views could either be false Christians, or simply misguided believers in Christ who need to be educated.

(11) Pre-tribbers.  Anderson is actually on sound historical and theological ground here.  The idea that Christians will, on the day of the rapture, be taken bodily up to heaven before the apocalyptic tribulation is a wholly un–biblical notion unknown before the mid-nineteenth century and barely known before being spread in pop-culture.  It seems to have begun as a way of marketing Christianity as something more attractive.  As the Book of Revelation makes clear, Christians not only expected to suffer the tribulation before they were raptured, that suffering lies at the core of their holy duty.  Pre-tribulation is an un-Christian cop-out.

(12) Dispensationalists. Anderson is also correct that dispensationalist is another nineteenth century heresy and a kind of cultural relativism and while he doesn’t dwell on it, thinks cultural relativists are among the worst reprobates).  Anderson asserts that God never changes, noting “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).  The Old Testament carries the same moral imperatives it always did, and the God of the New Testament aligns completely with it.

(13)  Calvinists, and others who deny free will.  It matters not to Anderson whether one cites a theological or biological basis for rejecting the doctrine of man’s free will; both are wrong.

(14) The lazy box-tickers. It’s not enough just occasionally to walk the neighborhood streets and leave in the mailboxes a flyer about Jesus, at least twice a week a Christian must go about their district, knocking on doors and spreading the word of the Lord.

US screenwriter & film director Paul Schrader (b 1946) really knows how to hurt someone's feelings.