Gore

Gore (pronounced gawr or gohr)

(1) Blood when shed, especially in volume or when coagulated.

(2) Murder, bloodshed, violence etc, often in the context of visual depictions (film, television etc) and frequently an element in the “pornography of violence”.

(3) Dirt; mud; filth (obsolete except in some regional dialects and obviously something of which to be aware when reading historic texts).

(4) In cartography, the curved surface that lies between two close lines of longitude on a globe (or the as represented in the segmented two-dimensional depiction in certain maps or charts.

(5) In nautical design, a triangular piece of material inserted in a sail to produce a greater surface areas or a desired shape.

(6) In apparel, one of the panels, usually tapering or triangular in shape, making up a garment (most often used with skirts) or for other purposes such as umbrellas, hot-air balloons etc.

(7) In a bra (sometimes (tautologically) as “centre gore”), the panel connecting the cups and housing the centre ends of the underwires (if fitted).

(8) On cobbling, an elastic gusset for providing a snug fit in a shoe.

(9) A triangular tract of land, especially one lying between larger divisions; in the jargon of surveying, a small patch of land left unincorporated due to unresolved competing surveys or a surveying error (also know in the US as “neutral area” and in the UK as “ghost island”).

(10) In road-traffic management, a designated “no-go” area at a point where roads intersect.

(11) In heraldry, a charge delineated by two inwardly curved lines, meeting in the fess point and considered an abatement.

(12) To create, mark or cut (something) in a triangular shape.

(13) Of an animal, such as a bull, to pierce or stab (a person or another animal) with a horn or tusk.

(14) To pierce something or someone (with a spear or similar weapon), as if with a horn or tusk.

(15) To make or furnish with a gore or gores; to add a gore.

Pre 900: From the Middle English gorre & gore (filth, moral filth), from the Old English gor (dung, bull dung, filth, dirt), from the Proto-Germanic gurą (half-digested stomach contents; faeces; manure) and the ultimate source may have been the primitive Indo-European gher- (hot; warm).  It was cognate with the Dutch goor, the Old High German gor (filth), the Middle Low German göre and the Old Norse gor (cud; half-digested food).  The idea of gore being “clotted blood” dates from the 1560s and was applied especially on battlefields; the term gore-blood documents since the 1550s.

The noun gore in the sense “patch of land or cloth of triangular shape” dates also from before 900 and was from the Middle English gor, gore, gar & gare (triangular piece of land, triangular piece of cloth), from the Old English gāra (triangular piece of land, corner, point of land, cape, promontory) the ultimate source thought to be the Proto-Germanic gaizon- or gaizô.   It was cognate with the German Gehre (gusset) and akin to the Old English gār (spear).  The seemingly strange relationship between spears, pieces of fabric and patches of land is explained by the common sense of triangularity, the allusion being to the word gore used in the sense of “a projecting point”, the tip of a spear visualized as the acute angle at which two sides of a triangle meet.  From this developed in the mid-thirteenth century the use to describe the panel used the front of a skirt, extended by the early 1300s just about any “triangular piece of fabric”.

Al Gore (b 1948; US vice president 1993-2001) with crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013).  Al Gore used to be “the next President of the United States” and when this photo was taken at Miami Dade College, Florida during October 2016, crooked Hillary was also TNPOTUS.  They have much in common.

Al Gore's oft-repeated (and much derided) "quote" that he "invented the internet" is a misrepresentation of his actual statement, made on 9 March 1999 during an interview with CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer (b 1948): "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."  By this, Gore meant that while a member of the Senate during the 1980s, he was an advocate of the roll-out of high-speed telecommunications and network infrastructure.  He introduced legislation that led to the increased funding for and and expansion of the ARPANET (the US Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, the first public packet-switched computer network which operated between 1969-1989; the precursor to the modern internet, it was used mostly by the academic institutions and the military).  The High Performance Computing and Communication Act (1991) was known as the "Gore Bill" and it provided the framework for the national infrastructure.  However one looks at things, he achieved more than crooked Hillary.

Gore entered the jargon of surveying in the 1640s, adopted in the New England region of the American colonies to describe “a strip of land left out of any property by an error when tracts are surveyed”.  Such errors and disputes were not uncommon (there and elsewhere), the most famous resolved by the Mason-Dixon Line, the official demarcation defining the boarders of what would become the US states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia (which was until 1863 attached to Virginia).  The line was determined by a survey undertaken between 1763-1767 by two English astronomers Charles Mason (1728–1786) & Jeremiah Dixon (1733–1779), commissioned because the original land grants issued by Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) and Charles II (1630–1685; King of Scotland 1649-1651, King of Scotland, England and Ireland 1660-1685) were contradictory, something not untypical given the often outdated and sometimes dubious maps then in use.  Later, "Mason-Dixon Line" would enter the popular imagination as the border between "the North" and "the South" (and thus "free" & "slave" states) because the line, west of Delaware, marked the northern limit of slavery in the United States.  Even though the later abolition of slavery in some areas rendered the line less of a strict delineation for this purpose, both phrase and implied meaning endured.

Arizona Department of Transport’s conceptual illustration of a gore used in traffic management.  The gore area is (almost always at least vaguely triangular) space at a point where roads in some way intersect and depending on the environment and available space, a gore may be simply a designated space (often painted with identifying lines of various colors) or a raised structure, sometime large and grassed.  The purpose of a gore is to ensue (1) the visibility of drivers is not restricted by other vehicles (most important with merging traffic) and (2) vehicle flow is in a safe direction and for this reason gores are designated “no go” areas through which vehicles should neither pass nor stop; something often enforced by statute.

The verb (in the sense of “to pierce, to stab”) emerged in the late fourteenth century (although use seems to have been spasmodic until the sixteenth) and was from the Middle English gorren & goren (to pierce, stab) which was derived from gōre (spear, javelin, dart), from the Old English gār (spear, shaft, arrow).  The adjective gory (covered with clotted blood) dates from the late fifteenth century and developed from the noun and the derived noun goriness is now a favorite measure by which produces in the horror movie genre are judged, some sites offering a “goriness index” or “goriness rating” for those who find such metrics helpful (the noun gorinessness is non-standard but horror movie buffs get the idea).  “To gore” also meant “add a gore (to a skirt, sail etc)” but surprisingly given the profligate ways of English degore or de-gore (removing a gore form a skirt, sail etc) seems never to have evolved.  Gore is a noun & verb, gory is an adjective, gored is a verb & adjective, goriness is a noun and goring is a verb; the noun plural is gores.

Shyaway’s diagram detailing how even mainstream bras can have as many as 16 separate components (although more individual parts are used in the construction; some (obviously) at least duplicated).  Who knew?

The gore (sometimes (tautologically) as “centre gore”) fits in the space between breasts, the panel connecting the cups and providing locating points for the centre ends of the underwires (if fitted).  Because there are so many types of design, the height of gore varies greatly, one fitted to a full support bra rising higher than that used by a plunge bra but the general principle is the panel should lie flat between the breasts, aligned with the skin, the gore's purpose as a piece of structural engineering being to provide separation and it's also the critical mounting point for the underwires.

HerRoom's deconstruction of the art and science of the gore.

According to HerRoom.com, the significance of the gore sitting firmly against the sternum is it provides an indication of fit.  If a gap appears between skin and gore, that suggests the cups lack sufficient depth and the user should proceed up the alphabet until snugness is achieved.  Where the gap is especially obvious (some fitters recommending a standard HB pencil as a guide while others prefer fingers, the advantage with the pencil being that globally it's a uniform size), it may be necessary to both go up more than one cup letter and decrease the band-size although there are exceptions to the gore-sternum rule and that includes “minimizers” (which achieve their visual trick by a combination of reducing forward protection and redistributing mass laterally) and most “wireless” (or “wire-free”) units (except for the smaller sizes).  The design of the gore also helps in accommodating variations in the human shape; although almost all gores are triangular and the difference in their height is obvious (and as a general principle: the greater the height, the greater the support) a difference in width will make different garments suitable for different body-types.

Gore on the gore: Lindsay Lohan was photographed in 2011 & 2013 by Tyler Shields (b 1982) in sessions which involved knives and the depiction of blood & gore.  The shoot attracted some attention and while the technical achievement was noted, it being quite challenging to work with blood (fake or real) and realize something realistic but it was also criticized as adding little to the discussion about the pornography of violence against women.

Splatter

Splatter (pronounced splat-er)

(1) To splash and scatter upon impact.

(2) An act or instance of splattering, typically a spray of mud, paint, blood or other liquids which results in many small blobs, some of which may coalesce.

(3) The quantity or the residue of something so splattered; An uneven shape (or mess) created by something dispersing on impact.

(4) In film as “splatter film” or “splatter movie”, a production characterized by gory imagery, often for its own sake (something of this the type often referred to as “a splatterfest”).  Splatterpunk is either a fork or synonym depending on interpretation.  In film, the splatter ecosystem is treated by those who take such things seriously as a sub-set of the horror genre.

(5) In modern art, as “splatter art” or “splatter painting”, a technique in which paint is (variously) dripped thrown, squirted, flicked etc onto the surface (although because of its history, “drip painting” to often treated as a separate stream (or drip)).

(6) In radio, spurious emissions resulting from an abrupt change in a transmitted signal.

1760s: The origin is uncertain but it’s presumed to be a portmanteau word, the construct being spla(sh) + (spa)tter.  Splash was probably a variant of the Middle English plasch & plasche, from the Old English plæsċ (pool, puddle) and thought likely an imitative form.  It was cognate with the Dutch plas (pool, watering hole) and related to the West Frisian plaskje (to splash, splatter), the Dutch plassen (to splash, splatter) and the German platschen (to splash).  The construct of spatter was probably the Middle Low German or Dutch spatt(en) (to spout, burst) +‎ -er (the frequentative suffix) and related to spit (saliva).  Splatter, splatterdash & splattering are nouns & verbs, splatterer & splatterfest are nouns, splattered is a verb and splattery is an adjective; the noun plural is splatters.

The verb in the sense of “splash; scatter about; make a noise as of splashing water” developed from the noun and was in use by at least 1784 but the earlier splatterdash (thought a variant of spatterdash) was noted a decade-odd earlier, a development of the noun spatterdash (leather covering for the lower leg to protect from mud) from the late seventeenth century.  Splatterdash meant “in a haphazard manner; work performed in a disorganized way” and was thought (either by intent or mistake) to have evolved from or been influenced by the earlier slapdash.  The early eighteenth century splatter-faced (having a broad, flat face) was probably a perversion of platter-faced, the modern version being “plate-faced”.  Splatterpunk was in 1986 apparently coined by award-winning US writer David J Schow (b 1955), noted for his many contributions to the horror industry and the splatter fork in particular. The first known reference to its use was during his celebrated appearance at the Twelfth World Fantasy Convention in Providence, Rhode Island.  Devoted fans of the splatter movie genre often self-identify as splatterpunks.

I Know Who Killed Me (2007) was for years was a fixture on "Worst Movie Ever" lists but more recently it has built a cult following (for reasons right and wrong) and the longevity in the interest it sustains has made it one of the genre's more enduring (and profitable) titles.  It was an example of a splatter movie "cross-over" in that the splatter aspect was ancillary to the crime-focused plot.  IKWKM often appears in "midnight screenings".

The evolution of the splatter movie becomes obvious from around the early 1960s when graphical depictions of violence and increasing volumes of (fake) blood began to appear.  The censorship in most parts of the world was for most of the twentieth century quite rigorous and unlike the attitude of the authorities towards nudity & sex where some jurisdictions tended to be more permissive, the attitude towards violence in films was more restrictive.  The French Grand Guignol (1897-1962) theatre had staged naturalistic dramas in which the gore was said to be “most realistic” but it was unusual and tolerated as an example of intellectual Parisian bohemianism and in early cinema, about the only graphic depictions seen of blood and gore were those in battlefield scenes or anything intended to illustrate the savagery of non-white races.  The trend towards gratuitous violence in film grew in the post-war years and directors in the 1960s pushed the boundaries, something accommodated by different versions of films being released in different markets, some more cut than others.  Such was the flow of violent cinema that the authorities began banning distribution and it wasn’t until the 1990s the practice became uncommon in the West, the classification system restricting to adults those thought most disturbing thought sufficient.  If there’s a convenient watershed in the business, it might be The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) which lived up to its name; after that, all splatter movies can be considered a variation on the theme.

Freier Stress (Stress Free), Oil on linen by Albert Oehlen (b 1954).

Some regards splatter art as something distinct from drip painting (or action painting) while many claim not to be able to tell the difference although because drip painting has an establish place in modern art (one quite respectable according to many including those who pay millions for works by some of the most famous artists), it’s usually treated as something distinct.  As can be imagined, “splatter” is something within the rubric of abstract; throwing paint at a surface, sometimes from a distance of several feet rather than using a brush or even some form of spray, is going to results in something which, even if recognizably something, is at least at the margins going to be chaotic.

Lepanto, Panel 6, oil on canvas by Cy Twombly (1928-2011)

When drip painting burst (splattered?) upon the art world in the early post war years it was a novelty and at least since the late nineteenth century there had among the Western avant-garde been a thirst for the new and the shocking.  At the time first referred to as a form of abstract expressionism, what the early works did manage to convey was the feeling of something spontaneous, the relationship between what appears on the canvas and the physicality of the technique.  There had long been painters working in oil able to represent the gestures of their brush-strokes, usually with a graduated thickness in the layers on the surface but flinging the stuff around the room obviously brought a new violence to art.  Experimentation (and market differentiation) soon following and apart from the drippers and flingers, there were soon flickers, injectors (the use of syringes presumably thought a bit edgy), squeezers (wringing the paint from a soaked cloth), bursters (paint-filled balloons either thrown at the surface or popped from above) and even the odd spitter (paint ejected from the mouth).

Jackson Pollock (1912–1956) at work, dripping.  To the untrained eye, it's really not possible to work out where the dripping ends and the splatter begins or if it matters or if a distinction between cause and effect is helpful.  The most famous of the drip painters and one of art's genuine celebrities, Peggy Guggenheim (1898-1979) claimed he was “...the greatest painter since Picasso.”

Number 17A (1948), oil on fiberboard by Jackson Pollock.  In 2015 it sold for US$200 million which made it then the world's fifth most expensive painting.  An early work, it's thought one of the purest examples of drip painting and as soon as it appeared in the August 1949 edition of Life magazine, Jackson Pollock became famous.   

One thing about splatter art which simultaneously is (for practitioners) an attraction and (for detractors) a damnation is that the conventional skills traditionally needed by painters are not only not required but are simply irrelevant.  One of the most common complaints of the form by an unimpressed public was usually something like “That’s not art, anyone could do that.”  In terms of the techniques that’s certainly true in that anyone can drip, fling, flick, inject, squeeze or burst (most might draw the line at the spit) but the matter for judgment remains what was produced, not how it was done.  It’s the critics who rule on these things and those specializing in splatter (and related techniques) claim the ability to tell the good form the bad and the masterpiece for everything else.  Of course the language used between such critics is something like that of a sect in that while the words might be familiar, the meanings conveyed and the knowledge known secrets concealed from all but the chosen few and their views can be the difference between a piece being worthless or selling at auction for a sex figure sum.  We really have to take their word for it.

Times Square (2022), oil on canvas being painted by Paul Kenton (b 1968).

Paul Kenton describes himself as a “cityscape artist” and combines variations of splatter techniques with some more traditional forms of “editing” to produce works which are closer to the more traditional forms of abstract expressionism than the drip genre defined by Pollock.

Bloviate

Bloviate (pronounced bloh-vee-yet)

Pompously to speak or discourse at length in a boastful manner.

1857: A coining in US English, a construction in pseudo-Latin, based on deviate on the pattern of blow (in the senses of “a blowhard” (to boast)) + -ate.  Blow was from the Middle English blowen, from the Old English blāwan (to blow, breathe, inflate, sound), from the Proto-West Germanic blāan, from the Proto-Germanic blēaną (to blow) (linked to the modern German blähen), from the primitive Indo-European bhleh- (to swell, blow up) (linked to the Latin flō (to blow) and the Old Armenian բեղուն (bełun) (fertile).  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.

Bloviate was noted in the US in 1890 by a visiting English lexicographer who traced the origins to 1857 as a Midwestern (apparently in Ohio where it meant "to talk aimlessly and boastingly) word which gained the sense of “to indulge high falutin' language” when applied to politicians.  Bloviate was itself thus something of a bloviation because it was a way of saying “windbag” or “blowhard” with a Latin suffix lending a classical flavor.  It was apparently most used (at least in print; casual oral use would have been more prolific) of politicians (predictably fertile ground one suspects) but it faded from use by the early twentieth century, only to be revived during the administration of Warren Harding (1865–1923; US president 1921-1923) who quickly became notorious for his tangled, ornate and occasionally incomprehensible prose.  The biographical evidence suggests Harding reserved his bloviatory ways for his public persona, his language at the poker table as direct as is expected at such a place, something confirmed in the memoir of one of his many mistresses.  Harding of course is associated also with his alleged invention of “normalcy”, claimed to be a mistake during a speech laden with alliterative flourishes in which he said "not nostrums, but normalcy", the claim being he intended to use “normality”.

“America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.”

In saying "normalcy" he may have misspoken (ie a mistake rather than as a synonym for lie as crooked Hillary Clinton uses the word) or perhaps Harding liked the word; questioned afterwards he said he found it in a dictionary which probably was true although whether his discovery came before or after the speech wasn't explored.  Harding’s choice was much-derided at the time, normalcy had certainly existed since at least 1857, originally as a technical term from geometry meaning the "mathematical condition of being at right angles, state or fact of being normal in geometry" but subsequently it had appeared in print as a synonym of normality on several occasions.  Still, it was hardly in general use though Harding gave it a boost and it’s not since gone extinct, now with little complaint except from the linguistically fastidious.  Anyway, at the time it did him little harm.  The speech was delivered during the 1920 presidential election and Harding was elected in a landslide, the Republican ticket taking the Electoral College 404-127 with 60.4 against 34.1% of the popular vote.  In an example of how the electoral map has changed over a century, in 1920 the Democratic Party’s successes were almost exclusively south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The political re-alignment in the US, 1920-2020; Democrats are blue, Republicans red.  

So electoral behavior in the US has changed in a century but the rhetorical habits of politicians probably haven't and bloviate made its second comeback in the 1990s.  Apparently the combination of the emergence of Newt Gingrich et al as neo-bloviators and the novel medium of the internet spread the word, giving it a niche, first on the bulletin boards and later on blogs, twitter and social media as technology unfolded, the 24/7 news cycle and the proliferation of political commentators meaning the ranks swelled.  In every electoral cycle since 1994, bloviators have been identified and shamed or celebrated as required.  Harding was at least self-aware, proud of his skill at “speaking as long as the occasion warrants and saying nothing” but still annoyed critics like the humorist HL Mencken (1880-1956) who dismissed the content of Harding’s English as a “loud burble of words fit only for morons and small-town yokels” although even he acknowledged the technique was so honed that “a sort of grandeur creeps into it.”

Noted bloviator Newt Gingrich (b 1943; speaker of the US House of Representatives 1995-1999 (right)) with Joe Biden (b1942; US president since 2021 (left)).  Biden now doesn’t so much bloviate as ramble and meander.

It was the idea of “fake grandeur” that saw Barack Obama (b 1961, US president 2009-2017) labeled a bloviator by some but that was as misleading as it was to call Donald Trump “the bloviating billionaire”.  Obama at his worst talked what Lord Beaverbrook (1879-1964) would have called “high falutin' nonsense” but was usually quite direct.  Trump too was direct and never tried, like George W Bush (b 1946; US president 2001-2009) or Sarah Palin (b 1964) to lend gravitas to the message with fancy (an in some cases invented) words in the manner of a Norman Mailer (1923-2007), William F Buckley (1925-2008), Gore Vidal (1925-2012), Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997), Conrad Black (b 1944), Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) and David Foster Wallace (1962-2008), bloviators all.

Noted bloviators William F Buckley (left) and Gore Vidal (right) in one of their famous debates on the ABC network in 1968.

Conducted in the milieu that was the drama of the 1968 Republican and Democratic Party conventions, ABC envisaged it as an exchange between intellectuals of the right and left but what made it a ratings hit was Vidal calling Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" to which he responded, "Listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered".  Overnight, it transformed the way the broadcast media covered politics in the US and it’s from this "debate" that the descent began towards ideological confrontation and partisan commentary.  In political science, there had long been the "politics as theatre" school of thought but it was from this debate that the packaging of politics as entertainment was allowed to evolve undisguised.

Trump is better thought of as a rodomont, the essence of rhodomontade being vain boasting, bragging and blustering without any suggestion of the use of obscure or big words; the undercurrent of everything Trump says is “I’m really rich” and that’s all that matters.  It dates from the 1610s (the earlier rodomontado noted in the 1590s), and was from the French rodomontade, a reference to the vain boasting of Rodomonte, a character who appears in two epic poems of the Italian Renaissance: Ludovico Ariosto's (1474–1533) Orlando Furioso (1516) and Matteo Maria Boiardo's (1440–1494) Orlando Innamorato (1483-1495).  In the dialectal Italian, the name translates literally as "one who rolls (away) the mountain" and it came by the 1680s to be used as a verb imparting the idea of “one who boasts, brags and talks big".

A noted rodomont with a noted bloviatrix: Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) with crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947), 2016 presidential election debate.

A non standard variation is bloviatrix (literally “a woman who bloviates”) and now of course it would be less incorrect to call one a bloviator but it was always intended as a jocular coining.  The –trix suffix was from the primitive Indo-European -trih, from -tḗr and was cognate with the Sanskrit suffix -त्री (-trī) (as in जनित्री (janitrī) (mother) though most dictionaries now tag –trix as dated.  It was appended usually to create female agent nouns and for masculine agent nouns ending in -tor, the feminine equivalent ending in -trix was historically preferred (and etymologically consistent) but social forces now operate with some severity in English and the modern practice is to adopt either gender-neutral terms, even other feminine suffixes (-a, -ess, -ette & -ine) falling from favor.  It endures where the meaning conveyed is so specific that any substitution would be either misleading or just silly, dominatrix the most obvious example and it’s usually the case these derived terms were borrowed directly from Latin, rather than formed in English (where in recent centuries the creations tended variously to be jocular, poetic or derogatory).  The Latin forms were just part of the lexicon such as cantrīx (female singer), based on cantor (male singer), from canō (I sing), tōnstrīx (female barber) based on tōnsor (male barber), from tondeō (I shear, shave) & meretrīx (prostitute (literally “she who earns”), from mereō (I merit, deserve, earn).  The Latin suffix was picked up by other European languages including the Catalan -triu, the French –trice, the Italian –trice and the Portuguese & Spanish –triz.

Bloviate is also jocular slang in the engine-building community.  Because of the phonetic similarity to “blown V8” (ie a V8 engine with forced (super- or turbo-charged) induction), it’s used to refer to such machinery.  The comparative and superlative forms presumably are “very bloviated” & “most bloviated” respectively, based on the extent of atmospheric boost delivered.

A noted bloviate: Mopar Direct Connection 1500 HEMI Crate Engine (Part Number: DSR1500-DC) @ US$59,990.  The 1500 is “most bloviated”.

Dodge's Hellephants (as crate engines) are 426 cubic inch (7.0 litre) V8s, based on the Gen III HEMI V8 in five versions ranging from 900 to 1500hp, all using DSR’s 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) IHI supercharger and available with either cast-iron or aluminium blocks.  Not remotely lawful for use in the US in road-registered vehicles built after 1975, most are used in some form of competition and although such things are thought by many to be in their last days, the crate engines may remain available until (1) they’re outlawed, (2) demand falls to the point production is no longer viable or (3) pressure-groups force Chrysler to stop.  As recently as twenty-odd years ago, there was much nostalgia about "the way things used to be done" but, on any objective measure, the Hellephants are better than anything which came before.  Despite that, some things will always be cherished for the flaws and quirks which give them their character and for some, the old ways, while not better, will remain more enchanting.    

Distract

Distract (pronounced dih-strakt)

(1) To draw away or divert, as the mind or attention.

(2) To disturb or trouble greatly in mind; beset.

(3) To provide a pleasant diversion for; to amuse or entertain.

(4) To separate or divide by dissension or strife; to confuse.

(5) To make “crazy or insane” (now rare except in the idiomatic “drive to distraction” and its variants when the concept of “mad” is used in its colloquial sense).

1350–1400: From the Middle English, from the Medieval Latin distracten (to turn or draw (a person, the mind) aside or away from any object; divert (the attention) from any point toward another point), from the Latin distrahō (to pull apart), the construct being dis- + trahō (to pull), from distractus (drawn apart), past participle of distrahere (to draw apart), the construct being dis- + trahere (to draw).  The dis prefix was from the Middle English dis-, from the Old French des from the Latin dis, from the proto-Italic dwis, from the primitive Indo-European dwís and cognate with the Ancient Greek δίς (dís) and the Sanskrit द्विस् (dvis).  It was applied variously as an intensifier of words with negative valence and to render the senses “incorrect”, “to fail (to)”, “not” & “against”.  In Modern English, the rules applying to the dis prefix vary and when attached to a verbal root, prefixes often change the first vowel (whether initial or preceded by a consonant/consonant cluster) of that verb. These phonological changes took place in Latin and usually do not apply to words created (as in Modern Latin) from Latin components since the language was classified as “dead”.  The combination of prefix and following vowel did not always yield the same change and these changes in vowels are not necessarily particular to being prefixed with dis (ie other prefixes sometimes cause the same vowel change (con; ex)).  Distract, distracting & distracted are verbs & adjectives, distractionism, distractibility, distraction, distractedness, distracter & distractee are nouns, distractable, distractible, distractionary, distractive & distractful are adjectives and distractedly & distractingly are adverbs; the common noun plural is distractions.

Diversions are where one finds them.

The sense of “to throw into a state of mind in which one knows not how to act; cause distraction in; confuse by diverse or opposing considerations” has been in use by at least the 1580s.  Obviously related (and emerging a decade-odd later) was the stronger sense of “disorder the reason of, render frantic or mad”, once in common use and preserved (in rather diluted form) in the idiomatic phrase “driven to distraction”.  The literal senses of “pull apart in different directions and separate; cut into parts or sections” were in use from the late sixteenth century but are now functionally extinct.  The adjective distracted dates from the 1570s in the sense of “perplexed, harassed, or bewildered by opposing considerations” and came directly from the verb distract; from the 1580s it gained the meaning “disordered in intellect, frantic, mad”.  The noun distraction came from the mid-fifteenth century distraccioun (the drawing away of the mind from one point or course to another or others), from the Latin distractionem (a pulling apart, separating), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of distrahere (draw in different directions).  The sense of a “drawing of the mind in different directions, mental confusion or bewilderment” dates from the 1590s, and the meaning “violent mental disturbance, excitement simulating madness (in driven to distraction etc) was known from the turn of the century.  The meaning “a thing or fact that causes mental diversion or bewilderment” was in use by at least 1615 but, like other related forms, it probably was long in oral use.  The special use of distraction in medicine was used to describe “traction so exerted as to separate surfaces normally opposed”; it is long archaic.  The old idea of “distraction” meaning “crazy or insane” survives in the idiomatic phrases “drive to distraction”, “driven to distraction” and “crazy or insane” are now used in the colloquial, non-clinical sense meaning “a bit stressed or discombobulated”.  Usually, the phrases are used by those being so annoyed by someone or something they cannot focus on the task at hand.

Of Dr Faustus

Title page of the 1620 edition of the ‘B’ text of Doctor Faustus (first published in 1616 as The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus).

English playwright, poet and translator Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) was the enfant terrible of the Elizabethan age (1558–1603) and the circumstances surrounding his murder at a youthful 29 death has long attracted speculation.  Marlow’s most famous work was The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus (clipped usually to “Doctor Faustus”), a tragedy (some critics class it as a morality play) first staged around 1594.  Kind of the ultimate cautionary tale, it was based on German stories about an eminent scholar who sells (for eternity) his soul to the devil in exchange for 24 years magical powers.  The plot is charmingly simple: it follows Dr Faustus down the magical path lad for him by the demon Mephistopheles to his ultimate downfall as he fails to repent before his damnation.  An entertaining work, Marlow’s play also has the virtue of brevity unlike Goethe’s (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749–1832) sprawling Faust in two parts; Goethe’s Faust may be the author’s magnum opus and the finest achievement in German literature but it is very long.

Faust and Mephistopheles (1869), oil on canvas by Alfred Louis Vigny Jacomin (1842-1913).

What enabled Mephistopheles to tempt Faustus was that the doctor, who regarded himself an expert of just about every aspect of science and philosophy, had become enchanted by the idea of necromancy, something not easily explored in the temporal world.  Dating from the late twelfth century, necromancy was from the Middle English nigromancye, from the Old French nigromancie, from the Medieval Latin nigromantia, from the Classical Latin necromantia, from the Ancient Greek νεκρομαντεία (nekromanteía), the construct being νεκρός (nekrós) (dead) + μαντεία (manteía) (divination).  The spelling in the Medieval Latin with the element niger (black) was influenced by the notion of this being a “black (in the sense of “dark”) art; the modern spelling had emerged by the mid sixteenth century.  Necromancy, as understood by Faustus, meant the sorcery associated with raising or reanimating the dead and the Devil uniquely was well placed to provide instruction but there would be a price to be paid.  One of the devices Marlow has Mephistopheles (and sometimes the Devil himself) use to divert Faustus’s thoughts from anything which might bring about his repentance and save his soul are “distractions”.  The distractions are presented as essentially theatrical spectacles in the form of sensual pleasures, promises of power and trivial entertainments, all designed to ensure spiritual distraction; it was something like Faustus’s Elizabethan TikTok feed.

Distractions played a part: Al Gore (b 1948; VPOTUS 1993-2001 & NPOTUS 2000, left) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; NPOTUS 2016, right).

The distractions take many forms but their principle purpose is to divert Faustus from thinking about or speaking of Christ and heaven, thus the famous rebuke: “Thou shouldst not think of God.”  What Lucifer does is stage a pagent of the Seven Deadly Sins, a masque-like parade of Pride, Covetousness, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, and Lechery to amuse and seduce Faustus away from repentance.  As one might expect of weak, mortal man, Faustus delights in the spectacle: “O, this feeds my soul!”; well the Devil knew his customer.  Also provided are texts teaching transformations, conjuring, and occult knowledge, intellectual distractions appealing to Faustus’s vanity and appetite for mastery of new and unexplored subjects.  This is however a play written for the stage and it has a beginning, middle and end with much of the middle devoted to diversions: invisible tricks played on the pope (said to be very popular with contemporary audiences), conjuring spirits for emperors and nobles, practical jokes, feasts, and displays of magical power.  What Marlowe does is show Faustus squandering his grand bargain on shallow amusements rather than profound knowledge; comparisons have been made between what was promised would be the role of the “Information Super Highway” (dating from the time when “Al Gore invented the Internet”) and TikTok feeds.

Helen of Troy (1898), oil on canvas by Evelyn De Morgan (1855–1919).  Helen has for millennia been depicted by painters and sculptors and historians of art have used the images to track changes in Western ideal of female beauty.  

Near the end, when an Old Man urges Faustus sincerely to repent, Mephistopheles counters with Helen of Troy as an erotic and aesthetic temptation, Faustus responding with the famous: “Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships…?”  Helen represented the ultimate sensual distraction from salvation; as the Devil and advertising agencies understand: sex sells.  As a psychological study, Marlow’s work is a clever piece of the way manipulation can work, certainly with a victim as vain and self-absorbed as Faustus who Mephistopheles can convince repentance has become impossible, trapping him in a twilight zone between fear of the consequences of his actions and his irresistible urge to taste the distractions offered.  For those attracted by the comparisons with the internet, a major theme of the play is the notion of distraction, Faustus almost never allowed (or willing, depending on the reading), to sustain serious contemplation of repentance, Marlowe presenting damnation not as an open rebellion against God, but a gradual surrender of attention to spectacle, appetite, vanity and diversion. 

Of Marjorie Taylor Greene and flying saucers

Marjorie Taylor Greene with assault rifle, campaign material, 2020.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG, b 1974; US Representative (congressperson) (Republican-Georgia 2021-2026)) parlayed a career as a conspiracy theorist (evils of Islam, anti-Semitism, white genocide / replacement, Pizzagate, QAnon, etc (although she later disavowed her acceptance of what QAnon promotes)) into a seat in the US House of Representatives.  Once very much a Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) fan-girl and a devotee of the his MAGA (Make America Great Again) cult, during the second Trump presidency she made a remarkable volte-face, accusing him of betraying the “America First” movement, criticizing his policies (both domestic and foreign) and reluctance to release files related to convicted paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019).  With apologies to William Congreve (1670–1729) who included the original line in his tragedy The Mourning Bride (1697): “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a MAGA woman scorned.” and Mr Trump responded to this treachery by attacking her in a post on his ever-entertaining Truth Social platform, vowing to have her “primaried” (denied a place on the Republican ticket for the mid-term congressional elections in November 2026).  As recent Republican primaries have demonstrated, Mr Trump continues to hold the party in his thrall and MTG might have expected to suffer the same fate.  Accordingly, she resigned her seat so Mr Trump can treat that as a victory although she became what Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 & POTUS 1963-1969) called “outside the tent” (his argument being often it was preferable to have malcontents “inside the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in”).

Marjorie Taylor Greene in happier times.

Outside the tent, the scorned MTG renewed her attacks.  Most displeased at US military action against Iran, she called for the cabinet to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the constitution and remove the president from office (on the grounds of physical or mental incapacity) and, in a rhetorical flourish, suggested the Republican Party should be “burned to the ground.”  That was good but she also provided a critique of the administration’s tactic of “rolling out distractions”, calling the Pentagon’s release of “UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) files” as “look at the shiny object”, propaganda, placed in the public domain to divert public attention from matters such a high gas (petrol) prices, inflation and foreign military operations.  She dismissed the “UFO files” (the Pentagon prefers the nerdier UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena)) as revealing “nothing” and said the release was a mere strategic diversion, the administration knowing news outlets would think it a “sexy” topic that would displace gas and egg prices from the headlines and hopefully encourage the usual suspects in the public arena to start arguing about flying saucers.  Her core point was instead of publishing “UFO files” containing nothing substantive, the administration should fully disclose the Epstein files with no redactions beyond what was necessary to “protect the victims”.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, post MAGA.

President Trump said he’d directed the Pentagon to make available on their website 161 (with more to come) files “related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs)", because of “the tremendous interest shown”.  Of course, as MTG pointed out, there is also “tremendous interest” in what’s as yet unseen in the Epstein files.  What MTG claimed was the public’s “tremendous interest” is seeing “names named” in the Epstein files was in conflict with the equally “tremendous interest” Mr Trump told her his “friends” had in the information remaining suppressed.  According to her, Mr Trump asked her to remove her support from releasing the Epstein files because placing them in the public domain would “expose and hurt ‘good people’ he knew at Mar-a-Lago”.  That clash of interests hasn’t gone away so while it can’t be predicted whether it will involve the White House’s new ballroom or some other “shiny object”, more distractions may be expected.

Of political distraction

In political science, “distraction” is used in two ways.  The first sense describes forces or events which operate to divert a government’s attention from the matters on which they intended to focus.  Sometimes, this can happen because external events impose themselves or it can be a product of the attention of those in government being drawn to “other matters”.  The most amusing of these are personal vendettas which can assume a life of their own but they can involve just about anything.  The more interesting “political distractions” are those governments, parties or individual politicians “manufacture” to divert public attention away from damaging scandals, corruption, policy failures or unpopular legislation.  As one might imagine, given those imperatives, politicians often feel the need to distract the press and public for the public from thinking or talking about their many failings.  The orthodox approach among political scientists is to list diversions in six categories:

(1) Toss a dead cat on the table.  This describes the tactic of suddenly introducing an outrageous, shocking or highly controversial topic into the public arena, something designed to force the media and public to become interested in the new matter and forget or at least neglect whatever damaging discussion was dominating news cycle.  Aspects of the “culture wars” are dependable dead felines which is why matters such as trans-women’s participation in women’s sport do seem often to “crop up” when a politician’s poll-numbers are looking dire.

(2) Take out the trash.  The polite term for TotT is “Strategic Timing” which describes announcing policies likely to be unpopular policies or controversial executive orders on days when public attention is guaranteed to be fixed elsewhere, such as during big sporting events or during major holidays.  The trick to a successful execution of TotT is just to do it without leaving a “paper trail” (which can now be electronic).  That was a mistake made a certain bureaucrat in the UK government who, within minutes of the second jet hitting New York’s World Trade Center on 9/11 (11 September, 2001), sent a memorandum to her department head suggesting “It's now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.”  What was meant by that was that the coverage of the terrorist attacks would “swamp” just about everything else, meaning the government wouldn’t have to try to “defend the indefensible”.

(3) Tail Wagging the Dog: In political science this tactic is glossed as “Diversionary Foreign Policy” and refers to governments initiating or escalating foreign conflicts, border tensions, or military action to create the “rally 'round the flag” effect and divert attention from domestic matters which are proving tiresome.  Cases studies of “wagging the dog” are numerous but in the case of nations inclined often to embark upon foreign military actions, it can be difficult to be sure a certain venture is an example or just “business as usual” foreign policy doctrine in action.  When, in August 1998, Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) ordered a missile strike on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, that was claimed by the White House to be based on “solid intelligence” the facility was (1) connected with Osama bin Laden’s (1957-2011) al-Qaeda terrorist group (1957-2011) and was “manufacturing or storing the VX nerve agent”.  Although a successful military operation (ie the factory was destroyed with a low civilian casualty toll), the administration was forced subsequently to concede the intelligence was “not as solid as first portrayed”.  In Sudan, the locals had few doubts about the president’s motivation, the Monica Lewinsky (b 1973) scandal at the time dominating the US news cycle.

Distracting: English model Penny Lane (b 1991), Miami Swim Week, June 2026.  Her "catwalk strut" in a black, cut-out monokini with a matrix of thin, horizontal straps slashing across the midriff was the sensation of the show. 

(4) Scapegoating.  Although it’s the always reliable “blame the Jews” which is the standard template for scapegoating, the formula is adaptable to circumstances which can extend from religion & ethnicity (the way the Jews are exploited containing elements of both) to occupational categories, social class, political alignment and more.  Scapegoating can be a handy device of distraction when managing disquiet over issues such as unemployment, failing infrastructure, the spread of disease, crime, urban congestion, economic difficulties, rising prices or the weather (it really has been done).  Of late, the perfect scapegoats have been “illegal migrants” (often clipped to “illegals”), now in ample supply.

(5) Culture Wars.  Culture wars long pre-date Antiquity but in their modern sense were really a creation of the left, political parties (labour, socialist etc) which, even though for decades rarely being in power, were able in many places to become the central dynamic of the political process by “setting the agenda” some of their ideas becoming the dominant orthodoxy.  However, the right stumbled upon culture wars after the re-orientation of Western economies to the neo-Liberal model which tended to damage the interests of the working class.  What distractions like the culture wars (abortion, guns, right to drive huge pick-up trucks etc) offered to the right was the intoxicating prospect of persuading the working class to vote contrary to their own economic interest.  Threats to a way of life (trans people, climate change theories etc) have been added as culture war theatres as they proved to have traction.

(6) Flooding the Zone.  In the pre-digital age, this was called “drowning them in paperwork” which, although a mixed metaphor, conveyed well the notion of providing so much data it was impossible effectively to process.  In the age of social media, the technique has had to be adjusted because there are now some who will ignore the distraction and relentlessly focus of a single issue of interest but it does still work, advances in AI (artificial intelligence) meaning it’s now possible to release huge tranches of “redacted documents”.  At the micro level, the principle can be used by issuing literally dozens of executive orders (some of which the administration may have no intention of effecting and exist only as “sacrificial devices” in order to divert attention from a certain order.  Of course, just as AI can be a shield, it can also be a weapon, journalists and others now able to apply a Bot to a tranche, enabling in a short time the sort of analysis which would take a team of humans months or even years.

The ultimate usual suspect: Noam Chomsky's thoughts on distraction

In full flight: Noam Chomsky (left) discussing something with Jeffrey Epstein (right) while flying somewhere on a private jet.  Professor Chomsky is believed “deeply to regret” his association with Epstein, a man he once described as a “highly valued friend”.   The image was released by the US DoJ (Department of Justice).

Linguistics theorist & public intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky (b 1928) has for decades been something of an institution of the left, his critique of the policies of the US government in most aspects unchanging yet still attracting interest with each iteration, despite much of the mainstream media in the US maintaining what was, in effect, a ban on him appearing.  Unlike his work in structural linguistics, the complexities of which were understood by a relative few, Chomsky’s political writings were more accessible, something which some criticism from political scientists and those specializing in international relations who found his “elegant reductionism” just a form of simplification for mass-market appeal; political scientists much prefer the arcane.  Chomsky regards the tactics of distraction as tools in the strategy of manipulation and regards the art and science of distraction as the most significant of the ten vectors of manipulation practiced by the “political class” (political operatives and the news media).

(1) The strategy of distraction.  The primary element of social control is the tool of distraction, used to divert public attention issues and changes determined by political and economic elites; the most common tactic is the “flood”: “flooding” people with continuous distractions and insignificant information.  Distraction strategy is also essential to limit or even prevent public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics: “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance.  Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think.”

(2) Create problems, then offer solutions.  This method is also called “problem–reaction-solution.”  It creates a problem, a “situation” that will induce some reaction in the audience and, in time, will see them demanding a “solution”.  Examples include allowing urban violence to spread or intensify (if necessary, agents of the state can even arrange the attacks), then responding to demands for “security” by passing laws allowing a harsh crackdown and restrictions on social rights.  Such a tactic can augment a manufactured “economic crisis”, one of the solutions being a reduction in spending on public services, even to the point of their widespread disestablishment.

(3) Gradualism.  The “gradual strategy” is a form of the “thin end of the wedge” and is a way of eventually achieving something which would have been unacceptable had there been an attempt to implement the change is “one hit”.  What’s done is that measures are applied gradually over years or even decades, the public acting like the tale of the frog in the pot of water being slowly brought to the boil.  That famous example turned out not to be how frogs react to gradually increasing water temperature but, in the West, it’s something like the way the radically new socio-economic conditions of neo-liberalism were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s.  Had the architects attempted to impose at once what proved to be the eventual outcome, the public would likely not have accepted the change.

(4) Deferment.  This is a “long game” tactic, the theory being a way to have the public accept an unpopular policy is to present it as “painful but necessary”, the psychology behind that being the notion it’s more palatable to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate slaughter.  Intriguingly, deferment is said to be effective because there is much to suggest there’s a general public belief “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice suggested will finally be avoided.  That may sound surprising but the findings are said to be “solid” and mean people “get used to” the inevitability of the change and, “with a sense of resignation”, will accept things.

(5) Infantilism.  The theory (adopted also in many forms of advertising) is that if information is presented in a way one might to a child of twelve, (in other words as if addressing an adult with a mentally deficiency), the recipient will digest it with the lack of critical sense typical in a child of that age.  Not all political scientists are convinced this approach works in matters of public policy but its success in the marketing of at least certain products is acknowledged.

(6) Emotional appeals work better than anything analytic.  The idea is that stressing the emotional aspect of something can be effective because it tends to induce a “short-circuiting” of a recipient’s capacity for rational analysis, and finally to the critical sense of the individual.

(7) Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity.  The object is to make the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement.  Most obviously, this is achieved by keeping the quality of education provided to the lower social classes at a most mediocre level, ensuring a wide “ignorance gap” exists between them and the hegemonic class.  Instead of knowledge, the lower classes are given diversions such as reality TV and an endless diet of football matches.

(8) Self-identification of the lower classes with ignorance.  Apparently, this wasn’t something anticipated by the theorists but among sub-sets of the marginalized class, what evolved was a kind of “cult of ignorance” in which being uneducated and vulgar is fashionable and a form of class solidarity, toxic masculinity said by some sociologists to be a modern manifestation.

(9) Strengthen a sense of self-blame.  By definition, if individuals blame themselves for their misfortunes, they won’t blame the government and expect solutions to be provided although, impressionistically, it would seem demands often are made of governments regardless of a misfortune’s cause.  Still, if individual blames themselves, (failure of effort or ability), the hope is instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual descends into an acquiescent insensibility and hopefully a state of depression which tends to inhibit getting out of bed, let getting ideas about staging a revolution.

(10) Knowledge is power.  Just because something is a cliché doesn’t mean it’s not true and in recent decades there does seem to have been a growing gap between knowledge in public hands and that owned and operated by the power elite.  The system of control has developed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically meaning mechanisms of control can now be more targeted.  There were optimistic types who believed placing AI (artificial intelligence) capabilities in the hands of the masses might redress this imbalance but there seem little to suggest the technology is doing anything other than strengthening the existing hegemony.