For the benefit of the erudite, I do want to point out that I do get the reference. The reference is insufficient. The term "sea-change" works fine in its original context. But at some point, you can't just pull out any random two-word combo Shakespeare strung together one time, and try to knight it into proverb status. To do that, it's as if you say that any random utterance and scribbling of Shakespeare's is pretty much about as good as another.
Shakespeare minted many, many coinages of true sterling. Turns of phrase, spectacularly apt terms and neologisms that hit with immediate impact, that are sound and strong enough to carry a full freight of meaning. Phrases that enrich the language. Not by some hinting association, not by playing some winking game, nodding at a given play or a poem! They enrich the language by being forceful, meaningful, useful phrases. So many Shakespearisms have become almost indispensable - it is nigh-impossible to convey the meaning they convey without them.
The phrase "sea-change" is not one of these. Removed from its original context, "sea-change" is pretty much functionally meaningless. It doesn't add a damn bit of value to the language. The only meaning that can be drawn from its use is "Hey, look at me, making a pointless and self-congratulatory allusion to Shakespeare with some random phrase!" To seize on some random single-use tidbit he pulled out of his ass and parrot it about as if it actually meant something cheapens and diminishes the true and evident contributions that the guy actually did make. I mean, if Shakespeare had written a throwaway line somewhere, "Step off, lest I must needs work a fist-change upon your face!" - people today would be dropping that "fist-change" around all smug, like it adds something to the conversation.
Please, people. Please. It is possible to know Shakespeare and to love Shakespeare, without being a tool.
"Sea-change." Good lord and butter.
No comments:
Post a Comment