There is difference between bravery and recklessness
imo recklessness isn't always a bad thing
It is, the word is literally pejorative.
lots of pejoratives are used affectionately. if you live and die by the dictionary you're not experiencing the complexities of emotion *shrug* all linguists worth their coin don't endorse literalism
This do not apply here. There is difference being vouching for literalism and misusing words.
The dictionary has a lot of words, many are not used because : 1) ignorance of their existence, 2) misconception about words being "true" synonyms/interchangeable, and 3) disregard for nuances.
Lacking proper caution, being irresponsible, being careless of consequences is not a desirable quality. Recklessness is as pejorative as foolishness. It does not need context, its use dictates the context. In other words, Recklessness is a "non-deictic" word, it does not rely on context to convey its meaning. Proper use of recklessness reflects a negative implication.
i get what you mean but i disagree on recklessness being non-deitic. countless poems and songs use reckless in a romanticised sense, and while i'm not romanticising recklessness myself in my original post, i stand firm in my belief that it's not inherently bad. and i certainly didn't say that it was a desirable trait either. something can be impulsive while retaining its charm.
in this story's sense, i can see the mc's bravery, and as you say, recklessness, as lovable and charming. i like that impulsiveness and the momentary inconsideration for consequence because it shows that his only thought is immediately removing his coworker from the situation. i think that's not bad at all.
and it's ironic that you deflect from literalism but still maintain that there are proper and improper usage of words, especially in fiction. stretching the limits of meaning is the whole point of it.
This isn't a matter of opinion but of facts. Agreeing or disagreeing ain't the conclusion. Words mean what they mean. The proper use of words is crucial for clear and accurate communication. Using words incorrectly can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
"reckless in a romanticized sense" Just because recklessness can be romanticized does not change its meaning or make it any less pejorative. You can romanticize rape, but that does not change its meaning and connotation. That's what a "non-deictic" word is about. Non-deictic words do not rely on context to maintain their meaning. They carry intrinsic definitions that are not altered by subjective perceptions.
"my belief that it's not inherently bad" You have the right to be wrong. Encyclopedias do not care about our feelings.
"i certainly didn't say that it was a desirable trait either" I am explaining, not checking to see if you said X or not. The opposite of pejorative is meliorative. Meliorative is associated with a desirable trait. Me using "desirable trait" is basically me using a synecdoche deriving from a dichotomic reasoning.
"in this story's sense, i can see the mc's bravery, and as you say, recklessness, as lovable and charming." I clearly told you there is a difference between both words. I clearly told you that people misuse words because some take them as true synonyms. I clearly told you there are nuances. You can argue that someone is brave by debating their intentions, but recklessness reflects a factual idea, just as rape reflects another.
How to explain in simpler terms? You finding his "recklessness" charming or lovable does not make the word lovable or charming. Got it? Non-deictic words do not change meaning because you attribute epithets to them. "I find my son's foolishness endearing" does not change the fact that foolishness is pejorative. It just tells you something about me, about what I think, not about the word. Foolishness still reflects a lack of judgment. Lacking judgment is pejorative, regardless of the context. Me finding foolishness endearing does not mean that the word itself is endearing; it only tells that "I" find his negative traits pleasant. His negative traits remain inherently negative, but relatively, subjectively to me, they are pleasant.
"i think that's not bad at all." You are conflating two ideas. That's why I told you before: there are many words and each of them has its own meaning; they are not interchangeable. Recklessness is one thing; consideration is another. Being impulsive is pejorative by itself, being considerate is meliorative by itself. Recklessness does not involve consideration. What you value about his actions is not recklessness, but his consideration and care for others. There are instances when being too considerate can be detrimental. While 'considerate' remains a meliorative term, the connotation of 'being too considerate' depends on the context, as it is a verb phrase, not a single word. 'Obsequious' (overly considerate to a fault), the proper word to use, is pejorative.
"proper and improper usage of words" This is a basic truth. If a word is used incorrectly, it is used incorrectly. A word is used incorrectly when someone gives it a meaning that its definition cannot absorb, or when it obviously overlaps with the definition of another word. In linguistic theory, it's often noted that true synonyms, in the strictest sense where two words mean exactly the same thing in all contexts and shades of meaning, are rare or even nonexistent. Synonyms are most often near-synonyms or false synonyms. These are words that are closely related in meaning but not completely interchangeable in all contexts.
"Literalism." In regards to literalism, if you open an encyclopedia or a paper dictionary, you'll see that words are explained multiple times in different contexts, as words have "literal" and "figurative" meanings, as well as multiple literal and figurative meanings. The act of using words properly is referred to as propriety or precision in language.
Additionally, this has nothing to do with literalism. Misusing words (malapropism) and misinterpreting them (misconstruing) are two different concepts. There is no need for literalism here since you are not saying anything convoluted or complex. Even if you were, we wouldn't be arguing about the meaning or connotation of the words, but rather debunking figures of speech, like analogies (metaphors, symbolism, etc.). For instance, we might say something like, "The author portrays this act of recklessness as an act of bravery." It's important to recognize that while 'bravery' carries a positive connotation, 'recklessness', a negative one. This does not alter the fundamental meanings of these words but reflects the author's subjective interpretation of them. We don't learn more about the meanings of words, but more about the author's views.
I carefully emphasize this because it's a principle ingrained in my writing training: Be concise yet precise. If a single word accurately captures the idea without ambiguity, use it. However, if the nuances of your idea require more explanation than a dictionary definition provides, feel free to elaborate to ensure clarity and accuracy. If "literalism" could entirely capture my intended meaning, I wouldn't need to write extensively. I used to read dictionaries as a hobby when I was younger. At first, it seemed somewhat pointless, but I soon discovered the richness of language. Delving into this vast collection of words that succinctly and accurately express complex emotions and events was surprisingly pleasant.
alright, glad for you or sorry that it happened cause i'm not reading all that. funny how you emphasise conciseness and then send me a ted talk. it's a lost cause trying to talk to someone who thinks that words are set in stone and thinks recklessness is even in the same league as excusing rape.
> In the same paragraph you see conciseness, I explained to you why I wrote extensively: You do not seem to compute basic concepts and are prone to misconstruction.
> I do not think "words are set in stone ", I acknowledge some words are deitic and some are not. I explained how definitions encompass extensive usages/meanings and how speech figures and convoluted concepts do not dwell on words' meaning, but on "ideas" understanding.
> I did no say nor think that recklessness as anything to do with EXCUSING rape. I clearly said they are both pejorative; no epithets would alter that. I even used foolishness for an additional example.
> You are only proving to me that you have comprehension issues... maybe because you misuse and misconstrue words.
You are welcome. If you are bored one day, feel free to read my "ted-talk". Pray, let not one dwell in ignorance for an overlong season, lest the wages of their folly be dearly paid.
i love acts of bravery from mcs