I found the first two chapters of "Writing About Cool" to be pretty thought provoking on a couple of levels. One of the first things I found interesting was seeing a definition of the word "cool." I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a definition of "cool" before that didn’t reference temperature. Even in my Webster’s Dictionary, there is no mention of anything popular or rebellious, or aloof, which are some of the key terms to describe the definition of the two kinds of "cool" in the book (prophetic and philosophical). And this is for a word that is used by everyone, everyday. My grandmother uses it, my parents use it, everyone our age uses it and my 6 year old cousin uses the word, yet is there really a concrete definition? I would say no. "Cool" is something that almost has to be defined by each person that uses it in their own way, because it means so many different things to different people. Without that personal meaning of the word, I think it would lose its effect. The weird thing is, though it can have so many meanings, it is known by everyone to be a desirable trait to have or be associated with. No one wants to be seen as uncool, whatever that means, but that roaming definition of the word can be a security blanket to anyone who is said to be uncool, because uncool to one person can be the coolest thing in the world to another.
The other part of what cool was said to be in the book was the "ideas representing a popular perception of cool: Independence and Rebelliousness (p. 10)." I question whether these are still ideas that would define "cool." I just have a hard time believing that "cool" is just "rebellion" and "independence." My personal belief is that this rebellious and independent nature of cool is more applicable to the 1950's perception of "cool" than current perceptions. In that sense "cool" has changed. It can certainly still be a part of what "cool" is, but I think there are so many more ideas of what "cool" means today, just because it is used so much.
Another aspect I found thought provoking was chapter two, especially showing how much the word is used on the internet. I guess I’ve just never paid that much attention to it, at least consciously. It makes me wonder how many times I’ve gone to a site because it claimed to be "cool" or just had "cool" in its name. It also makes me think about all of the things I may have bought in the past because it was advertised as being the "cool" thing to have. I’m sure it has happened many more times than I would care to know or admit. I also wonder how much longer this can go on. Will "cool" be with us forever, or will it lose its luster? Is it’s replacement out there already, or will there be a new word? I probably won’t be around to find out, or I’ll be too old to admit that "cool" isn’t cool anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I really like your idea about how no one definition of cool exists. I also agree with the idea that "cool" as a rebellious or independent idea is probably not as applicable today. I think it had those ideals with it back in the day, but if I think a plain brown polo shirt is cool, it's probably not because that shirt is rebellious or independent.
I agree with your thoughts about when "cool" will stop being "cool". I thought it was really interesting in Rice's book how he used the word in so many different ways, none of which can be found in a traditional dictionary (I looked it up to check, too).
Post a Comment