Al Roker and the Lexicon of Tomorrow

Although by no means do I consider myself interested in nor acquainted with the culinary arts, my eye happened to stumble upon a copy of Al Roker’s The Big Bad Book of Barbecue while browsing the public library. It was not Mr. Roker’s venture down the avenue of literature that provoked my inquiry, but rather the crudely-contrived title of The Big Bad Book of Barbecue that was of particular interest to me. The context of the word Bad used in the book title represents a growing trend in the modern English lexicon concerning how certain adjectives are used in proportion to their intended definitions. I am sure that Mr. Roker, a popular TV meteorologist turned food connoisseur, does not intend for his readers to believe that his book is terrible or bad in any sense, but rather appeals to this aforementioned trend in order to satisfy the alliteration contained within its title and to perpetuate the reckless and disobedient stereotype associated with the demographic of individuals who eat grilled food.

There are those of us who continue to use the word bad for its intended definition, which denotes something to be of poor quality, inferior, or defective. Then, there are those such as Mr. Roker, who would prefer to use the word in reverse proportion to its intended meaning. Such negligent use of adjectives is part of what contributes to the downfall of the English language. The ocean of language is truly shaped by those individuals who use it, and thus stands to be desecrated or even destroyed at the hands of whoever poisons its precious waters with their illogical nonsense.

The existence of a word which represents both an idea and its own antithesis is a fundamentally illogical notion. The word bad has come to represent in colloquial dialogue, the polar opposite of its dictionary definition (as observed in the title of the aforementioned book, and in the common idioms badass, and bad to the bone), and is thus a contradiction of terms.  Consider if I were to use the word hot in order to refer to a boiling pot of stew. Only a fool would assume that by using the word hot, I actually meant cold and then proceed to eat a large spoonful of said stew, scalding his palette profusely. A differentiation between the words hot and cold is necessary in language simply because both words represent two respective ideas. The use of the word bad, thus representing the antonym ideas of both inferior and desirable is an illogical and poisonous notion in any language.

Therefore, just as Aristotle would scarcely be remembered today if he had published The Big Bad Book of Metaphysics, I would encourage Al Roker to consider naming his next incursion into the literary arts in more accurate proportion to the content found therein.