The Utterly Unique Problem
by Bryan
Joe Posnanski just inadvertently dipped his toes into an argument that filled a full day of rainy-day hiking in New Zealand for me, which we’ll call the “Utterly Unique” problem. Specifically, Joe Pos used the phrase, and a reader shot back that nothing could be “utterly unique” because there are no degrees to uniqueness. I remember exactly where I was when I first heard this argument and who dished it to me (The Maroon office, Perazzo), and I reacted the same way Joe Pos did, by pulling all manner of qualifiers out my butt to obscure the fact that I was wrong.
Pos:
However … that is not the only definition for unique. There is a secondary definition — unique as “particularly remarkable, special or unusual.” Sad to say, I don’t think “one of a kind” is the most accepted definition of unique, not in a world where good players are unique, good sales provide unique opportunities, there is a Web site for unique baby names (which, by virtue of being on a Web site, would no long be unique) and everyone is looking for a unique gift this holiday season.
To which I responded via email to Ryan, the person with whom I had the original argument:
As much as he complains, I’m sure he’ll never use the phrase again, because there are much better ways to say what he’s trying to say. Unique may have a second definition, but there are words or phrases for which the first definition better says what he’s trying to say, and that’s why those words are a better choice. That the first definition of unique makes his phrase redundant only strengthens the argument against it.
So sure: technically, not in the wrong, but certainly not writing with the utmost proficiency, both in the text and in the headaches that result.
That is, why write something that you know your readers can nitpick with?
I learned the lesson once, and as annoying as it was, I’ve never used anything resembling the phrase again. I’ve typed it and immediately deleted it, replacing it with what I’m really trying to say. It takes a second to think about, but I always feel it’s worth it.
Thoughts?
Bryan Joiner 
I think the more valuable lesson here is that one should generally avoid using ‘utterly.’ It’s a silly adverb.
My point is that he’ll never use it unthinkingly again — if he wants the suits to lose, he’ll use it for that reason. I have no problem with the usage, per se. Shit, I heard it in a podcast this morning and didn’t even blink. I do have a problem with him attempting to justify it post-facto as if he was aware of all the sources he cites ahead of time, which he wasn’t. If he uses it again, his reason will be “Because I wanted to,” and that’s good enough for me.
You prescriptivist nut, you.
One interesting–and maybe the only interesting-nugget to fall out of the bushes surrounding the DFW grammar quiz that was all the rage a few weeks ago was his take on “aggravate” vs. “irritate.” I won’t rehearse the usage wars over it, but DFW was surprisingly concilliatory to the descriptivists. He granted in marking the particular use of “aggravate” “wrong” that it had fallen into usage as such. It is standard English to use the word in a way that gives a usage snob the fantods. But then he said it was still wrong, because in choosing to write “aggravate” instead of “irritate” in that problem, one was knowingly giving the usage snobs the fantods. And that should be avoided.
It’s tempting to see that as a guiding light (and it’s what you suggest with your saying that Posnanski will never qualify “unique” again–or use it in general, since it’s such a fucking useless adjective”), but I’m not sure I like the payoff, since it’s a sort of sub rosa win for the prescriptivists, and they get the finger. It’s like censoring yourself so that the suits don’t get offended. Sure, they don’t get offended, but then their claim to power also continues unchallenged. And you want the suits to win?
Writing effectively is no different than anything else. The fact that you understand this column, and are basing your argument on that premise alone, is the guy at the bar telling you Juan Pierre is a better choice than Derek Jeter because he’s a better leadoff hitter. He knows because the team keeps winning, but you would argue that doesn’t mean the team is doing its best to win.
There are right and wrong ways of writing. You went to school to learn them. We’re grading on a curve here, but the rules don’t stop applying at any point. Good enough for you and right aren’t the same thing, and there is no necessary discrepancy between correctly and effectively communicating ideas. None whatsoever. Things can always be phrased better until they can’t. This is why writing is very hard. No one’s forcing anyone to have these arguments, but Posnanski brought it upon himself by drawing attention to it.
Okay, I think Posnanski meant “It’s unlike any deal I’ve ever seen” (or, rather “It’s unlike any deal in MLB history” since he does have access to the history of all MLB deals) and that would have been a better way to write the sentence because it would have been grammatically correct and conveyed his message as well as possible.
I guess my basic disagreement with you is that I don’t fully buy into the notion of “correct” English. I don’t think these rules are the same as rules of math and physics, which exist as rules in the universe. Humans have discovered them, not invented them. The English language is an entirely human invention. And it’s evolved tremendously over time. The reason we have language is so that we can communicate with each other, and sometimes there’s a tension between choosing language that is correct versus choosing language that communicates most effectively.
There’s no shortage of choices, but I didn’t write it, so I don’t know what (by definition) more descriptive choice he’d pick. All I know is that the choice he used tells me nothing. Does he mean, “It’s like other deals, but even bigger?” Does he mean, “It’s unlike any deal I’ve ever seen?” Does he mean, “It is so complex that it’s difficult for me to describe?” “Utterly unique” tells me nothing that I don’t — and if you want to use the “He’s writing for a specific audience argument,” this is the (more relevant) flip side to that — already know. If I *don’t* know anything about the deal, then it tells me nothing except that it interests him. Which I already knew, because he’s writing about it.
Just to be clear: If your goal was to win a baseball game, and you were playing a AA team, is it okay to bat Juan Pierre ahead of Derek Jeter?
We both like Posnanski for his baseball knowledge, so I think I know how he’d answer: No, it’s not. It’s an exhibition game, but anything can happen. You plan for the worst and hope for the best. By extension, you don’t use a phrase that can be misinterpreted — even if it likely won’t be — when there are better choices available.
As I’ve learned from centuries of arguing with you, you’ll never give up, and I respect that, but I’ll nonetheless just keep dragging you to the center of the mat and waiting for you to submit. There’s no argument for using incorrect language once you know it’s incorrect, unless it’s a conscious decision, and this wasn’t one.
Just to be clear – what phrase would you have used instead of utterly unique?
Unique
TO WHICH I RESPOND:
I think that targeting the audience is missing my point. My point is that I’d take worse than even money odds he’ll never write that phrase again unless he’s doing it to be provocative, which means it’s wrong. Your audience argument is like saying it’s okay that Juan Pierre is batting ahead of Derek Jeter because you’re playing an AA team.
RYAN’S RESPONSE, ON EMAIL:
I agree that it seems the second definition is a direct result of misuse of the first. And that if you’re trying to be as proper as possible in your use of the English language, then you would never describe something as “utterly unique.”
But what’s Posnanski’s job? He’s not an English professor. He’s writing for Sports Illustrated, not the New Yorker. Most of his readers don’t have the proper definition of unique in their mind, they’re thinking of something more like the second definition. So, if Posnanski’s job as a writer is to convey the meaning of what he’s thinking to the readers and “utterly unique” conveys what he’s trying to say better than just “unique” to the majority of his readers, then his use of “utterly unique” seems defensible.
And I don’t think it’s baffling to you (and other more educated readers) in the sense that you don’t understand what he’s saying. You know what he means, right?
If someone says “I laughed so hard, I literally peed my pants,” you might be confused because they probably are incorrectly using the word “literally” and are just trying to emphasize that they laughed really, really hard, but it’s also possible that they did in fact pee their pants because people do sometimes laugh so hard that they release a small amount of urine.
But, if someone says “it was literally raining cats and dogs,” you wouldn’t be confused because you’re pretty darned confident that cats and dogs were not falling from the sky. You might lose a little respect for the speaker, but you understand the message they were conveying.
I liken “utterly unique” to “literally raining cats and dogs” – it’s technically incorrect, but not confusing.