Nonplussed

This isn't exactly off-topic, because I'm responding to Paula's post about the power of words, and even if it is, so what? Paula writes "I am often nonplussed when someone flings words as weapons; the very knowledge of their purpose seems to render me invulnerable to the attack." I was analyzing that sentence --- trying to decide if (a) I understood it and (b) I felt the same way --- when I decided to look up the word "nonplussed." I was reasonably sure I knew the meaning. Well, no, I didn't know the meaning. I thought it meant "unaffected" or "indifferent" or "not surprised." Instead, it means "bewildered" or "perplexed," almost the opposite of what I thought. I'm happy to report that I'm not alone in my misunderstanding of the word. I learned that both Doug and Marv also thought it meant "indifferent"---maybe we've had a bad influence on each other over the past 30+ years. And it's a big enough problem that the most recent edition of the New York Times Style Manual includes an entry on the growing misunderstanding of the word.
Here's one discussion, from a Google search, that neatly sums up the problem:
Question: What is going on with the word nonplussed? In the last year I've seen it used everywhere from The New York Times to the ESPN web site to mean 'unimpressed' or 'indifferent', when, as far as I can tell, the only correct definition is 'confused' or 'perplexed'. Example 1: New York Times caption, late January: "Despite aggressive television reporting, patrons at the bar at the Delano Drive restaurant in the Waterside Plaza apartments in Manhattan said they were nonplussed by President Clinton's State of the Union message." Example 2: ESPN web headline: "Brewer's Pitchers Nonplussed at Joining History." Has the usage of this word changed to mean 'unimpressed' instead of 'confused'? Frankly, I'm nonplussed.
Answer:The correct meaning of nonplussed is ‘utterly perplexed; completely puzzled’. It’s derived from the Latin phrase non plus ‘not more, no further’—referring to a state in which nothing more can be done. To be nonplussed is to be at a total loss as to what to say or do. hIt’s puzzling as to how nonplussed has come to mean ‘undisturbed, unimpressed, indifferent’. The prefix non- means ‘not, no’, but the word plussed has no meaning in English. It’s likely that the negative prefix makes one think the meaning must be ‘not something’ rather than ‘utterly or completely something.’ Or there may be an analogy with unfazed, a word with a similar meaning.
The correct meaning of nonplussed does prevail, although there are quite a few instances of the new meaning to which you refer. A few examples: “Gates seemed nonplussed by the Net until late 1995. By 1996 he became a fanatic.” (ZDNet, 1999) “Both authors are nonplussed by the notion of dog fashion shows. ‘If you don’t compromise the dog, what the hell?’ Ms. Knapp said.” (TheNew York Times, 1999)
I must say I was utterly perplexed by the entry in the recently published The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: “Nonplused does not mean fazed or unfazed. It means bewildered to the point of speechlessness.” To me, it does (more or less) mean ‘fazed’ but does not mean ‘unfazed’. Despite this confusion, perhaps The New York Times copyeditors should pay more attention to the basically sound advice in their usage book. The fact that this book takes on the topic shows that the meaning of nonplussed has indeed become an issue; the previous edition did not have an entry for this word.
From http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19991221
Back to Pam speaking: I'll never read or hear that word again without wondering if the writer / speaker is using it to say "bewildered" or "indifferent."
Now, on to the second half of Paula's compound sentence:
"...the very knowledge of their purpose seems to render me invulnerable to the attack."
I really wish I could summon up a feeling of invulnerability in the face of harsh words. But one of my greatest weaknesses is carrying grudges. An unkind word, especially if it's used intentionally but even if it's not, can bring about obsessional thinking. Not constructive thinking, just a looping tape in my head that says "I'm hurt. I'm hurt. I'm hurt."
The lesson I'm going to take from this is first, to watch my own words more carefully so I'm less guilty of causing harm, intentionally or accidentally, and second, to remember Paula's observations about her cloak of invulnerability.
Back to the book....
My thoughts about the book are so shallow that I should be embarrassed, but frankly I'm not. Life is getting way too short for such trivia as embarrassment. I hope that in the fantasy world that exists around this book, it was Max who Liesel married and had those kids with in Australia. (And if I read too fast or carelessly and missed that detail would someone inform me please?) I thought the book was beautifully written, cleverly presented, and emotionally honest. And it's an example of how great writing can be as informative as non-fiction. Fiction has a way of communicating the feel and tone of a time in history that nonfiction often misses. The descriptions of everyday events and scenes, what food was eaten, how the houses looked, how people got their news, all help paint a picture of a time past.
So I'm ready to move on to Book 3. Anyone else? I'll nominate a couple more books, wait a week or so to see if we are now reduced to just the Pam and Paula book club, and then maybe we can pick No. 3.
Pam