Words terror

Nicholas Bagnall
Saturday 29 August 1998 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

There ought to be a better word for the sort of people who maimed some women and children in the Cape Town bomb attack last week. "Terrorists" won't quite do.

There are two distinct meanings of the word terror. The first, and the earlier one in English (as I believe it also was in Latin), is a state of extreme fright; the second is the agent of such fright, like the Terror with a capital "T" that brought so much grief to French people under the first Revolution, or to Russians under Stalin.

Terrorists, as agents of terror, may not succeed in inducing it, any more than Flat Earthists can alter the shape of the world. But there still clings to terror a strong sense of the first meaning, of the paralytic fear that snakes can cause in rabbits: it carries at least a hint that the terrorists have already won, and that they really have brought their enemies to the state of inertia and dread implied by the original sense of the word.

Terror is one of those words that won't lie down, despite occasional attempts to anaesthetise it. The Gothick novel was supposed to bring terror to its readers, but of a pleasing sort, to tickle the imaginations of idle young women. In our own time it has been devalued often enough by the tabloid press, which uses it indiscriminately both for large-scale atrocities and for minor domestic upsets. ("Whirlpool terror of long-haired swim girl" - a headline in the Mirror about someone who caught her hair in an outflow pipe, bad enough at the time, but not in the same universe as the Lockerbie bombing.) Its other, second meaning has also been domesticated, but usually by fond parents, who like to use it of their own children. ("He's a regular little terror he is.") Yet it survives, a serious word.

The verb has suffered no such indignities: terrorise means what it says, someone who has been terrorised is in an undeniable state of terror. But a terrorist - whatever the immediate distress he has caused - may not, as I say, succeed. We should not flatter him into thinking otherwise.

What then? I tried the new Roget. Under the section "Violent creature", terrorist nestles between nihilist and revolutionist. Not nasty enough. Suggestions welcomed.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in