WONKOLOGY

Wonk, found under "W" in the lexicon of journalist-speak appears, currently, in most descriptions of Mitt Romney's chosen VP, Paul Ryan, said to be "a policy-wonk". The word seems to appear more often during election campaigns. I was moved to write a post: Handily Wonkish Rant, mentioning the then new-to-me word in 2008, during my first ever experience of a US presidential election campaign.

A current piece by Jaime Cone at Salon What's a Wonk ? addresses the word, its origins and its use.

As applied to Paul Ryan, a guy with natal Sun and Venus in Aquarius, I think the word has found a match. Aquarius is the first sign coming to mind when wonkishness is in question, closely followed by Virgo.....or perhaps it's the other way around? A person with both signs emphasised in some way could define wonkery once and for all.

A wonk is an expert, but not an everyday expert, well-trained and naturally skilled in some sphere. A wonk is an expert who is never content with the initial answers he/she arrives at, but will chew and wrangle and fixate upon every last minute detail of an issue.

In some cases wonkishness would be an advantage, but in others a detriment. Fixating on minutiae could blind one to the importance of the bigger picture.

Aquarius (the sign, not "an Aquarian" who doesn't exist in reality) would be more likely to be seriously wonkish than Virgo for one important reason: Aquarius is a Fixed sign, Virgo is mutable.

There's another astrological factor which might indicate wonkishness: the "chart shape". A chart where all planets are clustered within a few signs - i.e. in a fairly tight area of the chart, is said to indicate the ability and urge to focus intently on one's goals. That kind of configuration, along with planets in the signs mentioned, would be very likely to boost a predilection for wonkishness, in some area.

A Handily Wonkish Rant

As Mercury turned direct after its recent retrograde period, it tickled my fancy that words (the province of Mercury, planet of communication) suddenly started coming under the microscope in Mercury's other province, the media.

I'd decided to draft a blog post on the subject of words myself, when I noticed the media pouncing on Barack Obama, because he had borrowed some of the words used in his speeches from another politician (one of many articles here). Then, hardly missing a beat, Senator Obama's wife was hauled over the coals for words she'd uttered in a speech (here).

Anyway, my wordy Mercurial ramble-cum-rant goes like this:

During the past few months I've noticed a couple of rather oddly applied words appearing with strange regularity in what I call journalist-speak. Journalists are a bit like parrots, they pick up words and expressions from each other, repeat them, ad nauseam for a while, before forgetting all about them and moving on to the next batch. This is fine, as long as the meaning of the "in-words" is clear.

"Wonk" is an example of current journalist-speak. It is being used, on occasion, to describe some politicians. In Britain (also in the USA, I'm reliably informed by my husband) "wonky" means unstable, wobbly, not reliable. I couldn't see how this definition fitted the context when I came upon the word recently in several articles. After a brief search, I discovered that "wonk" is also applied to a person who studies a subject or issue thoroughly or to excess. Some politicians can be termed "policy wonks", or have a "wonkish attitude". The two definitions of "wonk" and "wonky" no doubt have different roots, but that doesn't make things any less confusing for the reader.

Another current example of journalist-speak is the adverb "handily". For example: "he beat Clinton handily". I'd always used "handy" in a practical sense: "the table was placed in a handy position (or handily) for easy access from both entrances". Apparently its use has expanded. Winning "handily", though not hard to translate into plain English, could surely be better and more accurately expressed as winning "easily" or "with a wide margin", if that is what a writer intends to convey. Or does it perhaps mean "usefully", i.e. that it was a win which was badly needed? It's just not clear, at least not to me.

Some journalists, in an effort to be trendy, put what they see as style before clarity and accuracy. Which reminds me of a sentiment in one of Bill Watterson's "Calvin & Hobbes" comic strips:
“The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!”

End of rant.