Ask General Kang: Is there anything wrong with using the word ‘sartorial’?

Ask General KangYou probably get a lot of funny looks when you employ that adjective.

Some of the looks are from borderline homophobes, who believe that you’d have to be a little too effeminate to be interested in men’s clothing. You can ignore them and their loafer-lightening prejudices.

A large contingent will not know what you mean, or are your fellow-travelers: pseudo intellectuals who falsely believe that ‘sartorial’ has something to do with Jean Paul Satre, and his existential philosophy. The funny look you’re seeing from the them is a simulacrum of understanding, masking their confusion.

The last group will know that many people will not understand the word. They are looking at you strangely because they think you’re a pretentious wanker.

You will find an hirsute, out-of-work intergalactic overlord with questionable tastes in his own clothes among that latter crowd.

Next time: If I use the word simulacrum, does that make me a pretentious wanker?

You will find nary a pretentious wanker here, nor even a simulacrum of one. Originally published in July, 2008 and appears now in Pirate Therapy and Other Cures.

5 Responses to Ask General Kang: Is there anything wrong with using the word ‘sartorial’?

  1. Alex L. July 2, 2008 at 3:36 am #

    Well I could be in worse company I guess.

  2. Rickey Henderson July 2, 2008 at 9:08 am #

    Look, Rickey enjoys referring to people whose fashion sense can be be described as a “sartorial nightmare.” If Rickey can’t use that phrase then Rickey no longer wants to blog.

  3. Mark A. Rayner July 2, 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    Yes, you could live in a milieu where people use pompous words like … milieu. :)

  4. C. Fraser July 2, 2008 at 2:40 pm #

    Sartorial was the word of the day over at dictionary.com on Monday April 28, 2003. I know this because I had to google the word, sartorial.

  5. Mark A. Rayner July 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    So you know what General K. would have to say about the folks at dictionary.com….