Deep Library Impact

All sorts of dreadful expressions enter the language simply as a result of being used over and over again by people who don't know any better. But I feel I must protest when an institution of literature, learning, and community outreach—I'm referring here to the public library system—encourages such practices in their widely distributed promotional emails.

I received a fund-raising appeal not long ago from the Hennepin County system in which recipients were encouraged to give money on the basis of a patron's enthusiastic claim that --

 This single remark appears in letters several inches high in the midst of an otherwise standard email. But this was an email from one of the most highly respected library systems in the country, responsible for the vocabulary enrichment of hundreds of thousands of young and innocent readers. I felt that something needed to be done.

I sent a courteous note to the library suggesting that the word "impactful" was a strange conglomerate not worthy of appearing in an epistle designed to solicit money for an institution claiming to serve the long-term interests of its patrons. 

And I actually got a reply.     

Greetings, John,

Thank you for reaching out to us! As always, we welcome all feedback regarding the language used in our materials, and “impactful” can certainly be a word that is controversial in terms of how it is received. Merriam Webster has an interesting article about it here on their website if you are interested in reading it. You are not alone in having strong feelings about that particular word choice! 

Again, we appreciate you taking the time to send us your response, and completely agree that language skills require continual emphasis in today’s culture. We hope that access to and support of our Libraries will help our community members grow in that regard.

Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback, we will certainly take it into consideration in our future writings!

As I'm sure you noticed, there's quite a bit of evasiveness and double-talk woven into the fabric of that cheerful response. In essence, what it says is, "We got your email. Thanks. Follow this link."

Naturally, I followed the link to the Merriam-Webster site, but what I found there did little to assuage my concern. Another light-hearted salvo seemed unavoidable.

Greetings library friend (I wrote),

First of all, thanks for taking the time to respond to my note.

You are going to think me a crashing bore with too much time on his hands, but I find word usage interesting, and have a few further thoughts to share with you if you have the time. Please consider them as speculative and curious rather than in any way haughty or irate.

It's true, as you observe, that many people share my view of "impactful," and the link was indeed interesting, as you suggested. Yes, the word has been around for quite a while. Yes, it's a "real' word. Yes, many people hate it. However, there are good reasons why many people hate it. I'm afraid the article only skims the issues involved without bringing serious thought to bear on any of them.

It touches on the semantic issue by remarking: " Another complaint leveled at impactful is that it's not a well-formed word: -ful means "full of," and impactful does not mean "full of impact."

The authors of the article try to wiggle out of this argument by observing that " -ful doesn't only mean 'full of.' It also means (among other things) 'characterized by,' as in playful and tasteful."

Not true. Playful means "full of play" and tasteful means "full of taste." In any case, impactful doesn't mean "characterized by impact." It actually does mean "full of impact."

But impact isn't a thing. It's actually an event. We use the phrase "point of impact" to describe the place where a projectile hits a target, for example, or where an artillery shell lands. A dent or a hole may be left behind, but the impact itself is fleeting. More to the point, we might also say that a speech or a film has significant impact. But there is little meaning in the notion that a mortar shell, an automobile collision, or a speech, is "full of impact." Such an expression creates the confused impression that the thing in question is "full of hitting something else."

An "impactful" moment during the battle of Ypres

Hitting it for good or for ill? We really don't know. The word "impactful" is value-neutral. I ask you, why would anyone choose such an awkward and imprecise word, when he or she could describe the speech-book-film-institution-whatever as beautiful, profound, thought-provoking, insightful, shrewd, mind-blowing, life-changing, nourishing, and so on.

The authors of the article you mention take up that issue, too, but once again fail to meet it squarely.

We read, “But since when does English like to limit itself? Synonyms abound, and most of them avoid the opprobrium that impactful endures.”

Once again, the issue is being avoided rather than addressed. The problem with "impactful" isn't just that it's widely hated. The problem is that it's inferior in clarity and depth of meaning—and also in sound, by the way—to scores of other words describing the same phenomenon. The best reasons not to use "impactful" are that  it's hard to say, it conveys little meaning, it lacks clarity, and just to round things off, it sounds "dumb."

“The library is one of the most impactful, far-reaching institutions in our community.”

The phrase doesn't signal the end of the world; it's more like fingernails on a chalk board. All the same, libraries really ought to promote clarity of expression and avoid jargon, don't you think?

What Amy meant to say, I think, is that she has personally been affected in a positive way by her visits to the library, and perhaps also by participating in the outreach programs it offers. Beyond that, she has observed that the library has had a similarly positive impact on other patrons.

Alas, that's not a catchy slogan.