Question: A word that one comes across fairly frequently nowadays is "Balkanization." Apparently it's too recent for my dictionary. Can you enlarge on this word for me?
Answer: "Balkanization" is not really that new. It is derived from the verb "Balkanize," which first appeared in our dictionaries in 1923. The word was apparently first used in 1919 amid discussions of the Treaty of Versailles, which had brought World War I to a close. At the time, many saw a fractured Central and Eastern Europe, divided arbitrarily by the post-war powers-that-be, as unstable and bound to erupt at some future time. Still fresh in people's minds was the pre-war state of affairs in the Balkans, when nationalistic tendencies surfaced and found expression in bloody conflicts, all of them exacerbated by the struggles of the great powers of Europe to maintain and enlarge their spheres of influence.
Thus, in 1919, "Balkanize" meant "to break up (a region) into smaller and often hostile units." Implied was that doing so was in the interests of the dominant powers, who, by this fragmentation, could exert greater control over a territory. The earliest uses of the word were quite literal in this way, referring to political boundaries, but soon the word was being used to refer as well to economic boundaries, such as those created by tariffs and other trade barriers, which resulted from the new territorial divisions created by the Versailles Treaty.
Here in the U.S. during the Great Depression the issue of trade barriers between states, created when states attempted to keep the benefits of local production within their own boundaries, gave rise to the phrase "Balkanization of the U.S." Thus, early on, the connotation of "Balkanization" as referring exclusively to barriers imposed by a larger power to subjugate a smaller one was abandoned. The original meaning, however, was still the most prevalent one. At the end of World War II, for example, "Balkanization" was used in its explicit original sense in reference to such places as Africa, India, the West Indies, and Central America, regarding new political boundaries created by the old colonial powers whose interests were at stake.
Question: What is a "McGuffin"? A book review I read called buried treasure the "McGuffin" in the plot.
Answer: "McGuffin," also spelled "MacGuffin," is a term popularized by the master of suspense films, Alfred Hitchcock. A variety of definitions - "the factual pretext for a film," "the elusive object in a thriller," "the excuse for intrigue," "the thing that gets the other things going," - have been employed by those citing Hitchcock's fondness for this device.
The word is supposedly derived from an old British joke, in which a sportsman on a train is asked about a strange-looking box in his possession. In response to a curious inquiry by his seatmate as to the purpose of the box, the sportsman replies, "It's a McGuffin - essential for catching tigers in the Scottish highlands." "But there are no tigers in the Scottish highlands," his companion points out, to which the sportsman responds, "Well, that can't be a McGuffin then, can it?"
This peculiar little joke might not seem to have much in common with the mechanics of thriller writing, but the relationship is not as oblique as it might at first appear. Hitchcock felt that whatever it was the characters in his movies were after, his "McGuffins," were of no real consequence in comparison with the deeper psychological effect of a film. While the characters are putting a great deal of stake in the McGuffin, the audience doesn't really care about it - the audience cares about the characters instead. As in the joke, the thing designated the "McGuffin" in one of Hitchcock's films is ultimately arbitrary and of no real importance.