Peevish about "spot-on"

Does "spot-on" bug anyone besides me?

From today's Washington Post(in an attention-getting context!):

"The hair comes from humans, but it is ethically sourced, of course," Potton said. He was presumably heading off any problems with People for the Ethical Treatment of Follicles. As for the eyeballs, Potton added, "they take individual silk strands to make the veins and get the eyes actually spot-on."

And from americanchronicle.com:

The current economic chaos and plight of average Americans prove Democrat Socialist George Orwell´s comments on the book offered decades ago ominously spot on. He said "[A] return to 'free' competition, means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because (it will be) more irresponsible, than that of the state." 

"Spot-on" is a Britishism that has begun cropping up a lot. In my experience, Americans don't like Britishisms from the mouths and keyboards of other Americans -- I get mail all the time complaining about "went missing."

I admit, among possible alternatives"right on" is dated, and "on target" probably strikes some people as undesirably warlike. So maybe "accurate"? "Just right"? 

Comments

I've always preferred dead on.

Posted by Jeff | November 21, 2008 4:46 PM

I like it, but l like it free-standing, and conversational. as in

"Spot on. You've described the situation perfectly."

The above example are clunk on the eyes and the ears both.

Posted by Tony Comstock | November 21, 2008 7:08 PM

I prefer "smack dead on target," or "smack dead in the bullseye," but my purpose in using those terms is to describe a direct hit, not to demonstrate my command of the latest buzz words. I am, however, far more tolerant of "spot on" than of "meme," another term of the artless that infects prose nowadays.

American writers who use "spot on" and "meme" and similar stink bombs are puttin' on the style, trying to impress literary critics and each other. In the meantime, they're depressing me.

Posted by JRC | November 22, 2008 8:04 PM

I believe Tony Comstock's response was nearly spot on. As he noted, the examples cited in the post are clunky, and I would agree that "Spot on!" makes a nice free-standing interjection, along the lines of "Good show!"

But I also like it as I used it above, as in "The author's description of SoHo was spot on."

Frankly, I object to Americans' objections to Britishisms. To me it seems a reverse snobbery that limits the creativity of the language. Few American writers would be averse to a Brit using a Yank term like "OK," nor would they reject our use of many loan words from other languages, à la "rendezvous." Why, then, should they protest our borrowing a phrase or word from the inventors of the language?

Regarding JRC's rejection of the word "meme," the term may have only recently fallen into common use among the media's language manglers, but it has been used by a number of us for very many years, ever since Richard Dawkins coined it for his very influential book The Selfish Gene some three decades ago. Although slow to catch on, it seems the word itself has become a meme, although a poorly understood one. I imagine that "meme" will eventually fall out of favor, like "ubiquitous" and "literally" before it, to be replaced by the next trendy word waiting to be overused and misused.

Posted by Steve Hight | November 22, 2008 10:15 PM

I say, old bean, what could possibly be wrong with Britishisms?

I have absolutely no problem with spot on and didn't even recognize it as a Britishism. Unfortunately I've just watched too much British TV and movies, read too many British books and listened to too much British music not to have picked up a fair bit of them in my own peculiar dialog. Many are just plain old useful and expressive compared to their American alternatives, though perhaps they sound odd given my Midwestern accent. Besides, as many have noted, it's not as if many Americanisms haven't made their way around the world, "OK" being the canonical example.

And look at it this way: At least Britishisms aren't Bushisms.

Posted by Crimfan | November 22, 2008 10:31 PM

I hate it. It reminds me of the type of person who studies abroad in the UK for a few years and retains a weirdly amorphous accent *for the rest of his or her life*. I know, not a very sophisticated comment--but you asked what I thought.

Posted by Martin | November 22, 2008 11:51 PM

Although these two examples may be the latest in a long line of "spot on" occurrences, and simply the ones that finally prompted your peeve, I feel their American pedigree is a little shaky.

Drew Potton may be American, but he works for Madame Tussauds in London, and before that he was employed by Selfridges which suggests he has lived in Britain for enough years that he may have gone native.

Rizwan Ghani also writes for the Pakistani press, and several of his 'American Chronicle' pieces appear there. I suspect that audience would be comfortable with the odd Britishism appearing in its English.

Perhaps a more American culprit should be sought?

Posted by Jane B | November 24, 2008 5:58 AM

Hear, hear!

Posted by DHN | November 24, 2008 11:48 AM

OP: possible alternatives "right on" is dated, and "on target" probably strikes some people as undesirably warlike.

"Spot on" is also warlike, and so perhaps is "right on" - on the web I found someone asking its origins directed to Eric Partridge's A Dictionary of Catch Phrases American and British: "Right on the spot, orig. dead centre on target: RAF: WW2 and after. Adopted by civilians in UK, in Aus., in S. Africa. Cf 'bang on!' and 'right on!'"" I guess 'spot on' comes over clearly on the R/T.

Personally, being British, I don't mind "Britishisms" (itself a rather ugly Americanism) cropping up from time to time in US English, though I suppose I would find it irritating if every quintessentially British term was co-opted. Top hole! Wizard prang! But as English is a mongrel language that - due to invasion, Empire, trade and culture - co-opted loads of foreign words, it would be perverse if the US didn't co-opt a few British terms.

Posted by Nicholas Waller | November 25, 2008 6:18 AM

Spot on connotes precision accuracy of the extraordinary type. For example, an economist who opined "I believe the U.S. will enter a financial crisis due to the subprime mortgage fiasco" would have been right. However, one who said "It will happen in late November, probably after Lehman fails." would be spot on... unfortunately.

Posted by Jordan | November 26, 2008 7:26 PM

"It's all gone pear-shaped."

It's an evocative turn of phrase, but it always seems too forced when uttered by non-Brits. Let's eliminate this overused expression, and Bob's your uncle.

Posted by pannonica | November 27, 2008 9:26 AM

Barbara: Stop your whinging!

(seriously though, I agree with your position)

Posted by Quiddity | November 30, 2008 11:32 PM

Hang on, are Americans really objecting to " spot on"? Well, I'm blowed. Where do Americans think that "their" language came from? the whole " objecting to Britishisms" thing seems a bit dodgy to me!

Posted by stonetools | December 3, 2008 10:32 PM

American fans of English soccer teams often incorporate more British phrases than necessary into their speech. On a soccer message board that I frequent, these people are sometimes mocked for sounding pretentious or silly.

The only time I've ever heard an American say "Bob's your uncle" is when asking what it means.

Is "went missing" a Britishism? I honestly did not know that.

Posted by Barbara | December 10, 2008 5:28 PM

I was born in the wilds of New Jersey to a dad from Glasgow. I use words like "properly" "wee" and "quite"....um, quite a wee bit. It also means that my accent can sound slightly British (true story: a linguistics expert mistakenly pegged me as someone who was born in the UK and moved to the US shortly after beginning to speak, i.e. around 4 years old).

Britishisms are cultural slang for me. I grew up with it and I'm tired of the attitude that I'm showing off or being trite.

Posted by zacksback | December 11, 2008 12:12 PM