I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but only dolts and mediocre writers used the word “shock” in any context…shocker, shocking, he/she was shocked. For my money it’s used way too often by tabloid writers (British dailies, supermarket tabloids).
All I know is that if I’m reading a narrative or news story of any kind and the writer claims that shock reverberated in the room, I immediately say “okay, fuck that person…he/she is a liar or a fantasist or an exaggerator.”
I’ll allow that many people were shocked by 9/11, the JFK assassination and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but in the vast majority of instances you need to use a substitute. It’s not that hard.
Even if you’ve actually experienced shock in some form, you’re a bit of a careless wordsmith if you write “shocker,” “I was shocked” or he/she/they were “shocked.” I’m serious.
The only way it’s okay to use the word is if you’re writing about certain films — Sam Fuller‘s Shock Corridor (’63), Jan Egleson‘s A Shock To The System (’90), etc.
Okay, it’s allowable to use the word “shocker” if you’re being facetious.
It’s also okay if you’re discussing earthquake aftershocks.
Shock is such a deeply offensive term that it’s almost a bad thing to mention Shaka Zulu (’86).
The only times Hollywood Elsewhere has used the word is in certain headlines, and headlines don’t count. I’ve never used it the body of the story, and if I’m mistaken I did so by accident. But over the decades I’ve been very conscious of this damn term, and careful never to use it.
“GenZ Grads Are In For A Shock“, posted on 6.8.19: