Regarding trailers, may I just say that I am unbelievably excited about the new Indiana Jones movie? And Iron Man?
Iron Man looks like it's going to rock, but I'm wary of the new Indiana Jones. Lucas has shafted us before.
In literature and journalism, not to mention in advertising, the semicolon has been largely jettisoned as a pretentious anachronism.
It has? Screw you, NYT.
Really? My feelings are the reverse of 3. I'm also excited about Redbelt.
3: Indy was always more Spielberg than Lucas. Indy's bringing back the sexy. I can feel it.
I use a lot of semicolons. I try not to use more than one per paragraph, but I don't always succeed.
Morvern Callar was a foreign film that had dialogue, but it was dialogue that was mixed so quietly relative to the music that I couldn't understand it unless the volume was set high enough that the music was too loud. I had to work the remote for the whole 90-odd minutes. It was annoying. I really didn't see what the big whoop-dee-doo with regard to that movie was all about, but then again I am an uncultured cretin.
When I read the NYT piece not an hour ago, I wondered, why has this not appeared on the front page at Unfogged? All is now right with the world. Menand's demolition of Truss is entertaining.
re: 9
I've not seen the film, but the book is really great. Alan Warner, is, in general, a great writer. The Sopranos [not that one] is a work of genius.
I LIKE angry w-lfs-n.
And totally agree re the talky trailer, but then, I have the same problem with overly expositive trailers in English. See, e.g., The Negotiator, a movie I have never felt the need to see since the trailer was pretty much a Tivo'd version of the same.
Might this be the right time to admit that it was only recently that I realised w-lfs-n and McManus were not the same person?
Yes, I know.
The last sentence makes me imagine a trailer with a techno/industrial beat and a narrator intoning "In the rocking tradition of La Jetee and La Dernier Combat...."
The English Patient trailer manged to completely omit one of the central relationships in the film. The cynic in me feels they did so because it's a multi-racial one. Of course, the film is shit, so it doesn't really matter.
They should be advised to recycle their newspapers, not trash them; paper is a valuable resource that's readily recyclable in New York City.
Holy shit, that article. I cannot properly express my outrage. Truly, whatever I can find to say feels entirely inadequate to express my feelings regarding the utter depraved moronity of this article. NEW YORK TIMES, I DETEST AND REPUDIATE YOU! I AM SO OUTRAGED! nng grrh ack ckkkkkhh
I know of a graduate student who gave up semicolons for Lent.
Tomorrow, en dashes versus em dashes.
The silliest thing about that article is when they give the writer guy's resume. I thought he seemed rather nice, and not deserving of the "oh look those subway signs are written by people who Went To College" tone that the article seemed to veer into.
Yeah; that trailer from FRANCE makes my blood boil; freedom fries with my hamburger today..
Ben, you are a strange person.
The "no dialogue in the foreign-language film trailer" trick is the oldest in the book. I'm always surprised when I do hear dialogue or see subtitles in a foreign-language trailer.
Ben, you are a strange person.
It's just that semi-colons are the grad student's stock-in-trade. Saying they are fusty leftovers from the 19th century - you might was well say philosophy has no relevance in the contemporary world, or something.
And, yes, the intent is to deceive.
9: That sounds like it could be a left/right/center balancing problem with your stereo. I find that often-times films are mixed with most of the dialogue in the center speaker and most of the soundtrack in the L/R channels, so if you don't have a center speaker --- or if the balance is out of whack --- the mix doesn't sound right (in exactly this way). My stereo has a setting (which can only be reached by advanced remote control kung fu) that bumps up the center level wrt the L/R levels.
This can also be caused by having your stereo in "surround sound" mode when you don't have a "surround sound setup" (5-6 speakers).
Sorry, b-wo, I would have commiserated with you and further shared your frustrations over the soft bigotry of low expectations in New York, but I was on deadline.
10: Menand's demolition of Truss is entertaining.
Thanks for the link, both entertaining and cringeworthy. I suspect the day Lynne Truss first read it was an interesting one for her self image.
However, I was a bit puzzled by the entirety of the Menand review. Its first half was devastating and crisp, but it then wandered off into the discussion of "voice" that seemed barely motivated by the book (one forced reference back to Truss). At the end I was not even sure it was the same piece—the "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" of book reviews.
And that movie looks terrible. Look, he can be just as shallow as she is!
But hey, it's set against a wildly atmospheric backdrop.
Also, sad that I can't see the word "priceless" by itself without thinking of the credit card commercials.
29 is right, I think.
I sometimes route our DVD player through my stereo [which only has a twin channel amp and speakers] and I find I need to make sure the volume on the TV is also up a bit, so that the TV [which is mono] acts like a fake centre speaker. The mono telly gives the dialogue and the widely spaced stereo speakers, the rest.
The article's refusal to use a semi-colon in the quote was very annoying.
10: What Menand says is mostly true. But why is the apostrophe in "printers' marks" supposed to be ungrammatical?
36: I'd suppose that it's supposed to be "printer's marks", a fixed phrase like "grocer's apostrophe". I haven't heard of that phrase, though, so I couldn't say.
Also, on the second page, the author arguably misuses parentheses. At the very least they're very awkward.
"Eats, Shoots & Leaves" is really a "decline of print culture" book disguised as a style manual (poorly disguised).
This thread contains only three semicolons.
In fact, pdf, that's a use of parentheses for which he calls Truss out on the first page. On the other hand, he isn't pretending to write a style manual.
I've mentioned before, M /ichael D /ummett wrote a 'decline of print culture/style manual' a few years back. It was required reading [literally] for graduate students here, for a while. I've no idea if that's still the case.
I've mentioned before, M /ichael D /ummett wrote a 'decline of print culture/style manual' a few years back. It was required reading [literally] for graduate students here, for a while. I've no idea if that's still the case.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grammar-Style-Examination-Candidates-Others/dp/0715624229
It's full of mild indignation, and a fair bit of dry wit.
shit, sorry about double post.
Yay ! I found an error in Menand's piece:
Grammatical correctness doesn't insure it.
He meant ensure.
40: On the other hand, he isn't pretending to write a style manual.
That is true, but hardly an honorable defense given what he is writing.
Which brings to mind some "boring" old business concerning correct usage. I am genuinely curious as to whether you agree with me that there's scads that fits better than the track I posted is incorrect (or very awkward at best). To me this is a case where the collective noun calls for a plural verb, but my lifetime batting average on issues like this is not the best.
There are scads that fit better.
I'm fairly ambivalent about 'is' versus 'are' there. 'Are' seems right, but, in my idiolect at least, the singular verb isn't intolerably bad. But it must be 'fit'.
46: That is my take as well, including 'is' passing the "sounds OK" test, but then I can't reconcile the mismatch with 'fit'.
"There's scads that fit better" sounds UK or Irish to me -- I'd look funny at an American who said it, but not at anyone from overseas.
"There's scads that fit better" sounds right to me, actually.
Okay, how's "Either UK or affected" sound to you?
re: 49
Yeah, I think if I was just unreflectively producing the utterance, that's how I'd say it.
I agree with ben. I think an American would be more likely to say 'loads' than 'scads', but it wouldn't make me blink.
Of course I'd say 'shitloads' rather than 'scads'.
Huh. Now I've screwed up my intuition by looking at it too much, but the UK thing might have been coming from the word 'scads'.
'scads' is quite British, yeah.
I just wouldn't personally use it.
I never thought "scads" was British.
The only entity I've ever heard regularly use it is Dave Barry.
"Loads", contra 54, is the British equivalent of "lots".