I wonder if you read the New Vision on Friday last week. If you did, I am so sorry. You must have wished your brain was a belly capable of vomiting.
Especially after reading this:
Silver City Spur is probably supposed to be based on native American culture and tradition but, rather than present a glimpse into the rich and profound heritage of a diverse group of peoples, it hints, rather, at cartoons featuring “injuns”.
Tomahawks (native American throwing axes) adorn the walls and totem poles (a pole with carved animals on it that is part of some native American cultures) are carved into the pillars. Braves (native American warriors) and squaws (native American women) are painted on the ceiling, arrows at the ready.
Even the chairs are shaped in a way that makes you think of “gulches” (American desert term).
I imagine if I was a member of the Navajo nation (a Native American tribe), perhaps I would be embarrassed, but then again, it is a restaurant, not a museum.
It’s everything from irritating to repugnant isn’t it? If this infuriating writer felt that these terms were so arcane that they could not stand without parenthesized definitions, then why did he use them in the first place?
It’s a long story. My editor felt that I should not write words which he thinks the “average reader” is not familiar with without defining them.
So I guess I should proceed this way:
It’s everything from irritating (annoying) to repugnant (disgusting) isn’t it? If this infuriating (annoying) writer felt that these terms were so arcane (strange) that they could not stand without parenthesized (things in brackets) definitions, then why did he use them in the first place?
I don’t believe readers always stop stymied (confused) every time we encounter a new word for the first time—we don’t require brackets with definitions in them before we can proceed. The first time you came upon the word “malignant”, did you have to rush to a dictionary?
Because writing and reading are not just about definitions. They are about tone, context, rhythm, atmosphere.
Listing the foreign words portrays the restaurant as full of things from a foreign culture, a faraway otherworld, a life separate from the one the reader inhabits. Whether you understand the words or not, the context is still created: you pick up the air of exotic-ness, you know that they represent another universe.
To describe it in more quotidian terms (now, wonder why I used the word “quotidian” instead of “everyday”) would be to sacrifice that. You can’t properly describe the unusual in mundane language.
Anyway, let me stop bitching. The person who wrote about a woman who may be the oldest living person had it much worse when the headline writer decided to go with the question:
Is she the oldest being living?

I wonder if you read the New Vision on Friday last week. If you did, I am so sorry. You must have wished your brain was a belly capable of vomiting.

Especially after reading this:

Silver City Spur is probably supposed to be based on native American culture and tradition but, rather than present a glimpse into the rich and profound heritage of a diverse group of peoples, it hints, rather, at cartoons featuring “injuns”.

Tomahawks (native American throwing axes) adorn the walls and totem poles (a pole with carved animals on it that is part of some native American cultures) are carved into the pillars. Braves (native American warriors) and squaws (native American women) are painted on the ceiling, arrows at the ready.

Even the chairs are shaped in a way that makes you think of “gulches” (American desert term).

I imagine if I was a member of the Navajo nation (a Native American tribe), perhaps I would be embarrassed, but then again, it is a restaurant, not a museum.

It’s everything from irritating to repugnant isn’t it? If this infuriating writer felt that these terms were so arcane that they could not stand without parenthesized definitions, then why did he use them in the first place?

It’s a long story. My editor felt that I should not write words which he thinks the “average reader” is not familiar with without defining them.

So I guess I should proceed this way:

It’s everything from irritating (annoying) to repugnant (disgusting) isn’t it? If this infuriating (annoying) writer felt that these terms were so arcane (strange) that they could not stand without parenthesized (things in brackets) definitions, then why did he use them in the first place?

I don’t believe readers always stop stymied (confused) every time we encounter a new word for the first time—we don’t require brackets with definitions in them before we can proceed. The first time you came upon the word “malignant”, did you have to rush to a dictionary?

Because writing and reading are not just about definitions. They are about tone, context, rhythm, atmosphere.

Listing the foreign words portrays the restaurant as full of things from a foreign culture, a faraway otherworld, a life separate from the one the reader inhabits. Whether you understand the words or not, the context is still created: you pick up the air of exotic-ness, you know that they represent another universe.

To describe it in more quotidian terms (now, wonder why I used the word “quotidian” instead of “everyday”) would be to sacrifice that. You can’t properly describe the unusual in mundane language.

Anyway, let me stop bitching. The person who wrote about a woman who may be the oldest living person had it much worse when the headline writer decided to go with the question:

Is She The Oldest Living Being?

Of course she is not.

Advertisements