Disdain for new fantasy

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...

Sure. So long as the person on the other end understands your message, congratulations! You've communicated.

That being said, I support the right of every English teacher (and / or other professor) to select which grammatical standard will be used when adjudicating papers.

It's really no different from specifying MLA or Chicago-style citations.

 

[Nifft]

Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...
[...]
I've heard of studios editing movies after the director/editor was down with it

(I realize it's a mere typo, but the assault on colloquialism followed by this is too delightful to ignore.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Darth Shoju]

(I realize it's a mere typo, but the assault on colloquialism followed by this is too delightful to ignore.)

Cheers, -- N

LOL yes. "done with it" was what I was going for there.

I'm certainly not holding *myself* up as a paragon of communication.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Sure. So long as the person on the other end understands your message, congratulations! You've communicated.

That being said, I support the right of every English teacher (and / or other professor) to select which grammatical standard will be used when adjudicating papers.

It's really no different from specifying MLA or Chicago-style citations.

I definitely agree that you should communicate in whatever way will be most easily understood by your audience. However the point I was trying to make is that, without knowing what your audience will understand, it is best to write/speak as clearly as possible. To me this means avoiding "million-dollar words" as much as slang or jargon (generally speaking). I understand that language evolves (and must, if it is to serve its purpose), but that doesn't mean there can't be some standard to work with. Certainly that standard will involve consensus, but I'd like to think that arriving at that consensus involved evaluation using the most objective methods possible.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Really? So I should be writing everything in netspeak then? Or using "ain't" more liberally? Perhaps I should start "axing" people questions...

Amusingly enough, if I recall correctly, "ax" is an archaic form of "ask", which is why it survived in pidgin English. It didn't morph with the mainstream pronounciation.

IANALinguist

Hmmm I didn't think it was common practice. I've heard of studios editing movies after the director/editor was down with it, but to my understanding that was considered bad form and somewhat rare.

It is actually so common as to be the air and water that the movie industry survives on. Producers have complete control over the contents of movies, since they're the ones who are paying for them. If they think that scene A won't make them money, but scene B will, scene A gets cut and scene B is in. They use test marketing and focus groups to determine which scripts and edits "test" better. The ends of Fatal Attraction and Pretty In Pink were both changed based on test audiences, and those are just the two examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head.

 

[Darth Shoju]

It is actually so common as to be the air and water that the movie industry survives on. Producers have complete control over the contents of movies, since they're the ones who are paying for them. If they think that scene A won't make them money, but scene B will, scene A gets cut and scene B is in. They use test marketing and focus groups to determine which scripts and edits "test" better. The ends of Fatal Attraction and Pretty In Pink were both changed based on test audiences, and those are just the two examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head.

Ugh. That must be incredibly frustrating for the director.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ugh. That must be incredibly frustrating for the director.

From what I gather, it's the business. Once you've made a name for yourself, and millions of dollars, you can demand control over your own films, if you even care about that sort of thing. I get the feeling that lots of directors think the same way the producers do. Of course, sometimes the test audience is wrong. They wanted to remove "Over The Rainbow" from the Wizard of Oz, because of pacing issues. Those responsible for the movie fought against it, and the scene stayed in, and became one of the most memorable scenes in movie history.

I would wager that, more often than not, the test audience is wrong, but as I have never--in the vast majority of cases--seen the movies that the test audiences turned down, I can't say for sure.

 

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Canis
No, none of those are objective at all. I've studied linguistics. Even "what is grammatical?" is derived by polling the populace. Seriously. Grammaticality, despite my 7 years of grammar classes in school that tried desperately to instill a standard, is in actual fact derived from common usage.

I would point out that this is a particularly English thing. Other languages, such as Korean or Japanese, do have a "standard language" that is followed.

However, even though languages do certainly change over time, and those changes are based on common usage, how is that subjective? As a word is adopted into the language, THAT becomes the new standard. Just because a standard changes doesn't make it subjective. Objective doesn't mean that it can NEVER change. If it did, then there is no objective standard ever. Even science has changed numerous times over the years. That doesn't make the sciences subjective, it just changes the standard.

Now, it's true that usually a group of criteria will be chosen based on whatever point the critic is trying to make. Someone saying that X is bad will choose criteria in which it fails to acheive a standard. Someone who wants to say that X is good will choose different criteria.

For example, detractors of anime generally point to the face faults of the art style (not that this is universal, but, it is a general trend). And, they have a point. The facial stylings of many anime are very simplistic. Whether that's a good thing or bad depends on who you ask, but, there is no getting around that Sailor Moon's face doesn't look realistic at all.

It's like studying history. It's 100% true that you can never be entirely objective. But, that's the goal that all historians strive for.

 

[shilsen]

It's been way too long, and I don't have the books handy. What did he say?

-The Gneech

To paraphrase - Even someone with the power of Glorfindel would be unable to get the Ring to Mount Doom safely. Any attempt to enter Mordor openly or dependence on power would be doomed to failure, since it would instantly attract Sauron's attention and he would both crush the attempt and gain the Ring. The Ring needed to be taken into Mordor with stealth.

All of which turned out to be correct. Giant eagles are never an option.

 

[Hussar]

To paraphrase - Even someone with the power of Glorfindel would be unable to get the Ring to Mount Doom safely. Any attempt to enter Mordor openly or dependence on power would be doomed to failure, since it would instantly attract Sauron's attention and he would both crush the attempt and gain the Ring. The Ring needed to be taken into Mordor with stealth.

All of which turned out to be correct. Giant eagles are never an option.

I love how people defend the LOTR in this issue when Tolkien himself is quoted as acknowledging that this was a plot hole.