1) This piece speaks to me, although I reserve the right to refer to Sallie as "the famous Sallie" (to distinguish her from all those un-famous Sallies).
2) The "nutty kind of a book" had to have been Brave New World, right? Go, Kitty!
You can always, always, always cite that exchange between Harlow and Dressler in Dinner at Eight and we will never tire of it. "A book?' Dressler is perfection. It's what lazy writers of the "Catch a Classic" feature in our daily newspaper would call "iconic." Whoever writes that absolutely cannot refrain from using the dreaded "i" word, of which we are so, so sick. But we've found ourselves reaching for "famous" as a substitute. Maybe we should say "classic"? Or simply avoid the construction? (That's the advice we got from a writer we respect when we were struggling with something. "Can you avoid the construction?")
A teaching point I have often made with my students is that, when describing the facts of the client's case, using words meant to evoke an emotional reaction ("tragic," "life-changing," etc.) will often reduce rather than enhance the overall persuasive effect. If the client's misfortune is tragic and life-changing, then stating the facts plainly will make that obvious. And if stating the facts of the client's case doesn't demonstrate a life-changing tragedy, it's useful for the client and the attorney to know that and set expectations accordingly. (Tangent: every time I see a billboard lawyer touting their multi-million dollar recoveries I think about how much one absolutely does not want to be a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit that is actually worth tens of millions of dollars.)
I would support a movement to add Man Reading by Candlelight to the catalog of memes that mean "WTF am I reading?"
Mrs. Parker, like Miss Bankhead, suffers an unjust fate of endless "She once said" references to words she never uttered. (I'd adore it so if the misquoter would launch with "She twice said," and then provide dates and witnesses.)
I would add "luminous" to the list of words that should almost never be used -- especially in theater criticism. How many luminous performances have we all seen? Enough so that the word has become tripe. Except when used in reference to light bulbs. And while I'm on the subject, I believe masterpiece should only be used for things that have survived and maintained their status and utility for at least 50 years. How do you know something's a masterpiece on opening night. Aren't you glad you asked?
Peevish? Déclassé! I prefer mine Jeevesish.
1) This piece speaks to me, although I reserve the right to refer to Sallie as "the famous Sallie" (to distinguish her from all those un-famous Sallies).
2) The "nutty kind of a book" had to have been Brave New World, right? Go, Kitty!
The *infamous* El Guapo, on the other hand....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GufF8jux-I
There are some books that I start and then think, "Life is too short." and send back to the library.
I'm here for the crankiness, which I find reassuring.
And for Sallie, despite having two dogs of my own.
You can always, always, always cite that exchange between Harlow and Dressler in Dinner at Eight and we will never tire of it. "A book?' Dressler is perfection. It's what lazy writers of the "Catch a Classic" feature in our daily newspaper would call "iconic." Whoever writes that absolutely cannot refrain from using the dreaded "i" word, of which we are so, so sick. But we've found ourselves reaching for "famous" as a substitute. Maybe we should say "classic"? Or simply avoid the construction? (That's the advice we got from a writer we respect when we were struggling with something. "Can you avoid the construction?")
I welcome your crankiness. I take your point about "famous" and other unnecessaries. "Infamy! Infamy! Everybody's got it in for me!"
These days I am often irritated by people who don't understand that "fulsome" is not the same as "comprehensive" or "" sincere".
A teaching point I have often made with my students is that, when describing the facts of the client's case, using words meant to evoke an emotional reaction ("tragic," "life-changing," etc.) will often reduce rather than enhance the overall persuasive effect. If the client's misfortune is tragic and life-changing, then stating the facts plainly will make that obvious. And if stating the facts of the client's case doesn't demonstrate a life-changing tragedy, it's useful for the client and the attorney to know that and set expectations accordingly. (Tangent: every time I see a billboard lawyer touting their multi-million dollar recoveries I think about how much one absolutely does not want to be a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit that is actually worth tens of millions of dollars.)
I would support a movement to add Man Reading by Candlelight to the catalog of memes that mean "WTF am I reading?"
Or as an acting teacher of mine once said: If you want the audience to cry, you’d better not be crying.
Thanks for the delicious spang, an octave or two above the satisfying sound effect when skillet meets skull.
I admit that I didn't know the definition of "sprang." I looked it up!
No "should"? Is that a language thing or an approach-to-living thing?
The latter. I’ve sworn off being “should”ed, particularly by me.
Good! I need to work on that.
Mrs. Parker, like Miss Bankhead, suffers an unjust fate of endless "She once said" references to words she never uttered. (I'd adore it so if the misquoter would launch with "She twice said," and then provide dates and witnesses.)
I would add "luminous" to the list of words that should almost never be used -- especially in theater criticism. How many luminous performances have we all seen? Enough so that the word has become tripe. Except when used in reference to light bulbs. And while I'm on the subject, I believe masterpiece should only be used for things that have survived and maintained their status and utility for at least 50 years. How do you know something's a masterpiece on opening night. Aren't you glad you asked?
Always glad I asked.
Though you know who gave a luminous performance? Dorothy McGuire in The Night of the Iguana.
Julie Harris wasn’t luminous in The Belle of Amherst. She was radiant.
Also: You know what word should never precede “funny”?
“Mordantly.”
I'll take radiant over luminous generally speaking. I'm talking about vocabulary, not the quality of the performances.
Oh, and indeed I mean that I would apply that adjective and feel justified in doing it as a matter of honest description.
Richard Lester's Help!
The Superintendent (Patrick Cargill): So, the famous Beatles then! How long do you think you'll last?
Lennon: So, the famous Scotland Yard. Great Train Robbery. How's that going, eh?
I've found it impossible to use famous with a straight face since 1965. Thanks for the additional justification. And hi to Sallie.