Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
>>>>For the same reasons a director allows a hot actor to interpret a role to fit their image rather than portrey the character as writtenSB: This isn't the same thing, though. It isn't a matter of an actor taking the same dialog and changing the emotions, or the body language or the accent, or even ad-libbing the dialog. This is a matter of the writer messing up the English language and the editor not correcting it.If I "interpreted" the first sentence above as "This same, though, isn't the thing." You would expect the editor to correct it, wouldn't you (assuming he/she could figure out what the heck I meant by that! <g>)? (Unless, of course that mangled grammar/syntax was *intentionally* done in the context of dialog spoken by a recent immigrant or a space alien.) In the cases I was referring to, the sentence was simply part of the author's exposition and was clearly incorrect.There are plenty of grammatical rules that authors break intentionally for effect (such as one-sentence paragraphs, sentences starting with But or And, etc.) and I'm fine with that. (I do it myself.) But I have to wonder at the basic errors that could/should easily have been corrected by editors, and weren't. CK's suggestions seems likely, and is one I hadn't thought of previously.Mark.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |