#also to publish incorrect quotes as often as before-

[matcgroupinc]

The Great Oxford Comma Debate: Should You Use It or Not?

Few, if any, writing styles have been as controversial as the Oxford comma. Also known as the Harvard comma or serial comma, this debate isn’t as much about rules for writing as it is about style. Even the most-used stylebooks in the world do not agree on its usage. Neither style is correct or incorrect, so the debate continues.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Oxford comma is “used to separate the second-to-last item in a list from a final item introduced by the conjunction ‘and’ or ‘or.” For example, “I love my parents, my dog, and my cat,” uses the Oxford comma, while “I love my parents, my dog and my cat” does not.

A confusing history

The history of the Oxford comma can be as contentious as the debate over using it. Here’s what we know:

Aldus Mantius (aka Aldo Manuzio) was a 15th century Italian who introduced the comma as we know it, to separate things listed in a sentence. The word “comma” comes from the Greek word “koptein,” meaning “to cut off.”

Horace Hart is often referred to as the originator of the Oxford comma. Hart was a printer at Oxford University Press (OUP) from 1893 to 1915. In 1905, he wrote Hart’s Rules for Compositors and Readers as a style guide for OUP employees. However, he did not refer to it as the “Oxford comma.”

Peter Sutcliff is allegedly the first to call this the “Oxford comma” in his 1978 book about the OUP’s history.

In an interesting twist, Sutcliff credits F. Howard Collins for introducing the Oxford comma. Collins wrote Author & Printer: A Guide for Authors, Editors, Printers, Correctors of the Press, Composition, and Typists in 1912, 66 years before Sutcliff’s book was published.

In another twist, Collins fully quotes a letter from Herbert Spencer, a Victorian and friend of Charles Darwin. The letter justified using the serial comma to avoid ambiguity.

“There are people who embrace the Oxford comma and people who don’t, and I’ll just say this: never get between these people when drink has been taken.” -Lynne Truss, author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation

Why the debate?

So, why the fuss over such a little piece of punctuation?

Fans of the Oxford comma believe that using it helps minimize confusion and helps the reader better understand the author’s intent. Authors of in-depth research articles are typically fanatic proponents of using it in their complex writing. The opposition argues that it makes writing sound pretentious and old-fashioned, making for a cluttered appearance. Writers of news and short articles often avoid it in order to keep the reader moving.

Let’s look at some examples to better understand the argument. We’ll use the sentence from earlier.

I love my parents, my dog, and my cat.

This is a clear sentence that indicates the writer loves three things: parents, dog, and cat.

I love my parents, my dog and my cat.

This could be seen as your parents are your dog and your cat.

Some say that neither are correct sentences, but a simple rephrasing fixes the problem, changing it to:

I love my dog, my cat and my parents.

These examples may seem silly at first, as we know our parents are not a dog and cat (unless you’re from the Island of Dr. Moreau, then you have bigger issues than commas to deal with). It’s important to remember that legal cases have sometimes been judged based on punctuation in a document. As recently as 2017, a $5 million lawsuit hinged on the placement (or lack thereof) of a comma.

The Maine lawsuit

In a nutshell, the $10 million lawsuit involved an overtime dispute between Oakhurst Diary company and its drivers. Oakhurst settled for $5 million. The crux of the judgement was the interpretation of a sentence in Maine’s overtime law — a sentence that did not use the Oxford comma. Judge David Barron said that the law’s punctuation was not clear, as “packing for shipping or distribution” could be seen as one activity or two separate activities.

This Maine law has since been rewritten, but with an abundance of semi-colons. Some say this is no less confusing than the previous version.

The experts weigh in

Even among experts of the written word, there is debate. Style guides that are used by professionals and students can’t agree on the Oxford Comma.

Supporters include OUP, Chicago Manual of Style (CMA), American Psychological Association (AP) and the American Medical Association (AMA). Most researchers, academic writers, and other reputable publications use it for clearer writing and easier understanding.

Opposers such as the Associated Press (AP), Canadian Press (CP), and The New York Times agree that the Oxford comma should only be used when a sentence could be misinterpreted without it. Many magazine publishers argue that it takes up valuable page space, and many journalists do not use it. Ironically, the public relations department at University of Oxford does not tend to use the Oxford comma.

My opinion

“There could hardly be a better illustration of where a misunderstanding could have been avoided by including an Oxford comma than in the lawsuit brought by the Oakhurst Diary truck drivers.” -Grammarbook.com Blog

Except for times when I was mandated to use the AP style guide or had an editor who hated it, I have always used the Oxford comma. I believe it better clarifies what I’m writing. I understand that it can take up more space in publications, but I also know that I cannot predict when something I think is clearly written without it could be misread. If I could read the minds of others, I’d be traveling the world with my riches. The fact that punctuation has affected court cases clinches it for me.

Also, while some style guides recommend only using it when necessary, I think that adds inconsistency to one’s writing. Sure, you don’t need to use only one of the other in all your writing, but it looks like a mistake if you aren’t consistent throughout one article, blog, book, or white paper.

It comes down to experiences

“If you’ve always used the serial comma- ‘red, white, and blue’- it’s absence can look slipshod and lazy. If you were taught the more streamlined AP style — “red, white and blue” — the extra comma may seem fussy and pretentious.” -Jan Freeman writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Using the Oxford comma often comes down to how you were taught punctuation. Depending on your age and school location, it may have been the only comma style you were taught. Perhaps you got red marks on your papers every time you didn’t use it, and you now practically break into hives if you don’t use it. On the other hand, you may have had an editor who figuratively eviscerated you for using it once, and even thinking about using the Oxford comma makes you break into a cold sweat.

In today’s often bizarre political climate, some even believe it’s part of class warfare, that “If you’re an elitist, you probably like it. If you’re a more down-to-earth, patriotic American, not so much.”

So, should you use it or not? That may be up to your editor or style guide, if you are mandated to follow one. Otherwise, if you believe it helps you and your reader avoid confusion, use it. If you think it adds clutter and are happy rephrasing potentially problematic sentences, don’t use it. Whichever style you choose, be consistent.

#Matc Group #Technical Writing

[battyaboutbooksreviews]

Not Here to Stay Friends Review

🦇 Not Here to Stay Friends Book Review 🦇

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐

❝ Maybe this is my time to show everyone—show myself—that I can do things that are big and scary and out of character, things that force me to be the center of attention. ❞

❓ #QOTD Choose your trope: friends-to-lovers or enemies-to-lovers? ❓

🦇 The Bachelor and Riverdale meet Julie Murphy's If the Shoe Fits in this friends-to-lovers story of two lifetime friends. When Sloane McKinney visits her best friend Liam Daniels in LA for the summer, she never expects to step under the spotlight. Liam's dad gets them both involved in the teen reality dating show he's producing: Aspen Woods’s Future Leading Lady (AWFLL)—Liam as a PA and Sloane as a contestant. Teen heartthrob Aspen has set his sights on Sloane as his Leading Lady, but the real drama occurs behind the scenes as—plot twist!—Sloane and Liam finally begin to recognize their friends for one another. Can they make it to the finale without making a mess of their reunion?

💜 Not Here to Stay Friends is a cute young adult contemporary romance that gives a nod to the messy reality of reality television. Kaitlyn Hill does a wonderful job of balancing Sloane and Liam's tension alongside drama, problematic gender roles, and rom-com cuteness. The novel's true strength isn't in the friends-to-lovers growth, but in the healthy friendship Sloane and Liam use as the foundation for that growth. Their love and protectiveness over one another feels natural and sweet; a foundation that doesn't falter even despite the chaos occurring all around them. The twist at the end gave the reality TV side of the story the unique flare shows like The Bachelor often lack, defying story cliches that women need a Hollywood leading man for a happily ever after.

🦇 While there this novel doesn't warrant any big complaints, it's not exactly wow-worthy, either. Many of the characters come off as one-dimensional (Aspen, especially). While reality TV frames participants in that light, we're viewing AWFLL from behind the scenes; we should be getting more from the characters. Despite how cute Sloane and Liam are together, a little bit more about their friendship before Liam's move would have helped readers fall all the more in love with the pairing. Some of the film terms were incorrect as well (my girlfriend worked walkies on Stranger Things, and batteries are called bricks...also no one uses the phrase "10-4"), but I'll let that slide since Liam is new to the industry. Some thoughts repeat a bit too often as well, and there's not enough drama, tension, or high stakes to push the story forward. I'm sure this was on purpose, but the quotes from The Cove were Riverdale-cringy, failing to add depth to the story (beyond making me question Sloane's taste).

🦇 This adorable YA rom-com is perfect for fans of Riverdale, The Bachelor, and cozy comfort reads.

🌹 Friends to Lovers 🎥 Dual POV 🎬 Revenge Plot 🍿 YA Rom-Com

🦇 Major thanks to the author and publisher for providing an ARC of this book via Netgalley. 🥰 This does not affect my opinion regarding the book.

#book review #book blog #book lovers #books and reading #cats and books #books and cats #kindle fire #battyaboutbooks #batty about books #book: not here to stay friends #author: kaitlyn hill

[qvalcuno]

ahhh thank you very much for tagging me @snowyshadow and @porco-galliard. i reaaally appreciate these mentions <3

link

@wuatsui @baeyuries @byakuyas @hachikenz @kagehjna @beekugou @yokamis @the-ultimate-oof @sakaguchis @levizs @hargrccves feel free to ignore this ~

#not the usual #erica's #tag games #i'll try to answer all the asks asap!! #also to publish incorrect quotes as often as before- #school is keeping me really busy #ty again! #have a wonderful day/night as well ~

[clear-as-starlight]

Nathan Hale’s Death vs the Primary Sources

(aka did William Hull actually know anything?)

“The first the Americans heard of Hale’s death was on the evening of the twenty-second [September 1776], when Captain John Montresor…an aide de camp to General Howe, approached an outpost…under flag of truce. His main business…did not concern Hale, but was to transport to Washington a letter from Howe offering an exchange of high-ranking prisoners. Joseph Reed, accompanied by General Israel Putnam and Captain Alexander Hamilton, rode to meet him. After passing over the letter, he casually added that one Nathan Hale, a Captain, had been executed that morning.”

This passage comes from “Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring” by Alexander Rose and it, along with the wonderful @queerrevolution1776 inspired me to go on a (brief) primary source deep dive of Hale’s death. A challenge, given the lack of primary sources surrounding Hale’s spy work, and the tall tales that grew up around it.

I started here: Why was Hamilton there? He was not an aide-de-camp at this point, why would he be present? And that question, my friends, led to a whole host of others!

(Info under the cut because there is a lot, and it’s fascinating :))

The (Un)reliability of Recollection 

The idea of Hamilton having been present to hear of Hale’s fate, so far as I can see, is first related in “Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull”, a biography based on Hull’s unpublished memoirs, and written by his daughter, Maria Hull Campbell:

“In a few days, an Officer came to our camp, under a flag of truce, and informed Hamilton, then a Captain of the Artillery, but afterwards an aide to General Washington, that Captain Hale had been arrested within the British lines, condemned as a Spy, and executed that morning. I learned the melancholy particulars from this officer, who was present at his execution, and seemed touched by the circumstances attending it.”

William Hull was a friend of Hale’s from Yale, and they were both in the 19th Regiment, before Hale transferred to Knowlton’s Rangers. A lot of what we know of Hale’s death seems to come from Hull’s memoirs, right down to his (possibly incorrect and/or exaggerated) final words: “I only regret, that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Hull was a close friend of Hale’s, so it does make some sense that he’d know something of it. However, the above biography was written in 1848, and related conversations that had taken place a long time earlier. Campbell herself admits she includes conversations not even present in her father’s memoirs.

Though her book is not the only 18th/19th century one about Hale’s death, it quickly became clear that all of them were based on conversations with Hull. The first time the name ‘Nathan Hale’ even entered the public conscious properly after the war was in 1799, in Hannah Adams’ “A Summary History of New England and General Sketch of the American War” where she writes: “The compiler of this History of New England is indebted to Gen. Hull of Newton for this interesting account of Captain Hale.”

Hale isn’t mentioned again until 1824, in a book by Jedediah Morse, who says he got his info from Adams, who in turn got it from Hull. It seems likely, then, that the idea of Hamilton being there (and indeed, that most of what we know) came from Hull’s supposed recollection, 20+ years after the event took place.

Now, this is not to say that Hull was lying. Return records show that he and his Regiment were certainly present at “Camp near to Harlem Heights” with Washington’s forces at the time that Washington would have been given the information about Hale, and we know Hamilton and his Artillery were present also, as it is at Harlem Heights that he apparently first came to Washington’s notice (according to John C. Hamilton). It did seem a bit strange though, to both me and @queerrevolution1776 , for Hull or Hamilton to have met with an official flag of truce, when they were both only Captains, and not on Washington’s staff (he’d only just become aware of Hamilton’s existence, after all).

Washington makes no mention of either of them in his correspondence, instead writing to Jonathan Trumbull Sr. that it was Colonel Joseph Reed whom Howe’s aide, John Montresor, met with. It makes sense that Reed would have met with Montresor, given his position on Washington’s staff. Reed is mentioned in Rose’s book, but not Hull’s account, and I thought that was a discrepancy worth a look. Hull, writing after the fact, mentions only Hamilton, who by then was a well-known, and scandalous, public figure. Reed, on the other hand, was nowhere near as popular, and perhaps did not serve as such an interesting figure in a story about Hull’s friend, one of America’s earliest spies.

Sure, Hamilton could have been nearby, or overheard the discussion, and in turn told Hull what he had heard—which could explain why Hale’s last moments have been exaggerated, or perhaps accidentally falsified, given that a British officer who was present apparently heard: “It the duty of every good officer, to obey any orders given him by his commander in chief” and not what is so often recounted. Even a newspaper (The Essex Journal) publishing an account five months later, quoted Hale as having said: “If I had ten thousand lives I would lay them all down, if called to it, in defence of my injured, bleeding country”—No one seems quite able to agree exactly what he said! Hull may well have also told his children he was there to make the story seem more personal, and exciting.

(And I’m really starting to doubt that Hamilton was at the meeting at all. It’s never mentioned in any of his writing, or in the John C Hamilton biography)

There’s no “official” reports of Hale’s death either (excepting the noting of his death on the 22nd September casualty list) which is why so much has relied heavily on what Hull claimed to have been told. When Washington wrote Trumbull about the flag of truce meeting the next day, he was mostly concerned with the fire that had engulfed New York the day before, and the claims that Continental soldiers and spies had set it. The only possible reference we have from him that concerned the meeting between Reed and Montresor, with perhaps an oblique reference to Hale, is as follows:

“On Friday night about eleven or twelve o’Clock a fire broke out in the City of New York, which burning rapidly till after Sunrise next morning, destroyed a great number of Houses—By what means it happened we do not know; but the Gentleman who brought the letter out last night from General Howe, and who was one of his Aid De Camps informed Colo. Reed that several of our Countrymen had been punished with various deaths on account of it. Some by hanging, others by burning & c. alledging that they were apprehended when committing the fact.”

Howe himself never mentioned Hale explicitly in official correspondence between him and Washington, and Washington never did either. In fact, neither of them mentioned the spies or the fire to one another at all, concerned with prisoner exchanges, and the accusation of ill-treatment of British prisoners (Howe to Washington 21st September 1776 and Washington to Howe 23rd September 1776). Hale, and his fate, was unfortunately left to Montresor’s verbal account, and Hull’s dubious reporting.

Tench Tilghman on Hale’s Death

In terms of other primary correspondence that might reference Hale’s death, even remotely, we have accounts from Washington’s aide-de-camp, Tench Tilghman.

Firstly, Tilghman wrote his father, James Tilghman, on the 25th September 1776, of the events and executions surrounding the fire. He was sent to deliver Washington’s reply to Howe’s camp under another flag of truce the day after Montresor’s, and spoke with some men in Howe’s camp then:

“Reports concerning the setting fire to New York: If it was done designedly, it was without the knowledge or Approbation of any commanding officer in this Army…every man belonging to the Army who remained in or were found near the City were made close prisoners. Many Acts of barbarous cruelty were committed upon poor creatures who were perhaps flying from the flames, the Soldiers and Sailors looked upon all who were not in the military line as guilty, and burnt and cut to pieces many. But this I am sure was not by Order. Some were executed next day upon good Grounds… I went down to the Enemy's lines yesterday with a Flag to settle the Exchange of prisoners…I met a very civil Gentleman with whom I had an Hours conversation…”

In Rose’s book, he mentions Hull & Colonel Samuel B. Webb going with Tilghman to the camp to further question Montresor about Hale. Webb, another aide-de-camp to Washington, may well have gone. But it seems a bit strange for Hull to have done so. And Hull’s account did not mention Webb, or Tilghman, which is also a bit odd. Rose made no note of his source for this, but I’d like to find it! Perhaps it’s mentioned in Webb’s journals, something I’d have to travel to Yale to see :(

Tilghman did, eventually, mention Hale explicitly, though not by name, when he wrote to Egbert Benson on 3rd October 1776:

“I am sorry that your Convention do not think themselves legally authorized to make examples of those villains they have apprehended…The General is determined if he can bring some of them in his hand’s under the denomination of spies, to execute them. General Howe hanged a Captain of ours belonging to Knowlton' s Rangers, who went into New-York to make discoveries. I don’t see why we should not make retaliation.”

So he definitely knew of Hale’s death by then, and it seemed to anger him greatly.

Miscellaneous Reports of Hale’s Death

There were also reports made by various others, that mention explicitly, or might imply, Hale’s death:

“Friday last we discovered a vast cloud of smoke arising from the north part of the city, which continued '‘ill Saturday evening…those that were found on or near the spot were pitched into the conflagration, some hanged by their heals, others by their necks with their throats cut. Inhuman barbarity! One Hale in New York, on suspicion of being a spy, was taken up and dragged without ceremony to the execution post and hung up.” (A Letter from September 28th 1776)

“We hanged up a rebel spy the other day, and some soldiers got, out of a rebel Gentleman’s garden, a painted soldier on a board, and hung it along with the Rebel; and wrote upon it, General Washington, and I saw it yesterday beyond headquarters by the roadside.” (Kentish Gazette, November 1776)

“A spy from the enemy (by his own full confession) apprehended last night, was this day executed at 11 o’clock in front of Artillery Park.” (General Howe’s diary)

“The Enemy charged some stragglers of our people that happened to be in New York with having set the City on Fire designedly and took that occasion as we were told to exercise some inhuman Crueltys on those poor Wretches that were in their power.” (Committee of Secret Correspondence to Silas Deane 1st October 1776)

What does all this mean?

Hamilton probably wasn’t there (but I can’t make a call on that for sure!)

basically, it’s clear that the primary sources on Hale’s death are few, and somewhat contradictory in places. I found it super interesting, and thought y’all might too! Please keep in mind I’m not calling William Hull a liar (and I definitely haven’t done anywhere near enough research to say anything conclusively!)

But I definitely think it’s always worth examining what we think we know from primary sources. And it’s very fun!

#this took me literal days to collate so I hope y’all find it as interesting as I did #should’ve been doing uni work but no regrets #we all know history research makes me ridiculously happy #nathan hale #William Hull #alexander hamilton #tench tilghman #spy work #September 1776 #american revolution #amrev #tw: death #izz gets historical #izz rambles

[derangedhyena-delphinidae]

numerous issues with “The Aftermath of Seaworld”

When I get time to do so (aka when I’m done with the documentary), I’m likely going to make a video version of this going into the details. 

But for right now, I’ve made this. Both as a guideline for me and so everyone can begin to get an idea of the severity of issues involved.

Researching things is time-consuming and can be very difficult - believe me, I know. But I’m of the mind that if you’re making content with the intent of educating people, you have a responsibility to perform a certain level of due diligence. It IS okay to express uncertainty or doubt if you have it. It is NOT okay to confidently assert things that you do not know with certainty.

The video has an anticap slant, and I’m obviously not disagreeing on that front. But again: if you’re gonna go through the trouble of teaching people something. Bare minimum... please make sure it’s actually correct. *** 1) x ‘founded in 1964 and based out of Florida’ -  ???? Seaworld definitively began on the west coast, in San Diego, CA. And given that the first park opened in early 1964… things came together before that. Uh? 2) x ‘four people founded Seaworld [...]’ For one… it wasn’t originally conceived as a restaurant, it was originally conceived as an underwater bar/lounge. Two… calling the four guys involved in founding the place “frat brothers” is fucking ridiculous and completely overlooks a) how each was actually involved and b) the overall significance of their contributions to the field as individuals. Hint: like it or not, they were important and did a lot! 

3) x If one is going to bring up SWBGCF/rescues while talking about the literal founding of SW, it gives the impression that it’s been around for that duration. It hasn’t.  It’s actually a bit unclear when SW started an organized rescue program, but the Fund itself and all that it did came about much later. The rescue information and how it’s presented is actually INCREDIBLY complex, nuanced, and has a fascinating history (from a “bad company behaving badly” perspective). Oversimplifying this, to this degree and in this misinformative way, does the facts of the situation an INCREDIBLE disservice.  

4) x [assertive statement about what the name Shamu means]  ….Uh actually there’s several explanations for the name Shamu, and the most likely one IMO seems to be the “she-namu” one, not the “friend of Namu” one(? What is this even based on.) 4b) It’s not quite clear if she’s saying “Namu was the first ever orca to be displayed and perform shows” or or Namu was the first to be displayed and, like Shamu, performed shows. Either way, Moby Doll was the first to truly be displayed to the public, not Namu.

5) x ‘Namu died after one year in captivity and you’d think that this might deter Seaworld from doing the same thing again…’ Seaworld truly had nothing to do with Namu. And they leased/took possession of Shamu before Namu died. ‘Again’? What?

6) x “Now, PETA paints a pretty disturbing picture…” [while showing Okura’s artwork] This video segment is, and this is putting it nicely, a pile of poorly-researched BULLSHIT.  -Yes, PETA talks about Shamu’s capture, re: the harpooning of her mother. This Youtuber cannot apparently be arsed to look more than 1 Google search into this, as she proceeds to dismiss the information as potentially fabricated. There are two detailed accounts of Shamu’s capture that I’m aware of - in books - and though they have some slight conflicts, it’s absolutely NOT in doubt that the female who was very likely Shamu’s mother was 1) harpooned, 2) died from her injuries and 3) this had been done to make her easier to catch/locate because there was a fucking buoy attached to the harpoon. Which she dragged around for at least 24 hours prior dying.  So maybe don’t dismiss that as PETA hysteria, maybe TRY to determine the truth of the matter, which would inform one that it is both true and completely horrifying.  -In addition, Okura is an awesome individual who has worked very hard to create a variety of informative artwork for our cause. Okura is NOT associated with PETA and it’s borderline libel in my eyes to use their artwork in this dismissive manner when the primary sources of it can be easily identified online, with full explanations and everything. Do I take special offense to this because of the misuse of artwork? Absolutely. Artists get disrespected enough online. I’m tired of it. This kind of laziness IS NOT acceptable.

7) x ‘timeline is fuzzy about when Shamu died’ …………… it’s…. It’s really not … newspapers are pretty clear about it…..

8) x [complete and utter oversimplification of the lifespan issue, which is not acceptable for anything published in 2020. It just isn’t. If you’re going to bring it up like this, either do the legwork and get into the weeds or stay out.] 8b) [same for reproductive ages. sigh]

9) x if we’re going to talk about when Cornell was involved with Seaworld it’s very important to specify when Cornell was involved with Seaworld and not make it seem like it’s present tense.

10) x “both were rescued by Seaworld” - uh? no. Zero orcas have been rescued by Seaworld. Literally none. The infected-jaw orca was Sandy, whose story is complex and certainly does not involve Seaworld until much later. And many of the orcas in that time period had bullet wounds, often only identified post-mortem because they didn’t seem to hurt the animals much. Also, unflinchingly blending 70s captivity ethics with modern ones is also complete nonsense? 

11) x [tilikum coming from sealand] inhales I am going to make an entire video centered on this fucking subject because it’s one of the single most profound arguments for Seaworld being garbage as assessed by US government agencies in the 90s yet everyone utterly fails to mention this. Why?!

12) x what on earth is this nonsense re: quoting a quote from Zimmerman’s article - which has already been removed from its original context, so the original context is not available - and then penalizing the quote for existing as if Zimmerman’s article were the context? That is offensively disingenuous. I honestly don’t know what the original context is, either - but it’s wildly inappropriate to act as if the Zimmerman article is.

13) x this is relatively minor but ‘Paul Sprong’? You literally have his name on the screen. And then mis-reading his age too? While asserting it from a static article published years ago? Effort? Where is it?

14) x ‘another trainer, Peter’ ….. Ken Peters…. 

15) [weirdly glossing over the widely-available list of orca-trainer injuries/aggressions, despite it being central to the point.] 16) x This pilot whale outrage certainly happened but it was pretty clearly Blackfish that started the cascade of woes for Seaworld. Who has ever asserted this?

17) if you’re gonna just rehash blackfish, tell people to go watch blackfish.

18) x I’ve already gone over the context issue with Seaworld calling out Howard’s statement in Blackfish here (point 23). Which is to say, IN CONTEXT in Blackfish it’s clear what Mr. Garrett is talking about but, divorced from that, it sounds incorrect. But this Youtuber AMPLIFIES the issue by doubling down on the assertion with “no record of a killer whale doing any harm to anyone in the wild.” The surfer event should always be mentioned. Yes, there’s absolutely room for doubt. But there’s also a clear demarcation between an accidental attack (eg mistaken identity, as was likely for the surfer) and intentional one (eg the incidents at marine parks.) Why do people kneecap themselves on this point 18b) please stop acting like Luna represents orcas in general.

19) x “Howard, for all of his research…” … while referring to David Duffus’ b-roll and statements. Uh. 20) x Apparently this Youtuber has single-handedly resolved the dorsal fin issue. You know, the thing that hasn’t been properly researched ever, that has been subject to a ton of debate, that isn’t 100% settled for a variety of reasons, and almost everyone talks about in terms of theories and likely possibilities.  21) x Alexis Martinez wasn’t “torn to shreds.” In a space where even moderate exaggerations are often penalized harshly by the opposition, this kind of blatant nonsense is not welcome. Plus, the reality’s bad enough… you don’t have to make anything up!

22) x *sighs. points at own webpage*

23) Talking about the shows stopping without acknowledging how that’s a bit of a farce is something else. In addition to apparently just flipping to buying what Seaworld’s selling re: its ‘improved image.’ 

*** Tl;dr video is so unrelentingly full of errors ranging from small to egregious it makes me seriously concerned for the veracity of the rest of this person’s content. The maker of the video provided a list of their sources in their video description, which I will have time to look through in detail later. The above is solely a response to the information they present IN THE VIDEO - which, is very important because let’s be real: a lot of people are not going to look at the list of sources. People don’t even do it when citing papers (no really, you’d be surprised, fml.) For anyone who wants to whinge that I haven’t linked or asserted any sources of my own for my claims… well, remember what I said about time-consuming and ‘I’m busy’? Yhea. Getting all of that together will be part of making a video. So if you want to shrug loudly at my list here… you can, that’s your prerogative, I’m happy to say I DGAF if that’s your takeaway. 

What I hope, is that if there’s anything I’ve made clear over the While of running this blog, it’s that I don’t fuck around when it comes to sources and information and do my best to provide what information exists, all of it, not just cherrypicked bits and bobs. Anyways. Here’s step 0 at least. Please don’t share that video. Pretty please.

#seaworld #grumble

[icykalisartblog]

Basic How-to for Dialogue Punctuation

Often when I’m betaing a fic/editing other prose I notice that the dialogue and dialogue tags aren’t punctuated in a clear manner. I also think a lot of comp classes don’t teach this skill, so I figured it might be useful for writers if I wrote a casual little guide. I’m going to be writing about American English for this guide, since that’s what I use.

Of course, I believe in the freedom to mess with punctuation, but I also think it’s really helpful to know the rules before choosing to break them!

A Floating Quote

Something I often see is a quote with no dialogue tag after it and no punctuation to speak of, like this: 

“Hello”

But all quotations should be punctuated like the rest of the sentences in your prose, even when they have no dialogue tags attached to them! Otherwise things can be unclear!

“Hello.”

If the initial quote is not a character speaking but say, the text of a sign or something, the same thing applies:

The sign read, “No skating.”

In American English, periods and commas nearly always go inside of quotation marks, even if they’re just ending a sentence and not actually part of the quoted dialogue itself. The sign might have just had the two words on it and no period after them, but because this is American English, a period should be after them to indicate to your readers that you’re ending a sentence.

Talking About Talking

When it comes to dialogue tags, if an action described in them results in the words being spoken/conveyed, you should use a comma at the end of the quote in order to indicate that, like this: 

“Hello, nice to meet you,” Alice said. 

Even when the quote would be a full sentence on its own, you don’t end the quote with a period. That’s because the actual full sentence is the whole thing, including the character speaking those words. So this would be incorrect: 

“Hello, nice to meet you.” Alice said. 

When the action described in a dialogue tag doesn’t result in the words being spoken, then it should be two separate sentences, like this:

“Hello, nice to meet you.” Alice waved.

Waving doesn’t cause the speech to happen, unlike saying, so the dialogue ends with a period. The speech and Alice waving are two separate sentences. 

Can You Really Scoff All That?

An issue I often see come up is a dialogue tag that is presented as if it’s resulting in the words quoted before it, but it would be impossible! Here are a few examples: 

“As if I’d ever go out with you,” she scoffed. 

“I can’t believe you did that,” he chuckled.

“I don’t believe this,” he grimaced.

Because all of these quotations end in a comma, the reader has to imagine that scoffing/chuckling/grimacing results in the dialogue. But it’s really not possible to scoff/chuckle entire sentences (at least, not without sounding very strange) and grimacing is just making an expression and presumably wouldn’t result in sound at all. Lines like these should be revised so that the actions and dialogue are separate sentences and one is taking place before the other. For example: 

She scoffed. “As if I’d ever go out with you.”

The Broken Quote 

When a sentence of quoted dialogue has a dialogue tag in the middle of it and also includes other actions, all kinds of things can go wrong: 

“The world.” He said, doing jazz hands. “Is your oyster.”

Here’s how this should be rendered: 

“The world,” he said, doing jazz hands, “is your oyster.”

As you can see, even though if the quoted dialogue was all on its own it wouldn’t have a comma after “world,” you should put a comma before “he said” so the reader knows he is speaking those words. “Doing jazz hands” is just a clause modifying “said” and isn’t a separate action, so put another comma after it—and finally, keep “is” lowercase because that shows it’s part of the same sentence as “the world.”

What if the action between the different parts of the quote can’t result in the speech? Then, you have to use a punctuation mark that indicates that the sentences are separate. Generally I use em-dashes for this task, since the em-dash is very versatile and can indicate an interruption, or an ellipses, because an ellipses indicates that something is absent from a sentence. For the sentence describing the action, it should begin with a capital letter, but the dialogue itself should still be rendered as its own sentence. It’s like ships passing in the night over here!

“The world—” He did jazz hands. “—is your oyster.”

Exclamations and Questions

In one of these lines, the question mark is inside the quotation marks, but in the other, it’s outside. So why are both of these correct?

“Is the pasta good?” he asked. 

Who said, “Hello, nice to meet you”?

The reason for this apparent discrepancy is this rule: when a quote is in and of itself a question/exclamation, the question/exclamation mark goes inside the quotation marks. But if it isn’t, and instead the quotation is just embedded within a larger question/exclamation, the respective mark needs to go outside.

Final Thoughts

I know I just wrote a whole guide to punctuating dialogue, but it’s important to note that every writer is different! Although these guidelines are what you’ll usually see being followed in literary writing published in American English, there’s always some variation. For example, some people are adamant that em-dashes always have to go outside of quotation marks, whereas others (like yours truly) think that if they indicate an interruption in speech, it’s totally fine to have them in there. Just aim for consistency! 

I may add to this post if I think of any other frequent stumbling blocks. Anyway, I hope this was helpful! ^_^

#writing tips #writing resources #I need an analysis/meta tag #IcyKali's Writing

[silvernyxchariot]

Oh no. Not me SwEaTiNg while deciding whether or not to publish this Q+A. Enjoy the read, if you decide to take a peek. 👀👀👀

• Who? Ghiaccio x Prosciutto × Macchiato (he/they, Self-insert)

• What? JJBA Poly!Self-ship

• Where? Italy

• When? JJBA part 5; Started irl in Sept. 2021

• Why? I cannot for the life of me choose between two screaming hitmen that would, irl, make me cry and crawl into my bathtub while locking the bathroom door behind me for comfort. But I love them for their strong conviction and determination, even though they do be angy gremlins. 👉👈💕

⚠️ CW: one of these questions are NSFW-ish, verbal abuse

❗️DNI: Ageless blog and minors. You will be kicked and blocked. You've been warned.

Short Headcanons for Context

~ Set 1998, before Diavolo executes Sorbet and Gelato

~ Prosciutto is the eldest of the three at 38, Ghiaccio is in the middle at 25, and Macchiato is also 25 but the youngest because his birthday is near the end of the year.

~ Ghiacchio calls Macchiato, "Topolino," meaning "little mouse," because Macchiato is the smallest and youngest. It is also a term of endearment commonly used from parent to child and used as the name for Micky Mouse.

~ Macchiato is sensitive to heat and therefore sleeps with Ghiaccio more often because he claims Ghia is "cooler to sleep with." But he will sleep with Prosciutto when it's cold because "he's warmer than Ghiaccio." This one's not necessary but it's cute and I wanted to include it.

Questions + Answers

• Who makes the first move and how?

Ghiaccio and Prosciutto. Either of them would catch Macchiato staring for a little too long and come over to confront him about it. At this time, Macchiato would have waved at or greeted them in the café or bookshop he frequents. During a hit though, Macchiato would be a civilian they decided to sacrifice but Macchiato said, "Surprise, bitch. I lived."

• How many brain cells would you estimate there are in the relationship?

In total, five. Prosciutto wields four of them and Ghiaccio has that one last brain cell which is primarily used in combat. Only about 90% of the time do they hold the brain cells. The other 10% of the time, Macchiato takes the brain cells, especially if they're in a regular social situation or out in public on their day off. (Gents, please. Stop yelling at the waitress for getting your order wrong. She is doing her best.)

• Describe their dynamic in as few words as possible.

"Angry Trio"

Explanation, if desired: Not angry with each other, but more angry at the monogamous and/or hetero couples that give them odd looks and sneers, especially the people who openly berate their relationship as weird or unhealthy. All three of them like to yell when they are angry in general.

• Give an incorrect quote between the characters.

Prosciutto: "Stressed."

Macchiato: "Depressed."

Ghiaccio: "Possessed."

Melone: "Can I hug Macchiato's chest?"

Prosciutto: "..."

Ghiaccio: "..."

Macchiato: "..."

Macchiato: "Sure."

Ghiaccio: "That's not even the meme!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ghiaccio: You wake up one day with the ability to freeze time for as long as you want with no repercussions. What's the first thing you do with your newfound power?

Macchiato or Prosciutto: Take a nap.

Ghiaccio: You just woke up.

Macchiato or Prosciutto: Take A Nap.

• Who is the most romantic?

Prosciutto. Prosciutto is the one who plans out most of their dates outside of their shared home. He also asserts his dominance as the authority of the trio, actively showing onlookers that the three of them are, in fact, in a relationship. Ghiaccio and Macchiato are more content with subtle forms of romantic affection when in public.

~ On the outside, Macchiato is the cuddliest. Prosciutto acts possessive but Ghiaccio is the most possessive and handsy in private.

• What is their ideal date together?

~ Since there are three of them, they have to compromise more often than normal couples. Prosciutto would rather go to a nice restaurant with a quiet ambiance, well hidden from majority of the other guests by curtains or shadows. Ghiaccio would rather have a night at home watching movies, playing board games, and ordering something cheap to eat, all while working on paperwork for their next hit, which Prosciutto chastises him for. Macchiato would like an evening hike to go look at the stars or overlook the night lights of Rome; he prefers bringing homecooked meals but snacks are also acceptable to him.

~ Altogether, their ideal date is at a decent diner, someplace by the ocean for Macchiato to stare at, busy enough so Ghiaccio doesn't seem bored, and a place with palatable food for Prosciutto. It's bustling and has a steady amount of guests, but everyone is too busy minding their own business to pay attention to the trio. Each of them can be as loud as they'd like and the sounds would meld into the crowd's.

• Who says ‘I love you’ first?

Macchiato. 👉👈💕 Prosciutto heard it first while Ghiaccio was out on assignment. But Ghiaccio later received his "I love you" when he returned home under the same circumstances (Cuddling in bed before/after sex).

• What do they like in bed?

~Altogether, the trio like ribbons, light bondage, and lingerie. Macciato is the most submissive and eager to please his boyfriends. Ghiaccio is a switch but likes being able to see Macchiato's face, so he tops Macchiato. Prosciutto wanders into voyeurism and can get off on watching them, but should he join them, he is the most dominant. He often commands the others and enjoys making them feel helpless beneath him.

• What are some faults or worries in the relationship?

~ Macchiato isn't a combatant and often feels like a burden to his two gang-stars. Due to Macchiato feeling like a burden, they have the desire to please their partners. He is insecure about certain aspects of his personality and tries to hide parts of himself, such as his excitable and irritable side. This causes Ghiaccio to be more suspicious of Macchiato's behavior in the beginning.

~ Gang wars; if anything, Prosciutto and Ghiaccio would see an external relationship going south because other members of Passione or rival gangs would try to use their significant other against them and La Squadra.

~ Sometimes Prosciutto knows he can be too strict and instead of being a loving boyfriend, he will act like a life coach. It makes Macchiato feel like he doesn't care about their feelings, so Macchiato will withdraw into himself or Ghiaccio.

~ Ghiaccio doesn't fare much better because of his explosive temper. He doesn't mean to lash out at his partners, but sometimes he can't stop himself. Sometimes he will disappear for hours or days on a drive to get his head on straight.

~ When one person in the trio pays more attention to either of the others, the third person becomes self-conscious about the strength in their bonds.

• Why do they fight? How do they make up?

~ The trio has varying levels of self-confidence and temperament. Ghiaccio is the most confident, being almost arrogant. Prosciutto is simply self-assured. Macchiato is the most lax and isn't as openly self-assured as his boyfriends. Both Prosciutto and Ghiaccio dislike incompetency, so while Macchiato is still finding his footing as a Stand user and gangster, this causes the other two to often disparage him. When Macchiato is berated for his work, he will withdraw from the two, leaving them wondering where he would have run off to. Ghiaccio and Prosciutto will lower their voices and speak softly when Macchiato returns and tell him that they care about his safety. But the cycle starts over again the next time they berate Macchiato.

~ Ghiaccio and Macchiato's cleanliness levels vary based upon their mood and schedule. Prosciutto is usually the one who berates them for their sloppy habits. Although Macchiato and Ghiaccio would defend each other, they usually end up doing the cleaning that Prosciutto commands them to do.

• What do they hide from one another?

~ In the beginning, Prosciutto and Ghiaccio hid their affiliation to Passione and La Squadra. After about three months into the relationship, Macchiato was captured and tortured by a target who was being tracked by La Squadra causing the two to reveal their occupation.

~ After their initial reveal and temporary separation from Macchiato, the butcher hides the fact that they joined Passione and obtained his own Stand from Polpo, who he dubs "AquaTimez."

~ It isn't until La Squadra is commanded to dispose of a target's body using Macchiato's butcher shop that Prosciutto and Ghiaccio learn that their coffee boyfriend is a new member of Passione.

• What first changes when it starts getting serious?

~ La Squadra begins to visit Macchiato's butcher shop for free food. Although Macchiato allows people to deal behind his shop, when members of La Squadra begin to frequent the butcher's shop, other Passione members become less present, allowing the Angry Trio to date again with little interference.

~ Macchiato becomes more open with his feelings causing Ghiaccio and Prosciutto to trust him more. Other La Squadra members also begin to befriend Macchiato. Pesci visits the most behind Ghiaccio and Prosciutto, because he is intrigued by his Fra's new boyfriend. Illuso and Formaggio are tied for who visits Macchiato's shop the most after Pesci. Sorbet and Gelato have little interest in Macchiato but will be friendly towards him. Risotto is saved for last because he rarely reveals himself to people he doesn't trust.

• Why does it work or not work between them?

~ As a whole, the Angry Trio can balance each other because of their varying temperments, but share that main trait of being short-tempered towards outsiders that try to interfere with their work and they can act like a seamless team when targeting an unwelcomed party. Prosciutto is the one most in control to keep the others from causing enemies or even civilians too much damage. Ghiaccio is the most possessive, telling passersbys verbally that they are in a poly relationship. Macchiato is the "slowest" and the peacekeeper of the trio; he can accept his boyfriends' rough and often intimidating fits of rage as long as they are pointed towards interlopers.

🥀

~ The problems with their relationship are mostly outside factors. The balance between their occupation and personal life is often toppled by financial issues and enemies, causing them more stress than necessary and sometimes lashing out at each other.

~ Edit: I now imagine this when the Angry Trio are mad (whether at each other or outsiders)

♡

🥀 ♡

🥀

♡

♡

♡

🥀

🥀

#self ship community #self shipper #self ship #self shipping #anime #jjba golden wind #jjba part 5 #polyamourous #poly self ship #ghiaccio jjba #prosciutto jjba #ghiaccio x prosciutto #odd ship these two but ok

[rushingheadlong]

A review of Queen: The Early Years

Well I have finally finished reading Queen: The Early Years, and now that I have read all 198 pages of this book I feel very confident in saying:

Yall I don’t think this is a good book. Like I really, really do not think this is a good book.

I’ve talked about some of this once or twice before, but I wanted to get all my thoughts about this in one place so, here we go. Brace yourselves, this is going to get wordy (as all my posts invariably do).

The Sources (or lack thereof)

The author wrote this book based on interviews with “over 60 friends and colleagues” of the band. Contrary to an earlier post of mine, he does provide a full list of the people he spoke with, however a lot of these connections are... dubious at best.

He does interview former band members of the groups they were each with before Queen, which might be the only good bits of this book. But a lot of the people he talked to fall under “friends of friends” or “casual acquaintances” or “knew them for a few months decades ago” and not really people who had deep insights into Queen as people, which is fine but he’s presenting their information as if they did.

He also doesn’t give any qualifiers for the information presented - and unless it’s a direct quote from someone, he doesn’t even tell you where he’s getting 90% of the “facts” in his book from. There are no in-text citations, apart from those sporadic quotes, and no bibliography list anywhere in this book.

Instead, he just presents everything he’s writing as the absolute truth with next to nothing to back up what he’s saying, apart from cherry-picked quotes from people who have their own biases in these conversations to begin with. He writes about how many of these people fell out of touch with Queen for 30+ years, and there are several moments during reading where I was wondering whether these stories that were being quoted were true or if it’s the sort of thing that these people made up for the purpose of getting their name in print (especially stories about Freddie).

In the interest of fairness, he does admit in the two-page epilogue that he knows the people he talks to will have their own slant to their stories but he claims that all biographies are “a random assembly of thoughts and recollections” as if to absolve himself of the work of verifying anything being told to him, or at least putting in the effort to let the reader know that things cannot be verified rather than simply presenting everything as pure objective fact.

Authorial Bias and Band Portrayal

The author very much comes across as writing about the band to fit his preconceived ideas of who they are. There are definitely points in the book where he presents images of the band that almost seem like caricatures - Freddie made out to be the deeply self-loathing gay who everyone knew wasn’t actually straight, Brian to be the aloof controlling perfectionist - with little to no nuance given to their actions or stories.

But there are also a lot of moments when it seems like the author doesn’t like the band at all and that he’s writing this book in an attempt to tarnish their image?

Like I wrote in one of my earlier posts, he literally says that Freddie and Brian had the power in the band and that Roger and John had “token” roles. He also implies that Queen only started attributing songwriting credit to the band as a whole beginning with The Miracle to prevent singles royalties from going to Freddie’s estate when he died. The author also often feels the need to put the blame for failed friendships solely on the band, and on several occasions implies that they “betrayed” the people who helped them out in their early career.

Because of this, and because he conveniently doesn’t provide sources for anything he says, it makes me call into question basically everything he writes in this book. Are these stories and facts all accurate, or is he spinning the truth to fit the story he wants to tell?

It’s worth noting also that he apparently asked Brian, Roger, and John for their input, and they and all their official representatives declined. It’s always a red flag for me when someone writes about Queen without the band’s involvement, but the author presents this situation as if he had been deeply wronged by this and implies that any bias in the book was because he didn’t have “their” side of the story - and not because he simply failed to do any work to validate what 60+ strangers were telling him.

I also want to give a warning that how he writes about Freddie’s sexuality is painful in a lot of places. It’s a combination of ideas that don’t hold up well in the 25 years since publication (for example, he says in one place that since Freddie went to an all-boys boarding school it was obvious that he would end up being queer) as well as loose anecdotes shared by people who didn’t know him well, but all felt that they had to give input about his sexuality.

It feels like every time this author interviewed someone about Freddie, he felt obligated to include their “opinion” on whether it was obvious that Freddie was gay in the early 70s or not. It’s a heavy and strange focus that gets really uncomfortable to read about after a while, and one that I don’t think is really appropriate to have been included to the degree that it was.

Misinformation

The author flat-out puts wrong information into this book. I will admit that most of what I picked up on during my read is trivial, but it’s the sort of trivial that makes me question his authority to write anything accurately and also (I believe) has led to misinformation being spread in other Queen writings.

He says that Brian’s parents could have afforded to buy him a guitar, and that the building of the Red Special was essentially an act of ego. This is directly contrary to everything that Brian has ever said on the topic, which is that his family was too poor to afford to buy him a guitar and that the Red Special was built out of an act of necessity. (This also ties into the author’s biased writing of Brian as a controlling perfectionist.)

He gives incorrect dates for concerts and tour information, as can be proven by other first-hand sources like ticket stubs and tour posters. (For example, he says that Queen played six shows in New York’s Uris Theatre in 1974, when we know they only played five.) Again, this is a minor thing but if he’s getting details like this wrong why should I trust his broader stories or conclusions that have no other verifying sources to be correct?

I also think his book is the origination for the story about Brian getting gangrene due to a dirty vaccine needle in 1974. I have a problem with this claim in that I don’t think it’s actually true, but this book is now the earliest source of the story that I’ve seen by over a decade. However since the author doesn’t cite anything in this book, I have no idea how he found this information (or whether he made it up himself).

I also suspect that this is the book that Mick Rock copied information from when compiling the timeline in his book Classic Queen, which was published 12 years later in 2007. Mick Rock not only copies the gangrene story (again, with no further information or citations given) but also includes a very specific reference to Brian complaining about not feeling well while on tour on April 21st, 1974 - a date which is also specifically referenced in The Early Years, again without any citation for where this information came from.

No one takes Mick Rock seriously as a good source for Queen information (beyond info about the photo sessions themselves, which is about the only thing within his scope of expertise). Now it seems like he might have copied those “facts” from this book, which means we might very well have a situation of one questionable book being copied by another until misinformation and lies get assumed to be true just because they’re in more than one place now, never mind that none of this is getting backed up by anything concrete.

Tiny details because I’m big mad about this book just in general

Maybe this is just my copy (which is a physical book, not a digital copy) but there are a lot of typos in this book. Mike Grose becomes Mike Crouse from one paragraph to the next. Words are misspelled, punctuation is missing... It’s a little jarring to see in a book that was actually physically printed up, and makes me wonder if this went through any sort of editing process whatsoever.

Conclusions, or something of the sort?

I need to admit here that I am very angry about this book, because particularly in the later chapters I think the author starts speculating about band dynamics and things from later in their career in a way that is entirely wrong and inappropriate.

However, for the most part, I did enjoy the first part of this book. Roger’s and John’s early chapters seemed to be fine (and from what I’ve been told, the information in Roger’s chapters is backed up in other, better researched, sources). The book started falling apart for me around Brian’s and Freddie’s chapters, though, and as it progressed it just kept going off the rails.

I’m actually really frustrated and disappointed by this, because there’s a lot in this book that reads like it could be true. There’s a lot here that sounds very believable, that seems to align with what others have said about the band, and that I didn’t blink twice at until the cracks started showing up and everything got called into question.

There’s nothing exactly wrong with writing a “biography” based solely on loose anecdotes, especially given that this was written in 1995 shortly after Freddie’s death and before a lot of the more contemporary sources had come out (like Brian’s books and the things him and Roger have said in more recent years).

But I do think that the author has a responsibility for doing some vetting of these stories, either by trying to verify what’s been said or making it apparent to the reader that some of the information is hearsay or has to be taken with a grain of salt. The Early Years doesn’t do that, though. This book is presenting itself as a labor of love from a tired, dedicated author who has toiled over tracking down these stories while being rebuffed by the band itself, and at no point does anything come with a caveat about what’s being said.

The author wants you read this book and assume everything in it is true. The author wants you to feel sorry for him that he couldn’t interview Queen directly, and frankly it seems like he wants you to side-eye the official Queen story (or at least question their morals and motives) in favor of agreeing with the narrative that he presents.

And that’s the big issue that I have with this book. Most of the information in here could very well be true - but as a reader, you aren’t given the tools you need to judge that for yourself and instead are encouraged to sympathize with the author and his work, and to take what he says as objective fact and not look at any of it too deeply.

And because of that, the entire book falls apart for me. If I know that the author is printing small details of misinformation, and I don’t have any way of verifying what is being printed here, and the author starts presenting conclusions and narratives that run counter to everything else that has been said about Queen... how can I trust that anything in this book is accurate on it’s own?

#text #long post // #ramblings

[ohhgingersnaps]

Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19

Hi y’all! I’m seeing some posts floating around about hydroxychloroquine and I just want to present some data, because there is a bunch of misinformation out there and I think it’s good and important to be well-informed!

Obviously, part of the issue here is that COVID-19 is such a new disease and researchers just don’t have answers to a lot of questions. That’s how science works! Unfortunately, right now that means that we’re trying to make decisions while we’re also in the process of gathering data and figuring out how this disease works, so the recommendations keep shifting as new information comes in. Sawbones actually recently did this great episode on how to interpret a lot of the information/misinformation out there. They give a ton of useful info about what the different types of medical studies are (prospective vs. retrospective vs. case study), how to tell how reliable a journal article is, and so on. They also did a really great episode on hydroxychloroquine specifically (although that episode was aired in April, so we probably have newer information than what they discussed).

TL;DR There are a lot of articles out there (I’ve collected a bunch of them here). Almost all of the reliable ones I’ve found conclude that hydroxychloroquine isn’t effective in helping reduce COVID symptoms, but all of the data is still very preliminary due to the evolving nature of the situation.

Long post with a ton of references under the cut!!

A few important definitions and notes for looking at the following studies (info about the different types of studies pulled from here)...

A prospective study is the most reliable type, and it’s the type of study you probably think of when you think about a clinical trial. You take a sample population and assess their risk factors before they’re ill, and then you administer medicine/placebos, study, and collect information about the population as time progresses.

A retrospective study is based on data collected after the fact. This is still really useful, but it can sometimes become problematic if it depends on the memory of the people involved.

A case study is based on one specific person’s experience. It’s definitely better than a Twitter or Facebook post about someone’s personal experience with the virus because the story itself has been properly researched, analyzed, and vetted for inaccuracies, but one instance is never enough to provide solid data. [edit: solid enough data for policy-making, I mean.]

Things published on preprint servers (like MedRxiv) have not been peer-reviewed. This doesn’t mean that everything in those papers is a lie, but the test methods, gathered information, conclusions, and analysis of data haven’t been reviewed by other researchers to determine whether it makes sense, so always take papers published on these types of platforms with a grain of salt!

Some journals are more reliable than others, but it’s often hard to tell which ones are which if you’re not a researcher in the journal’s particular field. One useful metric is often impact factor (calculated based on how often the journal is cited vs how many articles are published), although sometimes that’s unreliable because the impact factor is usually also smaller for journals that deal with more specific fields of study. If the article itself is cited a lot, that’s also usually a good sign of reliability.

Here is just some of the Official Info (TM) I’ve been able to find...

FDA cautions against use... -- This is a press release from the FDA telling people not to use hydroxychloroquine for COVID treatments outside of a clinical trial, due to the potential for negative side effects. An FDA review of the potentially life-threatening side effects can be found here.

NIH halts clinical trials -- This isn’t an actual paper, it’s a press release, but it’s from the NIH website so I’m including it. They concluded mid-trial that hydroxychloroquine wasn’t a useful treatment and stopped the study Some more info on the study can be found on the page, although a detailed paper hasn’t been released.

The RECOVERY Initiative -- Similar to the NIH trials, these tests were stopped due to perceived lack of drug efficacy. Some additional info on the study is here. The study is associated with the University of Oxford, and their results for some other treatments are published in the New England Journal Of Medicine (NEJM) here.

And a few papers that found little to no impact on recovery...

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19 -- The NEJM is considered highly reliable and is often cited as one of the most reliable medical journals, with an impact factor of 70.670. This is a randomized clinical trial with 667 patients. The study concludes that hydroxychloroquine does not make a significant difference in the status of patients 15 days after the drug is administered.

Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19 -- I’d consider this journal reliable; its impact factor is 21.317, but it’s the most commonly cited journal in its subfield. This is a randomized double-blind trial on 491 patients with placebos. They found that there wasn’t a significant effect on non-hospitalized people with COVID symptoms and likely exposure. (Unfortunately only half had a positive test confirmation from a lab, due to the testing shortage in the US.)

Another randomized controlled study indicating no benefits in 293 non-hospitalized patients.

A paper in favor of its use...

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 -- Not a doctor, so I’m not sure about the reliability of this journal. Like, it’s published by Elsevier, but its impact factor is 3.202, which feels really low to me, so...? I’m mostly including it because I want to be balanced, and this is the article I see quoted most often in support of this drug’s use. This actually does show some improvement in the death rates of patients treated after hospitalization, with a 13% (with) vs. 26.4% (without) death rate. This is a retrospective study on 2,541 patients, but a lot of their other conclusions also run contrary to established data (ex. they report Caucasian patients as having a higher death rate). This press release has a good summary of the info in the paper.

And an interesting bonus! (Incidentally, I think Sawbones also discusses this case in their misinformation episode.)

The infamous retracted article in the Lancet -- The Lancet is probably one of the most widely-regarded medical journals, and a similar article by many of the same authors was retracted from NEJM around the same time. This study used a massive database of information on patients (Surgisphere). Interestingly, this study actually showed a negative impact on survivability, but questions about the reliability of the data arose and as a result, the paper was retracted by a majority of the authors. I include this to show the efficacy of the scientific process. We’re human beings and so the process definitely isn’t objective or perfect (the article was published in the first place, after all) but ideally, we should be calling each other out for incorrect or faulty data.

So most scientists aren’t saying that we know this drug doesn’t work! But touting it as a cure, when most of the reliable data so far is either inconclusive or negative, is actually harmful, for three reasons.

Hydroxychloroquine can cause serious, long-lasting side effects, especially if you’re not careful. Misrepresenting it as a cure will lead some people to seek it out, even outside of the clinical trials in the hospital; at least one person has already died from doing this.

As Sydnee points out in the Sawbones episode, the drug itself is necessary for some people with ongoing medical conditions (lupus, arthritis, etc), and unnecessary shortages of the drug will negatively impact them.

People keep spinning this as some “secret cure” that doctors don’t want people to know about. This makes people more likely to indulge risky behavior or disregard professional medical advice, which actively puts themselves and others at risk. Honestly, this sort of mistrust of experts is part of why the US doesn’t have this situation as under control as other countries do.

I’m a scientist but I’m definitely not a medical expert, so if anyone has corrections or additions, please feel free to add them!

#hydroxychloroquine #covid #covid-19 #ok to reblog #long post #sorry it's so long y'all!! #there's a lot of misinformation out there but hopefully this helps

[thegreatscribe]

Language and Media: Ways on How to evaluate Language use in the Media by: Van Naputo

Media is a term which covers all the means of communication which have functions such as informing, raising awareness, education, socialization, entertainment and agenda setting, including all kinds of oral, written and visual images. (“What is Media”, n.d.) Upon the dawn of technology, many types of Media came into existence; media people tried to made use of technology to still give the people the pieces of information they want to have and as time passed, people came up with different modes to provide news to the public. Based on the type of medium, their role may be different, but they all exist to communicate to the audience and affect their perceptions. Today, people do not have to travel oceans or wait for a pigeon to get the latest news, they just have to look for the different forms and types of media to find what they are looking for. (Gooseberry, n.d.) However, the media must know who their audiences are, and they must know what proper language approach to use for them to serve the best to the people.

Moreover, people must also know how to critically evaluate the media content and information since not all contents served in those different types of Media are valid.

Definition of Terms

Media linguistics is composed of two words which are “media” and “linguistics” which means it investigates the relationship between language use and public discourse conveyed through the media. (Wyss, 2019) In other words, Luginbühl (2015) stated in Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality, “Media linguistics studies how language is used in the media”

Language Register 

In linguistics it is defined as the way a speaker uses language differently in different circumstances. Think about the words you choose, your tone of voice, even your body language. You probably behave very differently chatting with a friend than you would at a formal dinner party or during a job interview. These variations in formality, also called stylistic variation, are known as registers in linguistics. They are determined by such factors as social occasion, context, purpose, and audience. (Nordquist, 2019) Language register is the level of formality with which you speak. Different situations and people call for different registers. (Eaton, 2018) According to Montano (n.d.), there are five language registers or styles: Frozen, Formal, Consultative, Casual and Intimate

Stylistics 

Stylistics is a branch of applied linguistics concerned with the study of style in texts, especially, but not exclusively, in literary works. Also called literary linguistics, stylistics focuses on the figures, tropes, and other rhetorical devices used to provide variety and a distinctness to someone's writing. It is linguistic analysis plus literary criticism. (Nordquist, 2019) In addition, Stylistics is the study of the devices in languages (such as rhetorical figures and syntactical patterns) that are considered to produce expressive or literary style. (Britannica, 2016)

Grammar 

The grammar of a language includes basic axioms such as verb tenses, articles and adjectives (and their proper order), how questions are phrased, and much more. Language cannot function without grammar. It would simply make no sense—people require grammar to communicate effectively.

Speakers and listeners, authors and their audiences must function in like systems in order to understand one another. In other words, a language without grammar is like a pile of bricks without mortar to hold them together. While the basic components are present, they are, for all intents and purposes, useless. (Nordquist, 2020)

Semiotics

Semiotics is the study of sign systems. It explores how words and other signs make meaning. In semiotics, a sign is anything that stands in for something other than itself. This lesson focuses primarily on linguistic signs.

The word 'semiotics' dates back to ancient Greece, but its use in modern linguistics was propelled in the 19th century with the research of Ferdinand de Saussure. Saussure was a Swiss linguist who contributed greatly to the study of semiotics, also sometimes referred to as semiology. (Taylor, n.d.)

Pragmatics 

Pragmatics deals with utterances, by which we will mean specific events, the intentional acts of speakers at times and places, typically involving language. Logic and semantics traditionally deal with properties of types of expressions, and not with properties that differ from token to token, or use to use, or, as we shall say, from utterance to utterance, and vary with the particular properties that differentiate them. Pragmatics is sometimes characterized as dealing with the effects of context. This is equivalent to saying it deals with utterances, if one collectively refers to all the facts that can vary from utterance to utterance as ‘context.’ One must be careful, however, for the term is often used with more limited meanings. (Pragmatics, 2006)

PRINT MEDIA

Print media refers to paper publications circulated in the form of physical editions of books, magazines, journals and newsletters. (What is the meaning of Print Media?, n.d.)

In addition, Millenger, (2018) said that, print media is the printed version of telling the news, primarily through newspapers and magazines. Before the invention and widespread use of printing presses, printed materials had to be written by hand. It was a painstaking process that made mass distribution impossible.

The following are the ways on how to evaluate Print Media in terms of:

Register

Usually, print media uses Formal Register because it is a one-way process that does not demand any quick response from the audience.

Stylistics

Print Media uses formal type of writing. Also, it gives the readers the taste of excitement for the readers to be carried unto the important part of the topic or the article. The information of the author is detailed for an easy access if the author committed some mistakes or problems in his/her published content. The articles, statements, news or etc. that are in Print Media usually have evidences that supports every claim.

Grammar

Print Media uses correct grammar: it uses formal register and formal type of writing; hence, it must contain correct grammar and of course with correct spelling. If authors will use incorrect spelling and grammar, it might affect the credibility of the news.

Semiotics

For a powerful media design, print media must use effective font styles and font sizes to capture the attention of the readers: bold and formal font style must be used. For an eye-grabber, print media must use graphics that could highlight certain parts: it should not create disastrous graphics and should relate to the topic presented.

Pragmatics

Readers are more focused on the headline before reading the entire article or news; headline is already speaking to the audience. They imply either literal meaning or sarcasm. Hence, headline sets the mood of the reader towards the media; it must create an effect to the audiences’ minds. Putting metaphorical statements, questions, quotes, full-of-feeling words will help the media have a powerful effect to the readers.

VISUAL MEDIA

Visual Media is a colloquial expression used to designate things like TV, movies, photography, painting and so on. (What are the types of effective Visual Media?, 2020) Visual media are sources of information in the form of visual representations. These can be abstractions, analogues, rough illustrations, or digital reproductions of the objects. There should be an interpretation of data, and sources may be hosted on the internet, printed in publications, displayed through broadcast media, or otherwise disseminated. (What is Visual Media and Information?, n.d.)

The following are the ways on how to evaluate Visual Media content in terms of:

Register

This type of media uses different kinds of register basing on the content. In news, it uses formal type of language register. On the other hand, movies use different types of language registers: consultative, to casual, to intimate depending on the content and the characters.

Stylistics

Visual Media is using different styles and that this type of media is exciting because it uses comparison between things: light versus dark, good versus evil, life and death, especially in movies. Though this media is using various styles, it will not be detached from its way of interpreting things and its meaning. As Weber (n.d.) said, “Images have an effect on communication. They initiate and control communication. And they change communication.”

Grammar

Visual Media uses a non-standard grammar. This type of media uses informal grammar: slang words, contractions, and new words that are not seen in the dictionary especially in movies depending on the theme or setting of the movie. Moreover, images have their own language and that sometimes they use informal grammar and sometimes, unidentified --- abstract images or paintings.

Semiotics 

In movies, signs that are shown are not that emphasized because the focus of the audience are the main characters in the movie. However, these signs: road sign, signage in malls, traffic signs and etc. are there to imply that it should be followed. Moreover, in images: photographs or paintings, there are certain signs that connotes meaning to the public audience. This type of media is more on symbolization to interpret certain things.  For example, in colors, black is a representation of mourn or sad, white for purity and peace, red for love and blue for loyalty and wisdom. However, these interpretations vary depending on your sense of geography – culture. These signs are shown in this type of media because they let the image, colors, shapes and etc. speak for itself.

Pragmatics

Images such as photographs and paintings cannot utter words because its way of communicating to the audience is by speaking through every single detail of the photograph or the painting. On the other hand, movies’ way of conveying its message is by the use of body language, gestures and how characters use stress and intonation in throwing their lines; how will they convey the message without literally implying the point.

ELECTRONIC BROADCAST MEDIA

Historically, broadcast media has been a public service, as with public radio which is funded by the government. This includes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in Canada and National Public Radio (NPR) in the United States. Broadcast media can also be private and includes advertising. Global TV and CTV are examples of commercial television. The term 'broadcast media' covers a wide range of different communication methods that include television, radio, podcasts, blogs, advertising, websites, online streaming and digital journalism. Broadcast media provides valuable information that can inform and educate and includes public service announcements, daily news, weather forecasts, interviews, and documentaries. Broadcast media is also recreational and includes reality television, situation and sketch comedies, movies, sports and advertising. (What is Broadcast Media?, n.d.) Broadcast media describes the traditional forms of media that include television and radio. Technically, the term ‘broadcast media’ can include the internet as well… (Broadcast Media Definition, 2004)

The following are the ways on how to evaluate Electronic Broadcast Media content in terms of:

Register

Electronic Broadcast Media is using formal register: not a full-blown formal register since they are not expecting feedbacks from the audience, but less formal. Sometimes, they use consultative register in asking people or experts about a certain matter.

Stylistics

Electronic Broadcasting Media uses electromechanical or electronic devices to access the content given. Moreover, they are not practicing excessive foul words and language because they are more of a family-friendly media form. Main resources of electronic media are CD-ROM, online content, slide presentations, audio recordings, video recordings and multimedia presentations. Emotional appeal and repetition are highly observed.

Grammar 

This type of media often uses correct grammar in relaying news to the audience and sometimes, their choice of words used are those surface words not the highfalutin words for the better understanding of the audience listening, watching or reading the content.

Semiotics

Electronic Broadcast Media is mainly using TV and Radio. Televisions uses two types of media: Visual (moving images, videos, clips, images) and Audio Media (sound: voice, music and etc.) On the other hand, Radio uses Audio Media, but in present times, Radio is accessing Social Media and broadcasting their news at a live setting. However, traditionally, Radio is mainly using Audio Media. This type of media --- Electronic Broadcast Media --- is presenting their news content in a hierarchical manner: from the very important (politics, economy, and the most trending topic/s) and to the least important (entertainment, sports and etc.)

Pragmatics

TV newscasters or anchors uses scripts in relaying news to the public, but some of what they are uttering in the news are in their own opinion. Some of them are speaking sarcastically to make it not so direct to point as to who or what the anchor is referring to. However, in radio, some anchormen are not sticking to the scripts given to them; they prefer speaking on whatever they want to speak: some might be biased, and some might be abstain. Sometimes, anchormen are uttering things in manners depending as to who is he/she talking to.

OUTDOOR MEDIA

It typically consists of any advertising seen outside of the home, and is primarily grouped into a few specific categories: Billboards, posters and transit etc.

The following are the ways on how to evaluate Outdoor Media in terms of:

Register

Outdoor Media sometimes uses consultative type of register. Overtime, they use casual register for them to be able grab their client or their audience for a better advertising. They use this type of register to somehow create a chill and friendly environment.

Stylistics

This type of media is mostly using figurative languages: personification, hyperbole and metaphor as it grabs the attention of the audience. Also, they make use of interrogative sentences to make the audience think about what the billboard or poster suggests.

Grammar

Billboards and posters is using limited words for it to be catchy to the audience. Hence, this type of media mostly uses informal grammar: using of contractions, slang words and they even use new morphemes --- those that are not seen in the dictionary. They have to use these informalities of the grammar because they address all types of audience; may it be from high class audience or from the lay audience.

Semiotics 

In this type of media, they use signs to give out meaning; the sign could mean its literal meaning, sometimes they use it as symbolism. Moreover, outdoor media mostly uses visuals to give an impact to what they are advertising and to give additional effect to what they want to convey.

Pragmatics

Outdoor media is using limited use of words for it to be catchy and easy to read. With that, they use different styles in conveying what they really want to convey and some of their sentence structures are different. They also use some lay terms such as new-word expressions that could attract to the audience. Also, outdoor media uses images and words with big letters for it to be readable especially in billboards.

TRANSIT MEDIA

Transit media refers to advertising placed in, on, or around modes of public transportation: buses, subways, and taxis, as well as at bus, train, and subway stations. Transit media can be a great way to reach a really diverse audience: families traveling to day cares, professionals heading to work, tourists navigating a new town, or even students making their way to a local coffee shop. (Hendricks, n.d.) 

Transit media advertising is a mass media marketing tool which mainly use public transport to display an advertisement such as displays on buses, autos, cabs, trains, or any transportation mode that consumers use to travel during the course of a day. The idea of transit advertising is not only promoting a product or service outside the vehicle but also consist of displays placed inside the vehicles. Transit is an important medium for reaching an audience of all ages and backgrounds. In the last few years Transit media advertising has become more popular than ever. (Transit Media Advertising, 2020)

The following are the ways on how to evaluate Transit Media in terms of:

Register

Transit media can use different kinds of language register, it can be formal, casual, consultative or static, depending on their target audience.

Stylistics

This type of media uses limited choice of words. Sometimes they could use either formal or informal style of writing given that is should be limited depending on what they want to convey.

Grammar

Transit Media uses informal grammar, and at times, they break some rules of grammar to make it very catchy to the audience. Since they have limited use space, they usually use contractions, slang words more often, and using new words -- expressions to exact -- for it to be easy to read; they use limited words such as 3 – 5 words.

Semiotics

This type of media would not try to overdo things since they are just posted mostly in vehicles. Hence, they do not use symbolism for the audience to not consume that much time thinking of what the content means.

Pragmatics

Transit media tend to just present what is literal than letting the audience think. However, this matter is depending on their target audience and what are they advertising.

DIGITAL MEDIA

Digital media is any form of media that uses electronic devices for distribution. This form of media can be created, viewed, modified and distributed via electronic devices. Digital media is commonly used software, video games, videos, websites, social media, and online advertising. Even though digital media is part of our everyday culture, business owners still find themselves uncomfortable with replacing their paper advertising with digital marketing services.

However, with the constant shifts in technology, one cannot deny the influence that digital media has over our way of life. It changes the way we educate, entertain, publish and interact with one another on a daily basis. And, as a result of this influence, digital media pushes the business world out of the industrial age and into the information age. We’re no longer writing things with pens on paper, but instead communicating through digital devices. (Preston, n.d.)

The following are the ways on how to evaluate Digital Media in terms of:

Register

Digital Media uses more of informal register: casual and consultative, than formal register. However, this is just depending on the content and target audience. Social Media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and etc. uses casual register and consultative, at times, even intimate register. They just use formal register when their content is for academic and professional purpose.

Stylistics

This type of media mostly uses new style of writing. For instance, in Facebook or Twitter, they tend to use more punctuation marks: commas, periods, exclamation points and question marks, to emphasize their feelings and what they want to mean; mostly, they put more emotions in posting feeds. Moreover, styles of writing in digital media would depend on the content they want to portray.

Grammar

In digital media, usage of correct grammar is not that required because most digital media users are lay people especially in Social Media. However, this will just depend on the purpose of the author or might depend on how will a person relay his/her message to the public. Digital media might use correct or incorrect grammar, but its purpose will not change but could somehow affect the perspective of the reader.

Semiotics

This type of media uses a lot of details to capture the audiences’ attention. They use graphics that are pleasing to the eye and use icons that symbolizes something in the content. Visuals are usually used in digital media to better explain the statements -- if any -- with the help of images. Moreover, with the use of texts in digital media, certain things like example if a post is encoded in all capital letters, it might mean disappointment, anger or shouting.

Pragmatics

Language use here might not be literally implied; some might use words like “HAHAHA” but does not mean that someone is happy. In this type of media, you cannot tell when someone really means what he/she want to mean, especially in text messages, posts or chats. People might mean literal; some might mean something. Hence, you should be careful in understanding and be aware in pragmatic functions to be able to communicate well.

CONCLUSION

As time passed, people came up with different modes to provide news to the public; people use different types of media to find out news, learn new things, communicate, and entertain themselves. Based on the type of medium, their role may be different, but they all exist to communicate to the audience and affect their perceptions. With the advance in technology, people can choose the type of media they want to use, no matter the time or place. Moreover, they can hear the radio while driving to work, can watch their favorite show on their phones, and they can find out any information and news on their laptops or mobile devices. Media and language can really prosper by the use of internet and by the use of technology. We just have to use those properly and religiously for it to prosper and serve its purpose. Today, people do not have to travel oceans or wait for a pigeon to get information, they just have to look for the different forms and types of media to find what they are looking for.

REFERENCES

Bean-Millenger, B. (2018, August 08). Introduction of Print Media. Retrieved from BizFluent: https://bizfluent.com/facts-6852659-introduction-print-media.html

Britannica, T. E. (2016, April 14). Stylistics. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/stylistics

Broadcast Media Definition. (2004). Retrieved from OpenPR Worldwide Public Relations: https://www.openpr.com/wiki/broadcast-media

Hendricks, B. (n.d.). What is Transit Media? - Definition, Advantages & Disadvantages. Retrieved from Study.com: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-transit-media-definition-advantages-disadvantages.html

Hobbs, L. (2020, January 2). What is outdoor media? Retrieved from Effortless Outdoor Media: https://www.effortlessoutdoormedia.com/what-is-outdoor-media/

Luginbühl, M. (2015). What does Media Linguistics Study? Retrieved from Media Linguistics: On Mediality and Culturality: http://10plus1journal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/00_OPENER_Luginbuehl.pdf

Nordquist, R. (2019, July 16). Stylistics and Elements of Style in Literature. Retrieved from ThoughtCo.: https://www.thoughtco.com/stylistics-language-studies-1692000

Nordquist, R. (2020, January 27). English Grammar: Discussions, Definitions, and Examples. Retrieved from ThoughtCo.: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-grammar-1690909

Pragmatics. (2006, November 28). Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/

Preston, L. (n.d.). What is Digital Media? Retrieved from DigitaLogic: https://www.digitallogic.co/blog/what-is-digital-media/#:~:text=Digital%20media%20is%20any%20form,social%20media%2C%20and%20online%20advertising.

Taylor, D. (n.d.). What is Semiotics? - Definition & Examples. Retrieved from Study.com: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-semiotics-definition-examples.html

Transit Media Advertising. (2020). Retrieved from Excellent Publicity: https://www.excellentpublicity.com/media/transit/default/transit-media-advertising

Weber, W. (n.d.). In brief: Media Linguistics with a Focus on Visual Communication. Retrieved from Zhaw: https://www.zhaw.ch/en/linguistics/research/media-linguistics/

What are the types of effective visual media? (2020). Retrieved from Purple Cow: https://purplecowagency.com/what-are-the-types-of-effective-visual-media/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CVisual%20Media%E2%80%9D%20is%20a%20colloquial,photography%2C%20painting%20and%20so%20on%20.&text=All%20the%20so%20called%20visual,(especially%20touch%20and%20hearin

What is Broadcast Media? (n.d.). Retrieved from Introduction to Accessible Design in Media: http://www.humber.ca/makingaccessiblemedia/modules/01/02.html

What is the meaning of Print Media? (n.d.). Retrieved from SoyangGroup: http://www.soyang.net/blog/what-is-the-meaning-of-print-media-2/

What is Visual Media and Information? (n.d.). Retrieved from Media and Information Literacy e-portfolio: https://ewikstar.wixsite.com/mil-eportfolio/visual-media-and-information

Wyss, V. (2019). Media Linguistics. Retrieved from Zhaw: https://www.zhaw.ch/en/linguistics/research/media-linguistics/

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

I don't have a tumblr account, but I want to point out something about the bandit/terrorist discussion: in book 17, Chapter 28, Visser 3 actually does call the animorphs `terrorists' when talknig to Rachel (quote: ") . So there must be another reason why he tends to use the term `bandit'.

I think there’s a no-fun-at-all explanation here, and that is that K.A. Applegate never would’ve been able to get those books published if she made certain decisions about language, such as describing the plot as “Deadbeat Dad Forcibly Recruits Preadolescent Son and Some of His Friends as Child Soldiers to Extremely Violent and Morally Questionable Terrorist Cell, Thereby Ruining Their Lives,” when instead she could describe it as “Cool Space Prince Let Us Turn Into Animals; Let’s Go Save the World!”

Anyway, there are a lot of choices with language that are just part of having books that appear in Scholastic catalogs.  For example, many of the earlier books avoid the words “kill” and “death” in favor of Disneyish euphemisms like “end” and “destroy.”  We eventually do get that awesome passage in #22 where Rachel says “I was going to hunt [David] down and destroy him.  No, not destroy.  That was a weasel word.  It was vague, meaningless.  I was going to kill him.”  I think that #17 similarly has the chance to slip in a little more honesty without the “terrorist” label being highly visible as a consistent plot point.

Ergo, the use of “andalite bandits” instead of “andalite terrorists” probably falls in the same category.  “Terrorist” would be an accurate way of describing the Animorphs’ behavior, especially for enemies motivated to vilify their cause.  “Insurgent” would be even more accurate, if a little technical for a kid’s book.  But using either label is also a little farther than a Scholastic work marketed as “Suitable for ages 8 - 12″ would likely be allowed to go.  This person did a great breakdown of why softer linguistic choices allow tough content to reach children by flying under the radar of “wowsers” looking to be shocked.

That said, K.A. Applegate also doesn’t have any patience at all for black-and-white thinking in her works, which is why the books don’t go all the way soft.  She doesn’t write the type of villains who would voluntarily call the enemy “andalite freedom fighters” or “the andalite resistance,” because those labels lend too much credence to the enemy cause. Visser Three might be Extra AF, but he’s also not a cackling mustache-twirling member of the Brotherhood of Evil and therefore doesn’t intentionally cast himself against the side of good.

Within the books, it’s useful for the yeerks to refer to the Animorphs as “the andalites” because it explains to the reader (without having to add even more exposition into the first couple chapters) where the yeerks think these attacking animals are coming from if not a bunch of local kids.  Plus, it’s not like the enemy would have any reason to know Marco’s made-up portmanteau for Our Intrepid Heroes.  It also sets up that AWESOME moment in the very last book where we get a controller finally shouting the word “Animorphs!” for the first time when Rachel demorphs on the bridge of the Blade ship, and she gets to claim the name and also the cause just before her death.

However, the yeerks can’t just refer to the Animorphs as “the andalites,” because that’s way too vague.  The Animorphs themselves are waiting on the arrival of “the andalites” in the sense that they’re waiting for the andalite navy to get its head out of its collective ass and send help.  Ax communicates a couple times with “the andalites” in the sense that this poor lonely kid is desperate to talk to anyone from his species and can’t really be choosy on the rare occasions he manages to do so.  Tobias and the others often refer to “the andalites” in the sense of trying to understand the culture as a whole.

So the Animorphs kinda gotta be “the andalite [SOMETHING]s” in the yeerks’ lingo.  I agree that “bandits” is technically incorrect, but more-accurate labels mostly seem too harsh (”anarchists”, “commandos”), too jargonesque (”insurrectionists”, “disestablishmentarians”), or too rose-tinted (”revolutionaries”, “abolitionists”).  I do love the idea of Visser Three calling them “the andalite guerillas” and Marco making All The Puns, but again I think that one’s a little too cartoony for the context in which it usually comes up.

Ergo: “the andalite bandits” isn’t perfect, but I think it might be the best the series can do in context.

#if someone has a better label please let me know #animorphs #yeerks #andalite bandits #visser three #language #euphemistic labeling #animorphs meta #asks #anonymous #i would like to thank thesaurus.com for all their help in making this inanity