We at The Independent are justly proud of our restaurant reviews. They are always colourful and interesting, giving readers a sense of being “in the room”. But at times our enthusiasm can get the better of us, and we find that we have added too much seasoning while forgetting to follow the recipe.
This was unfortunately the case in a rich paean to London’s Chinese restaurants, where we got a bit carried away in our efforts to set the scene. “Thick curtains give way to walls adorned with tapestries, hats, plates, and instruments and a sparkly-eyed owner who will soften the prickliest of patrons,” we wrote, oblivious to the ambiguity: I do not think we intended to suggest that the proprietor was fastened to the wall, but that is the impression we gave. (It is doubtful that even a second Oxford comma would have solved the problem, but we ought to have done something.)
The article continued in much the same vein, with some vivid descriptions of meals and a peppering of grammatical mishaps along the way. It was certainly lively, but there is something to be said for moderation – and careful writing in general. In essence, it’s fine to be expressive but it’s important not to overindulge, especially if it causes us to make mistakes.
For the high jump: We appeared to endorse an unusually vigorous approach to tourism in an article that held forth on the attractions of the Slovenian town of Bled. “Then there is the charm of its older buildings, which you can appreciate on the mandatory walk around the lake. And, of course, vaulting Bled Castle, which swirls back the centuries to set the scene for a town with a history beyond tourism,” we wrote, implying that the architecture was best enjoyed while leaping over the town’s medieval fortress – which, to add to the thrill, is positioned on top of a cliff.
I think “vaulting” was intended as a description here, meaning “high” – it was used in a similar context later in the piece – but we should be cautious when using present participles as adjectives, however exciting they might sound, because it can often lead to confusion.
Absolute scenes: Like my fellow columnisers here in the E&O department, I am not averse in principle to the use of “amid”, but I do draw the line at its abject misuse; as a preposition, it is no less vulnerable than its fellows to being deployed somewhat at random. In a feature focusing on a drama about old-time America, we wrote of a well-known actor: “Perhaps that’s why she looks right at home with a shotgun broken over her elbow in 1923, the expansive Yellowstone prequel series set amid the backdrop of Prohibition-era Montana.”
A backdrop is the cloth that is hung behind the stage as part of the scenery, and this should not normally come into contact with the actors, so “amid” feels like the wrong word here. I think “against” would have been better.
Context counts: In an item in Home news in brief, we referred to “a fortysomething man who died after falling from a height onto a motorway”. The term “fortysomething” is considered informal, and is therefore fine in features or comment but not really appropriate in a news report. We should have said “a man in his forties”.
On shaky ground: An article about the apparent proliferation of sinkholes began with what would have been a clever parallel had it been worded slightly differently. Unfortunately, we didn’t get it quite right. “For most of us, sinkholes are the stuff of science fiction movies – terrifying, but infrequent. That illusion collapsed last week in Godstone, Surrey, when two five-metre-deep holes suddenly opened up in a residential street,” we said.
There are a couple of issues here. It is correct to say that sinkholes are frightening, and they are also relatively uncommon, even if (as the piece proposes) they are becoming less so. But the events of last week didn’t change either of those facts. Further, it would be fair to point out that the sorts of thing that happen in science fiction are, by the nature of the genre, not so much infrequent as wholly unexpected (especially in Surrey). As such, while the idea that sinkholes are a phenomenon that only occurs in films can reasonably be described as an illusion, it was a mistake to conflate it with some other ideas that are not illusory at all.
It was only really a question of careful phrasing – we can see what was meant – but that is what good writing is about: it has to be able to bear linguistic scrutiny, because if the logic fails, everything on top of it starts to wobble, too, and you can very quickly find yourself in a rather large hole.
On that note, I had best get back unto the breach before anything else is swallowed up in it. Until next time.
Comments
Leave a Comment