In the New Yorker...

The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent

<< < (366/791) > >>

serious crayons:
I read Brody only occasionally, but he does seem to frequently take, as you say, John, a contrarian view. Like, "Oh, they're all saying this about that? I'll show them!" In fact, that's probably when and why I read him, because I see some reference to him sharply disagreeing with others or puncturing overhype, so I look it up and frankly sometimes I agree with his take. He also has the luxury of writing on more leisurely deadlines than Anthony Lane; he doesn't have to get his review in just as the film is opening, or to review every big film, so he can wait until everyone else weighs in and then deliver his verdict.

In this case, not having seen the movie yet, I can't judge for myself. But he does seem at odds with everybody else in the the critic community.

Jeff Wrangler:
OK, I've got another question about New Yorker usage.

In Steve Coll's editorial in the November 13 issue, I found this statement:

--- Quote ---At a minimum, as Representative Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, put it, "the Russians mounted what could be described as an independent expenditure campaign on Mr. Trump's behalf."
--- End quote ---

So, I thought--or I was taught--that when a direct quotation is a complete sentence in itself (or something like that), you capitalize the first letter of the first word. Thus:

--- Quote ---...Schiff ... put it, "The Russians mounted. ..."
--- End quote ---

On the other hand, if you write the sentence this way:

--- Quote --- ... Schiff ... put it that "the Russians mounted. ..."
--- End quote ---

Then you don't capitalize the the. I think I've seen other examples like this recently.

I wonder what's up? Is it just The New Yorker, or have the rules changed?

serious crayons:
Aside from the perennially annoying habit of putting the verb, "put it," after a long string identifying the source, I don't think that would bother me.

On the one hand, it might not have been a whole sentence. Schiff might have said "The very least we know for sure -- and I tell you this with utter certainty -- is that the Russians mounted ..." So in that case "The Russians" was not the beginning of the sentence and the writer paraphrased the first part.

But I also don't think a sentence fragment quote requires "that." I would be fine with

"At a minimum, some Trump campaign spending originated, as Schiff put it, 'with those zany Russians.'"

Meanwhile, throwing a "that" in the sentence as is, as in your example, would strike me as wordy and unnecessary, even out of place. "At a minimum, Schiff put it that "the Russians mounted ..." I think it reads better without the "that."

Jeff Wrangler:

--- Quote from: serious crayons on December 02, 2017, 10:53:34 am ---Aside from the perennially annoying habit of putting the verb, "put it," after a long string identifying the source, I don't think that would bother me.
--- End quote ---

That is annoying. but in this case it doesn't bother me because what comes before "put it" is shorter than these things sometimes are.

--- Quote ---On the one hand, it might not have been a whole sentence. Schiff might have said "The very least we know for sure -- and I tell you this with utter certainty -- is that the Russians mounted ..." So in that case "The Russians" was not the beginning of the sentence and the writer paraphrased the first part.
--- End quote ---

I'm not following you here. Surely you aren't suggesting paraphrasing something and passing it off as a direct quotation? :o

--- Quote ---But I also don't think a sentence fragment quote requires "that." I would be fine with "At a minimum, some Trump campaign spending originated, as Schiff put it, 'with those zany Russians.'"
--- End quote ---

I completely disagree with you on the "that," but maybe that's just the way I was taught by various English composition teachers, including one who was also my journalism teacher.

On the other hand, I think that your rewrite is fine. It's perfectly grammatical and correctly uses lower case for the "w" in "with." "With those zany Russians" is just a phrase, not a whole sentence. "With" doesn't need to be capitalized.

--- Quote ---Meanwhile, throwing a "that" in the sentence as is, as in your example, would strike me as wordy and unnecessary, even out of place. "At a minimum, Schiff put it that "the Russians mounted ..." I think it reads better without the "that."

--- End quote ---

I'm not following you here, either. You're saying it reads better without a "that," but you're putting in a "that." ??? I if you're going to take out the "that," then the sentence should read,"'At a minimum', as Schiff put it, 'the Russians mounted. ...'"

I note that Steve Coll is dean of the Columbia University School of Journalism, so he presumably knows what he's doing. However, I remain convinced that ;D "The" needs to be capitalized. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

And I'm blaming TNY rather than Coll.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version