Maybe it is because I am reading a book on literary style, maybe it is because I am a naturally picky bastard, maybe it is because the cold weather has woken me up. All I know is that I am shocked and a little disappointed in the free newspaper Metro today for typing errors and a happy-go-lucky approach to research and contextual presentation.
In chronological order of my noticing:
The Accused: Metro.
The Case Against:
On page six, in the article on Judith Miller, 'investigating' is spelled 'investigatiing'. The story itself is another reason to be slightly disappointed for the journalistic community, but I think I would tell anyone anything they wanted to hear after three months in prison.
I quote from the discussion-style review of Capote:
The statement could also apply to the actor who gives his most acclaimed work to date in this biopic chronicling the five and a half years the "Breakfast at Tiffany's" author spent researching and writing his critically lauded follow-up "In Cold Blood."
I can see it now...Holly Golightly jets off to Kansas and is involved in gruesome murders! A blockbuster! Erm...
I quote from the formal review of Capote:
..."In Cold Blood," a rigorously reported masterpiece about a murder in Kansas.
Can the words 'a murder' be applied to more than one murder...as in this case, where it subtly implies the killing of an entire family? Has the reviewer read the book, seen the film...or even googled it?
We do not know. But where we could assume before, now we are not certain.
Verdict: Pooheads.
Are you sure that pooheads is both factually and grammatically accurate?
Pooheads = funniest thing I have heard all day. All week in fact. I think I love you Stuart.
I'm happy with the term a murder for a multiple-murder. Although multiple-murder would have been better, obviously.
Pooheads :) I thought only my brother used that! Terrific.
As to the errors...
A murder; 'multiple murders'. In British English anyway.
And I wouldn't have classed Capote as 'rigorous'...
Karen, I'm not that huffy about the murder thing either. It's the "follow-up" comment that really gets under my skin. IT'S NOT A FOLLOW UP.
Call me a simplificalisationalist, but I've always found 'murders' to be an ample and unambiguous indicator of the plural of the event of the act of murder.
You get what you pay for. Then again I read the Times online for free, so I guess my point is therefore moot.
I'm extremely disappointed. It's past clocking off time in the UK, and no one there picked up on 'simplificalisationalist'.
Maybe if I turn that second 's' into a 'z' it will work in American English, too.
What's wrong with simplificalisationalist? I'm going to try use that word in work next week. It's more work friendly than pooheads too, but not as funky.