I just got in trouble for using "at a remove" in a script. Looked it up, and yep, it's considered archaic/obscure.
Now I can say "at a distance," but that is not as precise for the meaning. Some days I hate being a writer.
I just got in trouble for using "at a remove" in a script. Looked it up, and yep, it's considered archaic/obscure.
Now I can say "at a distance," but that is not as precise for the meaning. Some days I hate being a writer.
That reminds me, I wrote an article about a band for a music magazine, and I had one of those conversations with the editor. "What do you mean when you say, 'They're a nervous breakdown that learned good housekeeping'?" she demanded.
"I mean that they've got a lot of musical tension between the beats, which are dance floor, and the chords and orchestration, which are avant garde."
"Well why don't you just say that?"
Sigh. Editors have no poetry in their souls. They exist merely to smash anything interesting out of an article. When I did a lot of commercial journalism, I kept myself amused by seeing how many interesting phrases or ideas I could slip past an editor per article. The answer: one or two at best, under ideal conditions (editor drunk or lazy).
Last edited by Lemur; 08-17-2012 at 17:06.
Bookmarks