Just got a (very, very) short piece into Nailpolish Stories… It’s called “Time for Wine,” and the piece is as long as this blog post.
Quips, Retorts, and Reproofs in Shakespeare
I was just reading Shakespeare’s As You Like It (because that’s the kind of classy guy I am) when I got tripped up on some of Touchstone’s dialogue in Act V, scene iv, but after giving the matter some thought, I think I’ve figured it out. Of course, Shakespeare scholars will likely say either A) Duh! or B) that I got it completely wrong, but anyone who’s in a high school English class and found this post by Googling something like “Shakespeare WTF?” or “As You Like It Touchstone” may find the following explanation edifying.
Here’s the passage in question:
I did dislike the
cut of a certain courtier’s beard: he sent me word,
if I said his beard was not cut well, he was in the
mind it was: this is called the Retort Courteous.
If I sent him word again ‘it was not well cut,’ he
would send me word, he cut it to please himself:
this is called the Quip Modest. If again ‘it was
not well cut,’ he disabled my judgment: this is
called the Reply Churlish. If again ‘it was not
well cut,’ he would answer, I spake not true: this
is called the Reproof Valiant. If again ‘it was not
well cut,’ he would say I lied: this is called the
Counter-cheque Quarrelsome: and so to the Lie
Circumstantial and the Lie Direct.
And here’s my interpretation of different types of replies that Touchstone is talking about:
- Retort Courteous: We agree to disagree.
- Quip Modest: I don’t care what you think.
- Reply Churlish: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
- Reproof Valiant: You’re wrong.
- Counter-cheque Quarrelsome: You’re lying.
- Lie Circumstantial: You’re lying to suit your own ends.
- Lie Direct: You’re an out and out liar.
In any case, I hope this is helpful for anyone out there who’s studying this play, reading it for fun, or planning to see a live production.
Typos in the Times
I just spotted the following blurb on the front page of the latest online edition of The New York Times:
Clearly we don’t care as much about proofreading as our forefathers did, either; the phrase “dumber that our forefathers” should be “dumber than our forefathers.”
The irony, of course, is that the sentence is making a claim regarding contemporary ideas about intelligence. We still am smartly! this blurb all but screams.
There was probably a time not too long ago when any article shared with a readership as wide as that of The New York Times would pass before a copy editor before publication. At the very least, the author might give it a quick glance to make sure all the words–all 26 of them!–were spelled correctly. But in today’s fast-paced world, the art of editing seems to have gone out the window. We’ve sacrificed accuracy for speed.
Needless to say, I’m not pointing out anything new here. What’s more, I know I make loads of typos in my blag posts and emials on a regular basis. The difference, though, is that I’m not the Times. For one thing, I don’t charge for my online content. For another, my blog, despite what I’d like to believe in moments of grandeur, is not a journal of record.
All of this is just to say that I expect a little more from a news source like The New York Times. I realize that the 24-hour news cycle has changed the way news is gathered and reported, but is it really too much to ask of The New York Times to proofread the material that goes on the front page of their website?
