Out of the frying pan...

[alexpgp]

A couple of nights ago, while surfing the channels on the kids' satellite TV, Galina ran across a pitch to sign up for a pay-per-view showing of Bridget Jones's Diary. We eventually passed on that, but last night, I made a special trip to the rental place down the road and brought back a copy of the film, at Galina's request.

Personally, I've been mildly interested in the Jones phenomenon ever since the ATA conference at the beginning of November. There, I recall hearing a speaker cite Bridget Jones's Diary as an example of authentic British speech, in a presentation on the differences between British and American English.

Most folks know that some things have different names in the U.S. and England. For example, an apartment here is a "flat" there, a truck is a "lorry," an elevator is a "lift," and there are many others. There are even companies out there that offer a "translation" service between BE and AE, as they are called.

Idioms are different, too. In college, I recall a ping-pong partner newly arrived from England asking me "Shall I knock you up?" which was the source of great amusement for all concerned for half the night (he was asking if I wanted to do what we Yanks call "warm up"). It's the kind of thing that lends credence to what Winston Churchill once observed, that Britons and Americans are "kindred peoples separated by a common language." But I seriously digress...

In her presentation at the ATA conference, the speaker - among other remarks - stated that it was the Puritan ethic that kept Americans from using certain words in their workaday lives, and mentioned the dialog in Bridget Jones's Diary as an example of how real English-speakers expressed themselves. Not having read the book, I could only imagine what she meant.

Now, I can't speak to the crack about the Puritan ethic, though I suspect it's a crock. That one does not go through life with the lower lip fixed to the edge of one's upper central incisors, in perpetual readiness to say the "F" word (or one of it's cousins) seems poor evidence of religious influence. I'd put it in the same class as not forgoing the use of soap, deodorant, comb, and clean clothes in social situations. In short, most people don't use certain words, or try not to use certain words, more as a means of maintaining a level of civility and civilization than anything else. But again, I wander... and carrying a soapbox, no less...

Don't mind me.

After watching the film - and it's an eminently watchable film, by the way - I suspect that I'll have to read the book for the full "linguistic" effect, as the film's language was likely bowdlerized to mollify the flacks rating the film for release. If that is the case, I cannot imagine how the film suffered for the bowdlerization, or how the film might have been better without it.

Cheers...

Comments

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Rather obvious too. Why then do people say silly things like that? Simple. When your poverty of intellect leaves you no way of making a point but by constantly spewing expletives it might become obvious to people that you are, in fact, an idiot. So, you quickly assert that those who refrain from the overuse of such words are poor, pathetic victims, of outworn, primitive morality and, worse still, religious nutcases. Your expletives thus become the stuff of sophistication and modern, enlightened thought.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

What humors me is that such people never associate their language of Uplift, Vision, and Breadth of Mind with some of the places I've been to, which include Parris Island (among the arguably more civilized).

My position is, to put it simply, that expletives have their place and that their overuse dilutes their expletive-ness. In short, they are a spice and not a main course.

Good to hear from you, BTW. Best wishes for the morrow, and beyond.

Cheers...