Urge to kill. . . rising! We can't help it. Every time we see these "people" lurking outside of banks and supermarkets, we just want to punch them in the face--especially when they have the effrontery to speak to us! Seriously, can't we shop for our milk and Twinkies in peace! Must we put up with this harrassment?
We are speaking, of course, of people who hand out free copies of the local newspaper in front of Lucky.
We don't understand it either--our reaction, that is. If a homeless person panhandles spare change, we don't get upset. We feel sympathy. We don't actually give anything, but we feel sympathy. When someone offers us a free newspaper, though, we swallow hard against the urge to garotte.
(Digression: WOS says, "I give panhandlers money!" No, Sweetie, we're talking about those people who hand out newspapers. "Oh, yeah, I want to kill them, too." EOD)
Are we enraged at the insinuation that we can't afford to buy a newspaper? Offended by the idea that, when looking at us, these people see not a reader of the New York Times but a potential subscriber to the Podunk Pennysaver? Maybe it's just an atavistic response triggered by inherent New Yorkerdom: We become uneasy in the presence of people attempting to make human contact.
Whatever the reason, paper-hawkers beware! You have been warned!
***************************************************
Consider these two phrases:
"headstrong financial risk-taking without sufficient governmental regulation"
"reckless risk-taking unrestrained by regulation"
In many ways, the second version is superior: It's more concise, obviously. And, in fact, the second version appears in today's Times ("House Approves Tougher Rules on Wall Street").
We're bothered nonetheless by the latter's alliteration. You may remember from high-school English that alliteration is a rhetorical device wherein a sound is repeated across a series of words. Specifically, this phrase employs "consonance," alliteration of a consonant sound (in this case 'r'). Repetition of a vowel sound--as in the title of today's post--is assonance.
(Digression: We're certain that "Anonymous" will interject some quibble. To forestall: we've checked. EOD)
So what's wrong with alliteration? Nothing in and of itself. Indeed, the reporter, Carl Hulse (or at any rate his editor), utilizes it in other places: "underlying Causes of the Collapse"; "Future Bailouts of Failing Businesses"--the latter a nice example of parallelism as well. Problems arise, though, when a rhetorical device draws such attention to itself that it becomes obtrusive and distracts from the story--the most important element of a news article. This might be acceptable in a piece of creative writing, but it is out of place in a front-page item.
So says the Solipsist.
Solipsist Summarizes Situation Succintly!
ReplyDeleteAgreed re: Alliteration. I love it in creative writing, especially poetry because it sings. It's lyrical. In serious journalism? No. It takes away from the message---trivializes it.
ReplyDeleteRe: People handing out free newspapers in front of Lucky. Just say no thanks and walk on in the store. Solipsist, get a grip.
Oh, I thought you meant the Salvation Army Santa.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with the con/ass question. Indeed, I have no problem with anyone's con (although my ass...). But I DO have a problem with your premise. The PURPOSE of headlines is to SELL PAPERS. Therefore, they not only have a reason to be (what) "catchy", "cutesy", whatever. They have an OBLIGATION to do so! (How many papers do you think "Headless Body in Topless Bar", sold? Well, you're wrong! Double it!
ReplyDeleteAlso, SOME alliteration is, quite simply, conincidence. What would you use in place of "Business/Bailout" that would bespeak it better?
A) It was not in the headline.
ReplyDeleteB) We believe we were accepting of the business/bailouts thing, if only because of the parallelism.