| Author |
Message |
Jay Rayner
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:02 pm
Post subject: The Apologist |
|
|
The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
I am intrigued if not baffled by the fact that a group of people who
claim to be so intrigued by the English language and its usage that
they hang out in a group like this, should ignore the first rule of
textual analysis: read the bloody text. Every single person who held
forth on my apparent misuse of the word Apologist had done so without
reading the book to which it is the tile. You do at least admit such.
Still the point stands: broad sweeping assertions were made based on
no knowledge whatsoever.
Before we get to the word itself a couple of corrections: I was a
novelist before I was the Observer's restaurant critic, not the other
way round as one person suggested with a sneer. And dismissing my
novel as rubbish without having read it, because of whom my mother
happens to be, as one contributor did, is about as lazy as it gets.
Now to the word itself. The Apologist is about a man who decides to
apologise for everything he has ever done wrong and who becomes so
good at it he is appointed Chief Apologist to the United Nations. If
you bother to read the book you will discover - hurrah! - that the
aplogies he utters end up being exactly the opposite; fake emoitonal
events designed to avoid confronting the substantive hurts and
conflicts at the heart of human history. It is in the nature of what
he does, and the way that he does it, that he is in fact making
excuses for these events by apologising for them. Rocket science? I
don't think so. I believe it's called satire. Whether the satire is
any good is a question I leave to the critics.
You can read their views on my website: www.the-apologist.co.uk
As to the US/Canadian title, Eating Crow has nothing to do with the
verb to crow, as some ignoramus suggested. It derives from an event
during the Anglo-American war of the early 19th Century when a British
soldier hunting behind US lines, was caught by an American officer. As
an act of penance the Briton was forced to eat the single lousy crow
that he had managed to shoot. As the book is about a restaurant
critic, who begins apologising after a chef tops himself in response
to one of his reviews, perhaps the gastronomic title has earned its
place on the cover.
Then again as none of those who commented had even glanced at the
cover let alone what's inside it, how would they know? Happily
thousands of other readers did.
Jay Rayner
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Jay Rayner wrote:
| Quote: | The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention
which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who
contributed
to the original will see it.
I am intrigued if not baffled by the fact that a group of people
who
claim to be so intrigued by the English language and its usage that
they hang out in a group like this, should ignore the first rule of
textual analysis: read the bloody text. Every single person who
held
forth on my apparent misuse of the word Apologist had done so
without
reading the book to which it is the tile. You do at least admit
such. |
[...]
Interesting and informative message: thanks for taking the trouble (I
liked the crow bit a lot). The first rule of AUE analysis, however,
is probably to accept that we shoot about all over the place in a
quite uncontrolled manner; the second is that nobody should take it
personally. I doubt if anybody here who was going to read your book
was deterred (it's been on my list since I saw the first notice in
the paper: give me time!); and I dare say the discussion attracted
some who hadn't intended to, or hadn't heard about it before.
So stay cool, and good luck.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcadian Rises
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
| Quote: | From: jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
Then again as none of those who commented had even glanced at the
cover let alone what's inside it, how would they know? Happily
thousands of other readers did.
|
OY!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. W. Love
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Jay wrote:
| Quote: | I am intrigued[,] if not baffled[,]
|
Have we discussed this ambiguity before?
(1) I am intrigued, and even baffled.
(2) I am intrigued, though not baffled.
| Quote: | by the fact that a group of people who claim to be so
intrigued by the English language and its usage that
they hang out in a group like this, should ignore the first
rule of textual analysis: read the bloody text. Every
single person who held forth on my apparent misuse of
the word Apologist had done so without reading the
book to which it is the tile.
|
I don't remember the thread, but I feel your pain. Everybody knows that
publishers use titles as marketing tools, and that their choices reflect what
they believe the public will get out of words & catch phrases.
Apparently, you think people are misinterpreting the title. Over here in
America, "apologist" has but one definition: 'one who speaks or writes in
defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution' (Webster). Right now, I'm
IM'ing with a recent alumnus (age 22), who's teaching English in Thailand; I
asked him what "apologist" means, and off the top of his head he answered: "i
think it means a person who argues in justification of something." That pretty
much sums up what potential American buyers of the book would expect it to be
about.
| Quote: | And dismissing my novel as rubbish without having read
it, because of whom my mother happens to be, as one >contributor did, is about
as lazy as it gets. |
Oy!
| Quote: | As to the US/Canadian title, Eating Crow has nothing to
do with the verb to crow,
|
Obviously.
| Quote: | As the book is about a restaurant critic, who begins
apologising after a chef tops himself in response to one
of his reviews
|
Wouldn't most Americans understand "to eat crow" to mean 'to accept what one
has fought against' (Webster)? What was the publisher's argument in favor of
this title? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:18 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
| Quote: | The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
|
Certainly you can respond to the thread. It starts at
http://tinyurl.com/6oo79 with a post by John Dean about your website
and the title of your book. You can't reply individually to the posts
at that link, but you can cut and paste quotes to this thread.
You may wish to correct Adrian Bailey for mis-stating your career
path, and discuss your mother's influence on your writing with Laura
Spira.
| Quote: | As to the US/Canadian title, Eating Crow has nothing to do with the
verb to crow, as some ignoramus suggested.
|
I didn't see that that was said.
| Quote: | It derives from an event
during the Anglo-American war of the early 19th Century when a British
soldier hunting behind US lines, was caught by an American officer. As
an act of penance the Briton was forced to eat the single lousy crow
that he had managed to shoot.
|
Quinion, at http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/eatcrow.htm has the
story the other way around: an American was caught by a British
soldier behind the lines in the War of 1812. Quinion debunks the
story.
| Quote: | As the book is about a restaurant
critic, who begins apologising after a chef tops himself in response
to one of his reviews, perhaps the gastronomic title has earned its
place on the cover.
Then again as none of those who commented had even glanced at the
cover let alone what's inside it, how would they know? Happily
thousands of other readers did.
I suspect that your reason for posting here is to flog your book, but |
I don't see that as a particularly wrongful as long as some meat for
discussion is included in the post. You provided quite a bit of that.
However, the thrust of the thread you refer to had to do with the
meaning and use of "apologist". I don't see why you consider that
this is out-of-place in a usage group. There were only a few
references to the book itself. I don't feel that I am criticizing the
American version of the book just because I have pointed out above
that your research on the meaning of "eating crow" may be faulty.
It's not a bad title even if you attribute the origin of the phrase
incorrectly and have the wrong-way-round story of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Jay Rayner wrote:
| Quote: | I am intrigued if not baffled by the fact that a group of people who
claim to be so intrigued by the English language and its usage that
they hang out in a group like this, should ignore the first rule of
textual analysis: read the bloody text. Every single person who held
forth on my apparent misuse of the word Apologist had done so without
reading the book to which it is the tile. You do at least admit such.
Still the point stands: broad sweeping assertions were made based on
no knowledge whatsoever.
|
Very characteristic of aue. You need to stick around to find the true
nuggets among all the guff.
| Quote: |
Before we get to the word itself a couple of corrections: I was a
novelist before I was the Observer's restaurant critic, not the other
way round as one person suggested with a sneer. And dismissing my
novel as rubbish without having read it, because of whom my mother
happens to be, as one contributor did, is about as lazy as it gets.
|
Sneering and laziness are also to be found here. I see downthread that
two contributors have found it appropriate to offer unmannerly responses
to your message. All posts to aue are considered fair game for critique
in terms of English usage but it strikes me as rather rude to "Oy!" in
this particular context. Please accept this as a proxy apology on behalf
of those who, like me, have found your message interesting and
informative (even though it could have done with a spellcheck  )
You should be very proud of your mother. I admire her greatly and have
enjoyed her books. I look forward to reading yours.
[..]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:18 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
Certainly you can respond to the thread. It starts at
http://tinyurl.com/6oo79 with a post by John Dean about your website
and the title of your book. You can't reply individually to the posts
at that link, but you can cut and paste quotes to this thread.
You may wish to correct Adrian Bailey for mis-stating your career
path, and discuss your mother's influence on your writing with Laura
Spira.
|
Ah. Some might think I now have egg on my face. Thank you, Tony.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:30:30 +0000, Laura F Spira
<laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:18 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
Certainly you can respond to the thread. It starts at
http://tinyurl.com/6oo79 with a post by John Dean about your website
and the title of your book. You can't reply individually to the posts
at that link, but you can cut and paste quotes to this thread.
You may wish to correct Adrian Bailey for mis-stating your career
path, and discuss your mother's influence on your writing with Laura
Spira.
Ah. Some might think I now have egg on my face. Thank you, Tony.
|
Ummm. I shouldn't think it's a problem. I see nothing wrong with an
honest assessment, and the post is there for anyone to read. It's not
like I'm revealing a confidence or quoting private email. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:25:21 +0000, Laura F Spira
<laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Sneering and laziness are also to be found here. I see downthread that
two contributors have found it appropriate to offer unmannerly responses
to your message. All posts to aue are considered fair game for critique
in terms of English usage but it strikes me as rather rude to "Oy!" in
this particular context. Please accept this as a proxy apology on behalf
of those who, like me, have found your message interesting and
informative (even though it could have done with a spellcheck )
|
I didn't OY! it, but I wasn't enthralled by the "whom" in "...because
of whom my mother happens to be...". Perhaps that is standard UK
usage, but it grates on my ear. If it turns out to be considered
standard AmE usage by others, I take my crow with mustard but not
catsup.
It occurs to me that Jay doesn't have the slightest idea that he may
have been treated rudely. For all he knows, OY! could mean "Oh,
Yes!". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Jay Rayner wrote on 19 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention
which appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself.
No matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who
contributed to the original will see it.
|
We have.
| Quote: | I am intrigued if not baffled by the fact that a group of people
who claim to be so intrigued by the English language and its usage
that they hang out in a group like this, should ignore the first
rule of textual analysis: read the bloody text.
|
There was no textual analysis done. The only analysis was of the
title.
| Quote: | Every single
person who held forth on my apparent misuse of the word Apologist
had done so without reading the book to which it is the tile.
|
Yes, that's true, but some of us did bother to check out your Web
site and read the excerpt you kindly provided. We weren't all totally
ignorant of the content of the novel.
| Quote: | You do at least admit such. Still the point stands: broad
sweeping assertions were made based on no knowledge whatsoever.
|
That varied from poster to poster, but it is true.
[...]
| Quote: |
Now to the word itself. The Apologist is about a man who decides
to apologise for everything he has ever done wrong and who becomes
so good at it he is appointed Chief Apologist to the United
Nations. If you bother to read the book you will discover -
hurrah! - that the aplogies he utters end up being exactly the
opposite; fake emoitonal events designed to avoid confronting the
substantive hurts and conflicts at the heart of human history. It
is in the nature of what he does, and the way that he does it,
that he is in fact making excuses for these events by apologising
for them. Rocket science? I don't think so. I believe it's called
satire. Whether the satire is any good is a question I leave to
the critics.
You can read their views on my website: www.the-apologist.co.uk
As to the US/Canadian title, Eating Crow has nothing to do with
the verb to crow, as some ignoramus suggested.
|
That might have been an ignoramus in some other newsgroup, but
whoever it was, that ignoramus did not post in the AUE thread.
[...]
| Quote: | As the
book is about a restaurant critic, who begins apologising after a
chef tops himself in response to one of his reviews, perhaps the
gastronomic title has earned its place on the cover.
|
I said exactly that in one of my posts: "Ah, yes. He's a restaurant
critic. That's why the American edition is called _Eating Crow_." I
was referring to you, of course, and not the main character, but as
he's also a restaurant critic, the title is even more appropriate.
| Quote: | Then again as none of those who commented had even glanced at the
cover
|
There are two covers, and they are quite different. The American
edition's cover seem more appropriate. I don't remember if I saw that
back in August, though. The UK edition's cover make the protagonist
look like a man going home to apologise to his wife.
| Quote: | let alone what's inside it, how would they know?
|
While I agree that much of your ire is fully justified, some of it
falls into the "broad sweeping assertions" category. Some of us did
our homework, read the chapter-one excerpt, checked out the reviews,
and even checked out Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. Here is one
response to the question in the first post in that thread. It shows
that your assertion immediately above is not quite consistent with
objective reality:
| Quote: |
| Quote: | I've always seen 'apologist' as related to 'apologia' in the
classical sense rather than to 'apology' in the more modern
usage - one who defends rather than one who says sorry.
Am I being picky?
|
I don't think so, but none of the reviewers linked to on that Web
site complained about the misuse of either "apologist" or "eating
crow" (W3NID: " –eat crow : to accept what one has fought against :
recede from a position taken").
You do seem to be out of step with many of our denizens, however,
those who believe that the way people actually use words is the way
these words should actually be used and that, therefore, their usage
ought to be accepted as standard and, therefore, acceptable.
Is there another word he could have used?
|
But as has already been pointed out in this thread, many of the posts
in that thread were about meanings and possible usages of
"apologist" unrelated to your novel, and some were not even related
to that but to personal historical issues within the group.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
"Tony Cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:11vrp0tugojvuhj95eqiiugf5s335vc42e@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 19 Nov 2004 02:23:18 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
|
And tyvm for doing so.
| Quote: | Certainly you can respond to the thread. It starts at
http://tinyurl.com/6oo79 with a post by John Dean about your website
and the title of your book. You can't reply individually to the posts
at that link, but you can cut and paste quotes to this thread.
You may wish to correct Adrian Bailey for mis-stating your career
path, and discuss your mother's influence on your writing with Laura
Spira.
|
Have you always been such a stirrer, Tony? By what age do you think you will
have grown out of it? There's no need to patronise Mr R by telling him what
he already knows.
I humbly apologise to Mr R for perpetrating such a calumny, which was based
on information gleaned from the www. It's a shame it's not true, because it
would've provided him with an excuse.
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mickwick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, Jay Rayner wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Before we get to the word itself a couple of corrections: I was a
novelist before I was the Observer's restaurant critic, not the other
way round as one person suggested with a sneer.
|
The sneer:
Maybe Jay Rayner, being a restaurant critic turned novelist, has
little feel for the language.
Nasty!
And doubly inaccurate, as it happens. I haven't read any of your
restaurant criticism but Deborah Ross of The Spectator, for example, has
a feel for the language, most certainly. (Though that's perhaps because
she doesn't let herself get tied up with food -- or does she? Being in
the same business, you might have met her. Is she as horny and depraved
as she claims to be?)
[...]
--
Mick-'Stalker-in-waiting'-wick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:32:27 GMT, "Adrian Bailey" <dadge@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | You may wish to correct Adrian Bailey for mis-stating your career
path, and discuss your mother's influence on your writing with Laura
Spira.
Have you always been such a stirrer, Tony? By what age do you think you will
have grown out of it? There's no need to patronise Mr R by telling him what
he already knows.
I humbly apologise to Mr R for perpetrating such a calumny, which was based
on information gleaned from the www. It's a shame it's not true, because it
would've provided him with an excuse.
It didn't occur to me that you wanted to fly under the radar, Adrian. |
I hereby offer you an apology that is every bit as sincere, in every
way, as the one you offered Jay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
"Jay Rayner" <jay.rayner@observer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aea76a63.0411190223.70e23744@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
|
This is very subtle way for you to promote your book , I like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymond o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
"Jay Rayner" <jay.rayner@observer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aea76a63.0411190223.70e23744@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | The thread started back in August, about the British title of my
novel, The Apologist, has only just been brought to my attention which
appears to mean I can't reply directly to the thread itself. No
matter. I'll do so here in the hope that some of those who contributed
to the original will see it.
|
Have you tried selling it to Woody Allen? It sounds like a project he could
sink his teeth into. I'm not being sarcastic either, Chief Apologist , I
like the concept and I will look for your book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in