Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2004

I found it an interesting piece, incisive in places and flannelish in others. I
like the way he attacks the avant garde and the popularisers in one breath,
though he doesn't state clearly enough for me what the alternative should be.

I suspect the ellipsis is deliberate, rather than an editing error, because the
article reveals a tendency to miss out commonplace joining words.

"On the other side we have the avant-garde so desperate for transcendence they
see it everywhere . . ."

Most people would say "that they see", I suspect. But Paterson's a poet, and so
trims whatever he considers excess. Some people have cut off their little toes
for the same reason and then found it difficult to walk.

On the other hand, you may be right about the editing overall, because that
sentence in my opinion cries out for a comma after "avant-garde", though it's
not essential.

The Guardian books section received a complaint a few months ago from David
Lodge because in printing an extract from his novel about Henry James they'd
changed "Henry" to "James" throughout without consulting him - the right thing
to do for an article (with consultation, of course), but not for an extract
from a novel.

It's a wonderful supplement, though, the best of its kind in the country by
far.

Peasemarch.