Comments on: BBC blooper

By: Chindu Sreedharan

Chindu Sreedharan — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:50:03 +0000

Kushal, not sure ‘many different’ is rhythmic though. But I agree in principle with what you are saying — interestingly, was having a backchannel discussion with another colleague, along the same lines. We were discussing if ‘tautological blooper’ is tautology — and here’s my argument (which sort of touches on the issues you raise as well — about rhythm):

…tautology can be a rhetoric device, what we *could* call ‘acceptable tautology’. For instance, ‘I killed him with my own hands’…

My point was, given that in ‘good’ writing we take care to avoid repetition, a tautological construction is an error in itself. So ‘blooper’ is actually redundant. But the word does add emphasis, red-flagging ‘tautology’ to the reader.

Guess it is the same principle of writing-tight-but-not-too-tight, allowing your constructions to breathe — lest you come across as unnatural. At least, that’s my rationale…

By: Kushal

Kushal — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:18:14 +0000

I mean, “many different versions” is not terribly wrong.

Not arguing for the sake of it, but I think there’s also an element of rhythm in writing that sometimes is as important as tightness in copy.

By: Kushal

Kushal — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:16:05 +0000

Cleaner, yes, but not terribly wrong.

By: Chindu Sreedharan

Chindu Sreedharan — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:41:16 +0000

Would be clearer, then, to say ‘Two versions’, no? Or ‘Many versions’, if there is more than two…

By: Kushal

Kushal — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:29:43 +0000

Many different versions.

As opposed to two different versions, this may not actually be a blooper. Not like A new start.