Hey, I got a response!

A few weeks ago I wrote against Dick Cavett's wildly popular NYT article about Sarah Palin and her bad grammar. It reeked of class warfare, specifically Dick Cavett of the upper class against Sarah Palin of the lower class. Though, I did not deny that Sarah Palin didn't really answer questions, which scores her no points in my book.

I specifically took issue with, ironically, the grammar in Dick Cavett's column. If he's so high-and-mighty on grammar, shouldn't his column be Strunk and White clean? Not so! Says the new Strunk and White: Patricia O' Connor.

The grammar issue in question was this sentence above all: May I confess that upon first seeing her, I liked her looks?

To me, this looked like a declarative with a question mark. For example, on work emails I get these all the time, mostly from very-higher ups:

"This is being handled?" "I'm copying the right person on this?" (Instead of "Is this being handled?" "Am I copying the right person on this?")

Well, I wanted to ask her about what I saw as a lazy, passive question (on work emails) but I used Dick Cavett's quote, and here's what she said (note the very correct "Hi comma Wells:"



Hi, Wells,

In his Op-Ed piece for the Times, Dick Cavett wanted to say that he found Sarah Palin attractive, but he didn't want to come right out and say it. So he used two evasive constructions.

(1) He framed his first comment in the form of a question, beginning "May I confess that ...." This is a way of sneaking in a remark you're afraid might make you look bad. In essence, you're asking the reader's permission beforehand.

(2) He used a roundabout, double negative construction in his second comment: "not uncomely." In other words, "comely." Another way of evading a direct statement.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with either of these methods. But they're both intended to let you say something indirectly. In this case, Cavett used the coy phraseology to convey humor.

Pat O'Conner

So, what it comes down to is what I find to be funny or not funny. Dick Cavett: not funny, except as I said on the "Homer the Clown" episode. His humor probably appeals to the older demo that usually reads the NYT, not the Onion reading, Ali G show watching, Family Guy revering age.

But I have a taste for older humor too: I think that Garrison Keillor has a schtick that works (tho the show is too long) and I still smile remembering the antics of the late Victor Borge. Even Peter Schickele, who my parents listed to all the time, had some great riffs about big band and classical, which is NOT EXACTLY a minefield of laughs.

To me, Dick Cavett's blog postings are about as funny as Leno, without the band, studio laughs, or the economy of words. They're kind of vacuous.

But he did make me feel sorry, in his latest column, for poor Richard Widmark. The moral of Mr. Widmark's life is, if (IN A MOVIE) you push an invalid in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs, you will always be remembered for doing that. Nevermind the rest of the ouvre! You, sir, are a nasty individual.

Old Testament rules apply to theater patrons

Because the Czech riffed off of Ebert's brilliance (it comes out beautifully both when he's irked by crap or amazed by craft), I had to go to his site, to be greeted by a nice list:

Roger Ebert's top Foreign Films of 2008.

I only saw Tell No One, dogged not by reviews but by the reports of sold-out showings at the local cinemas. A foreign film, without zero-gravity martial arts, selling out? Well, it wasn't as widely distributed as Crouching Tiger, but it was popular in New York.

And, for a suspense movie, it accomplished its feat. The director takes the wheel and you're at the edge of your seat. Though as I read his praise (and agreed), I felt sad because my suspenseful moment was robbed from me. In a very empty theater (late showing on a weeknight) I sat with an old high school friend, when during the previews two ladies in their 50's or 60's sat in our row. And, they immediately started talking. I told my friend that instant that I knew they would talk throughout the movie.

Boy do I wish I was wrong about that. Not only did they intermittently break up a rather quiet, tense movie with their whispers (loud enough to determine that they were trying to piece together the plot, which movies usually do for you eventually), but they took advantage of the most tense scene in the movie (the meeting in the park scene) to whisper furiously. They must have been oblivious and perhaps a bit deaf. And I was f***ing pissed off.

So, in characteristic teapot fashion, I leaned over and hissed,

"Will you two SHUT THE F*** UP?!"

They certainly did. Too bad that my adrenaline from movie frustration was in overdrive. It was worth enjoying the rest of the movie in quiet comfort.

There are two axioms that everyone should know before going into a movie theater:

1. No one wants to hear you talk.
2. Even if you whisper, the people around you can hear you talk.

Yes, it was weird saying such vulgarities to women my mother's age, but they should know better, and that cancels it out.

Oprah's weight, not a 'big' deal

200 pounds over a 5'10" frame of a middle-aged woman? This is not a problem. I am close to 200 over a 5'7" frame and I feel like Clarence Darrow trying to convince my peers that I'm out of shame shape. From this, I can tell you that People mag's attempts to make an issue of this are totally flawed.

I'm more concerned about Oprah's yo-yo dieting, which purportedly pumps triglycerides through the arteries as they become metabolized for nutrition.

If you've been on earth for at least 14 years you've heard enough contradictory nutritional information to be able to block it out. My solution: go to the doctor almost yearly and get tests run. Because if there's one thing that's always been a problem, it's people who have treatable problems that let them go undiagnosed.

Here's a Globe and Mail article, if you're in Oprah-withdrawal. I apparently am, writing this.