Language desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 2

Odd punctuation for the subtitle for the film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

This question is about the title of the film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). What's with the odd punctuation? Does it mean/signify anything? The parentheses seem misplaced. If it were grammatically correct, it should be Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). No? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of odd. But if you look at the size and placement of the words on the movie poster, it might make more sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the poster. I am not sure what you mean. The poster has the title on three lines. Line 1 = Birdman; Line 2 = or; and Line 3 = (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). Line 3 could have easily been the same as it is, minus the parentheses. So, I don't understand what you mean by referring to the poster, size, placement, etc. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Birdman" is in large type. The "or" and the parenthetic line under it are in much smaller type, almost like afterthoughts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. My issue is not with the layout, per se. My "issue" is with the parentheses. As I stated above, the last line (3rd line) could have been presented the same exact way, minus the parentheses. Why add them at all? Especially in such an odd manner? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses serve to set it apart from the shorter title, communicating that it is, like Bugs says, an afterthought. No one refers to the name by its full title; even critics at the time did so only at the beginning of their reviews. It's severable from the simpler Birdman. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a style choice, done here probably for graphical effect. There isn't really any universally agreed-upon method for punctuating "or" subtitles, though. There's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (colon after "or"), Twelfth Night, or What You Will (comma before "or"), Irish Hospitality, or, Virtue Rewarded (comma both before and after), and Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (semicolon and comma). And leave it to Vonnegut to give you a subtitle within a subtitle: Slaughterhouse-Five: or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. And using the same style, Hans Brinker; or, the Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "[title] [semicolon] or [comma]" sequence seems to have predominated in the 19th century. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly is the author's reason (in general) for using a subtitle? They seem rather trivial and unimportant. They are largely forgotten. They are largely ignored. What is the author's general reason/rationale for including one? Not in this film, particularly, but just in general. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subtitle provides additional information, which can be a fact or a hint about the plot which the main title may not reveal. It was a pretty common device at one time. Consider the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, all or most of which have subtitles: HMS Pinafore, or The Lass That Loved a Sailor; The Pirates of Penzance, or The Slave of Duty; The Mikado, or The Town of Titipu. This device was also lampooned in the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons, in which every one of their episodes had two titles, one or both of which was usually an atrocious pun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There could be any number of reasons, though you're right that they tend to be forgotten in a lot of cases. "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" is still remembered by many of those acquainted with the film, I suspect. In the case of "Virtue Rewarded" (which is subtitle to a lot of stuff) and "The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance," the subtitle serves to convey the moral of the story, either as the author/creators truly see it, or in such a way as to provide an ironic twist on the narrative's "meaning" for the reader (on that note, Tess of the d'Urbervilles has a wonderful subtitle). The subtitle of Frankenstein is related to thematic concerns that, ironically, are wholly separate from what Mary Shelley had to say about the novel's purpose ("the exhibition of the amiableness of domestic affection, and the excellence of universal virtue"). If I had to bet, I'd say that explicating the moral of the story was probably the origin of the subtitle, but that's a shot in the dark on my part; I'm not a literary historian. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good food for thought. Let me digest it a bit. I never realized that half of the titles presented above (in this discussion) even had subtitles! Much to the testament of my point above, I guess. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources of poetry commented

Either online or on print, provided it's not shmoop, or similar sites, which I dislike mainly for it's informal tone.

Either line by line or not.

Is there a collection where the author centers on the poetry as such, commented about what rhetorical figures, how the poet uses language and such? (and not on the historical context, biography of the poet and so on).--Llaanngg (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When annotated, author-specific collections tend to give primarily biographical and bibliographic context for the works. The Norton Critical Editions come to mind, though they typically include a number of essays in the back that might provide "close reading" analysis more along the lines of what you're looking for. Beyond that, collections like The Norton Introduction to Literature pay much more attention to the mechanics of language and poetry than they do to biographical details or even broad historical context. This might be a little basic for your needs, but it's the closest I know to recommend. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norton also has an Introduction to Poetry which, while I've not read it, I imagine is similar to the Introduction to Literature in the way it analyzes things—"things" here meaning poetry, minus the prose and drama that the broader text includes. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does the phrase "goodness and light" mean in this context? Update: the phrase was "sweetness and light".

What does the phrase "goodness and light" mean in this context? There was a TV interview and the topic came up about the antagonistic relationship of Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly. The discussion then went on about the general relationship between journalists/reporters who cover presidential candidates and their relationships to the candidates. The interviewer (I believe, Anderson Cooper) asked another journalist: "What is your relationship with Hillary Clinton like?" The journalist gave a smug look/grin and said "Well, you know, goodness and light." What does the phrase mean in this context? What was the journalist saying? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means it was a good relationship. I believe the term may come from the Bible, where God was supposedly responsible for both, while Satan was associated with evil and darkness. (Ironic, since another once of his names, Lucifer, meant "bringer of light".) StuRat (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think he was being sarcastic. I got that from his facial expressions, tone, and mannerisms. I will see if I can find a clip of the TV interview somewhere. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He probably meant to say sweetness and light. -- BenRG (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha! He probably did indeed say "sweetness and light", now that I think about it. I probably mis-remembered and misquoted him. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just read the Wikipedia article on "sweetness and light". That sounds exactly like what the journalist was getting at: insincere courtesy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase is in circulation due to this famous song: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Do_You_Hear_What_I_Hear%3F ...yes, sarcasm, read between the lines as far as people who actually see the real Hillary Clinton lol... 68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]