5 ms·

This is reductive. Clueless is certainly not "just" a modernised version of Emma. It takes broad strokes inspiration from the plot of Emma, but the charm of the

by dbspin 2y ago

This is reductive. Clueless is certainly not "just" a modernised version of Emma. It takes broad strokes inspiration from the plot of Emma, but the charm of the film isn't something that can be reduced to the original novel. The application of a comedy of manners onto the contemporary setting, combining broad farce with naturalistic performances, skewering (while also benefiting from) consumer fetishism etc. The point here being that one could write a million bowdlerised versions of Emma and never land on a Clueless. Modern English Shakespeare translations are readily available. It takes genius to make one that rivals the original in popularity.

AlbertCory 2y ago
> This is reductive And this is a meaningless insult. One might say it needs translation into Normal People English. > The point here being that one could write a million bowdlerised versions of Emma Who cares? The point is, the plots and characters are readily adaptable into modern settings, and that IS a valid modernization of Shakespeare, as McWhorter wants. There are a million ways to do that, and godspeed to all of them. Having dukes and queens and earls speaking modern English is just stupid.
- commodoreboxer 2y ago
  "reductive" isn't an insult. And note the "just" in the parent post. It is an adaptation, but it is more than just that.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    it's a pretentious, overblown word that apparently had a burst of interest around 2012 and is completely unnecessary (but sounds scientific). What does it give you that "oversimplified" or "simplistic" does not? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=reductive&hl=en https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r... https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defining-property-of-reductive-groups-and-why-are-they-important https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defini...
    - toyg 2y ago
      Fewer letters.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        you're right: saves one character over "simplistic"
    - Affric 2y ago
      “Simplistic” isn’t too bad but “oversimplified” is a terrible word.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        I won't attribute this to Einstein: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ That word you dislike means you've violated "But Not Simpler"
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      reductive is a form of simplification, but a specific form, one in which what is discussed has been reduced to fewer (probably just one) aspect, simplification is not necessary reductive as you can have multiple aspects maintained but each of those aspects made less complex. This, at any rate, is my usage.
    - dbspin 2y ago
      I'm not sure precisely what you mean by pretension - since affecting importance makes little sense in the context. I presume you're misusing the word to refer to 'tall poppy syndrome' or similarly to the Irish colloquialism 'notions'. The word reductive is perfectly common in English writing - according to the OED it dates to the 1500s. Perhaps it's new and frightening to you because you're level of literacy is not what it might be? https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/the-literacy-crisis-in-the-u-s-is-deeply-concerning-and-totally-preventable/ https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/the-literacy-crisis-in-t... Perhaps we'd do better to cull the amount of words used? To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters? Personally I think that would be double plus ungood, but perhaps I need to brush up on my 'normal people English'. Look, sarcastic nose tweaking aside, a new word is a gift! When I come across one I add it to a list and count myself richer for having found a more nuanced understanding of how others view the world.
The_Blade 2y ago
Bowdlerize as a verb literally came from Thomas Bowdler gutting Shakespeare Ophelia was randy AF if you study her verses closer especially the "mad scene" (act 4, scene 5) Shakespeare wrote for the groundlings

by dbspin 2y ago

AlbertCory 2y ago

> This is reductive And this is a meaningless insult. One might say it needs translation into Normal People English. > The point here being that one could write a million bowdlerised versions of Emma Who cares? The point is, the plots and characters are readily adaptable into modern settings, and that IS a valid modernization of Shakespeare, as McWhorter wants. There are a million ways to do that, and godspeed to all of them. Having dukes and queens and earls speaking modern English is just stupid.

commodoreboxer 2y ago
"reductive" isn't an insult. And note the "just" in the parent post. It is an adaptation, but it is more than just that.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  it's a pretentious, overblown word that apparently had a burst of interest around 2012 and is completely unnecessary (but sounds scientific). What does it give you that "oversimplified" or "simplistic" does not? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=reductive&hl=en https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=r... https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reductive https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defining-property-of-reductive-groups-and-why-are-they-important https://mathoverflow.net/questions/321096/what-is-the-defini...
  - toyg 2y ago
    Fewer letters.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      you're right: saves one character over "simplistic"
  - Affric 2y ago
    “Simplistic” isn’t too bad but “oversimplified” is a terrible word.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      I won't attribute this to Einstein: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ That word you dislike means you've violated "But Not Simpler"
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    reductive is a form of simplification, but a specific form, one in which what is discussed has been reduced to fewer (probably just one) aspect, simplification is not necessary reductive as you can have multiple aspects maintained but each of those aspects made less complex. This, at any rate, is my usage.
  - dbspin 2y ago
    I'm not sure precisely what you mean by pretension - since affecting importance makes little sense in the context. I presume you're misusing the word to refer to 'tall poppy syndrome' or similarly to the Irish colloquialism 'notions'. The word reductive is perfectly common in English writing - according to the OED it dates to the 1500s. Perhaps it's new and frightening to you because you're level of literacy is not what it might be? https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/the-literacy-crisis-in-the-u-s-is-deeply-concerning-and-totally-preventable/ https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/the-literacy-crisis-in-t... Perhaps we'd do better to cull the amount of words used? To reduce to available pool to the most efficient use of letters? Personally I think that would be double plus ungood, but perhaps I need to brush up on my 'normal people English'. Look, sarcastic nose tweaking aside, a new word is a gift! When I come across one I add it to a list and count myself richer for having found a more nuanced understanding of how others view the world.

The_Blade 2y ago

Bowdlerize as a verb literally came from Thomas Bowdler gutting Shakespeare Ophelia was randy AF if you study her verses closer especially the "mad scene" (act 4, scene 5) Shakespeare wrote for the groundlings