Apparently, I"m not the only one slightly put off by the New York Times' use of honorifics ("Mr.," "Mrs." "Ms." etc.).
I found this exchange interesting. (The comments there are also very much worth reading.)
I agree with the writer who is being queried there that this obsessive use of honorifics feels increasingly archaic, quaint and almost parodistic.
It's not that I think there is no use for honorifics in journalism . But I feel the Times writers use these honorifics excessively. I realize this probably speaks to the idea of consistency; that is, if the writer uses it once in an article, he or she must use it throughout. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think if you find a rhythm and respect the language you can alternate somewhat. Otherwise, the honorific starts to sound like a verbal tic.
The problem is that by now we are used to the metonymic principle that the surnames of public figures represent those figures quite well. So these honorifics end up sounding a little silly, as if we were constantly bowing and introducing these figures upon their arrival at, say, an overly polite tea party.
I'm guessing the biggest argument among those marshaled by the pro-honorifics camp is probably the most superficial one: cachet. This obsessive use of honorifics certainly marks the Times as distinct. But I don't think that necessarily means it confers distinction.
I found this exchange interesting. (The comments there are also very much worth reading.)
I agree with the writer who is being queried there that this obsessive use of honorifics feels increasingly archaic, quaint and almost parodistic.
It's not that I think there is no use for honorifics in journalism . But I feel the Times writers use these honorifics excessively. I realize this probably speaks to the idea of consistency; that is, if the writer uses it once in an article, he or she must use it throughout. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think if you find a rhythm and respect the language you can alternate somewhat. Otherwise, the honorific starts to sound like a verbal tic.
The problem is that by now we are used to the metonymic principle that the surnames of public figures represent those figures quite well. So these honorifics end up sounding a little silly, as if we were constantly bowing and introducing these figures upon their arrival at, say, an overly polite tea party.
I'm guessing the biggest argument among those marshaled by the pro-honorifics camp is probably the most superficial one: cachet. This obsessive use of honorifics certainly marks the Times as distinct. But I don't think that necessarily means it confers distinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment