If You’re Not “All Right,” You’re Wrong
Lately, it’s seemed as if Entertainment Weekly has decided that since it couldn’t break celeb news faster than blogs, it would become a place where pop culture was chewed over, which would at least explain all those wretched how-I-grew-up-loving-James Bond-movies/The Big Lebowski/horror-films essays that have been polluting its pages of late.
But if there was one thing you could always count on in Time Inc. publications, it was superior copy-editing. Which is why I’m at a loss upon reading this, in Benjamin Svetkey’s Speed Racer article:
Judging from the advance footage, Speed Racer is a family film alright, but a family film that missed a couple of doses of Ritalin.
Forget the tortured simile. What made me vomit in my mouth a little bit was the spelling “alright.” Goddammit, that’s two words! ALL RIGHT! It’s in the bloody dictionary. Real dictionaries, not the fun little pretendy online ones where you can look up slang terms!
From Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition:
al•right (ôl rit) adj., adv., interj. disputed sp. of ALL RIGHT
That’s right, disputed! As in, the theory of evolution is disputed. BY DUMBASSES!
From Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright— Gertrude Stein>.
“[I]t has its defenders”: They’re called ILLITERATES! Or British journalists, which is practically the same thing. The battle over this dumb usage has been lost in Blighty; I’ll be damned if I’m gonna cede the colonies without a fight. To quote Free: All right now!



)




April 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The pot calls the kettle black. The quote from the EW story you cite is not a simile, there’s nothing be compared.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Max, I agree it stretches the definition, but neither “metaphor” nor “mixed metaphor” cuts it in this case. The likening is implicit.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I think ‘personification’ would be more appropriate in this case.
Nonstandard usage is a fair form of revolt against the language Nazis (and a fine excuse for laziness!).
April 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’m trying to figure out exactly when EW made the transition to shitty. I’ve subscribed since high school more than 10 years ago. I saw the general decline over the past couple years, but this year it has just been egregious - unnecessary use of anonymous sources (i.e. anonymously quoting someone’s opinion on Britney Spears’ hat), simpering treatment of celebs, etc. And now this alright thing…;) When do you think the transition happened?
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Entertainment Weekly is about as relevant today as a VCR player in an age of DVD Players, Blu-Ray Disc, Movies on Ipods. It clear that they aren’t the source they used to be. They can get a new staff, or just put it out of its misery.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
And the similes keep coming!
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 am
web site, walkman, alright . . . maybe dumbass will make it in there . . .