Noted for future reference: I almost invented a word today on [Twitter](http://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1512219349):
I say “almost,” because while I can’t find any earlier use on [Twitter itself](http://twitter.com/timeline/home#search?q=twitchforks), the term shows up twice in [Google](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=twitchforks&btnG=Search) results.
So close.
BTW, I’m using Twitter more. If you’re interested, you can follow me [@johnaugust](http://twitter.com/johnaugust/).
One of the random quirks of language that pops up. Fill in the blank:
JOHN
Who opened my mail?
MARY
Sorry. I did it __ accident. I just wasn’t paying attention.
If you said “on accident,” you’re very likely under 30 years old.
In fact, among Americans in that age group, it’s becoming more common than the traditional “by accident.” And linguists [don’t know why](http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_4/barratt16.htm):
> Finally, why “on accident” arose is also unclear. Obviously, “on purpose” may have played a role in supplying an analogical form (I didn’t break the window on purpose; I broke it on accident). But “by accident” and “on purpose” have existed for hundreds of years without one causing the other to change prepositions, and we don’t hear “by purpose,” so why did the change happen when it did and why did the change have the direction it did rather than the other way round (in other words, to “by accident” & “by purpose”)?
My hunch? Start looking at popular kids’ TV shows and see when they started using it.
I’m writing a comedy where two main characters are discussing Michael Bay films. One hates the man and his work, the other is more neutral.
Is this okay and considered “fair”, to talk/discuss/rant about a person like Michael Bay (or Uwe Boll, or Nicholas Cage etc.)? Do you need permission from them?
— James
Feel free to have your characters discuss Michael Bay. Say good things; say bad things; say what you want. It’s pretty hard to cross into libel territory when you just have dialogue about somebody famous like Mr. Bay. Consider what South Park or Family Guy get away with every week.
Is it “fair?” I’d say that as long as it’s funny, you’re fine. When it stops being funny and is simply mean-spirited, you risk alienating your reader. Go and The Nines refer to some real people, not always in a flattering way, and I’ve gotten no objections.
Where you get into trouble is when you take potshots at someone who is not a public figure, like that weird girl in health class. Not only is it legally unwise to call out Millie Walker by name, it’s also unconscionably lame. So don’t do that.
Back to Mr. Bay for a sec: Keep in mind that there’s a difference between referring to a real person in a movie and making a movie about that person.
If you were writing a bio-pic of Michael Bay (Born in Slow Motion: The Michael Bay Story), you would need either his cooperation or significant legal reassurance that whatever protections you were counting on (public record, parody, whatever) could really hold up in court.
Last week in my [post about Redbox](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/redbox-video-and-economics), I reminded readers that video retailer Blockbuster is always rumored to be circling the drain, yet somehow always survives. So I wouldn’t count it out. However…
Yesterday, they filed with SEC, noting “substantial doubt” about their [ability to continue](http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=6529771-95381-162916&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-09-073613):
> The risk that we may not successfully complete this refinancing and obtain the related amendment of certain financial covenants included therein, and/or the risk that we may not have adequate liquidity to fund our operations as a result of not meeting our projected financial results, even if the refinancing is completed within the time and upon the terms contemplated, raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.
That’s a very long sentence.
I’m not rooting against Blockbuster. If they’re going to fail, I’d rather they do it at a time when the economy was healthy and their many employees could find jobs. But I’m curious what happens if they do go under.
That’s a tremendous number of used DVDs suddenly flooding onto the market, and a huge DVD buyer that suddenly disappears.