John August

Words on the page

Presidential punctuation

Rave, Words on the page

Over the weekend, while my daughter slept in her stroller, I read the text of an Obama speech on my iPhone. I was struck by how clearly I could hear his voice in my head and predict where he would have put his stresses. Even after eight years of George W. Bush, I couldn’t anticipate his speaking rhythms, except to observe that he finished every sentence with either grim conviction or a wary half-smile, regardless of the content.

Obama’s inauguration speech this morning was deliberately sober, with none of the call-and-response cadence we heard on the campaign trail. It was the right choice both tonally and logistically — given the time delay to reach the back of the massive crowd, any audience chanting would have resulted in chaos.

Looking at the [full text](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/inauguration_obama_text) of the speech, I’m struck by something else: the punctuation.

> To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Yes, a semicolon.

Best known to most Americans as half of a winking emoticon, this elite and misunderstood conjoiner has a friend in Obama. Yes, he’s using it as more of an oratorial pause than a semantic adhesive. And yes, this sentence likely went through several writers before its debut. But the fact our new President feels confident using it is another small cause for celebration on this very happy day.

How do I include animated sequences?

Formatting, QandA, Words on the page

questionmarkI’m writing something at the moment which, while it is mostly live action, has scenes of animation featuring the main cast which are also occasionally intercut with live action scenes. How would you format this?

— Nic
Essex, England

When you have entire scenes that are animated, you can handle it in the slugline.

EXT. MARTIN’S HOUSE – DAY [ANIMATED]

A big, cheerful Kellogg’s sun rises behind the house. Bluebirds flutter from the trees, TWEETING a delightful melody.

If animated characters cross into the real world à la Roger Rabbit, you’ll want to consistently label them as such.

INT. LIVING ROOM – DAY

Martin opens the front door to find Karen sweaty and half-dressed on the couch. Only when she sits back do we see she’s on top of Animated Martin, who is similarly disheveled.

A long beat.

MARTIN

So the ink on the sheets..?

KAREN

The kids weren’t coloring, no.

Your goal should always be clarity. You want the reader to follow what you’re doing without dragging down the storytelling.

Today’s word: Oleaginous

Words on the page

(adjective)

1. Resembling or having the properties of oil : oily ; also : containing or producing oil
2. Marked by an offensively ingratiating manner or quality

— [Merriam-Webster online dictionary](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oleaginous)

I became aware of the word in an [EW review](http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20249555,00.html) of the new season of Damages:

> More mystery envelops yet another new character — Deadwood’s Timothy Olyphant, as an oleaginous member of Ellen’s grief-counseling group.

The writer means it in the second sense. It’s a lovely word, and a nice alternative to the similar unctuous. Another reason I’m happy to have so many words in English.

‘Wherefore’ does not mean where

Rant, Words on the page

A headline in today’s Hollywood Reporter:

> Wherefore art thou, ‘Juliet’? It’s at Uni.

The story is about a book set up at Universal. The headline is incredibly frustrating. Wherefore isn’t a fancy way of saying where. It’s a fancy way of saying why or therefore:

wherefore

As longtime readers will know, I’m generally not Mr. Stickler when it comes to word usage. I’ve gotten several terms wrong over the years, including “begging the question.” I fully understand that words change meaning over time as languages grow and adapt. English is particularly nimble in this regard, and that’s a good thing. [English is not Latin](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2005/english-is-not-latin).

So why my beef with “wherefore?”

Wherefore isn’t a modern word in any sense. Its only use is in lame callbacks to the balcony scene in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. So every time it’s misused as a synonym for “where,” the writer reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the iconic scene.

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name; or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love and I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO

(aside)

Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET

‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy: thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What’s Montague? It is nor hand nor foot, nor arm nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O be some other name!

She’s not asking where he is. She’s asking why this hot guy she’s in love with has to be Romeo, a Montague, member of the rival gang. If we were writing that line now, it would be something like:

JULIET

O Romeo, Romeo, why must thou be Romeo?

But the where/wherefore mistake is so fundamentally entrenched that we now expect Juliet to be straining at the edge of the balcony, looking out in the night with hopes of seeing her true love. It sets up the idea that she knows he’s coming, that a rendezvous has been set. It changes the scene in fundamental ways.

I’m a realist: this fight will never be won. I’m certain I’ll go to my grave having just read a headline on the Mentalinet which makes the exact same mistake. I’m calling it out simply in hopes that some of my readers might join the fraternity of people who know that it’s wrong, and will bristle when they see it.