| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Catuli |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 06:38:09
I recently wrote a review of The King's Speech entitled "Stuttering abdicates the throne." I think it's faithful but a friend insists that it is inaccurate. He seems to be bogged down between the actual abdication of Edward and the methaphorical abdication of Stuttering, which I personified in my review. Am I right and he's wrong, or is it vice versa? Please offer your feedback.
|
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| clay |
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 07:32:27
He didn't stutter. He stammered.
:o) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 17:08:50
A large proportion of review decisions are puzzling. |
| Catuli |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 14:50:53
OK, thanks. If there's such confusion over an approved review, it's puzzling why it was approved. Usually, I'm kvetching over a declined review. Maybe I should just lay low.
|
| bife |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 10:50:46
ah, ok, i get the meaning.
But then sal's observation also makes sense; abdication is a conscious and deliberate act of a monarch, and as such "stuttering" cannot abdicate the throne.
I would have to agree with your 'friend' catuli |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 09:05:23
Catuli means that the stuttering goes away from (abdicates) the throne, but I didn't get it either before reading the explanation. Given that the stuttering is forced away rather than choosing to leave, I think something like "Stuttering's usurped from throne" would be better. |
| bife |
Posted - 02/02/2011 : 08:28:02
I haven't seen the film, and my 20th century british history is pretty shaky - but isn't George VI the stuttering King, and he didn't abdicate?
Do I misunderstand the review, or is my history screwy? |
