Jimmy Olsen

[Randy Jackson]

I was reading a story reprinted from World's Finest back during the Robin-Olsen pairing, and it made me wonder: just how old was Jimmy supposed to be? He was dating an adult woman, but was also an honorary member of the Legion Of Superheroes, which means he could not have been older than 19 (unless there were different rules for honorary members I'm not aware of, you had to be a teen to join). However, one would assume from his solo adventures that he was in his early 20's.  Presumably he had at least graduated High School. So just how old was he supposed to be?

[Hoy Murphy]

While reading the Showcase Presents World's Finest volumes a few years ago it occurred to me that in that title Jimmy was portrayed as very mature, competent, trustworthy and an important part of the team. That was very different from how he was shown in his own title.

Hoy

Philip Portelli said:

 Batman, of all people, trusted him with his secret identity!

[Commander Benson]

Hoy Murphy said:

While reading the Showcase Presents World's Finest volumes a few years ago it occurred to me that in that title Jimmy was portrayed as very mature, competent, trustworthy and an important part of the team. That was very different from how he was shown in his own title.

 

I made note of the significant difference in Jimmy Olsen's World's Finest portrayals in one of my first Deck Log Entries, in which I said:

 

Weisinger had established a detailed mythos around the character of Superman, and since World's Finest featured joint appearances of Superman and Batman, there was a certain logic in assigning Weisinger as the title’s new editor. Mort treated World's Finest as one more part of his Superman universe. He immediately moved to incorporate its tales into the Superman mythos, the highly elaborate and evolved set of science-fiction ideas that included Kandor, the Phantom Zone, the Legion of Super-Heroes, and other futuristic characters and concepts. As a result, the World's Finest story elements during Mort’s editorship leant heavily on ideas previously introduced as part of Superman's environment.

Consequently, Jimmy Olsen, one of Weisinger’s favourite elements in the Superman mythos, was promoted from simply making occasional appearances in World’s Finest Comics to becoming virtually the Man of Steel’s partner. Far more often than in the other Superman titles, Jimmy Olsen was seen to work with the Man of Steel on cases, even in World’s Finest stories that did not include the Olsen-Robin Team. Most likely, Mort had seen to the addition of Jimmy Olsen as a matter of balance. Batman had Robin, so Superman needed an opposite number for the Boy Wonder . . . .

 

Significantly---and necessarily---the maturity level and competence of Jimmy heightened in his World’s Finest appearances under Weisinger. The vainglorious and reckless Jimmy Olsen that appeared in his own title would not do in World’s Finest. In order to appear a worthy sidekick to Superman and equal partner to Robin, Jimmy had to be shown bringing his own skills and resourcefulness to the table. This Jimmy was shown to be responsible to the point where the Batman revealed his and Robin’s identities to the cub reporter in World’s Finest Comics # 144 (Sep., 1964).

Thus, readers of World’s Finest Comics saw a mature and capable Jimmy Olsen that was rarely seen in the pages of his own stories.

 

 

[Hoy Murphy]

Ha! You said it first and better!

Hoy

[Dave Blanchard]

"...the World's Finest story elements during Mort’s editorship leant heavily on ideas previously introduced as part of Superman's environment."

"Consequently, Jimmy Olsen, one of Weisinger’s favourite elements in the Superman mythos..."

leant?

favourite?

I thought you were from the United States, Commander. Was your article translated through a UK filter?

[Commander Benson]

I've always used British-variant spellings, Mr. Blanchard.  I prefer them---except in the more visually disharmonic cases, such as gaol for "jail" and kerb for "curb".  Sometimes it's a coin toss, such as spelt for "spelled", because most Americans would read spelt as "hillbilly" dialect.  But I use spelt because I expect readers to keep up with the language, and not the other 'way around.

 

 

[Dave Blanchard]

I guess I never noticed before, Commander. I work in an AP Stylebook environment, where the rules are always changing, but I've never yet seen a US styleguide suggesting that the UK spelling is preferable to the US spelling for US-based publications and/or websites. Of course, some would suggest that stylebooks themselves are an anachronism, which is an entirely different discussion.

[Commander Benson]

I, myself, have never come across a styleguide or a dictionary or a grammar book that stated that British spelling is preferable to American spelling in U.S. publications.  However, I have seen, in many of these reference books, the statement that British spellings are acceptable variants of American spellings.

 

The first time I came across this was some forty-five years ago, in a dictionary in my high-school library.  It was one of those massive tomes, weighing probably fifty pounds, that sat on its own pedastal.  This particular reference had a section of some ten pages devoted to the differences between American and British spellings and their acceptability.

 

Being the determined sort, I actually hefted that giant book and lugged it over to the photocopy machine and copied all ten of those pages, to use for future reference.  My copy of that section still rests on my desk here at home.

 

Stylebooks, as well as books on grammar and punctuation, have long been on the verge of anachronism---mainly due to the fact that only a sliver of Americans have any respect for our own language.  I can forgive typos and even an occasional glaring error in written grammar---one thing I've learned from writing my Deck Log for five years now is that one's brain synapses will misfire and the fingers will type a clearly boneheaded grammar mistake, even when the writer knows better.  It's easy to forgive that, when the bulk of the material is accurate and shows the writer's appreciation for using the right words.

 

However, I do believe that it is perfectly fair to form a low estimation of the writer's willingness to get it right when I read something in which he has added after a troublesome word this:  "(sp?)"  That tells me that he is too lazy to actually avail himself of a dictionary or an on-line resource and check the spelling himself.  And if he is too lazy to care about the accuracy of his spelling, then I have to assume he was too lazy to check the facts on any material he presents in what he writes.

 

And as for the excuse that the writer doesn't have time to check his work, I have to say . . . oh, come on!  If one is writing on line, then it doesn't take a minute to check the spelling of a word on line.  (Case in point:  a little further down, I needed to double-check the correct spelling of the word guidance; it took me eighteen seconds.)

 

Stylebooks are a necessary evil.  I understand that publications which rely on people buying their wares desire to make their material understood by the greatest common denominator of people.  That's why Newsweek may, for example, use the term "chaise lounge", rather than the correct chaise longue.  Stylebooks work on the basis of what their publishers believe people understand the best and what the people most believe is correct.  (I guess if those same publishers produced atlases, then Detroit would become the capital of Michigan.)

 

So I get it.  I understand why stylebooks do it that way; I just don't like it.  It contributes to the "dumbing down" of American grammar.  But I accept it.

 

My real bone to pick is with dictionaries.  At one time, dictionaries served as the arbitor of what was correct and proper, in terms of grammar and punctuation and, most important, in the definitions of words.  It didn't matter what everybody thought a word or phrase meant; the dictionary, backed by dozens of professional authorities with long strings of initials after their names, told you what it really meant.

 

In the last couple of decades, more and more dictionaries have abrogated their rôle as the arbitor of definitions and instead, have turned into simple listings of definitions.  In other words, not only do dictionaries list the original, proper definitions, they also include the commonly (mis)understood meanings.  This is unfortunate because dictionaries, in our society, are regarded as the "ultimate authority".  If so, then they should act like one.

 

That's why of the four unabridged dictionaries I have on my bookshelf, the oldest is from 1951; the newest is from 1973.  I generally refer to the oldest.

 

The only real way to get guidance as to the proper usage of words and to grammar and punctuation in general, is to rely on various books generated by the grammar experts.  Right next to me, within arms reach, are:

 

Common Errors in English Usage, by Paul Brians (William, James, & Co., 2007)

Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay; Practical Advice for the Grammatically Challenged, by Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis  (St. Martin's Griffin, 1999)

Lapsing Into a Comma, by Bill Walsh  (Contemporary Books, 2000)

Eats, Shoots & Leaves; the Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, by Lynne Truss  (Gotham Books, 2004)

Words You Thought You Knew . . . , by Jenna Glatzer  (Adams Media, 2004)

 

I've read them all cover to cover, at least twice.

 

I wonder if Jimmy Olsen did this?  (To get things back on topic.)

 

 

[The Baron]

Ah, Commander, I wish you could've met the Old Man, you and he have much in common in your thoughts about the sad state of our language.

[Commander Benson]

The Baron said:

Ah, Commander, I wish you could've met the Old Man, you and he have much in common in your thoughts about the sad state of our language.

 

I'm guessing that your grammar chips came off the Old Man's block---from the fact that you correctly stated it as "you and he".

 

 

[Mr. Silver Age]

Stylebooks are a necessary evil. 

Au contraire, Pierre, stylebooks are a necessary good thing. They provide consistency, at least within the unit that's being read. Like Dave, I work a lot with AP, because it's what most magazines use. But book publishers and literary and scientific journals prefer the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) for reasons I'm not sure of. The major difference I have to remember when I switch is to put a comma before the "and" for CMOS users. I don't much like it, but I can see its occasional usefulness.

A writer's goal is to be read. What he says is secondary to that. The fewer red flags he throws up through divergent (or wrong) spellings, the fewer run-on sentences and extra commas he throws in, the more chance a reader will stick around for the next sentence. My chances of doing that are better if my spellings and grammar match with those on the page before.

I agree with you that with Spell-Check and Google, there's almost no reason to be misspelling stuff, except for typos. Good spellers don't always know more words, they just know what doesn't look right.

On that basis, I disagree with your approach. Seeing "cheque" in an article would stop me and make me consider if the writer was British (or at least Canadian), or why the piece wasn't written in American English and where it came from, etc., as Dave did. Making readers stop and think about the writer isn't a good thing, IMO.

Readability is also why I like short paragraphs. If someone gets caught in a sentence and can't get out, they skip to the next stopping point for their eyes. That 's usually the next paragraph. It always boggles my mind when places like The New Yorker have paragraphs that go on for entire columns or more. That's as true for blog and Forum posts as it is for magazines.

My Pal Hoy posted a comic strip to his Facebook page that I responded to over the weekend, adding to the crimes here:

I understand that publications which rely on people buying their wares desire to make their material understood by the greatest common denominator of people.

But that's different from, as you say, giving in. Ideally, Newsweek can find a better term to use than "chaise longue" and avoid the problem. Big words sometimes are precise, but small words usually work better.

And big words used wrong are really irksome. I cringe every time I hear someone on TV say "decimate" when they mean "destroy" or "killed a bunch."

There was an article in the paper yesterday about people who use words wrong, like the newscaster who thought "canoodle" meant "to chat," and he told the female weather reporter, "Why don't we canoodle a bit before you tell us tomorrow's weather?"

My real bone to pick is with dictionaries.

I'm with you on that one. Dictionaries shouldn't be a place to vote, they should be the rules. If the dictionary decides that "decimate" colloquially can mean "destroy," then why bother with it?

-- MSA

[Commander Benson]

Craig, the anti-grammar-police camp will probably be surprised to read this, but I agree almost completely with everything you said.

 

As to stylebooks, yes, that is one thing I failed to note:  the fact that they provide consistency in writing within the unit.  That is a good thing.  If I were "Commander R. A. Benson, owner and publisher of the Daily Blah-Blah-Blah" (which would seem to be fitting because many of the famous publishorial heavyweights always seemed to be "Colonel This" or "Captain That"), then I would want everyone writing according the same rules of grammar and punctuation.  Even 'way back in my youth, the rules for writing on papyrus contained a few optional situations.  One of which was the serial comma (the one before the and).  I prefer them; you don't.  Neither of us is wrong, but Commander Benson of the Daily Blah-Blah-Blah would want everyone's prose to be on the same page.

 

So, in that case, stylebooks are a good thing.  Unfortunately, it doesn't obviate my objection to the fact that they scale down to what is, in many cases, "English for Dummies".  A writer's goal is to be read.  Of course; otherwise, why bother?  You say, big words are precise, but small words usually work better, but that, in many ways, depends on the target audience.

 

My professional writing was report-related, outlining work-related situations and conditions for those above me---usually at the flag/general rank or JCS level.  Bullet papers, point papers, operations reports, materièl evaluations, combat evaluations.  The tone of such reports is impersonal and there, one needs the precision of big words.  Even of small ones---to the Navy, there are critical differences between a wharf and a pier and a dock.  I learnt to be precise and choose my words thusly.

 

And it shows in my non-professional writing.  My Deck Log, for example.  While I make the conscious effort to make my writing more informal, I can't completely divest myself of sounding like a college professor lecturing.  It's too engraved in my brain engrams.  Your style, Craig, is more suited to the audience.  You have a more informal, more easy-going style (but still paying attention to the proper rules of grammar, punctuation, and so forth).  I enjoy it, even when it's about a particular Silver-Age topic about which I have no interest, and that means you're doing it right.

 

I agree absolutely that instead of chaise longue, both you and Newsweek are better suited to find a simpler term.  It fits your styles and your aims (to attract and keep readers).  My objection would be that, if you or Newsweek did decide to use the term, you use it correctly, as chaise longue, and not "chaise lounge". 

 

And, yes, I know that, if you did, you'd get a couple of dozen letters from the grammatically impaired telling you that you spelt "chaise lounge" wrong.  So that's why you don't use the term at all. 

 

It's also obvious, at least to me, from your writing that you know the rules of grammar---all of them; even the ones out of date---and that you choose your grammar on the basis of the styleguide and to draw in your readers.  In fact, even under my standards, I can't recall an occasion when I snorted over finding a grammatical usage I disagreed with.  (Well, except for that unfortunate "déjà vu" thing from Baby Boomer Comics.  Heh.)

 

We're mostly on the same page, my friend.  I just have the latitude to stick to my precision in my writing, or as I put it, expect the readers to keep up with the language.  Frankly, anybody who can stand reading my stuff won't be put off because I use the word enormity properly, and anyone who can't stand reading my stuff stopped a long time before I got to using enormity.  Now, if some completely insane individual offered me a fistful of bucks to write for his publication, then I'd be in the same situation as you (though your style is not just money-oriented; you believe in the principle of "reader accessability", too).  I'd have to use whatever stylebook said completely insane individual insisted upon and bend on my attention to precision.  Because, that too is part of being a professional writer of that stripe.

 

Lastly, your "canoodle" story reminded me of a similar gaffe that happened to me several years ago.  It was back when I was a cop, but already married to the Good Mrs. Benson.

 

The district in which I patrolled shared a radio circuit with the neighbouring district.  Therefore, I could hear the calls assigned over the net to units in that district.  That particular district had a street named Trysting Drive.

 

Now, for those who came in late, the "Trysting" in Trysting Drive comes from the word tryst.  It's both a noun and a verb.  As a noun, it means an agreement to meet with someone, usually made between lovers to do some canoodling.  As a verb, it means to engage in said meeting and requisite canoodling.

 

It's pronounced with a short "i"---kind of like the "tri---" in trip followed by "sting".  Yet, over the radio net, I was constantly hearing it pronounced, incorrectly, with a long "i"---as "Try" (as in the word try) followed by "sting".

 

Naturally, I couldn't let that go by, and one particular night, the dispatcher on the circuit happened to be a new hire.  A sweet, pleasant young lady (who happened to be quite fetching of face and form, which only adds to the end of the story).  What I liked about her was that she was good at her job.  A cop's life is often in the hands of his dispatcher.  She was new, but made up for a lot of her inexperience by working hard, learning as much as she could, and paying very close attention to detail.

 

That night, I took upon myself to go up to Communications, and I mentioned to her how "trysting" was correctly pronounced.  She was glad to learn the right way to say it.  That's how dedicated she was to doing her job right.

 

What I didn't tell her is what trysting meant.  I probably should have.

 

For the next few weeks, whenever Trysting Drive came up in a radio call and she was the dispatcher, she pronounced it correctly.  One night, after doing so, she sent a CAD message to my car's computer.  "Did you notice that I pronounced 'Trysting' right?" she asked.

 

"Yep.  It was spot-on," I typed back.

 

"I can't help it," she replied.  "Whenever I see 'Trysting', I think of you."

 

 

[Mr. Silver Age]

I agree that you have to know your audience. I'm pretty loose with my writing and wordplay (and the occasional pun) in CBG. But even for Hogan's Alley, I tighten it up some, and it's much more strict for most of my business writing.

The difference being that in business articles, the writer isn't supposed to be noticed, just what I'm writing about. So I don't want to stand out with fancy phrasing and words that are precise but not well known. When it's my column, all bets are off.

 I prefer them; you don't.  Neither of us is wrong, but Commander Benson of the Daily Blah-Blah-Blah would want everyone's prose to be on the same page.

They are both acceptable to someone, but I *am* wrong when I use it the wrong way for the wrong publisher. As you say, whenever style questions some up, I don't usually care what they decide as long as they tell me and it's consistent.

A comma in a series, to me, takes the place of the word "and." So a comma AND the word "and" is redundant. Commas also make people stop for a moment, and I take out commas whenever possible as a result. But there are times in complicated series when it helps to have that comma there, and AP says use it "when necessary," which is a big help.

A writer's goal is to be read.  Of course; otherwise, why bother? 

It's obvious, but a lot of people don't consider it or make it easy. So their points don't matter. Even some posters here don't seem to realize that nobody HAS to read what they've written if it's too dense or too, um, full of ellipses and exclamation points, if you know what I mean.

You say, big words are precise, but small words usually work better, but that, in many ways, depends on the target audience.

Big words and jargon are different, though, as is precision. The differences in pier, dock, etc. were important to your audience, and so precision was necessary. But those weren't big words, just precise. Seldom does any group get "decimated," yet I hear it a lot because they think it means "really killed a lot" and it sounds cool. That's where it goes off the rails.

When I'm reading the newspaper and a writer uses some adjective I've never heard of, they've reached too far.

The more you know about things, the harder it is to hear things wrong. I deal a lot with construction, and it pains me to hear so many people talk about falling on the cement sidewalk. Let's not even mention the vast number of newspapers that think, even after four movies, that it's "Spiderman" and don't bother to check.

-- MSA