=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 88 (3 April 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2tj] Coulisse =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2tj] Coulisse Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@ntlworld.com What do you EDliners make of the following sentence: "So, reality becomes something like a journey through a landscape of realistic looking coulisses." ? Do you think a more familiar term would be more appropriate? And if so, what term? ------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Roger Whitehead, rgw@office-futures.com hard to say just from that. The author could be intending grooved pieces of wood, sluice gates, the wings of a theatre or over-the- counter stock traders in France! What's the context and who's the intended reader? ------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Viviane Lowe, vivilowe@bluewin.ch I don't think the author could mean anything other than the wings of a theatre, filled with "realistic looking" painted stage sets and backdrops. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Gill Scobie, lsgs@interlog.com I think the best thing to do at this point is to ask the author what he or she means in this sentence! It is hard to give an answer without the context. This sentence is either very affected or just badly written. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com "Stage sets," perhaps? Not as elegant, but that would appear to be the sense here. (I had to look in the dictionary.) The sentence has other problems. Additional context would be helpful, but "reality" and "journey through" aren't sufficiently equivalent, in that "journey through" is a process, whereas "reality" is *what* the journey is through, the context of the journey. In this sentence, "reality" corresponds to the stage sets themselves, not the journey through them. *Life* would be equivalent to the journey. "Realistic looking" is a bit redundant in reference to stage sets, since the sensory mode of observing a stage set is primarily visual anyway. But "realistic" by itself isn't enough of a contrast with "reality." "Lifelike," perhaps? Finally, "landscape of stage sets" is also a little off; landscapes are what stage sets typically depict, the stage sets themselves aren't the landscape. If you substitute "stage sets" for "coulisses," the meaning of the sentence is clear enough, and it reads nicely in terms of rhythm, but the metaphor isn't couched very well. Are you just copy editing this, or doing more substantive editing? If the former, you might point out these difficulties to the author, but somehow I doubt the person who could come up with such a convoluted metaphor to start with will have much idea how to fix it! I'd definitely recommend changing "coulisses," though. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Marianne Youdale, MYoudale@aol.com I think it is a great analogy, nothing wrong, but leave the final s off. If this isn't to your liking then write 'So, reality becomes something like a journey through a landscape of a realistic looking coulisse'. No, doesn't work. ------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 March 2002 From: Viviane Lowe, vivilowe@bluewin.ch I don't know if the word has come to mean something different in English, but les coulisses in French strictly means backstage - used metaphorically in expressions like "dans les coulisses des Oscars" = backstage at the Oscars, "les coulisses de l'histoire" = the backstage of history, the unwritten history. A coulisse can not look realistic because it is not a piece of scenery or a set, but the area these are in. I would not leave the word in, but substitute either with a completely different metaphor or with some rewording around stage sets deposited in a coulisse. ------------------------- Date: Tues, 26 March 2002 From: Judy Stein, jstein@panix.com Viviane Lowe wrote: > I don't know if the word has come to mean something different > in English, but les coulisses in French strictly means > backstage - ... A coulisse can not look realistic because it > is not a piece of scenery or a set, but the area these are in. My Webster's Collegiate dictionary gives these definitions for the English term: 1 a: a side scene of a stage; also: the space between the side scenes b: a backstage area c: HALLWAY 2: a piece of timber having a groove in which something glides I'm not absolutely positive what is meant by "side scene"--it's not a term I'm familiar with in the theatrical context. I *assume* it refers to what I'd call a flat, a large flat piece of wood or wood-framed framed heavy canvas on which a is painted a landscape or architectural interior--in other words, a piece of scenery, or, more loosely, a stage set. Unless "side scene" has some technical meaning I've never encountered (and I worked in theater for many years before becoming an editor), it would seem that "stage set" is a reasonable synonym for one English meaning of "coulisse." It also appears to be what the writer of the sentence had in mind--along the lines of the standard "all the world's a stage" metaphor, or, in the Eastern metaphysical sense, "reality" as clever illusion ("maya"). But whether it is used to mean "stage sets" or "backstage," "landscape of coulisses" is at best a peculiar phrase. ------------------------- Date: Tues, 26 March 2002 From: Nick Hudson, hudson@c031.aone.net.au I'm very egocentric. If I don't understand a simile, analogy or reference, I assume that the average reader won't, and warn the author of this. Logic: either he expects us to know the word, in which case he is telling us we are pig ignorant, or he expects us not to know it, in which case he is being a smart-arse. The rival argument is that the joy it gives to the cognoscenti outweighs the distress caused to the ignorant. If the author said 'The people who matter to me will appreciate it' I would let it stand. ------------------------- Date: Tues, 26 March 2002 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@ntlworld.com Thanks for all your thoughts on the matter. The author is a non-native English speaker (a bit unfair of me not to tell you, I know), and is furthermore a psychologist. I really just wanted to find out if I was the only person sent scuttling for the dictionary by this word. Evidently not! I think I'll warn him that the word is not in common usage, then, as various of you have suggested, determine what to do on the strength of his reply. ------------------------- Date: Tues, 26 March 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au > The author is a non-native English speaker (a bit unfair of me > not to tell you, I know), and is furthermore a psychologist... Ah. A non-English speaker on two counts, then. :-? ------------------------- Date: Tues, 26 March 2002 From: Roger Whitehead, rgw@office-futures.com But is non-English a recognised language? ------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 March 2002 From: Nick Hudson, hudson@c031.aone.net.au > The author is a non-native English speaker (a bit unfair of me > not to tell you, I know), and is furthermore a psychologist. This is fascinating. The question I would like to ask is 'Where did he get it from?' A thesaurus? Experience in theatricals with a very literate amateur company? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.88 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=