32 Saturday April 9 2022 | the timesComment
Write to Feedback by emailing
[email protected] or by post to
1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GFour legal department to use
alternative terms — ballpoint pen,
plastic storage container, vacuum
flask, plastic overwrap, portable
building, waxed jacket and outdoor
activities.
We probably overwork “archetype”
if the truth be told. In the past week
we’ve applied it to football managers,
Donald Trump, political dictators,
northerners and a poster-boy for
capitalism. Nevertheless, it is a
harmless enough word, and I hope
we’re allowed to carry on deploying
it when we want to — without a
capital A or a trademark symbol ™.Purple patch
P
eter Doolan writes to say that
he served in the Metropolitan
Police from 1971 to 2001 and he
spotted a reference in Carol
Midgley’s column about Prince
Andrew to the nicknames given by
royalty protection officers. “One was
of Her Majesty — ‘The Purple One’.
Purple One was actually her police
call sign, and when she (or any other
member of the royal family) was on
the move, it was called a purple
movement. That still makes me smile
many years on.”
Yes, I can see why. I tried googling
“the purple one” and got hundreds of
results about Quality Street (it’s
everyone’s favourite, apparently)
before I found corroboration for the
police code — along with the nugget
that Princess Diana was Purple 52,
and Prince Charles Purple 45.
Who on earth could all the
numbers in between have been?Holy incorrect
W
hich brings me to our
annual reminder about
Easter. It falls to David
Kingham to do the honours this
time: “In your article about
Manchester Airport on Tuesday the
week before Easter is referred to as
‘Easter Week’. In the Christian
calendar, Easter Week is the week
commencing on Easter Day. The
week before Easter, commencing on
Palm Sunday, is Holy Week.”
With a view to saving us from the
same slip up next year, he has a
thoughtful suggestion. “Perhaps a
better description, if ‘Holy Week’ is
falling out of favour, would be ‘the
week before Easter’.”Trademarkle denied
T
here’s been mild hilarity this
week over reports that the
Duchess of Sussex has been
attempting to trademark the word
“archetypes” for some commercial
venture or other. She would surely
be unlikely to succeed, since
trademarking something requires it
to be unique, and archetypes, as
many wags have pointed out, have
been with us since ancient Greece,
Shakespeare, you name it.
Genuine trade names can be a
hazard when they’re so familiar they
feel like a generic part of the
language. Biro, Tupperware,
Thermos, Cellophane, Portakabin,
Barbour jacket and Outward Bound
are all registered trademarks
for which we are strongly advised bywe say that The Times must use the
language of its readers, we don’t
necessarily mean the language they
might be driven to in extremis.
Editors have to use common sense.
The first question we must ask is not
“Does this need asterisks?” but
“Does this need to be in the paper at
all?” There are words which are not
in themselves offensive, but which
might be being used with offensive
intent, and there are those which in
themselves, simply as words, may
offend whenever they are used. In
this context we still asterisk racist
terms and with rare exceptions —
such as if they appear in quotations
from literature — f*** and c***.
Not all readers want their
sensibilities protected and Peter
Shears, writing from Lewes, makes a
strong case for frankness. “When
reporting from Ukraine I think it is
time to stop using asterisks for the
f-word. In the words of people in
extreme danger, it expresses their
heroic defiance in a powerful and
succinct manner. The use of asterisks
suggests that users of the word are
somehow at fault. I would like to see
it published in full as a way of
bearing truthful witness to the awful
experience of all who are caught up
in this unjust and terrifying war.”
On balance, the complaints we
receive about asterisks marginally
outnumber those about swear words.
More offensive than both, to many of
our readers, are instances of casual
blasphemy — “Christ!” as an
expletive, for example. We know it
offends and we discourage it.T
his week’s papers have
contained plenty of
material, in both words and
pictures, capable of putting
anyone off their breakfasts.
Percy Grainger wrote from
Theberton, Suffolk, to say we’d spoilt
his cornflakes but in his case this
wasn’t because of the news from
Ukraine, as one might have
expected. It was the repeated
appearance of the word “shit”.
“The Times prides itself on being a
newspaper of record,” he says, “but
does that mean that you have to
print swear words in full? Surely it
would be more civilised, without
losing the meaning, to use asterisksWe can’t swear
that you’ll never
find us offensive
rather than subject readers to five
mentions of this word in the past
week.” In truth, I think he missed a
couple of examples. I make it 11 this
week, all but one of which were in
quotations. Several were in relation
to the war.
In an entry on obscenities,
profanities and vulgarities, the style
guide makes the point that these are
almost always a sign of literary
weakness, suggesting an inability to
make a point forcefully without
causing offence. Writers for this
paper are discouraged from using
four-letter words, not least because
they upset many readers, as Mr
Grainger’s email indicates.
However, if such a word is used by
someone encountering a Russian
chemical attack, or by a depressed
teenager describing her misery, it
would seem pusillanimous to place
reservations about good taste and
literary style above the immediate
experience of the speaker.
There’s a line to be drawn. WhenRos e
Wild
Feedback@timesfeedback