Notes & Asides

Dear Mr. Buckley: A suggestion for a column: an idea whose time has come-taxing the entertainment industry.

For every murder shown on screen, the studio will be taxed a percentage of the gross. And this can be expanded to an F-word surtax as well. This isn't censorship, it's just taxation.

There's no doubt that the steady stream of murders and F-words in movies and on TV has coarsened American life. But then, things may be too far gone at this point, and such an idea could probably never get off the ground.

Sincerely,

Robert Tonucci

Goodfellow AFB, Tex.

Dear Mr. Tonucci: A tremendous idea! Congratulations! The revenue of The Sopranos would be negative, never mind the murders. Will suggest this to the IRS.

Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: Have you noticed an increasing use of the word "paradigm" in NR and other intellectual journals? It is so prevalent that I have begun to anticipate it in every article.

Do writers tend to latch on to certain words that have a nice intellectual ring? What we may have here is a paradigmatic epidemic.

Yours truly,

Douglas Griffin

Birmingham, Ala.

Dear Mr. Griffin: No, no, you couldn't have a "paradigmatic epidemic." That misuse would never appear in NR.

Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: Recently in this space, you stated that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays." Not so.

When the works were first printed (individually), the space on the title pages where the author's name usually appeared was left blank. Later, the words "by William Shake-Speare" would appear. Obviously, the hyphenation indicated a pseudonym, and it had little resemblance to the Stratford man's surname of "Shaksper."

Conventional wisdom has it that William Shake-Speare was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and not the illiterate William Shaksper.

Otiosely,

John Cusick

Sun City West, Ariz.

Dear Mr. Cusick: I have no objection to your hypothesis, but it is not correct that conventional wisdom is on your side in the matter. To begin with, conventional wisdom never heard of Edward de Vere.

Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: Since you are the ultimate arbiter concerning the correct use of the English language, both my son Kieran and I look to you to referee a dispute concerning the adjective "ubiquitous."

The dictionary defines it as "seeming to be everywhere at once . . . omnipresent." My son takes exception when I say it basically means to "cover everything."

To avoid open warfare, I turn to you for the final answer and trust this note "covers everything."

Respectfully,

Jack Daly

Stony Point, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Daly:Your son is correct. It is quite intolerable, is it not, when sons are correct in family dis-putes?

My recommendation: Disown him.

Cordially, WFB

Dear Mr. Buckley: In your column, "Unscrambling Pinochet," reprinted in NR, you fail to address the diplomatic immunity under which the general was traveling.

Do you wish to do away with this protocol, or merely ignore it?

Best,

Henry Schoner

Balboa Island, Calif.

Dear Mr. Schoner: You make exactly the point NR made, as also I, in another column.

It was dastardly at once to give General Pinochet a diplomatic visa and then proceed to detain him.

Cordially,

-WFB

COPYRIGHT 2000 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group