Wednesday, July 01, 2009


'Hermione,' say it ain't so!


Emma Watson -- yes, I think she is a doll -- goes berzack.

Ugh. Yuck. P.U.

I liked Avril Lavigne's dark-eyed "punk" look. But it ain't Emma's thing!


Gonna have to disagree on principle. Growing up with a stage-actor father, being exposed to actors, one thing I have learned - they aren't their roles. She isn't Hermione. She is Emma. Allow her that reality.

Also, I thought the pictures were classy, well done, and she looked good. Not vampy, campy, or slutty, but tasteful and sexy without being overly suggestive.
Ick. Ick. Ptooey!
Well... I dunno. Someone can wear far too much eyeliner without being denied the reality of being themselves. ;p
Just the usual high-fashion stuff. She probably didn't have much say in the clothes and makeup--the magazine would've come up with the concept.

Like GKS said, just another role.
I have seen my father play a murderer ("Lost Horizon"), a child molester ("Bus Stop"), and the ghost of a drunken Irish Nazi-sympathizer recalled from the grave to reconcile with his son ("Da"). I can vouch that Dad is none of these things. Nor is he a philandering ladies man, the exhausted paterfamilias of a romantic comedy, or any of the other roles he has played.

He also was never in the Navy, although his old photo portfolio from the 1940's has him in a sailor costume, a double for John Barrymore, although his thin frame and pencil-thin mustache made him a ringer, a bare-chested pirate, or a Babylonian soldier.

It is one thing to say, "You know, maybe that photo-shoot wasn't the best career move you've ever made." To frame it in terms of her most well-known role, however - and without keeping in mind Kirsten's extremely valid point that the make-up and costume were most likely dictated by the editors - is to confuse the fantasy (Hermione Granger is no more real than a unicorn) and the reality (Emma Watson is a young, attractive, and ambitious actress).
Note that only the hedline refers to Hermione, mainly because not everybody knows Hermione's actual name. The text talks about Emma Watson. She said in a story I read that she knows she can't please everyone. All I'm sayin' in this light, light post is I'm one of the ones she didn't please with this photo shoot. Gah!
So, since your job is editing, how would you respond to a reaction to a story that, in sum, gives the reader a misleading impression from headline to body? Say, for example, the following, a story on "Health Care Rationing" that actually discusses the benefits of a national health care plan? Or an article on Pres. Obama's backpedaling on closing Guantanamo Bay prison that is headlined with something about bringing terrorists to out shores?

All I'm saying is the headline presented the body in a certain context. Your clarification of that context makes a certain sense; I'm simply saying that was not the way I interpreted it.
I usually tell people to try writing headlines. :-)
Sometimes, I point out to them that, in the case of a major daily newspaper, putting one out every day is the rough equivalent of writing, editing, proofing and publishing a book ever day, and then delivering it. Some days are rougher than others. :-)

As fer this blog, I'd point to the disclaimer on the masthead: "Praecipitatum verius quam editum" -- from Erasmus, which basically means "thrown together, not edited." :-)
LOLOL. Hit refresh. I've corrected the hed for the late city edition. ;-)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?