> wikipedia isn't very reliable in this case; "jump cut" is any disjunction
> in
> continuity caused deliberately through editing
Yeah -- it also carries a Health Warning that it's based on a single source.
> I did like the way wikipedia pointed out that there is a looser
> application
> of "jump cut" now, nearly 100 years after they were invented
Except that Wiki (or its source) may be getting this ass backwards. The
earliest (1953) cite in the OED provides a much broader definition than
Wiki. Maybe it's a case that the Wiki article has its own agenda, and the
Health Warning should be strengthened.
Seems a case for an Informed Intervention. I don't feel competent enough
with regard to the issues to suggest amendments (and it's also possible that
it's the case that the article is so flawed that it would need rewriting
from the ground up) but is there anyone on the list with a developed public
conscience who'd be willing to take this on? Maybe you yourself, Catherine?
> I find it disturbing that there would be a more strict interpretation of a
> term's application in poetry where it is more loosely applied in its own
> discipline
Well, I'm not sure that anyone other than Jeffrey is suggesting this.
Robin
|