Robin Hamilton wrote:
>> 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
>> I did like the way wikipedia pointed out that there is a looser
>> 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
> Well, I'm not sure that anyone other than Jeffrey is suggesting this.
Haw. When it comes to stricter interpretations of ANYthing, I'll almost
certainly be there.