That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
This week: tattoos
I’m not quite sure when I decided I really hated tattoos. I can remember a time when I was mildly interested in the idea. I think it’s the volume of tattoos I’ve seen and even more than that the volume of awful and unoriginal ‘ink’s’ that seem to be about.
I’m sure many may say that it is a strive for originality, but in this day and age there are probably more people with ink than without it. Many seem to cover themselves in it so much they end up looking like a thirteen year-old emo girl's Myspace page: all sparkling butterflies and anime characters. All that’s missing is the phrase ‘I don’t really know what to write about myself’ - although if I saw that as a tatt I’d be impressed by the wit of the bearer.
It’s something you later may regret and then you have to have lasers fry the bugger off for a few grand once you’ve decided that ‘The Wanted’ aren’t quite the soundtrack to your life.
If you do choose to go against my sound advice and go under the needle then here is a little bit of advice: avoid these top 5 ink clichés:
1.Stars. I think everyone with more than three tattoos has stars somewhere on themselves. The hallmark of mediocrity.
2.Dragons. The old-school cliché probably surrounded by fire.
3.Chinese symbols. For all you know they say ‘douche’ and you only have them to explain them to people who have run out of possible conversation topics with you: ‘Oh yeah it means honesty above all’ oh fuck off.
4.Partner’s names. Obvious reasoning.
5.Letters. Okay not really a cliché but I saw a man with a D tattooed behind his ear once and I felt my insides boiling.
Another tip, don’t tattoo your neck. Do you want to be Dappy from N-Dubz? No, not even Dappy does.
It seems the lack of originality extends from tattoos to your blogging style.
Couldn't agree more with #1
Couldn't agree more with #2. Reads like a Facebook Note.
Oh, and since you're so keen on giving style advice, here's some for you: grammar is useful in journalism, particularly the knowledge that an apostrophe is not used before the S in a plural; for example, "tattoos".
Bitching about something this obvious is easy. Find something interesting to write about.
I think the next one will be able people who pick on grammer, for which some people have more difficulty than others, rather than take an interest in the issue at hand. That is easy.
New anonymous here.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect published articles to have correct spelling and grammar (not "grammer"). If you have difficulty use spell check, or get someone to check it for you.
Because to be honest, when the first word of an article about tattoos is "tattoo's", it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
N-Dubz, not N'Duz. Jeez, didn't an editor proof-read this?
I'm surprised you can see other people's tattoos through all of the tears you seem to be crying over them, Eagles. Here's a handy tip for you: if you don't like it, don't look at it. If you wish to respond that you can't help but see tattoos when people choose to bear them then have respect for what they want to do to their bodies. It might not be what you choose but what right do you have to cast aspersions in such a manner?
These articles do get proofread, but when it is the holidays you can't expect them to be edited every single day!
...but surely whoever publishes them can proofread them once?
The writers publish their articles, and here he already acknowledged that he has difficulty with grammar, then he probably would have already proofread it himself and just not realised the mistakes!
Are you interested in proofreading for The Yorker? Contact sub_editor@theyorker.co.uk if you are!
Erm, only editors have access to the office and can therefore publish articles. Small note there.
How can someone without their own byline publish an article? That was my logic with the whole 'proofreading' thing. To be honest, any time I write something for the Yorker, even though I *can* publish it myself, I give it to someone else to read anyway. There's really no excuse.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report