July 17th, 2009 / 11:25 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Justin Taylor—
Wow. Is that even an English sentence? How can something be “cloaked” with “trappings”? It’s like a black hole of meaning, only much less interesting than that would be. Dear NYT, somebody needs to put Janet Maslin to bed.
Could you talk about why that sentence is bad? I’m having trouble seeing it. I mean, I know it’s full of book-review cliches, but it’s correct English, as far as I can tell. What’s wrong with “cloaked with the trappings”? Sort of bland language, sure, but it makes sense, doesn’t it? “Cloaked with the trappings” meaning “covered with the adornments…”? I’m pretty sure I’ve read the phrase before (usually in reviews like this, so yeah, I realize it’s a bit of a cliche…).
Could you talk about why that sentence is bad? I’m having trouble seeing it. I mean, I know it’s full of book-review cliches, but it’s correct English, as far as I can tell. What’s wrong with “cloaked with the trappings”? Sort of bland language, sure, but it makes sense, doesn’t it? “Cloaked with the trappings” meaning “covered with the adornments…”? I’m pretty sure I’ve read the phrase before (usually in reviews like this, so yeah, I realize it’s a bit of a cliche…).
There are three definitions from dictionary.com at the bottom of my comment. refer to them as needed.
Yes “covered with the adornments” makes sense. It reads like hell, but it makes sense. Look at the second definition of cloak in its verb form, as I’ve pasted below. Even we assume Maslin is using def. 3, the idea of the word is a uniform covering, which doesn’t go with “trappings,” which suggests all the little and various accoutrements that complete an outfit or an idea (see definitions of “trappings” below). “All the trappings” of say, being a pirate, would include the hat, the patch, the hook hand, the parrot, and so on. See how the offered usage of “cloaked” is “cloaked in green velvet”? Something cloaked is not all that different from something swaddled or wrapped up. It’s the absolutely inverse sense of a word like “trappings.”
But the real issue in the sentence is “straightforwardly yet.” First of all, though it technically does exist as a word (the adverb form of “straightforward”) it’s a miserable fucking word and it’s downright offensive that something so marble-mouthed was compensated by the word, then published in the paper of record. Etc. But that’s an aesthetic critique. Let’s get back to meaning. Maslin: “…written straightforwardly yet cloaked with the trappings…” In the context of the full sentence, we see that Maslin does *not* mean “cloaked” in the sense of def. 3, but rather in the sense of def. 4, “to hide or conceal.” because this is, after all, a mystery novel. It’s intended as a bad pun, I guess, but it’s not even close. Anyway, here is what Maslin is actually saying about the book: even though the prose is written in a direct and straightforward way, the story is somehow still hidden and concealed [from what, exactly?] with [not by?] some of the best-known and most obvious tropes of the genre.
Scary stuff, man.
straight⋅for⋅ward
–adjective
1. going or directed straight ahead: a straightforward gaze.
2. direct; not roundabout: a straightforward approach to a problem.
Cloak
–verb (used with object)
3. to cover with or as if with a cloak: She arrived at the opera cloaked in green velvet.
4. to hide; conceal: The mission was cloaked in mystery.
trap⋅pings
–noun (used with a plural verb)
1. articles of equipment or dress, esp. of an ornamental character.
2. conventional adornment; characteristic signs: trappings of democracy.
There are three definitions from dictionary.com at the bottom of my comment. refer to them as needed.
Yes “covered with the adornments” makes sense. It reads like hell, but it makes sense. Look at the second definition of cloak in its verb form, as I’ve pasted below. Even we assume Maslin is using def. 3, the idea of the word is a uniform covering, which doesn’t go with “trappings,” which suggests all the little and various accoutrements that complete an outfit or an idea (see definitions of “trappings” below). “All the trappings” of say, being a pirate, would include the hat, the patch, the hook hand, the parrot, and so on. See how the offered usage of “cloaked” is “cloaked in green velvet”? Something cloaked is not all that different from something swaddled or wrapped up. It’s the absolutely inverse sense of a word like “trappings.”
But the real issue in the sentence is “straightforwardly yet.” First of all, though it technically does exist as a word (the adverb form of “straightforward”) it’s a miserable fucking word and it’s downright offensive that something so marble-mouthed was compensated by the word, then published in the paper of record. Etc. But that’s an aesthetic critique. Let’s get back to meaning. Maslin: “…written straightforwardly yet cloaked with the trappings…” In the context of the full sentence, we see that Maslin does *not* mean “cloaked” in the sense of def. 3, but rather in the sense of def. 4, “to hide or conceal.” because this is, after all, a mystery novel. It’s intended as a bad pun, I guess, but it’s not even close. Anyway, here is what Maslin is actually saying about the book: even though the prose is written in a direct and straightforward way, the story is somehow still hidden and concealed [from what, exactly?] with [not by?] some of the best-known and most obvious tropes of the genre.
Scary stuff, man.
straight⋅for⋅ward
–adjective
1. going or directed straight ahead: a straightforward gaze.
2. direct; not roundabout: a straightforward approach to a problem.
Cloak
–verb (used with object)
3. to cover with or as if with a cloak: She arrived at the opera cloaked in green velvet.
4. to hide; conceal: The mission was cloaked in mystery.
trap⋅pings
–noun (used with a plural verb)
1. articles of equipment or dress, esp. of an ornamental character.
2. conventional adornment; characteristic signs: trappings of democracy.
How can a word in itself be miserable? I’m sure ‘straightforwardly’ has been used to great effect before. . . .
How can a word in itself be miserable? I’m sure ‘straightforwardly’ has been used to great effect before. . . .