The Boston Globe: shit-free

Last week, the Dig noted The Globe’s comically priggish circumlocutions in printing the title of the new Yo La Tengo album.

The one that stood out like a sore thumb for me this week was this one, in a story about Kelley Link et. al.:

Like many genre categories, this one is a shape-shifter with an array of aliases, including “slipstream,” “new weird,” and even a variation that combines “weird” with a common scatological term.

One one hand, it feels like taking them to task for this is a little like trying to get the prissy kid to swear during recess. But really, the only reason that’s fun is because the kid is so prissy. Just saying “weird shit” somehow sounds far less offensive than “even a variation that combines ‘weird’ with a common scatological term.”

3 thoughts on “The Boston Globe: shit-free”

  1. “Weird shit,” huh? Granted, I haven’t read the Globe article in question, but it seems like a lazy, wimpy way to describe her gorgeously vivid writing. Boo, Globe.

  2. I thouht that was silly, and since they didn’t just print the term, I wondered if it was something far more offensive than “shit.” Don’t they say that on TV now? Probably anyone who’s interested in reading that far into that article can deal with seeing the word “shit” in print. If they’re so concerned about it, why not just avoid the issue entirely instead of taking up an extra line to say it without saying it?

Comments are closed.