I've just come back from the supermarket where I stopped to look at some of the novels on sale.

On the back of one of them - Josephine Cox's 'Songbird', I think it was - the blurb insists that someone's life in the book is 'irrevocably changed forever'.

Now, I'm a grovelling, still-learning, nowhere-near-getting-published writer and perhaps I shouldn't criticise those who work in the publishing industry (I'm not worthy!) - but, isn't that an outrageous tautology?!

Ah, good old tautology. Where would we be without such favorites as Domestos killing all known germs, dead? What's it doing with the rest of them? Killing them softly?


NaomiM

Somehow, though, I find it more forgiveable on a bottle of bleach than on the back of a novel!

Hee. Now I'm imagining someone being irrevocably changed for just a couple of minutes.

It reminds me of that Simpsons scene where Lisa is banned from a museum, "You're banned! And your children! And your children's children! For two weeks!"

It's because the character is immortal. Normally this phrase would imply: until death, which could always be construed as something of a change. The forever is therefore a brilliant piece of blurbing rather than redundant.

~Rod.

<Added>

p.s I intend to get to exactly 1,000 WW frequent flyer points and then never post and more of this sort of crap. I'm posting like fury to get there.

<Added>

"any more" - shame you don't get points for addendum.

It isn't tautology, but I did pick up on this gem from the Daily Telegraph blurb on the back of Sharp Teeth:

...And the romantic relationship between the human dog handler Anthony and secret shape-shifter Sasha is drawn with real tenderness...

Fair enough, except for the fact that the character Anthony has the relationship with is not called Sasha. Sasha is a different character altogether.

Does nobody check these things?

JB

Perhaps Sacha shape-shifts into the other character in order to confuse Daily Telegraph reviewers?

Well it doesn't take much to confuse Telegraph reviewers.

He he. Well, admittedly, I did have a good scoff to myself, but felt sorry for the author because it's such a good book.

I'm reading Fatal Revenant at the moment - at last. Must say I'm really enjoying it after a shaky start. I thought Linden's emotions in the opening chapters were dreadfully overdone. Only other critiicism is that I'm reaching for the dictionary on almost every page. Thetic, Carious, Paraethesis...Donaldson does love his odd words, many of which are not found in a standard dictionary and do seem to clog up the story.

JB

It's because the character is immortal. Normally this phrase would imply: until death, which could always be construed as something of a change. The forever is therefore a brilliant piece of blurbing rather than redundant.

Does the fact that the character is immortal change anything, though? If a change is irrevocable, it is irrevocable at the moment it takes place, and is not qualified by the character's death or continuing life.

You are right, to be sure. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I did immediately add a comment to my original post pointing out that I was talking crap as usual, but thanks for pointing it out again.

~Roderic

You are right, to be sure. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I did immediately add a comment to my original post pointing out that I was talking crap as usual, but thanks for pointing it out again.

I seem to have offended you, which was not my intention. I thought your reference to 'this sort of crap' meant bothering with this sort of thread and that your statement

The forever is therefore a brilliant piece of blurbing rather than redundant

was serious. Otherwise, why did you make it, then immediately make an excuse for it?

I am very new here and can't guess at the personality behind the comment, which may well be well established with older hands. Apologies if I did offend you, I have found this site very useful and many people have offered me invaluable help which I'm very grateful for. It is not my intention to offend anyone, far from it.

I don't think you offended him - I think he was saying it jokingly.

I don't think you offended him - I think he was saying it jokingly.

Perhaps, hard for me to tell.

daffy, no offence taken and I hope none given. I was just mucking about, trying to find a way to justify the nonsense on that blurb. Sorry. Fortunately, Steerpike often pops up to explain my badly aimed jokes. She's like my warder, and I thank her for it. I agree that this site is massively helpful and hope you gets lots out of being a member here. Sorry again for the confusion. Humour is difficult on the internet, especially if you are as bad at it as I am. It so often misfires. Best to ignore anything I post. Most people do.