Well, I guess I'm not done for the day just yet.
Take a look at this article about Britons who believe Robin Hood existed. I shudder to think what a similar survey of Americans would uncover. That would make for a doozy of an article, I'll wager. But don't you think that maybe the 1% who said the events of Battlestar Galactica really took place were maybe, as they say, taking the piss?
Or not. It's difficult to say.
In the tradition of caring more about fictional characters than actual world events, I have been thinking a lot about The Hobbit lately. Right now, the kind folks at TheOneRing.net are conducting a letter-writing campaign in an effort to "Let The Hobbit Happen."
Now, before I am bludgeoned to death by a plethora of plastic Sting reproductions, please let me say that I will be among the first in line to see Peter Jackson's The Hobbit should New Line get the rights sorted out. But is it just me or do other people also believe that adapting this particular novel for the screen might pose a serious logistical problem, namely concerning the presence of too many friggin' dwarves? On the page, it's easy to tell Fili from Kili and Bifur from Bofur and Ori from Dori and Nori, but how do you do that onscreen? I think the whole enterprise might disintegrate into comedy (see the Rakin/Bass adaptation), and that would be bad. Granted, The Hobbit is much more lighthearted than The Lord of the Rings. But in the LOTR trilogy, at least there was only one dwarf making cheesy, if occasionally welcome, cracks in the service of comic relief. How do you deal with 13?!
Sure, WETA's Smaug would kick ass. Plus, there are lots more spiders.
Seriously though, 13 dwarves?
Philippa Boyens, should you stumble across this page during a drunken Google rampage, I welcome any reassurances.
You can find more of the interesting word usements I structure on Apple.com.
Read my article, Better Writing Through Design, on No. 242 of A List Apart.