The English Major: Discretionthe better part of valour since 1598

Time to put my tuition fees to good use. In a spate of nerdery, I rebranded an old post with a new Pocketfish category. Without further ado, may I present the inaugural post of The English Major, where I get militantly uptight and anal retentive about literary things that matter very little. I also get to use big words!

What has become a severe point of consternation to me in recent years is the disregard for the subtle discrepancies between the words discrete and discreet. The blithe denial of any difference between the two in some writers (accomplished ones at that) is symptomatic of our socio-cultural climate of writin' the way I talk (not to be confused with the satire that is LolSpeak).

The misguided lexical belief is that if two words look the same and sound the same, they must be the same. This is most prevalent in Canadian schools due to the fact that Canadian English has no identity; is it British or American? is it -our or -or? English itself is but a pastiche of neighbouring tongues. While some nationalities command an iron-cld control over what makes it into their lexicon, it has been said that English is the language that mugs other languages in dark alleys for their words. Small wonder that the swapping of two letters in words so similar can cause such confusion unbeknowst to the hapless writer.

The goal of the English Major, then, is to cast light upon such errors (and allow me to be, momentarily, a self-righteous pissant like a Pharisee of phonology).

Discrete and discreet are discreetly discrete words.
Discrete and discreet are homophones. They both sound ('phone') the same ('homo-') when spoken outloud. As these are not words commonly employed in colloquial communication, when one chooses to do so, one gets confused because both are accepted by spell checkers.

From Dictionary.com
discrete: adj.
1. apart or detached from others; separate; distinct: six discrete parts.
2. consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous.

discreet: adj.
1. judicious in one's conduct or speech, esp. with regard to respecting privacy or maintaining silence about something of a delicate nature; prudent; circumspect.
2. showing prudence and circumspection; decorous: a discreet silence.
3. modestly unobtrusive; unostentatious: a discreet, finely wrought gold necklace.

The English Major salutes all those that now understand the distinction between discrete and discreet. If you see such error in your future travels, discreetly make the correction.

Frank Lee's Peking Duck

Quack.
I'm feeling oronymical.
My Chinese math teacher always laughed when he assigned us question 6c.

The Midterm of Moderate Monotony about Me

1. I like...
A. Acrostic Poetry
B. Big butts and I cannot lie
C. Crenellations
D. Dinosaurs

2. How many concussions did I have in my first 10 years?
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 5

3. I once had to take a time out because...
A. I threw an orange on to the school roof
B. I was braiding the hair of the girl in front of me
C. I got into a fight over $2
D. All of the above

4. What instrument does my boss play?
A. Piccolo
B. Bassoon
C. Glockenspiel
D. Viola

5. What is my softball uniform number?
A. 42
B. 17
C. 13
D. 24

6. What is my favourite Microsoft Office application?
A. Excel
B. Word
C. Powerpoint
D. Outlook

7. Which Pokemon starter did I always choose?
A. Bulbasaur
B. Charmander
C. Squirtle
D. Pikachu

8. Which superhero would I rather be?
A. Spider-Man
B. Iron Man
C. Superman
D. Batman

9. What was my job title in Grade 8?
A. Social Relationship Counselor
B. Mild-mannered Student
C. Player
D. Unemployed

10. Who do I profess to like?
A. Amy Adams
B. Emma Watson
C. Jenna Fischer
D. Alysson Hannigan

BONUS: Short Answer
In six words, describe why I use Opera.

The Plan: holding course

On Tuesday, Apple launched the latest iteration of the MacBook line. Nerds and non-nerds alike are now gawking, gushing and griping at length about the virtues and slip-ups of these pricey slabs of metal.

As mentioned back in February, and detailed further in April, the MacBooks (and Pros) have been redesigned. They are now being manufacturered with a process pioneered by the advent of the MacBook Air in which the notebook shells are carved out of a solid piece of metal. Watch the video about this engineering feat.

For the uninitiated, here's what's new and awesome in the design:

• Looks like an iMac and a MacBook Air did naughty things
• Fully metal chassis, with the primary piece carved from a solid block of aluminum, makes for a very sturdy and svelte design
• 0.95" thick
• No more palmrest cracks or lid warpings
• Magnetic 'latch', just like the one that's been on my computer for 3 years
• MacBook Air keyboard, with backlighting on 3 of the 4 models
• Massive glass touchpad-button
• Easy-to-reach hard drive
• Battery indicator on the side

Reviews are trickling in; Apple fans are laudatory and delirious, Apple not-fans are snippy and dismissive. I, for one, like what I've seen so far and what it means for my (not evil) Plan. Envelopes were pushed.

Here's the run-down of what this latest offering means for my next way-too-well researched purchase:

Distinctions Blurred
The MacBook and the MacBook Pros once looked worlds apart. One was plastic and the other was metal. One had budget basic components, the other had the best that could be crammed into something 1" thin. Now, the two look identical, save for size, a few ports and speaker holes. The same unibody build quality, and very nearly the same underlying hardware means the MacBook is essentially a MacBook Pro Jr. For those that never needed the MBP's power but would go for it because of it's superior build, you can now safely pursue a more fiscally responsible purchase. What this means for me around this time next year is that my decision will be far tougher. I wanted to go MBP, but now, if the price is right(er), I can go MB without losing anything in build quality.

nVidia 9400M chipset
Apple has done away with the Intel chipset and their woebegone integrated graphics solution and upgraded to a company that actually knows graphics. For the same power consumption, MacBooks now have approximately 5x the graphics processing power as the previous model. Of course this chipset is fledgling, only officially released by nVidia the day after Apple's notebook event and nVidia's chipset track record is far less stellar than Intel's standards-setting level of reliability. It also means Apple's notebook refreshes cannot be predicted as easily as these past 4 years. Intel's roadmap is bared for all to see 2 or 3 years in advance. They churn out updates like clock work. Every 6 months there is either a new CPU (Q1) or a new chipset (Q3), and notebook makers follow about 2 weeks behind.

So will Apple have a newly updated computer ready for me this time next year? Maybe. Their next OS is slated to ship Oct. 09. What better way to launch Snow Leopard than with refreshed notebooks?

Dedicated to Graphics
Speaking of Snow Leopard, the hardware choices made in this redesign speak to the software advances Apple hopes to make with their next OS. They are aiming to harness the processing prowess of GPUs to work in tandem with the already over-powered CPUs and rebuild their software to take advantage of the hardware by cutting off the cruft required for historical compatabilities (PowerPC). Having stronger graphics solutions in their machines allows the software to take immediate advantage.

Good enough to buy now?
The MacBook got a significant upgrade from the previous model. The build quality exceeds the plastic one in more ways than us non-engineers are aware of. Its hardware is actually comparable to the MacBook Pro now while staying several hundred dollars cheaper. The MacBook Pro on the other hand, did not gain quite as much relative to what the MacBook was given, but still maintains a very high standard of quality that would be hard to equal with another brand at this price range.

I'm scheduled to make a purchase around this time next year. I will be keeping an eye out for signs of things to come. They will likely be upgraded in March/April with the latest Intel CPUs (Nehalem) and with hardware fixes for the bugs that inevitably crop up after a few months of use. If the update after that does not hold any significant gains, I will pony up during Back to School to score an iPod out of the mix. Otherwise, I will stay the course and (finally) switch when Snow Leopard arrives.

Movie Review: Once (2007)

If anyone asked me what kind of music I preferred to listen to, I'd say, "acoustic." As far as genres go, "acoustic" is more of a technical style, rather than a musical style. I like it because it strips away all the musical crutches available to an artist -- post-production editing, mistake-covering electrical instrumentation, overwhelming rhythms -- and exposes the singer, instrumentalists and the song itself for what they are. It's pretty easy to tell when a song or singer is not that good once those elements are taken away. By the same token, it is very easy to tell when a song or singer is most excellent when unplugged.

Such is the case with Once, an independent Irish musical film shot and produced on what essentially was an independent budget. The actors had one appearance's worth of experience between them all. The aforementioned budgetary contraints also meant no fancy sets, no fancy costumes, no Hollywood pretties and next to no lighting. If ever there was an 'acoustic' film, this was it.

In this way, Once is either a love-it, or hate-it kind of movie. Some people watch movies to be blown away by boobs and bombs, or other shallow gimmicks designed to hook you in. Once is a film that requires a patient audience that can see beneath the surface and truly experience a story for what it is.

At its core, Once is like a Chekovian short story: a tale of broken people going through the motions of their lives until a chance encounter sets them on a new path for a brief period of time. The two leads are unnamed, down-and-out musicians who cross paths one day in the shopping district of Dublin, Ireland, where the Guy is busking on his worn-out guitar, trying to make some extra cash for a trip to London to win back the girl he writes songs about. The Girl is a poor Czech immigrant working a number of menial jobs to support her family. A broken vacuum cleaner brings them together and out of their shells. Fixing the vacuum cleaner at the father of the Guy's vacuum cleaner repair shop allows them to begin helping each other fix themselves.

The one element of this film with polish is, naturally, the music. Performed and written primarily by the two leads, Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, the songs themselves are reflective of the film's understated mise-en-scene. They are raw, plaintive, simple, and surprisingly good -- illustrative of the film as a whole. The guitar that Hansard plays also acts as a metaphor for the brokenness of the characters as well as the film's. Everyone and everything is sort of just hanging in there and hoping for the best.

Put together, Once is far better than the sum of its humble parts. The interweaving of the story and music is occasionally forced, but never beleaguering. The acting is not A-grade, but all the more honest for that. The occasionally improvised dialogue is often broken by the mannerisms and filler words of everyday conversation -- a big no-no in big-budget mainstream films, but perfect here. The story teases and hints but refuses to go the Hollywood route. The camera work borders on homevideo quality, imparting a sense of intimacy that steady filming and adequate lighting cannot achieve. Like a good friend, Once is a gem of a movie whose flaws only serve to make it all the more endearing.

*** 1/2 / 5

Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova performing the Academy Award winning song "Falling Slowly" on The Late Show with David Letterman.