Why do UK journalists insist on treating California differently? What I mean is that Google, e.g., is typically referred to by the BBC and Guardian as a “Californian company”. New York Life is not a “New Yorker company”, and Wrigley isn’t an “Illinoisan company”. Thank God that Eli Lilly isn’t a “Hoosier company”. (I doubt even the Brits would attempt to use “Indianian”.) So why does California get its own adjective?
To the tune of Frère Jacques:
Ninteen-fifty, ninteen-fifty
One-to-zip, one-to-zip
You are going home now, you are going home now
Have a nice trip! Have a nice trip!
Bonus annoyance points for Americanism “one-to-zip” sted “one-nil”.
Per suggestions from my friend Rufus Blooter (and others), I’ve started to dig into Banksy‘s … I mean Banks‘s work. The Player of Games was Rufus’ initial suggestion. I enjoyed it and loved the idea of The Culture, but found the characters flat and the prose uninspiring. Now I’m working through Use of Weapons, and finding it to be a much better read — better-rounded characters, prose that sings, and a structure that heightens the narrative arc.