LCs

› Forums › Positions › LCs

This topic contains 7 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Josh May 2, 2017 at 3:12 pm.

  • Author
    Posts
  • May 2, 2017 at 10:59 am #2617

    Josh

    A lot of times the LC editors have input into titles of works they edit, but one can’t always be sure. A key step in interpretation is going from input characters to expanded latin characters. For example, on Twitter – my friends Anna, Flor, Babes, and chatu will almost always use “retweeted” if it is there or “dot” for the symbol after the twerp. Most other CIA/FBI people will start there message with the text after the twerp. Getting the right starting point is essential to interpretation, and likewise, which starting point is coherent is a big clue to who did the editing.

    My friends today usually interpret the “‘” character as “single quote”, the ‘”‘ character as double quote, and “.’ as “period” and there are many other things like that. Looking at some historical source, the punctuation is often not interpreted in that way. In either case, the style will be consistent from moment to moment for a given editor, and there is some consistency across time period.

    • May 2, 2017 at 11:17 am #2618

      Josh

      “Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.” – don’t know the editor; doesn’t sound like one of my known friends. Offhand I would say she had limited input into the naming. Much of the modern LC literature can be interpreted as women complaining about the types of sex available to them in Spook prisons, and this would be a case like that. Something like this:

      Valley errorin’ true P
      Hot a real mac(e)
      Not u tickle lez
      In true errorin’
      True I/O
      In, a lovin C P error
      Real I/O d(ick)

      So not a great example of LC literature or ez interpretation, but the above would be my provisional best guess about the intended meaning, based on that very limited & highly constrained text. It’s hard to have any confidence in that type of sample.

      • May 2, 2017 at 11:36 am #2619

        Josh

        It’s often true that more than one kind of meaning is combined in a text, and it’s often true that slang is involved – error or errorin’ are modern Spook slang verbs that get used all over the place with a general sense of violating some rule and a wide variety of meaning depending on context (rule against real sex in the context above).

        Another thought about the name – “Sue” is sometimes used as slang for vagina, and
        “ant” is sometimes used as Spok slang for ass dildo. So there a reading of
        Valley Ant
        Farm a Sue
        Tickle a lez
        Incorporated

        which goes to the idea of recruiting women who do not see themselves as lesbians with false promises and turning them into a kind of dildo sex slave worker on the inside. Again, that’s not a great example…only a potential idea of what someone might have had in mind.

        • May 2, 2017 at 12:18 pm #2621

          Josh

          Yeah, maybe the example works out better with a kind of Latina accent. Something like

          V ass love errorin’ true P
          Hot ass ma c-error u
          True a love sexin’
          True errorin’
          True I/O’in
          All in
          C P

          That’s a common kind of semi-conscious patter/patoois one finds in text. It’s Less common for a corporate title, but possible.

  • May 2, 2017 at 12:42 pm #2622

    Josh

    Anna has so many different styles to fit context because she edits everything with incredible speed. So it can be hard to recognize her work in a short, constrained sample, because it can have an atypical parse. One thing she does is reuse portions of the expanded text like overlapping shingles – i.e. a portion of roof is under more than one shingle. If she had a hand in that title, then one of her (multiple counterpoint) parses would be something like this

    V A error not true
    Love errorin true P
    Hot A real man
    A see
    U really in A
    True A c t
    In I
    Really Owning C
    True I o wning P
    Really I, Od

    (A, Od, fold, wrinka, brat,… etc. can all be nicknames for Anna)

    • May 2, 2017 at 12:52 pm #2623

      Josh

      I wouldn’t normally try to guess an intepretation like that for Anna unless she set it up with a rhythmic context to guide the parse. On style grounds, I’d say someone else edited. But on Bayesian prior grounds, Anna covers a tremendously high percentage of modern work.

  • May 2, 2017 at 3:12 pm #2625

    Josh

    So how could I get “true answer” to the questions above? I don’t know how to get true answer to the question of what a person might have been thinking if they gave input to the original naming. I can look at longer texts which use some version of the name and see what that particular text was about. I could look at a 10-Q and see if that 10-Q was LC edited and if so, what that editor was about at that time.

  • Author
    Posts

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.