rather than the less intrusive (but arguably more subtle)
Yes. Because normally subtletly is very intrusive. I guess a case can be made.
« Lord Donnell's not at home | Main | An original gangster from Tripoli »
June 22, 2005
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Posts
- I could have sworn I posted this in 2019
- On Agnes Callard's Aspiration
- On Lydia Tár's EGOT
- Gefahr im Ziel
- I doff my assless chaps one leg at a time just like the next intermillennial yobbo
- Two or three confusions about five or six pages of Bernard Williams
- Their words, for you
- My pettiest post ever
- Are we Aristotle's enemies?
- Wingtip Dot Club
Recent Comments
- C Voss on I could have sworn I posted this in 2019
- Francesca Berger on My pettiest post ever
- josh k-sky on On Lydia Tár's EGOT
- Zack on This be close reading
- John Harvey on Notice
- Daniel Lindquist on Their words, for you
- Mr. F on My pettiest post ever
- Daniel on Are we Aristotle's enemies?
- ben w on This be close reading
- k-sky on Wingtip Dot Club
pitchforkmedia does for indie music what Wired did for the Internet.
Posted by: rone | June 22, 2005 at 04:44 PM
both intrusive and subtle modify the musical method the author is talking about in the sentence, i.e.: less A, but arguably more B. A and B do not have to have any special relationship for the sentence to work. Like so:
Cats are less pointy but arguably hairer than pencils. It doesn't have to be the case that all pointy things aren't hairy for the sentence to work.
Posted by: text | June 22, 2005 at 06:03 PM
I'm not sure that's really what's operative here. Your case would be stronger were "intrusive" and "subtle" not already related, and were "but arguably more subtle" not a parenthesis after "less intrusive".
Posted by: ben wolfson | June 22, 2005 at 06:21 PM
Wait, so are you taking issue with the "but" or the "rather"?
Posted by: dave zacuto | June 22, 2005 at 06:42 PM
But.
Posted by: ben wolfson | June 22, 2005 at 06:50 PM
Well, you could say something like "This presentation of the argument is briefer but arguably less in-depth than that one." The implicit contrast is something like: brevity is good, but so is depth.
If the writer is saying that intrusiveness is good, and so is subtlety, then the 'but' makes sense in that way. Since I don't normally think of intrusiveness as good, it does sound a bit funny to me.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | June 23, 2005 at 08:53 AM