Skip to main content

What, No Interrobang?!


We live, I think you’ll agree, in an increasingly puzzling world.

As children we are led to believe that we will improve our lifeskills and become better at doing things – whether these things are physical, verbal, mathematical, linguistic or other skills.

And for a time, this seems to be true.

Then one day, usually after 35, we discover there is a drop-off point. We don’t improve necessarily. If we continue to improve in any area it is only with a massive amount of study, labour, exercise – you name it.

More importantly for my current argument-slash-rant, our understanding of the world we live in, doesn’t improve or become more acute.

We spend all our years from say – six – onward, believing that someday we’re going to get it. Understanding will be ours.

This, I think, is utter horseshit.

Before youse all reach for your keyboards to tell me about your Truth, allow me to prepare the way. One day, I might just surrender to the Big Mystery and suddenly embrace the Godhead. I fear that day will not occur in the coming week.

But who knows? The animist inside me thinks that last statement was a little too cocky. Thumbing my nose at fate is probably not a smart thing to do.

However, I am digressing on a digression, so let’s get to it.

The world just doesn’t seem to be getting any clearer to me. I now believe I was labouring under some childhood illusion by thinking I would get it by now.

So instead, I have decided to align myself with a cause that I can understand.

I am now 100% behind the punctuation mark known as The Interrobang. This explanation comes courtesy of the ‘net
The INTERROBANG was created to fill a gap in our punctuation system where writers often used typographically cumbersome and unattractive combinations of the question mark and exclamation mark to punctuate rhetorical statements where neither the question nor an exclamation alone exactly served the writer. (HOW ABOUT THAT?!)
Let’s get behind The Interrobang, people. There has never been a better time for this much-needed punctuation to make its way into our language and help to improve communication between us and the aliens (Sorry, strike that "alien" thing. Sounds a bit weird.)

Find out more here and here.

And thanks to my brother TJ for putting me in The Loop.

Elevate the Interrobang,

Mr Trivia


Popular posts from this blog

What's with George Eads' Hair? & David Edwards

Hey Zeitgeisters,

Bet you thought this blog would never top “What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?” For those of you who weren’t part of that historical blog entry, it was the glittering moment where I wondered what’s with West Wing star Bradley Whitford’s hair. Good times.

However, tonight, while watching the current series (in Australia) of CSI :Original Recipe, I was forced to witness the unpleasantness of George Eads’ new(ish) 'do and I felt compelled to blog on’t.

George plays the part of Nick Stokes and has spent some 5 or 6 seasons with a haircut “you could set your watch to,” as Grandpa Simpson might say. It was always short; it always had that US Marine Corps vibe; it was always as dependable as the ebbing and flowing of the tides.

Now in something of an El Nino effect, I note that someone in Jerry Bruckheimer’s organization has decided to mess with the length of George’s crowning glory.

Although I chiefly watch CSI waiting for Grissom…

What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?

Okay, Zeitgeisters, that’s as shallow an attention-grabbing start as one could ever want, but I really want to know. And sure, I’m really talking about Josh Lyman’s hair. (I’m like one of those people who insist on calling an actor by their character’s name – only in reverse. e.g. “Go Knight Boat!”)

Whitford plays Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, in the Aaron Sorkin-created, NBC television series The West Wing. He plays this part to a tee and now he’s set to do great things in the new Sorkin drama, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know this last bit because the Angriest Ex-Video Store Clerk in the world told me.

Oh, and Whitford’s married to the awesome Jane Kaczmarek who plays mom, Lois, in the series Malcolm in the Middle. So Mr Whitford’s your regular pop-cultural icon and yardstick for excellence. We’re here in this, frankly, puzzling cultural landscape, because I’ve just finished watching season four of The West Wing on DVD. And Josh Lyman’s hair has bothered me throughout. It’s…

Not Canon? Son of A Gun!

So my fellow geeks, is there any way we can consider Joe Pesci's turn on the Snickers' telly ad as canonical to the LETHAL WEAPON franchise, or the Angry Man in Scorsese Films Like RAGING BULL and CASINO franchise? Probably not.

The idea that there is an established body of works that shape a fictional character and others that do not, has spread like Vegemite thanks to Our Beloved Internet. Her, nerds and geeks of every stripe will argue, for example, which movies or TV series about the Teenage Mutant Turtles are canon and which are not. In some versions of the story, Turtles mentor, Splinter is the mutated form of a man called Hamato Yoshi and in other versions he is the mutation of a rat owned by Yoshi.

I am given to understand that Peter Cushing's role in the 1965 movie DOCTOR WHO AND THE DALEKS is not canon, but is considered part of some kind of extended Doctor Who Universe. Science Fiction franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek, often have meandering strands of s…