Austen: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
Ermahgerd: ERT ERS A TRERTH ERNERVERSERLER ERCKNERLERDGERD, THERT A SINL MAHN ERN PERSERSERN ERF A GERD FERTERN MAHST BER ERN WERNT ERF A WERF.
Austen: However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.
Ermahgerd: HERERVER LERTL KNERN DA FERLINS ER VERWS ERF SERCH A MAHN MAH BER ERN HERS FERST ERNTERIN A NERGHBERHERD, THERS TRERTH ERS SER WERL FERXERD ERN DA MAHNDS ERF DA SERERNDIN FERMAHLERS, THERT HER ERS CERNSERDERERD ERS DA RERGHTFERL PRERPERTER ERF SERM ERN ER ERTHER ERF THER DERGHTERS.
Austen: ‘”My dear Mr. Bennet,” said his lady to him one day, `”have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?”
Ermahgerd: ‘”MAH DER MR. BERNERT,” SERD HERS LERDER TER HERM ERN DER, ‘”HERV U HERD THERT NERTHERFERLD PERK ERS LERT ERT LERST?”
Austen: Mr. Bennet replied that he had not.
Ermahgerd: MR. BERNERT RERPLERD THERT HER HERD NERT.
Austen: “But it is,” returned she; ‘”for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it.”
Ermahgerd: `”BERT ERT ERS,” RERTERNERD SH; ‘”FER MRS. LERNG HERS JERST BERN HER, ERND SH TERLD MAH ERL ERBERT ERT.”
Austen: Mr. Bennet made no answer.
Ermahgerd: MR. BERNERT MAHD NER ERNSWER.
Austen: “Do not you want to know who has taken it?” cried his wife impatiently.
Ermahgerd: “DER NERT U WERNT TER KNER WH HERS TERKERN ERT?” CRERD HERS WERF ERMPERTERNTLER.
Austen: ‘”You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it.”
Ermahgerd: ‘”U WERNT TER TERL MAH, ERND I HERV NER ERBJERCTERN TER HERIN ERT.”
Austen: This was invitation enough.
Ermahgerd: THERS WERS ERNVERTERTERN ERNERGH.
Austen: http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/ppv1n01.html
Ermahgerd: http://ermahgerd.jmillerdesign.com/#!/translate
Compiled by Lux.
26 July 2012 at 12:09 am
*mails every possible award in the history of existence to wherever it is you live*
This needs to be shared ’round the seven Internets. My word was that awesome.
26 July 2012 at 4:06 pm
I almost did the entire first chapter, but I got sleepy. :]
26 July 2012 at 4:15 pm
Haha….that’s hilarious. It honestly is. I approve :).
26 July 2012 at 4:17 pm
We’ve all been passing around the ermahgerd text translator around at work today… it has been quite fun. :)
26 July 2012 at 4:52 pm
Haha…..it really is the right thing to do :).
30 July 2012 at 7:00 pm
I laughed. I laughed a lot. And then I tried saying some of it out loud. And then I caught my face in the mirror. And then I laughed some more.
30 July 2012 at 7:27 pm
I almost did the entire first chapter. ALMOST. I also tried to find a text-to-speech reader that would read it out, but unfortunately failed.
30 July 2012 at 7:31 pm
TWERS BREHLERG, ERND THER SLEHRTHEH TERHS DERD GERH ERND GERMBERL ERN THERH WEHRVE.
It IS fun!
30 July 2012 at 7:33 pm
SEE? I did Tale of Two Cities too:
ERT WERS DA BERST ERF TERMAHS, ERT WERS DA WERST ERF TERMAHS
30 July 2012 at 7:45 pm
LERHLERTER, LERT ERF MERH LERF, FERH ERF MER LERNS.
30 July 2012 at 9:02 pm
NERVER GERN GERV U ERP, NERVER GERN LERT U DERN, NERVER GERN RERN ERERND ERND DERSERT U
31 July 2012 at 3:18 pm
CERNT TERCH THEHS.
31 July 2012 at 7:55 pm
NER, FER, WHERERVER U ER I BERLERV THERT DA HERT DERS GER ERN ERNC MAHR U ERPERN DA DER ERND YER HER ERN MAH HERT ERND MAH HERT WERL GER ERN ERND ERN
31 July 2012 at 7:57 pm
PERNT MEH LERK WERN ERF YERH FRERNCH GERHLS.
31 July 2012 at 7:58 pm
ERL NERVER LERT GER JERCK
31 July 2012 at 8:00 pm
YERH LERT GER YERH STYERPEHD BERHTCH! NERH YERH WERL NEHRVERH GERT THER DERHMENHD!
31 July 2012 at 8:03 pm
I FERL WER MAH HERV RERN DA JERK TER FER. WHERT DER U THERNK?
31 July 2012 at 8:15 pm
WERL ERS I SPERNT DA LERST TWERNTER MAHNERTS WERKIN THERT LERST ERN ERT, ERD BER ERNCLERNERD TER ERGRER.
31 July 2012 at 8:16 pm
Yep. Definitely too far. We’re past the point of even being able to read what we’ve written now.
31 July 2012 at 8:17 pm
But didn’t we have fun!?
31 July 2012 at 8:18 pm
ERMAGERD! FERN!
31 July 2012 at 8:23 pm
HER WER GER ERGERN!
31 July 2012 at 8:24 pm
Is it normal for people to have day long conversations in the comments on each other’s blogs?
31 July 2012 at 8:28 pm
You know what? Let them stare. I don’t care.
31 July 2012 at 8:30 pm
This could only be better if we had like a boss Chinese Olympic hats.
31 July 2012 at 8:33 pm
They’d still be staring, but in awe.
31 July 2012 at 8:34 pm
HATERS GONNA HATE
31 July 2012 at 8:38 pm
Hatters gonna wear hats.
31 July 2012 at 8:39 pm
Jack’s gotta get Rose.
31 July 2012 at 8:51 pm
Now remastered in glorious 3D for no necessary reason!
31 July 2012 at 8:53 pm
Here, wear these funny glasses and be ~amazed~!
My eyes are so bad that 3D doesn’t actually work on them. I assume it has something to do with my prescription, but I haven’t been able to “see” a 3D movie since I was about seven or eight.
31 July 2012 at 9:02 pm
You aren’t missing anything. It was a gimmick in the eighties and it’s a gimmick now. It doesn’t affect the narrative and it doesn’t alter the visuals in a significant enough way to be a new storytelling device.
In fact, the 3D experience can often stop you from suspending disbelief, detaching you from the plot. It’s a step back for story immersion.
31 July 2012 at 9:06 pm
I’m honestly not surprised. It screams gimmick and I’ve never for a moment sat there thinking “Wow, this movie would be even better if it looked like random things were closer!”
31 July 2012 at 9:09 pm
I’m just not getting the full experience of horror and inevitable death from that iceberg. If only it could be a bit more of a weird red/blue triangle…
I like to pop the glasses on the end of my nose and watch only the bottom half of the film in 3D. It’s dreadful and I waste my money. I’m my own worst enemy.
31 July 2012 at 9:11 pm
When I was I kid I would watch 3-D movies by taking them off and putting them back on and making squinty faces at the screen. I fear as an adult I would be no better.
31 July 2012 at 8:16 pm
By the way: Best Titanic Quote:
‘Where to miss?’
‘To the stars!’
‘It’s a car you idiot.’
31 July 2012 at 8:17 pm
Also, another classic Titanic moment:
‘Hey! Here’s a floating piece of wood big enough for both of us!’
‘Nope, go find your own.’
31 July 2012 at 8:18 pm
‘I’ll never let go.’
[Lets go]
31 July 2012 at 8:19 pm
‘Paint me like one of your French girls~’
*draws*
31 July 2012 at 8:28 pm
‘Ah, forget it, boyo. You’re as like to have angels fly out your arse as get next to the likes of her’
‘OH GOD MY ARSEHOLE!’
31 July 2012 at 8:29 pm
*is a fine, well-brought up young woman who has never been let within 50 feet of strong alcohol in her life*
*downs a pint of Guinness faster than the boys*
31 July 2012 at 8:32 pm
After kissing her hand.
‘I saw that in a nickelodeon once and I always wanted to do it.
Now get your knickers off. I want to try something I learnt about on the internet.’
31 July 2012 at 8:33 pm
‘Hey! You wanna see the dirty pictures I drew of prostitutes in Paris?’
31 July 2012 at 8:45 pm
What could possibly be funny?
I put the diamond in the coat. And I put the coat on her!
No you’re right, that’s fucking hilarious.
31 July 2012 at 8:48 pm
He was a GODDAMN FUCKING GENIUS, that’s what.
31 July 2012 at 8:51 pm
And she still manages to lose the bastard thing.
31 July 2012 at 8:56 pm
She’s all… “~I can return you to the ocean~”
31 July 2012 at 9:03 pm
I AM A DIAMOND. I DID NOT COME FROM THE OCEAN. I CAME FROM A MINE. TAKE ME TO A MINE!
31 July 2012 at 9:07 pm
YOU’RE FROM THE OCEAN, DAMMIT, YOU’RE BLUE AND THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH!
31 July 2012 at 9:18 pm
BEFORE YOU MAKE A HASTY DECISION YOU WILL DEFINITELY REGRET, LET ME DISPROVE THAT HYPOTHESIS RIGHT NOW:
THE SKY. SMURFS. DENIM. FORGET-ME-NOTS. BLUEBIRDS. SAPPHIRES. MARTINIS. CERTAIN LEGO BRICKS. TOBIAS FÜNKÉ FROM ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT.
ALL OF THESE ARE BLUE AND NONE OF THEM BELONG IN THE SEA.
ALSO: I AM BY FAR THE MOST VALUABLE THING YOU WILL EVER SEE. WITH ME, YOU CAN BARTER A NEW LIFE IN THE STATES. THE LAND OF THE FREE. AND DIAMONDS. AND CAPS LOCK. DON’T BE HASTY, MATEY!
31 July 2012 at 9:22 pm
BUT I NEED TO PROVE MYSELF WORTHY OF JACK AND DO EVERYTHING MYSELF WITH NO HELP FROM YOUR VALUE! THEN I WILL RETURN YOU TO THE PLACE THAT MY LIFE CHANGED BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU AREN’T REALLY ~OF THE OCEAN~ I AM GOING TO AFFIX THAT TO YOU BECAUSE I AM A HUMAN AND I CAN DO WHATEVA I WANT!
2 August 2012 at 12:39 pm
YOU ARE AN IDIOT, ROSE. AND I AM A DIAMOND.
2 August 2012 at 1:11 pm
ERMAHGERD! THE DIAMOND RETURNED!
2 August 2012 at 1:14 pm
I’d like to think it sprung out of the water, klonked her on the noggin and disappeared again. Did they find it in the wreck in the film? I don’t remember.
2 August 2012 at 1:17 pm
Rose had it in her pocket THE WHOLE TIME and then she sneaks out and drops it into the ocean at the very end of the film when she’s an old lady. Then she dies.
THE DIAMOND WAS HER LIFE FORCE!
2 August 2012 at 1:19 pm
Rose is an astronomical twat.
2 August 2012 at 1:20 pm
I know!! The last time I got roped into watching that movie I sat there the whole time being like “Wait… what? Really? What?”
2 August 2012 at 1:21 pm
Think of the thousands of dollars worth of nautical expedition she directly wasted. And then to not even have the good grace to stay alive long enough to get punched in the face for being such an idiot.
2 August 2012 at 1:25 pm
I KNOW! What in the everloving fuck?
2 August 2012 at 2:03 pm
From the perspective of the diving expedition, they’re all preparing to search the wreck of the at-one-point-the-biggest cruise liner in the world, in Arctic waters at great danger to themselves and for no guaranteed success, save for the promise of a diamond once worn by Louis XVI.
A mad old hint turns up, and claims to be someone who sided on the ship, and demands to be taken along, which means extra provisions and precautions must be taken to cater for a frail, elderly passenger who has little seafaring experience, save for a ship that sank and killed everyone she loved, and sitting on a floating door for ages. The Captain agrees to this request, despite there being no proof that she is who she says she is, and that she may have a traumatic psychotic episode if she revisits the site of the accident.
After days of diving and finding much of interest, but no diamond, said old lady goes into a reverie lasting several hours, before getting out the gemstone they’re risking life, limb and hypothermia to find and dropping it in the ocean. She then promptly does a die, apparently signifying some sort of emotional closure-based narrative arc.
I hope they buried her at sea, not just so she could finally be with Jack, but because they shouldn’t have to waste more energy getting her back to land. I also hope they got the diamond.
2 August 2012 at 2:43 pm
Exactly, right?!
This is what bothers me about most modern movies/storytelling: they make leaps of assumption that you’re supposed to follow, with no explanation whatsoever. We’re just supposed to assume that they checked out this crazy old woman’s background and made a sound decision that it was okay to bring her on board. Then, instead of giving them his diamond that they’re searching for, and that apparently has done her no good whatsoever since she’s owned it, she drops it into the ocean. And we’re supposed to somehow gather some kind of emotional understanding of that.
2 August 2012 at 2:49 pm
Unfortunately, that sort of crap wins Academy Awards, millions of screaming fans and exonerates James Cameron of being a first class arsehole. I imagine that the kind of story we’d like to write does not pull on the heartstrings in a lucrative way.
I personally think that one of the saddest things in the world is when people suspend disbelief so much that they forget that real life does not conform to narrative rules. It’s MUCH better than a story because it’s real. This is also why I can’t stand reality TV, because I can’t stomach a narrative that has been post-produced to make someone’s ‘journey’ worthy of your vote etc.
2 August 2012 at 3:59 pm
YES.
And you know, I love movies. I think film can be an unparalleled form of storytelling when it is done correctly–there is so much that can be done and so many connections and emotions that can be brought into the story. I can barely sit through standard “blockbusters” etc anymore and I’ve gotten to the point where I can predict almost every movie I try to watch.
Some still manage to surprise/fascinate/enthrall me, and that’s always a wonderful experience. I have a reputation with some of the people around me for being a huge movie/literature snob who is never happy with anything…. but that isn’t true. I can be VERY happy with some things. I’m just frequently disappointed.
5 August 2012 at 9:16 pm
I know what you mean – suspending disbelief is fine, and needless critique is joyless, however, storytelling should be job one. I can’t for the life of me understand why people go and see most films – they’ve seen the exact plot before, just with different actors and alternate conceits.
Romcoms, action films, most comedies, superhero films, all of them forgettable. And of course there’s Hollywood’s reaction of ‘It’s successful? SEQUEL!’ Even if the writer/director detaches themselves from the project they’ll just get someone else in to fuel the machine…
You may be interested to know that the script I am co-writing is inspired by a disdain for modern storytelling. There’s so much more room for creativity and innovation with TV.
5 August 2012 at 9:37 pm
Very nice (RE: Script)!
I hate sequels. I hate them with every fiber of my being,
6 August 2012 at 7:16 pm
Here’s a rule of thumb for sequels I’m going to try: a sequel has no chance of being any worth my time if it wasn’t already planned before the first one was made. Any expansion of the story post-opening weekend will henceforth be assumed to be milking a cash cow. Moo.
This rule exempts films that are visual versions of books. These will instead be under Rule #2: if a film is being made because a book is selling well, burn the film. A fad/bandwagon/fadwagon movie should simply be a way of enticing idiots into a room so they can watch a bait-and-switch film about how much of a let down for society they are.
There is a problem here: some people will tell you that if a story can be told in words, it can be told visually and vice versa. This is not true.
Some of the most poignant stories work without sound or speech to tell them, and equally I’ve been enraptured by a novel in a way that I never have done with a film. Just because a story works one way, does not mean it works with another. There are scenes of nature and of fiction that I would do a disservice trying to capture with words, and there are pieces of music that communicate a feeling without any lyrics. Words seek to define as well as show, and this can sometimes be a weakness; in a novel, for example, the words must form images in the brain to be effective.
I would have faith in my audience, however I chose to tell a story, that they could use their own imagination to fill in any blanks I might intentionally leave and thus immerse themselves.
Anyway, the sitcom script is inspired by my trip to see Bridesmaids. I don’t really see a lot of films that might come under the ‘chick flick’ umbrella, and I had faith in Kristen Wiig that this was going to be good. And might I add, not because of the derivative vomiting/shitting scenes.
Anyway, that was possibly the first time that I’d had to sit and watch a series of adverts for films that I was not the target audience for. It was insulting. Hollywood treats its female audience with contempt. All of the RomComs were pathetic and interchangeable, and not anything like any real relationship.
That was one starting point for our as-yet-unnamed sitcom: we want to tell the agonising, awkward, boring, even story of the genesis and demise of a real relationship, hampered at every turn by societal convention. And I shan’t say any more about it, because it’s pretentious and I’m no doubt boring everyone. Not that anyone’s reading this far down. I think THER DERMEND might have thrown them off.
6 August 2012 at 9:03 pm
I completely agree with your rule of thumb regarding sequels and films made to be visual versions of books +
For example; Harry Potter. I adored those books growing up–I feel I have grown past them, unfortunately, but I grew up on them and they continue to hold and incredibly special place in my heart. Unfortunately… the movies =! equal my love for the books. The magic of Harry Potter, for me anyway, couldn’t be captured by those movies.
RomComs leave me with a horrid feeling of disguist–I feel like they pander to this archetype of what women “want” or “should like” or “are capable of understanding”. It’s the same problem with books like ‘Twilight’ and ‘Fifty Shades’–and women buy into it!
I can’t sit through nearly any kind of “chick flick” and, like you, the reason I watched ‘Bridesmaids’ was because I had faith in Kristen Wiig. I’d say I skipped about 50% of the movie and spent most of the time geeking out over Chris O’Dowd. The plot of the movie left me with a bit of distaste in my mouth and I spent most of the time predicting what was going to happen (and being accurate 90% of the time).
If anyone has actually made it down past all the ERMAHGERD to this level of intelligent conversation, then they win a post-it note with a smilie, signed by me.
6 August 2012 at 9:52 pm
I love how we seem to agree on pretty much everything.
I grew up with His Dark Materials, and ‘The Golden Compass’ should never have been attempted. It’s too controversial for them to make it to the third book unscathed, and New Line swapped out almost all of the cast to promote the film better. I don’t want a film to do the imagining for me. I had Svalbard and Bolvanger and Mrs Coulter and that monkey in my minds eye *just so* and then they shat Nicole Kidman over it. Uff.
Men are treated with equal disdain, but we don’t have anything like the same social conventions as you girls do, and RomComs are damaging. Let’s see a film where a woman has to come to terms that the man she thinks is special has many faults, and that she isn’t exactly Katherine Heigl either.
Chris O’Dowd is a bit cool isn’t he?
6 August 2012 at 10:45 pm
Chris O’Dowd is the shit.
I think the overarching problem is that Hollywood panders to the lowest common denominator–for both men and women. “Hey, let’s throw some archetypes at the audience and give them a story that is easy for everyone to be able to follow and maybe throw in some self-insert ability so the audience can pretend that this is happening to them! Instant blockbuster!”
7 August 2012 at 5:41 pm
I think it’s probably worth mentioning that some people watch these films for escapism and to allow their brain to atrophy. There is certainly room in the world for that.
I agree with you though, that too much facile culture is dangerous. It perpetuates the idea that we should conform to the least of society’s expectations.
It’s hard to work out where it begins: does the cycle start form Hollywood not caring about quality, or from the audience demanding less of them?
7 August 2012 at 5:50 pm
I’m all for some escapism on a regular basis (hello, my Zelda obsession) but there is a time and a place for it, I think. And there can be escapism without pandering to tropes.
It’s a chicken-and-the-egg question and I’m not sure if it’ll ever be resolved. Even before we had films in this dilema, it existed in literature. For every Kazuo Ishiguro we have a Stephanie Meyer.
7 August 2012 at 6:02 pm
I don’t think we had fads like we do now though; with the dawn of Twitter and other social networking sites, fan bases can be a much more tidal force than they ever could before. Whilst Mills and Boon books might have earned the reader a disapproving look, the conventions of society kept quality as the status quo. These days, any idiot (and when I say idiot, I mean idiot in the most derogatory way possible) can get a has tag trending. The newest real force of power in the Twitter age is strength in numbers, which is a colossal problem. Twitter actively depresses me, and that isn’t me simply being emotive for effect.
The bottom line is that unfortunately, the public don’t really know what’s good for them.
7 August 2012 at 6:10 pm
There’s a reason I don’t have a twitter or facebook, even though that apparently makes me a serial killer. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/
7 August 2012 at 6:34 pm
Here’s some more ‘facts’ for you:
Everyone who ever eats bread will die. Most of them already have. Don’t eat bread.
Almost all mass murderers have been users of sinks, so don’t wash your hands.
Everyone in prison has a brain, so don’t think about anything.
7 August 2012 at 6:37 pm
Curses!
Is there anything safe? Are hugs safe?
7 August 2012 at 7:20 pm
Everyone who has ever hugged has also breathed, and breathing is the number one cause of asbestos poisoning and hence racism.
7 August 2012 at 8:24 pm
Double curses! The world is not safe!