“The gruel disappeared... Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said, somewhat alarmed at his own temerity: ‘Please, sir, I want some more.’ ”
Note well “gruel” – “a thin liquid food of oatmeal or other meal boiled in milk or water”. What, then, are we to make of the following recent examples: “He’s the – preferably non-taxed – sugar-high they’ve been craving after three years of thin gruel” (that’s about the prime minister); “Republicans’ explanations for their refusal to act are thin gruel”; “The third Annabelle film – a spin-off franchise from the ever-growing and larger Conjuverse franchise – is a thin gruel.”
My point, very simply, is why the qualifier before gruel? Note the definition. It’s becoming as annoying as those chumps who insist on putting “whole” before “gamut” – and there are so many examples of that infelicity that I could fill an entire page with them.
Moving briskly along and what should drop into my inbox but this excitingly headlined communique: “New study reveals watershed moment as 79% of UK marketers acknowledge cross-channel video advertising wave.” No, me neither, but after my complaint last week about the ubiquity of everyone seemingly being on a journey, my eye was caught by the following: “Aaron Goldman, CMO at 4C, comments: ‘For brands to succeed, cross-channel planning should revolve around consumer preferences… In a multi-screen world, video stands out for its ability to deliver rich storytelling at scale throughout the customer journey.’ ”
Aaron, please pay more attention in future or you’ll have to pack your bags and sling your hook.
•Jonathan Bouquet is an Observer columnist
