How to use this Page

Dear Diary,

I sent off the Guardian article on Fairy Tales around midnight last night. Assuming they like it, it'll be in the Saturday review next week.

This morning I went off to Shepherd's Bush for the read-through of the BBC World Service ANANSI BOYS adaptation, with Lenny Henry (as Spider and Fat Charlie), Matt Lucas (as Graham Coats and Tiger), Rudolph Walker as Anansi, Dona Croll as Mrs Noah and the Bird Woman, Tameka Empson as Mrs Higgler, Petra Letang as Rosie, Jocelyn Jee Esien as Daisy, and Ben Crowe as Cabbies and extra voices. As you can see from the cast list, it's a very compressed sort of drama, but Mike Walker did a heroic job in shrinking the novel down to an hour's length, and the excellent Anne Edyvean is directing (we first worked together on the BBC Radio 3 version of Signal To Noise in 1996). I was able to offer a few suggestions that were useful, so felt like it was a good thing that I was there.

It will broadcast on the World Service on 17 November 2007.

Then I went to Headline books to sign 300 copies of the Stardust paperback.

Now back at the hotel.

In my not-much-actually free time I've been reading Ekaterina Sedia's THE SECRET HISTORY OF MOSCOW, a lovely, disconcerting book that does for Moscow what I hope my own Neverwhere may have done to London. It's part of the genre I think of as Magic City books, and in this one all of Russian myth does gloomy duty in a sort of Moscow Beneath that is a reflection and refuge from of Moscow above. In 1990s Moscow people are turning into birds, and each night the birds are flying out of reflected windows. The prose and the atmosphere is beautiful and decaying, and everything's grey with astonishing little bursts of unforgettable colour. It reminds me a little of a more pagan The Master and Margerita, but that may be because I haven't read enough Russian fantasy to compare it to something more apt. Deep, dark, remarkable stuff.

There are about 150 tickets left to the Criterion event tomorrow (6.00 pm, Tuesday the 2nd), which should cover the people who turn up at the door, unless there's a lot of them. (http://www.hayfestival.com/wales/browse.aspx?type=date&value=02-Oct-2007 is the link to get tickets if you want to be sure of getting in).

And here's the last word on the "Me and You" posts...

Dear Neil,
I know I come late to the "me and you and me" party (having spent all of yesterday at the National Book Festival, which was a whole lot of dusty fun!), but I thought you might be interested to know what my mother, an American Advanced Placement English teacher at a very good public high school, has to say.

According to my mother, "and Suzanna Clarke" is a participial phrase modifying "me," and, for your intended purpose, works just fine. Because you are notifying people who want to hear YOU, chatting with Suzanna, know where they can do so, your construction of the sentence is more clear. Technically, it IS considered more correct to say, "so and so and I..." but it is a matter of personal preference, and, for the purposes of your sentence, your phrasing is more direct and to the point.

So that's the 2 cents of an American English teacher with over 20 years experience and a more-than-usual insistence on proper grammar.
Cheers!
Emily

Of the 22 replies about the "Fred and me" "me and Fred" thing waiting when I got up this morning, there were a few who said things like, As far as I remember from my parents' childhood teachings, it is considered sort of impolite to put oneself first when naming several people and I also grew up being told by my parents to always list myself last as well -- so you say my friends and I went to the store, not I and my friends... In terms of where it originates, I grew up in the States, but I think the grammar lesson came from my English father. But as far as I know it's a convention only - more about politeness than correct grammar. It's only the me/I distinction that's cold hard grammatical rules..

I can't imagine saying "I and Fred went to market" because it sounds wrong....

There was one that seemed to have got the whole thing a bit upside down, which I'm posting in case anyone else is puzzling over it...

Interesting about the me first or last thing, but it is somewhat irrelevant, because if one looks at the sentence and the dependent clause, "me" is incorrect anyway as it should be I as part of the plural subject of the word "chatting." So "Susanna and I chatting" or "I and Susanna chatting" is the object of "hear" but you made the common mistake of using "me" thinking of it being the object of "hear."

Not that you need a grammar lesson from a veterinarian, but I could not keep it to myself.

Shera

(Um, probably you should have done. You're suggesting that the sentence should have read And for those of you who want to hear we chatting (or who missed it because of the fire alarm...) or, removing Susanna from the sentence (an easy way to check your Is and Mes), And for those of you who want to hear I chatting (or who missed it because of the fire alarm...) which is slightly wrong unless you're in those parts of rural England in which it's perfectly fine.)

This was the most definitive of all the replies...

This is not a question but rather a response to yours. "Me and..." constructions are just as grammatically correct as "...and me" constructions, when usage suits them. Which, to be frank, yours did. I've never heard of citing "me" last as a preferred method of construction, and I've been a bona fide "Gloomy Grammarian" most of my life.

That said, in the "I could be wrong" vein, coupled with the "now I'll be up all night wondering" urge, I consulted a few books. "The Style Booklet" (David Sonstroem, University of Connecticut) says nothing useful, nor does the Associated Press style manual. Margaret Shertzer's "The Elements of Grammar" spends a great deal of time on nominative (I, you, she, he, etc) and objective (me, you, her, him, etc.) case personal pronouns but cites no preference for the specific order in which said pronouns should appear. "The Elements of Style," that Strunk and White classic, also speaks of the nominative and objective forms of personal pronouns but does not cite specific order as preferred. Finally, the college textbook "Analyzing English Grammar", fourth ed., Thomas P. Klammer, Muriel R. Schulz, and Angela Della Volpe, authors, examines personal pronouns at length and never cites a word order preference. I did not check the MLA handbook, but I imagine its focus is less on usage and more on proper citation (as it should be).

Now - one thing I did notice is that, by and large, many of the examples presented tended to be in the "she and I," "him and me" order. Perhaps your reader has used this prevalence to inform his (or her?) understanding that this order is, in fact, the correct usage? If so, that would be an error of quantity rather than kind - BUT "me and him" and "him and me" are equally grammatically correct, in their contexts as personal pronouns used in the objective.

In short (too late!), as far as I can tell, you and I are correct in our assumptions about when to use "me and Catherine," or "Catherine and me." It's a matter of personal preference, really.

And yes, now that it is 4:00 AM, eastern standard time, I can at last rest easy in my understanding of pronoun usage. Can you tell I am about to earn my Master of Arts degree in English?

Sincerely, yet somehow also Grammatically Yours-

Patricia Lafayllve

and this one, which made me smile, and may have something to do with it...

Sure, I've been told it's generally good form to put yourself last, but in this case, the sentence you wrote was iambic. Had the words been reversed, it would not be thus, and therefore less pleasant to read.
Cheers,
Annie

You mentioned that they used CGI to ".... cover Charlie Cox's naked torso because it would bring down America." Do you know if they are planning to restore the scene (and any others they deemed too adult for us Americans) in the DVD release? ~lindac

I don't know. I'm sure there will be some stuff that was cut, but I have no idea what... (ghosts I hope. Lots of really funny ghost bits went away.)

The signing was fun and, er, long -- probably the longest lunchtime signing I've done, which I wasn't really expecting. I played with the Japanese brush-pens a lot. I like the way that sometimes good drawings you don't expect come out of your brush.

Working on article about fairy tales for the Guardian right now, and they've also put an interview from several months ago up -- http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,,2177992,00.html
and a pretty simple quiz that could win two pairs of tickets to the Criterion Event on Tuesday night at http://books.guardian.co.uk/competition/0,,2177394,00.html

The Times did an interview with Matthew Vaughn about directing Stardust, at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2538898.ece

Not a question but a heads up on the Latest Dork Tower strip:
http://archive.gamespy.com/comics/dorktower/archive.asp?nextform=viewcomic&id=1286
I am sure others have pointed this out as well but hey ho.

Nope. You were first.

Which reminds me that John Kovalic sent me one of these -- http://dreamlandtoyworks.com/my_little_cthulhu.html and it has become of my favourite toys...

Hey Neil, Just watched the Beowulf trailer - very snazzy - but I wondered, is it too late to get that fella to put a shirt on? Or maybe the Photoshop guy could airbrush one on or something? It is all a bit disturbing and a bit Conan. :-) Thanks,Pete

Yup. Too late. That longship has sailed. Oddly, though, in the morning scene in the Inn in the Stardust film, Charlie Cox is wearing a CGI shirt, because there were concerns that his naked torso could bring down America.

I was wondering if you knew if the stage production of Wolves in the Walls would be playing anywhere other than New York. I live in Chicago and would absolutely love to go (and take my mother, who is also a huge fan) but just can't afford to make it to NY. You have a huge Midwest following - which I am sure you already know, and I know it would be a hit out here. Thank you for your time and help. Jessica

Not that I know of at this time. When I hear anything, I'll post it here. If you have an appropriate local theatre, tell them you want to see it. You never know...

And this last one really puzzled me, mostly because it's citing something I can't recall encountering before. I'm on the road, so couldn't check the reference works I'd usually look at,

Dear Neil,

Hi! Sounds like you're having quite the time traipsing 'round the world!

So, to business:

You have written something in your blog that set off my "pet peeve alert." :

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Do not use "me and him." (Your actual statement was "me and Susanna.")

Naming oneself first, rather than last, drives me crazy!

It used to be that only uneducated people talked that way, but now I hear it everywhere, even out of the mouths, and blogs, of People Who Should Know Better.

I realize that a) language changes, and legitimately so, over time, and b) you are using a more casual voice when blogging

But, still, let's set a Good Example for those impressionable readers out there!

(And would Neil Gaiman, master of the English language, actually say "me and ...?" I shudder to imagine that.)

Carefully stepping down from my soapbox, and wishing you a Chag Sukkot Sameach and Shabbat Shalom!

-Randi Suss

So the sentence in question began And for those of you who want to hear me and Susanna Clarke chatting ... which is grammatically just fine, at least the way that I was taught grammar. I googled and saw no problems with that construction at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/meandi where they give several mayor-and-party-based examples...

Me and my friend went to a party last night. [Wrong]
I and my friend went to a party last night.

My friend and me went to a party last night. [Wrong]
My friend and I went to a party last night.

The mayor has invited me and my husband.
The mayor has invited I and my husband. [Wrong]

The mayor has invited my husband and me.
The mayor has invited my husband and I. [Wrong]

...and then I tried randomly googling "you and me" (2.7 million) vs "me and you" (2.5 million), then "me and my friends" (about 2 million examples) and "my friends and me" (168,000 examples), and decided that if there was a general "me second" rule it was one that wasn't very well known. Is this a North American rule? Is it something I've missed? Definitive links or quotes from Fowler are welcome... Read the rest of this post