Mark-up: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
3. ''(Institutionalised pedantry''): [[legal mark-up|''Legal'' mark-up]] is an impenetrable melange of [[passive|passives]], [[passive-aggressive]]s, [[redundancy|redundancies]], {{tag|flannel}} and [[non-sequitur]]s injected into a perfectly sensible {{tag|contract}} by a perfectly tedious [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. The sheer inscrutability of one’s mark-up is a criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]]. | 3. ''(Institutionalised pedantry''): [[legal mark-up|''Legal'' mark-up]] is an impenetrable melange of [[passive|passives]], [[passive-aggressive]]s, [[redundancy|redundancies]], {{tag|flannel}} and [[non-sequitur]]s injected into a perfectly sensible {{tag|contract}} by a perfectly tedious [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. The sheer inscrutability of one’s mark-up is a criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]]. | ||
Legal mark-up, being the fossil record of a legal [[negotiation]] between [[legal eagle]]s, bears a striking similarity to a playground argument. It will start as a broad, wide-ranging, harangue; each side adopting fundamentally opposed positions largely for the sake of it, yet summoning commendable outrage at the other’s position, notwithstanding | Legal mark-up, being the fossil record of a legal [[negotiation]] between [[legal eagle]]s, bears a striking similarity to a playground argument. It will start as a broad, wide-ranging, harangue; each side adopting fundamentally opposed positions largely for the sake of it, yet summoning commendable outrage at the other’s position, notwithstanding its fundamental arbitrariness. | ||
The process of counter-sniping at idiotic, haughty positions has a cleansing effect | The process of counter-sniping at idiotic, haughty positions — even if ''with'' idiotic, haughty positions — has a cleansing effect: as the blinds, battlements and barricades are gradually shot away, leaving just the serial absurdities behind, each side follows the same slow, careful process of reversal, the way one descends a rickety ladder, shouting gleefully, but with ebbing enthusiasm, as she goes. By the bottom, the debate has reduced into petulant snickering: correcting [[Split infinitive|split infinitives]], interposing redundancies, [[For the avoidance of doubt|clarifying]] the already plain, helpfully particularising the general and addending the particular, all for the glum satisfaction of having had the last word{{strike||, and/or words, as the case may be}}. | ||
Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found. | Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found. | ||
In the analogue days, mark-up found its voice in spidery handwritten annotations, balloons, glyphs and [[Rider|riders]] | In the analogue days, mark-up found its voice in spidery handwritten annotations, balloons, glyphs and [[Rider|riders]] with which opposing lawyers would deface carefully-typed drafts. These were hard enough to decrypt in their native form, but when faxed between institutions, became quite inscrutable.<ref>The process was not without its serendipities: the [[Biggs hoson]] was discovered this way.</ref> | ||
Since legal employers have discovered they ''can'' and ''should'' pay their lawyers to type after all — since they can thereby dispense with legal secretaries and [[Facsimile|fax]] room attendants — the “manuscript mark-up” has, alas, given way to the charmless and prosaic business of running [[Redline|redlines]]. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Redline]] | *[[Redline]] |
Revision as of 10:40, 14 October 2022
Office anthropology™
|
Mark-up
/mɑːk ʌp/ (n.)
1. (Brokerage): A broker’s mark-up (or mark-down) is a dealer’s way of making money: the equivalent in a principal arrangement to commission paid to an agent.
2. (~ language): A way of coding ordinary text in a way that machines can understand. This works quite well sometimes: The internet runs on hypertext mark-up language — “html”— an acquired taste but one which any fule can understand with a little patience; the fabulous MediaWiki runs on wiki mark-up, which even dear old five-thumbed Jolly Contrarian can understand — but other adventures have been less successful. There are lawyers at Linklaters who still can’t communicate unemotionally, having coded the entirety of the 2011 Equity Derivatives Definitions— remember those? No? — in Financial products Markup Language.
3. (Institutionalised pedantry): Legal mark-up is an impenetrable melange of passives, passive-aggressives, redundancies, flannel and non-sequiturs injected into a perfectly sensible contract by a perfectly tedious attorney. The sheer inscrutability of one’s mark-up is a criteria for inhouse legal team of the year.
Legal mark-up, being the fossil record of a legal negotiation between legal eagles, bears a striking similarity to a playground argument. It will start as a broad, wide-ranging, harangue; each side adopting fundamentally opposed positions largely for the sake of it, yet summoning commendable outrage at the other’s position, notwithstanding its fundamental arbitrariness.
The process of counter-sniping at idiotic, haughty positions — even if with idiotic, haughty positions — has a cleansing effect: as the blinds, battlements and barricades are gradually shot away, leaving just the serial absurdities behind, each side follows the same slow, careful process of reversal, the way one descends a rickety ladder, shouting gleefully, but with ebbing enthusiasm, as she goes. By the bottom, the debate has reduced into petulant snickering: correcting split infinitives, interposing redundancies, clarifying the already plain, helpfully particularising the general and addending the particular, all for the glum satisfaction of having had the last word , and/or words, as the case may be.
Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found.
In the analogue days, mark-up found its voice in spidery handwritten annotations, balloons, glyphs and riders with which opposing lawyers would deface carefully-typed drafts. These were hard enough to decrypt in their native form, but when faxed between institutions, became quite inscrutable.[1]
Since legal employers have discovered they can and should pay their lawyers to type after all — since they can thereby dispense with legal secretaries and fax room attendants — the “manuscript mark-up” has, alas, given way to the charmless and prosaic business of running redlines.
See also
References
- ↑ The process was not without its serendipities: the Biggs hoson was discovered this way.