0
Usenet Posted 23 years ago
Usage
Susceptibility/insusceptibility
Here's an excerpt from a book:
In fact, it is easy to fool people with this trick. And in general people are remarkably impervious to the fact that some scene they are viewing has been altered in a substantial way. Film editors depend on this (*1) susceptibility: (*2) actors are standing in a slightly different relation to one another in a particular scene than they were at what is supposed to be a split second before; the cigarette is burned farther down earlier in the scene than later, and so on.
(*1) I can't fathom why the author chose the word "susceptibility". In fact, he seems to be talking about people's insusceptibility to changes in what they see. Only way I can think of to reconcile this is to interpret "this susceptibility" as meaning people's "susceptibility" being "this" low. That is, despite what my dictionaries say, the word susceptibility means not just the quality or state of being susceptible, but the degree to which something is susceptible, just as the word height can refer to the distance from the bottom to the top of something as well as the quality of being high or tall. Am I correct?
Also, would it be possible to substitute "insusceptibility" for "susceptibility"?
(*2) The original text doesn't have an article here. I understand this sentence as it stands is perfectly fine, but can I put a "the" before the "actors"? I ask this, because these actors are identifiable ones that appear in a particular scene rather than actors in general. Does this make sense?
Thank you.
Eamer
In fact, it is easy to fool people with this trick. And in general people are remarkably impervious to the fact that some scene they are viewing has been altered in a substantial way. Film editors depend on this (*1) susceptibility: (*2) actors are standing in a slightly different relation to one another in a particular scene than they were at what is supposed to be a split second before; the cigarette is burned farther down earlier in the scene than later, and so on.
(*1) I can't fathom why the author chose the word "susceptibility". In fact, he seems to be talking about people's insusceptibility to changes in what they see. Only way I can think of to reconcile this is to interpret "this susceptibility" as meaning people's "susceptibility" being "this" low. That is, despite what my dictionaries say, the word susceptibility means not just the quality or state of being susceptible, but the degree to which something is susceptible, just as the word height can refer to the distance from the bottom to the top of something as well as the quality of being high or tall. Am I correct?
Also, would it be possible to substitute "insusceptibility" for "susceptibility"?
(*2) The original text doesn't have an article here. I understand this sentence as it stands is perfectly fine, but can I put a "the" before the "actors"? I ask this, because these actors are identifiable ones that appear in a particular scene rather than actors in general. Does this make sense?
Thank you.
Eamer
Top answer
[nq:1]Here's an excerpt from a book: . In fact, it is easy to fool people with this trick. And in ...
- [nq:1]Here's an excerpt from a book: .
- In fact, it is easy to fool people with this trick.
- And in ...
- earlier in the scene than later, and so on.
- [/nq] He means susceptibility to remaining unaware that people have moved.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
[nq:1]Here's an excerpt from a book: . In fact, it is easy to fool people with this trick. And in ... earlier in the scene than later, and so on. (*1) I can't fathom why the author chose the word "susceptibility".[/nq]
He means susceptibility to remaining unaware
that people have moved. It is phrased in a tangled way but cogently.
[nq:1](*2) The original text doesn't have an article he
He means susceptibility to remaining unaware
that people have moved. It is phrased in a tangled way but cogently.
[nq:1](*2) The original text doesn't have an article he
00
[nq:1]Here's an excerpt from a book: In fact, it is easy to fool people with this trick. And in general ... the quality of being high or tall. Am I correct? Also, would it be possible to substitute "insusceptibility" for "susceptibility"?[/nq]
I'm puzzled by this question. It appears that the thrust of the paragraph is that people are susceptible to being fooled by cinematic tricks. If they we
I'm puzzled by this question. It appears that the thrust of the paragraph is that people are susceptible to being fooled by cinematic tricks. If they we
00
[nq:1]It seems to me that you are thinking of "susceptible" as something like "sensitive" or "perceptive," unless I'm misinterpreting what ... of (or vulnerable to) being influenced by outside influences. Someone of low susceptibility would be less affected by those influences.[/nq]
Thank you.
Yes, I somehow missed the nuance of "susceptible". It was a slight misunderstanding but it preven
Thank you.
Yes, I somehow missed the nuance of "susceptible". It was a slight misunderstanding but it preven
0
Related Questions