A weblog by Will Fitzgerald

those which, from a distance, look like flies (*)

Daughter Jane straightened out our DVDs today, at her mother’s request. She decided to organize by genre:

  1. Fighting movies (e.g. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon),
  2. Animation (e.g. The Incredibles),
  3. Classicish (e.g. It’s a Wonderful Life),
  4. Magic (e.g., Harry Potter),
  5. Modern Action (e.g., Charlie’s Angels),
  6. Princess Movies (e.g. The Princess Diaries),
  7. Movies That I Have No Intention of Watching in the Next Millenium (e.g. 2001, A Space Oddesey).

(*) See The Analytical Language of John Wilkins.


5 responses to “those which, from a distance, look like flies (*)

  1. Daniel Lemire August 18, 2005 at 9:09 am

    Seems fair enough. Taxonomies are both personal and time-sensitive. It is likely that she would do a different job in 10 years…

  2. Natalia August 18, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    I’m cheering myself on for having actually gotten your title’s reference. I’ve seen that categorization cited in at least two other scholarly works, one being an interesting article on the rise of the term “mammal,” and the other, I believe, The Order of Things.

  3. Michael Hannemann August 18, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    Does she have precedence rules? I suppose she must, since “2001” fits into both #3 and #7…

  4. Will August 19, 2005 at 9:02 am


    So, I asked her. “2001” doesn’t fit in “Classicish.” But “Lord of the Rings” could fit into “Magic,” as well as “Fighting Movies.” But there’s more fighting than magic, so it went into the “FIghting Movies” genre.

  5. Michael Hannemann August 22, 2005 at 11:57 am

    “2001” isn’t “Classic”? Oh, kids these days. Sounds pretty reasonable otherwise. =)

%d bloggers like this: