I am currently in the middle of writing about the previously unseen sketches from The Fast Show which featured on Fast Show Night. The only surprising thing about the above sentence is that I haven’t got round to it before now. You can plug all my obsessions into a spreadsheet, and the above article pops out like magic.
But before it’s published, I have to make a decision. What do I call the programme?
The Radio Times capsule from the 11th September 1999 gives the following title:
You Ain’t Seen These, Right? Brilliant, I’ll go with that. Still, I’d best just check that article they point to on Page 7…
You Ain’t Seen These Right! Hmmm, OK. Best check what the actual programme has:
The line under the programme name is mildly irritating, but the above is clearly meant to be You Ain’t Seen These… Right? Three different ways of punctuating the show. What to do?
Maybe the production paperwork for the programme confirms which of the three it should be:
Yes, that is a full-stop. You Ain’t Seen These. Right? Sigh. Make that four.
In the end, I’ve decided to go for You Ain’t Seen These… Right? When I worked in BBC pres, in cases like these when there was inconsistency, we’d often plump for what was actually on the programme’s title card. Moreover, the extended commercial video edit of the programme, called You Ain’t Seen All of These… Right?, is not only punctuated like that on the title card:
But also has that name on the box:
Look, if nobody in 1999 was going to be consistent, THEN FINE, I’LL DO THE DONKEYWORK.
Just nobody mention that the ellipsis has four dots on the videocassette itself. I have a headache.