Was the "Jane Austen Book Club" Well-Reviewed or Reviewed Well?

Which is proper to say? "The movie was reviewed well? Or, The movie was well-reviewed."

The answer: It depends on your intentions. What do you mean to convey? A friend was puzzled because she thought the answer to be either/or. "

"reviewed well" as in: The Jane Austin Book Club was reviewed well tells us that the reviewer's work was accomplished according to a high standard, "satisfactory in accordance with conduct or action." Oxford English Dictionary. The reviewer may have liked, disliked, or remained neutral to the film, but the subsequent review, good, bad, or neutral was well-written, honest, deliberate. "Well" serves as a simple adverb modifying the verb "reviewed." How was the movie reviewed? Well, accomplished according to a high standard.

"well-reviewed" as in: "The Jane Austen Book Club was well-reviewed" conveys two possible thoughts: Many people reviewed the film, or a reviewer or several liked the movie and are encouraging you to go see it. Well-reviewed, well-received, well-thought, all serve as versions of well-done. All are past participles of the verb serving as adjectives. In the sentence above, "well-reviewed" is a predicate adjective being linked back to the movie, The Jane Austen Book Club. "What kind of Movie" was it? It was a well-reviewed movie. "Well" says it all, or does it. "Well" never means bad; however, is it possible that a controversial movie would cause many subsequent reviews, yes. And that may mean good or bad.

Redundancy Found, Even Among the Best of Us

Ward Chamberlain, a veteran of the Second World War of the last century, was being interviewed in Ken Burns' epic production surveying the great tragedy. Mr. Chamberlain was recounting the terrible Allied losses as they pushed back toward Rome Benito Mussolini's Italian army and the Germans.

"We lost an awful lot of casualties," he said. A "loss" or a soldier "lost" in this context means the same thing as a "casualty," which means "a person killed or injured."

Workable options include: "We suffered a lot of casualties," "We sustained a lot of casualties," "We lost an awful lot of men." A verb substitute would have worked in which the verb means something different from "casualty" but nevertheless works together with it as an unambiguous transitive verb transferring a notion logically consistent with its object. If you "lose a casualty," the redundancy results in an ambiguity, a "lost loss." Losing bodies probably had occurred, but this is not what Mr. Chamberlain had intended to convey.

The purpose here is not to distract from a dramatic moment or from a decent, educated man talking solemnly of a most tragic time in history, but to take the opportunity to point out that a missed point of grammar could result in unintended confusion.

More Pronoun Problems: This Time, Blame it on Gerunds

A young commentator on one of the many television shows currently surrounding the personal lives of entertainers was heard saying of a certain male performer and his social plans: "It's about him going to the party." She possibly intended to correctly say:

It's about his going to the party.

The sentence breaks down as: It (subject) is (verb) about (preposition) his going to the party (object of preposition).

Another way of expressing the sentence: His going to the party (subject) is (verb) [what "it" is about.]

"...going to the party" acts as a gerund phrase. A gerund, or gerund phrase has noun characteristics and therefore can be modified by an adjective. This explains the reason for using "his" not "him in the pronoun position. In this syntax, the function of the pronoun is as a possessive adjective not objective case pronoun used singularly as object of preposition. The whole gerund phrase with the possessive adjective functions as the object of the preposition.

Let's try to isolate the pronoun him used as object of preposition: It's about him going to the party. This expression does not work grammatically because it would force the use of "going to the party" as a verbal adjective modifying "him." Yet, what adjective question is it answering? Which him? What kind of him? How many of him? Doesn't make sense.

The intended expression must be: "It is about his going to the party. Will he attend the party, or not? The subject is clearly not about "him," the subject concerns "going to the party".

Testing your mettle: What if the commentator has been describing more than one celebrity? How should she have expressed the sentence? Those of you who responded: It's about their going to the party are correct.