According to The New York Post, citing a report by The Telegraph, n sword that is regarded as France’s “Excalibur” has vanished from its stone. Per the publication, locals in the French town of Rocamadour believed the sword, Durandal, had been lodged in rock for around 1,300 years. A main attraction for the town, the sword could be found stuck in a sheer rock wall about 100 feet off the ground
Authorities in France are working to determine how the sword was taken from the 100 foot sheer rock face.
Maybe that’s why they used “quotes” around “Excalibur” and mentioned its real name in the article.
That’s exactly why they did, although I’d argue something like
Durendal (France's "Excalibur")would probably be better.Most tone-deaf “Umm actually…” I’ve ever seen lmao
Edit: “Excalibur” is obviously a metaphor for “sword in stone”
Maybe the most deliberate “D’oh”
Uhm ackshually I think it’s more a metonymy than a metaphor :D
I’m ackshually one of the lucky 10000!
I’m being a bit tongue in cheek, though for the record it’s unlikely that Arthur or Excalibur actually existed. Where it’s known that Roland and Durendal did. (Albeit, without all the fantastic and magical attributes ascribed in the Matter of France).
I’m just a huge nerd and get annoyed when people mix up their magical swords.
That’s why I called you tone-deaf, not even the article “mixed up” their magical swords. It’s saying “France’s ‘Excalibur’” referring to a sword-in-stone myth located in France, using its proper name a few lines in.
Using metaphors like that in titles is just a way to capture the readers attention. It’s the fastest and most succinct way to discribe the news and have everyone understand the point of the article. It’s not wrong, it’s a metaphor.
I get annoyed by people reading only the headline and feeling like they have something useful to contribute.
how about people who do nothing except complain?
Like your OP?
There’s got to be a better headline - the sword’s name and legend looks just as compelling as Excalibur even if not as well known (outside France)
The point is that Excalibur is well known and Durendal isnt. They want eyes, and so make the article headline reference something everyone knows, then educate in the article body.
Durandal is well known by people whose opinions on swords in stones matter
That probably wasn’t the target audience of the article. It was probably people who were more likely to know Excalibur than Durendal.
Counterpoint: The opinions of people that know about Durandal don’t matter to the people whose opinions matter about article headlines.
Why would illiterate people care about article headlines?