Reader question:

Please explain “l(fā)et off the hook” in this sentence: While this team is built for the future, they shouldn’t be let off the hook for the present.

My comments:

Which team are we talking about?

I mean, are we talking about our national soccer team who were beaten by Japan in a World Cup qualifying match 7-0?

I mean, 7-0. Can you believe it?

Maybe the soccer team is not “this team”, in which case the former, i.e. the soccer team will actually be “l(fā)et off the hook”.

I say this because “this team” is built for the future, meaning the team is consisted of young players who are inexperienced. Given time, they’ll survive and, hopefully, thrive.

The same cannot be said of the national soccer team, which is not a young team. It is experienced – albeit, unfortunately, only in the losing department.

But, as I said, since the national soccer team is not “this team”, they, the soccer players are to be let off the hook here and now.

So what does “l(fā)et off the hook” mean? What’s “the hook” exactly?

The hook, as you may guess, refers to the hook anglers use to catch fish with. An angler, you see, put a little piece of meat or something on the hook which is attached to the tip of a line and rod. He then casts the hook into water. An unsuspecting fish catches the meat and swallows the meat and hook in whole.

Hence, that unfortunate fish is hooked.

Then, by excellent chance, the fish vomits out the meat and, somehow, shakes the hook off.

When that happens, and things like that do happen, the angler says to himself, I let you off the hook this time. I did not pull the line soon enough and you got lucky.

That’s the fish getting off the hook and escaping a dangerous situation scot free.

Lucky fish.

Yes. Anyways, that’s the literal meaning of getting off the hook, meaning avoiding punishment or escaping any difficult situation relatively unscathed.

In our example, it is opined that even though “this team” is young and “built for the future”, we should not “l(fā)et them off the hook” by ignoring their failures and refraining from criticizing them.

So, criticize them and let them hear it.

Likewise with the national soccer team, by the way. Voice you disappointment and let them hear it.

All right, let’s return to the phrase itself and read a few examples of people who are let or not let off the hook in different situations:

1. This week the government announced it would resume naming and shaming employers who fail to pay the National Minimum Wage (NMW).

This is welcome news for those struggling on poverty pay, but it’s worth remembering that it was the government that suspended the practice in the first place.

Since that decision two years ago, we’ve had no idea whether the NMW has been properly enforced. That’s allowed bad bosses to pay their staff poverty wages and get away with it.

Trade unions have been campaigning hard for a return of naming and shaming as one way to help the millions of working people in the UK who don’t have enough money to make ends meet.

This week’s U-turn is a victory for that campaign, but there’s a catch. Compared with the old scheme, fewer employers will be named.

So the government will still let some minimum wage cheats off the hook.

That’s just not good enough. We won’t rest until everybody in work is paid at least the minimum wage.

- Minimum wage cheats – why the government is still letting them off the hook, TUC.org.uk, February 14, 2020.

2. Jennifer Lopez wants you to know that she was never upset about Ayo Edebiri’s leaked remarks.

While talking to EW about her forthcoming musical film, This Is Me...Now, the multi-hyphenate addressed appearing on Saturday Night Live with The Bear star in the aftermath of Edebiri’s previous remarks insulting Lopez resurfacing.

“She actually came to my dressing room, and she was very sweet,” Lopez, who appeared as musical guest, tells EW of Edebiri, who was hosting. “She was like, ‘Listen, I was young. I was on this thing. I said these things, and I am so sorry.’ She had seen my soundcheck, and she’s like, ‘You are amazing. I’m watching you out there singing and doing your thing. And I’m sorry.’ She was very gracious,” Lopez says.

In the week leading up to their Feb. 3 episode of SNL, Edebiri’s comments from a 2020 episode of the Scam Goddess podcast resurfaced. On the episode, the Emmy winner told host Laci Mosley that she views Lopez’s career as “one long scam.”

“I think she thinks that she’s still good, even though she’s not singing for most of these songs,” Edebiri said at the time. “A lot of the write-ups of the songs will be like, ‘J.Lo didn’t have time to make it to the studio.’ Like, ‘J.Lo was busy.’ Doing what? Not singing, obviously.”

Lopez stresses that she didn’t think twice about Edebiri’s remarks, understanding that we all say things we might later regret. “I said, “Listen, I get it,’” she adds. “We all do things at times – by the way, you’re entitled to your opinion – but also, we all do things at times that we don’t know are going to come back and haunt us later. I get it. It’s fine. I didn’t make a big deal about it.”

“She was so emotional,” Lopez concludes. “I just wanted to let her off the hook. I was like, ‘It’s fine. Don’t worry about it.’ But she really wanted to make amends in that way, and I really appreciated that. And we went on to have a great show.”

- Jennifer Lopez wanted to let Ayo Edebiri 'off the hook' for podcast remarks: 'She was so emotional', EW.com, February 13, 2024.

3. In Hollywood, there haven’t been many feuds, but the ones that exist (or existed) have been nothing short of epic. And among all the names on this list, Clint Eastwood has a place as well. Apparently, the mastermind 94-year-old filmmaker had an alleged fight with his peer and 67-year-old director Spike Lee around a decade and a half ago.

While Eastwood has maintained his high profile throughout his legendarily carved-out career both in front of and behind the lenses, he was called out on his filmmaking skills by Lee in a rather unprecedented manner, which escalated to the point where Steven Spielberg had to intervene. And, curiously enough, Eastwood actually came clean about it all.

Back in the early 2000s, when Flags of Our Fathers and its sequel Letters from Iwo Jima came out, the former was met with mixed reviews while the latter even went on to secure two Oscar nods to Clint Eastwood for Best Motion Picture of the Year and Best Achievement in Directing. But, even then, one of his peers seemed to be anything but pleased with him.

This peer was Spike Lee, who reportedly didn’t hesitate to point out that the Gran Torino star failed to include any black soldiers in his Second World War movie. This, apparently, didn’t sit well with Eastwood, whose response was that the history depicted in the film in itself was accurate, with his comment for Lee being, “a guy like that should shut his face.”

As bad as it seems, this wasn’t all. While the public comments shared back and forth during interviews between this duo was one thing, fellow director Steven Spielberg also had to seemingly intervene between them. This happened when what seemed like a playground argument was tried to tone down by adding a third party to mend the fences.

According to reports from Far Out Magazine, Spielberg was asked by Lee to extend an olive branch on his behalf between the two and settle the issues by filling in the communication gap. To this, Spielberg’s reported response was that he would “call Clint and tell him in the morning.” And so he did, considering how Eastwood later went on to call Lee “a nice guy.”

Around a year after all of this took place, the Unforgiven star got into an interview with The Guardian where he was asked to address this very issue at hand. During this, Eastwood came clean about it all and revealed that what was being portrayed as a “tiff” by the media was actually nothing more than something close to a misunderstanding.

Addressing the issue first, Eastwood said: “It wasn’t really a tiff. I was in Cannes and somebody said that he was quoted saying this and that. Some journalist. And I said, well if he said that… and I shot my mouth off.”

Continuing, he then went on to praise his fellow peer filmmaker while sharing the thoughts that went through his own head as he did so.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly star candidly said: “But he’s a nice guy. I think Spike was just trying to promote his flick. I understand the game. I just thought I wasn’t going to let him off the hook.”

-“I wasn’t going to let him off the hook”: Clint Eastwood Came Clean About His Fight With Spike Lee That Forced Steven Spielberg to Intervene After it Went Too Far, FandomWire.com, August 20, 2024.

本文僅代表作者本人觀點，與本網立場無關。歡迎大家討論學術問題，尊重他人，禁止人身攻擊和發(fā)布一切違反國家現行法律法規(guī)的內容。

About the author:

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

（作者：張欣）