In my weekend reading I noticed that the writer (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) frequently used the word statement to mean facial expression.

His face was devoid of statement, but inside he was seething.

His face took on a surprised statement.

The writer uses USn spelling so I assume he comes from over that side of the Atlantic. I strongly suspect he has undergone some sort of psychobabble counselling. Has anyone else come across this use of the word or is this an idiosyncracy of the writer?

Bingley

My vote is for the idiosyncracy option. It sounds hideous to me. Or rather, the second usage sounds worse than the first. This is of course no more than my humble opinion.

It is nice to see posting you here again, Bingley. I hope you are well. the only thing I typed here were the three sets of square brackets

sjm, I completely agree with you. Whilst I accept that one's facial expression does make a statement, the use of that word in this context, especially, as you so rightly say, in the second cae, is anathema to me.
I sincerely hope that, a) it is an idiosyncracy of that writer, and b) that it doesn't catch on!

I hope that your virtual abandonment of typewriting doesn't mean that your posts will all be dragon on!

His face took on a surprised statement.

Nice metaphor!

Nice metaphor!

Yeah, if used once. Apparently this guy used it repeatedly.

To me, this smacks of machine translation. Are you sure this was a native-English speaking author?

Yeah, could be a machine translation, but it could also be some cute affectation adopted purposely by the writer as some sort of personal style...whatever the reason, it doesn't work for me, it's awkward and forced and I don't like it. I'd use expression in either case. That's my statement and I'm sticking to it!

Yes, he seemed to be a native speaker, despite a rather infelicitous style of writing. His use of statement was the only thing that struck me as wrong rather than just clumsy.

Bingley

Why not just share with us the name of the author? There's no need to protect the guilty.

Yeah. Let us see the whole thang! I don't see anything wrong with what you've shown us so far so I'm voting not-guilty (or at least not-proven) unless you can come up with something more.

His face was devoid of author, but inside he was guilty.

the expression "face took on a surprised statement" gets two(2) unique google hits; somebody else must be reading this guys stuff.

-joe friday

Yes, more often than not, nowadays, mistakes are pushed as creative innovations..

Yes, more often than not, nowadays, mistakes are pushed as creative innovations..
Like when I try to write poetry; I just hope and pray that people will be fooled into thinking I've edged off into some new, deeply-meaningful territory--when in reality I just plain am not very good!

mistakes are pushed as creative innovations.

Some jazz musicians are masters at this art form.

Sometimes I'll take a picture and realize at the time that I've screwed up, but it might be interesting. I'll try it on purpose for a few shots and, when I get the prints back, find out that the first shot, when it was still a mistake, was the best.

the first shot, when it was still a mistake, was the best
The art is in repeating the same mistake

the first shot, when it was still a mistake, was the best
The art is in repeating the same mistake

And doing it as well as, if not better than, the first time.

the first shot, when it was still a mistake, was the best
The art is in repeating the same mistake
I should think he meant the serendipitous (and I now know where that word came from, thanks to Anu's book) kind of mistake, such as penicillin and Teflon. For more on Teflon:
http://www.whitetrout.net/chuck/Teflon/teflon.htm

If art lies in repeating the same mistake, then I most certainly am an artist

If art lies in repeating the same mistake

Well, that and making it look like it wasn't a mistake.

If art lies in repeating the same mistake, then I most certainly am an artist
Alas, we must wait for the future to tell, but