Two chipmunks and an Alvin

I was in a shop at lunchtime that had a promotion on for the DVD release of the Alvin and the Chipmunks film.

It suddenly occurred to me: the title 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' implies that Alvin (unlike Simon and Theodore) isn't actually a chipmunk. Otherwise it would be 'Alvin and the Other Chipmunks' or 'Alvin and Two More Chipmunks'.

But if he isn't a chipmunk, what is he? And aren't they all supposed to be siblings?

6 comments:

Gez said...

Was Bill Hayley not a Comet? Was Buddy Holly not a Cricket?

THE GRAMMARPHILE said...

That's quite a keen observation! I never thought about it that way before, but what you're saying makes perfect sense...

The Ridger, FCD said...

Was - more to the point - Diana Ross not a Supreme?

The other two just aren't important.

Though you're right that in many cases it does imply that.

lynneguist said...

There's a common/proper issue here. Whether or not Alvin is a Chipmunk is debatable, as it could argued that The Chipmunks is Alvin's backing 'band', rather than the band that he is a part of.

But Alvin definitely is a chipmunk.

JD said...

I think Lynneguist has hit the nail on the head. However I would add that 'The Chipmunks' is quite an unimaginative name for a backing band that consists of, erm, chipmunks...

On another note, it's great when I blog about something from the dredges of my mind and four seemingly intelligent and perceptive people take the time to comment. Thanks!

Apus said...

Well gez, as I recall the bands you refer to were, respectively, Bill Hayley and the Comets and Buddy Holly and the Crickets, just as Cliff Richard was backed by his Shadows but was not himself a Shadow.

By the way, I saw Bill Hayley live in the seventies; he was rubbish. Buddy, of course, was a genius.