demise of "s.i." truly saddens me

I don't know that I'd go that far. While I'm not sure she'll ever be topflight in terms of career wins, she seems to run well there. A fourth and a third aren't terrible showings.

 

I liked Rushin - but I think for the most part the rotating Point Afters since Reilly left have been stronger than anything Reilly would have put out in that space.

 

Instead of debating whether the fifth acceptable usage of a word either works or not, isn't this as easy as thinking about the reader? When a reader comes across "jealously" in this instance, it is only my opinion that it is likely to cause him to stop and say, "Huh?" which makes me think it's not the best way to go.

 

Is it an awkward usage? Sure. Does it really typify the "demise" of SI? Not really.

While we're on word usage, demise? C'mon.

It's still a great magazine, even if its fastball is a couple mph off what it used to be. I can't imagine its niche deteriorating to the point where its existence is in jeopardy. I still have a subscription, and there's a lot of people here who chime in noticing the same mistakes, which shows you're still reading it, despite whatever disappointment you have. Posnanski's Cleveland piece the other week was outstanding -- that's the mag identifying a great writer and putting him to work.

And online, there are still only two sites I go to instinctively -- ESPN and SI.com. I'll read certain writers on other sites, but in terms of going to sites for news, those are still the big two for me, even if the traffic numbers point to Yahoo for whatever reason.

 

To be honest after reading this, I think King probably meant "zealously," but wrote "jealously" because his brain couldn't quite come up with the word he wanted, and they sound similar. My brain misfires this way too on occasion, but it usually feels awkward enough that I end up rewriting the sentence. While the fifth definition of the word might technically work here, and that's probably why a copy editor didn't change it, I don't know how anyone could read that sentence and without it feeling awkward.

 

I have another issue with this latest issue. Turn to the last page. This obviously is a column and shows the mug drawing of what apparently is the author of the column, a woman, but I don't see her name anywhere. Not at the top, not in a tagline, not anywhere as far as I can tell.

What's up with that? I would guess that's Selena Roberts, but to the casual or first-time reader, it's a head scratcher.

Is that SI's new style, to present columnists without identifying them except for an illustration that's not very good?

 

I don't think this is true. Like I said, I've read "jealously" in that context many, many times. It isn't *that* uncommon, even if it is a little stilted and arcane.

It did not give me one iota of pause.

 

It says 'by SELENA ROBERTS' in red right under the word 'Tennis' in the headline.

 

I'd still stay away from swimming pools in Vegas, though.

 

Why would you say that? The first part, I mean. Probably 10 times the writer you are? Either you're a shit writer, or you give Peter King way, WAY too much credit. I suspect it's the latter.

 

Some of the best writing in the world would make someone somewhere go "Huh?"

It all depends on the level of intelligence you're writing to and whether you should try to make sure everybody "gets" a word or phrase or pop culture reference.

I can't imagine anyone but the most anal protectors of the English language --- or someone desperately looking for a "gotcha" --- actually going "Huh?" upon seeing "jealously" used.

 

And even among those who go "Huh?", my hunch is a lot of them continue reading and get over it.

Rather than, you know, throwing the publication to the ground (hopefully they weren't reading off a monitor) and calling to cancel a subscription (hopefully they're paying readers, not free riders of that online stuff).

That's one of the hardest things about writing for or, conversely, reading a newspaper -- the demand by some editors that every reader must get every phrase or reference. That's what keeps stuff as interesting as the White Pages.