demise of "s.i." truly saddens me

I'm sorry, but after reading King's writing for 10-plus years in SI, nothing in his arsenal suggests to me he was using that word on purpose, nailing what he was trying to say. It's funny, BTE, how you've suddenly turned Peter Freaking King into Norman Mailer.

If King truly were the wordsmith some suggest, he'd jealously avoid adverbs in the first place.

 

precisely. "jealously" gave me pause, and clearly did the same to others. those who "got it" without pause, well, that's nice. but isn't part of good writing being clear to almost everyone? at least i've always felt that way. i find it difficult to believe peter's intent was "jealously," simply because of the word discussion it's created here. peter's strength as a reporter/writer is his clarity, whether you're a fan of his or not.

perhaps he brainlocked. or just used a word meaning to use the other. it happens. all's i'm saying is that i'm disappointed an s.i. copyreader, backreader, whatever, didn't question it and then opt for another word or verbiage.

it's the "little" things, in ever-increasing number. that led me to use the word "demise" in describing what's happened to s.i. do i still subscribe and read? you bet. it still does what it does better than anything else.

but the gap between s.i. and everything else is shrinking weekly, it seems to me. this was just another small example of what i've been seeing.

i'd like to see p.k. weigh in but understand why he will not, considering the flogging he unfairly gets on this board. this thread was never intended to be about peter; simply about what i contend was shoddy editing at a place that was once incredibly clean.

 

Respectfully disagreeing with DDown, that's the word he wanted. It just sounds clumsy.

We need a 'What PK Should Have Said' contest, right now.

'Tom Brady protects his privacy the way that kid should have protected the Tejada ball.'

 

I just don't think of SI's shoddy editing as jealously-vs.-zealously -- I think of it as spelling freaking names wrong, of saying the Raiders still play in L.A., that kind of thing. There's a few every week now.

I agree with Joe Williams, in that when we only write to the LCD, we miss the chance to maybe teach a few readers a few words. I'm a big fan of writers throwing out the occasional line that only 10 percent of their readers might appreciate, just to keep those 10 percent around a little longer ...

 

Hell, I used to edit a guy who sometimes threw French phrases into his stuff, which is where I draw the line in an English-language publication. But ... someone wants to use an obscure English word or the fifth definition of the word and it's either clear from the context or is at least not misleading, no prob. We're supposed to have some fun with the language because otherwise the language is no fun (for the reader). A Kenn Finkel law of copy editing:

Don't assume the reader knows A.) Everything or B.) Nothing.

The reader gets it, in this instance -- Tom Brady likes his privacy. Even if he doesn't know that particular definition of the word. There's really no way to misread it.

 

Wasn't even talking about King. Just mentioned how just about anything considered to be good --- whether it's The Bible, Beowulf or a well-written Point After piece in SI --- likely will cause some people to go "Huh?" at some point. George Will used to make me go "Huh?" a lot. But that was my fault, not his.

Yes, "part" of good writing is that. And since that is your criteria, I would say King succeeded, since . . .

--- 99 percent of readers won't trip over "jealously"

--- and the 1 percent who do trip will regain their balance in about 3 seconds and still know exactly what he means.

Or do you really believe someone can read, "Tom Brady jealously guards his privacy" and not have any idea how Tom Brady feels about his privacy?

Not in my edition it doesn't. Her name is nowhere on the page.

 

I thought this was a pretty thin mag, all in all. Since the redesign, I think the content has gotten worse each week.

 

I was a SI subscriber from 1979 until 2007. It got to the point when I thought there was very little in it anymore than interested me.

I will say this though, I read PK's MMQB columns every week. He is a must-read for any NFL fan, even if you have to plow through his annoying travel notes and Starbucks references...

 

Tom Brady protects his privacy the way Obama protects suspected terrorists[/dickcheney]

 

I'm with Clutch here. Just got my copy a couple of minutes ago. No name on the page. If I wasn't familiar with the Point After rotation (or if it didn't have a byline on the contents on page 5), I would have no idea who wrote the column.

That is disappointing.

 

A-Rod must have friends in high places.