pyrrhic victory

Pat, thanks for checking in.
I'm with you. How many Jim Murray references were lost on readers? But, that was the beauty of it. There is nothing wrong with sending a reader to the dictionary (or dictionary.com or m-w.com, or whatever it is these days.)
Language is our tool. Communication is our medium. Storytelling is our life. Blending the three is our profession.

 

Our website has occasionally linked to the more eclectic words and phrases (dictionary.com or whatever), which is kind of cool. We probably ought to do more of it.

 

You know, that's a great point. Even something like the Johnstown Flood might have been lost on a lot of less-historically apt readers.

 

My favorite feature on my Firefox browser is the little pull-down menu in the top right-hand corner that allows you to quickly search google, dictionary.com, Yahoo!, etc. I use the dictionary.com button quite a bit.

 

Dictionary.com has done a wonderful job of marketing and placement.
But, if you can, Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) is preferred in every school and should be preferred over dictionary.com in the workplace. They're very similar, but Merriam-Webster has an institutional quality.

[Hey, Webster, where's my check? ]

 

Sirs, Madames,

Did a story from Johnstown on the Jets way back. My editor said it was probably the only piece ever filed from there that didn't mention the flood.

That was neither Pyrrhic or a victory.

YHS, etc

 

I'm a big m-w.com fan myself. It's a handy reference when I want to cheat at online Scrabble.

As for Pat's points, I'd respond now, but I have to go to a basketball game. I'm thinking the home team's victory will be Pyrrhic only if someone on their team gets shot after they push the lead to 80 in the third quarter.

 

Thelma and Louise's victory was pyrrhic, not to mention Sapphic.

 

With all due respect, Pat, how is what is going on at Texas Tech a Pyrrhic victory?

As has been made quite clear here, a Pyrrhic victory is a victory that comes with great consequence. I think it would be more like a Pyrrhic victory if Knight broke the record but had to burn his house down, or kill his kids (and don't put that past him), or cut his arms off, or, for that matter, pay each Texas Tech fan $880,000 to see him break the record.

There have been no consequences, or cost, to Knight for breaking the record. You wrote, quite well, that people there just don't care, or don't care enough, or Knight can't get them to care. That's not a Pyrrhic victory. Had Knight left his starting point guard in the game just to break the record -- and the point guard blew out his knee -- that would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

"This is the bed Bobby Knight made for himself" is, I think, the point of your column. It's a good point. I'd argue, in fact, that you didn't even need the first two grafs to make exactly the same point. Again, I'm not against colorful writing, but if something can be said without forcing the reader to a dictionary, then I'm all for that approach. I've learned this the hard, hard way.

 

Somebody talked about a line being drawn and that we should be hesitant about crossing it. I don't believe there is some magical line set in stone. If there is a line, it's different for different people. Pyrrhic is a great example. Many of us know its meaning and how to use it. Many of us didn't have a clue it existed until this thread.

A couple of years ago, I wrote about Michael Phelps and his sinewy frame. My editor and three copy editors said they hadn't heard "sinewy" before and if it was over their heads, it was definitely over the head of the readers. That word wasn't a stretch for me at all. I didn't think it'd be a stretch for readers.

I like the word, but wouldn't have use "Pyrrhic" because it's not a part of my casual conversation.

Because of this thread, I had the same discussion with my editor. He loved "Pyrrhic" and would have let it run. This is the same editor who didn't know what "sinewy" meant. He majored in English and got a minor in history.

Sorry for the babbling. I'll end with this: we take our individual histories, cultures and everyday experiences into our writing and editing. That diversity of knowledge and experience should strengthen our sections. Adhering to one philosophy or not stepping over another's line only weakens our sections.

 

Well said.
I think that had an editor questioned the use of Pyrrhic and had it explained to him (and my guess is the editor questioned it before reading further to see if there was a contextual definition provided) then it should have been allowed.
The editor learned something and should allow the readers the same opportunity.
As for an SE and a few editors not knowing the word sinewy, that's downright shameful. Were you supposed to describe Phelps as stringy because that might be understood? It might be, but it would be wrong.
How else to describe someone who is sinewy than to use sinewy?

 

I think you're projecting in an onanistic way.