Deep, Insightful Sports Analysis

From an article in today's Times, explaining why the New York Giants have struggled so much over the last twelve months:

"The Giants had a third-down conversation rate of 40.6 percent last season, but in their final two losses of 2012 that rate dropped to 30 percent. This season it is 34.7 percent. . . ."

Now, I don't claim great knowledge of football strategy, but if the Giants are engaging in conversations with the opposing teams on 40% of their third downs--instead of trying to move the football down the field--I think I know why they're having so much trouble!

Dubious Moments in Editing

For more than a half-century, Bill Mazeroski kept the Pittsburgh Pirates uniform he wore when he hit the home run to win the 1960 World Series in a cedar chest in his Pennsylvania home.
"Priceless Moment for Pirates, but $632,500 for the Uniform"

A bit of trivia: The 1960 fall classic, held in Bill Mazeroski's cedar chest, holds the record for lowest World Series attendance.  Not surprising, really: Once the fielders and umpires crammed in, the chest held barely enough room for the batter--to say nothing of fans.  Of course, the confined nature of the venue also detracts somewhat from the grandeur of Mazeroski's series-clinching round-tripper, which actually only traveled three-and-a-half feet.

(SIDE NOTE: The record for SECOND lowest attendance since 1960 belongs to the 2005 World Series, between the Houston Astros and the Chicago White Sox.  While that series was held in standard-size baseball stadiums, it also featured the Houston Astros.)

Great Moments in Dubious Editing

I don't know what it is with Times' editors and their penchant for allowing alliteration.  Today, we read of Japan adopting a "radical policy path after years of political paralysis."  Am I too persnickety?  Well, OK, yes.  But still!  Am I the only one who feels certain effects stick out like the proverbial sore thumb?  (And why do people stick out their sore thumbs?  Shouldn't they keep sore thumbs tucked away so they don't bump into things?)

I once employed a writing tutor who fancied himself a great stylist.  He'd had articles published in local newspapers, alumni newsletters, and similar venues.  He took great pride in showing me his pieces.  And while these were always written competently--which came as a relief to this supervisor, at least--this man had the most compulsive need to alliterate that I have ever seen.  It didn't matter what he was writing: an opinion piece for the college paper, a humorous story, a eulogy.  Practically every other sentence would feature forced formations of plodding purple prose.  I could tell he took great pride in what he doubtlessly deemed riveting writing.  And no matter how earnestly I endeavored to enjoin him to eschew this stretching and straining for effects at best empty and at worst emetic, he would simply smile sweetly and soldier on. 

If you're feeling the urge to punch someone in the face, welcome to my world.

As a writing teacher, I enjoy working with students who write well and come to me in search of greater knowledge.  I find it rewarding working with people who don't write well and who show improvement after a course of instruction.  But working with people who think they know how to write can be nothing short of exasperating.  So says the Solipsist.

Great Moments in Dubious Editing: Digital Layout Edition

On the left-hand side of the page:

"The military’s response to the hunger strike has revived complaints by medical ethics groups that say doctors should not force-feed prisoners who decide not to eat, reviving a similar clash over Guantánamo detainees from the Bush administration.

"Last week, the president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Jeremy A. Lazarus, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel saying that any doctor who participated in forcing a prisoner to eat against his will was violating 'core ethical values of the medical profession.'"

To the immediate right of these paragraphs: A link to a video about, "The fastest way to caramelize garlic."

Great Moments in Dubious Editing--Unfortunate Alliteration Edition

I don't "get" alliteration.  As a literary device, that is.  Metaphors, yes.  I understand how a clever metaphor can illuminate an idea by showing it in a new and unfamiliar way: fog creeping in on little cat's feet, and all.  Now that's a nice metaphor.  Not least because it has a cat.

Alliteration, on the other hand?  Meh.  So you string a few words together that have the same consonant sound.  Big black bats bounce basketballs behind Bloomingdale's.  There.  Alliteration.  Whoop.

I suppose it can be useful as mnemonic device.  Perhaps a pleasing aural experience, useful for memorizing muscles or selling sausages, but in serious news--particularly in stories about, say, war-torn nations--it should be avoided:

"Information is a strategic weapon in the stalemated conflict, as both sides seek support from suffering Syrians . . . ." ("Syria Campaigns to Persuade U.S. to Change Sides")

"Seeking support," OK.  But "suffering Syrians"?  Images of Sylvester the Cat arise unbidden.  How about "traumatized," "beleaguered," or even "war-weary"?  See, that last one even gives the writer an opportunity to alliterate without unnecessarily distracting the readers with obvious over-writing.

More Great Moments in Dubious Editing

"He flew in to the airport here in Makhachkala, where the plate-glass windows of the arrival hall frame a mosque with twin minarets stretching skyward." ("Search for Home Led Suspect to Land Marred by Strife")

Can't stand those downward-reaching minarets, myself.

From the same article:

"Dagestan is a place where the graffiti outside one mosque says, 'Victory or Paradise.'”

Now, we can't blame the editor for this one--unless graffiti artists have editors.  Still, I couldn't help but wonder: If those are the options, why would anyone choose victory?