elizabeth merrill

I disagree daemon, because those two incomplete passes were inconsequential. Those sentences were in her lede.

I read past them to get to the rest of the story, but they did momentarily trip me up. With one or two changed words, it would have been even better. It's fine to ask if one is simply misreading, or what.

 

My point is, what's the point?

That she is a great writer in spite of occassionally poor syntax?

That she isn't a great writer because she had poor syntax in hear lead?

If it's not one of those two, then what's the point of bringing it up? Great, you caught something a decent line editor should have. Here's a cookie. . .

Now, what could have been an interesting discussion has devolved into an argument about one sentence.

 

And I'm sure it will continue to evolve. So any questions we have shouldn't be asked? That's kind of what this board is about.

That being said, if you and I stop reiterating our points for the next 10 pages, maybe someone else weighs in, either on this topic or something else about the story. I think that's what's fair to Elizabeth.

 

In readers' eyes, we are all only as good as our weakest sentence. They all remember the factual error, and the confusing aspects. Like it or not, every sentence matters. That's why this kind of thing gets pointed out. I don't see the big deal in bringing it up. It's exactly what readers do.

 

One fact error or awkwardly worded phrase can make a reader forget all the good things in a 100-inch story. So yeah, nitpicking, and the lessons that can be taken from it, are perfectly fine for a forum of journalists.

 

I don't understand the rush to line up on either side, to be honest. Given how subjective our business is, I don't even think you can call very many writers or editors "great." You can say that you really like his or her work, or that you don't. But chances are, we could find someone else with the exact opposite view. How do any of us prove otherwise? If we're employed, and at least half of us are below average, then some boss who hired us thought we were good and was wrong, or knew we weren't good and hired us anyway.

Now that I think about, not sure if that says more about us or the bosses.

 

That story was very good.

And, the paragraph in question was difficult to read. I've read her stuff often, very good writer and reporter.

 

The point is that too many people here take pleasure in pointing out flaws. The mentioning of her "confusing" wording wasn't so that we could all become better writers. It was a blatant attempt to point out a flaw, without good reason. Weak, weak, weak

 

That's what I was trying to say.

 

Not sure I follow. Are you Don Denkinger or Jorge Orta then?

 

Back to what dools and Babs said, this is a board for journalists. Pointing out flaws is what we should do. If this story was one of Liz's "really good ones" ... then I sure hope we don't get a hold of one of her stories that fall into the mediocre category.

 

Female sportswriter has a thread started about her on SportsJournalists.com.
Female sportswriter gets barbecued on said thread.
In a related story, the sun rose in the east today.