elizabeth merrill

[SheaSeals]

Double Down, your comments evoke memories of Dane Iorg.

 

[21]

good call. never pass up the opportunity to bash an excellent writer who's (I'm guessing) better than you.

No opinion of Ms. Merrill, but you are so woefully off base here, SS, all I can do is chuckle and shake my head.

I love when people 'guess' the stature of anonymous message board posters.

Happy to see a fresh name get some props around here, and if someone wants to flag a questionable line, so what? What better way to learn?

 

[MertWindu]

"WICHITA, Kan. -- If there had been more time, Mike Coolbaugh and Tino Sanchez might have known how much they were alike. How they'd worry about their pregnant wives. How they spent so much time in buses and half-empty ballparks that their dreams flickered by like a dying scoreboard light.
The phone rings in San Antonio, and Mandy Coolbaugh is torn. If she talks about her husband, she will inevitably dab her raw eyes again and open up the questions: Why a man could die in a place he loved so much? How one in a million could land on two lives that were just really starting? "

Please, fans, explain those last two sentences. If she dabs her raw eyes it will open up questions? Will we need a Band-Aid lest they fall on the floor?

I sprained my ankle on the syntax in the second.

To be fair, Fen, the grammar doesn't confuse the bit about "dabbing the eyes" causing something. It says that if she talks about her husband, her tears will start AND the questions will come up. It's a little clumsily written (and a "why" where there should be a "how").

Shea, bark up some other tree. Seriously.

 

[daemon]

good call. never pass up the opportunity to bash an excellent writer who's (I'm guessing) better than you.

I'm sure Elizabeth is a great person, and I enjoyed her story immensely. But to say we can't question something that is somewhat clumsy at the beginning is a little weird.

It's not that you can't question someone. It's the tone and instance in which the questioning occurred.

"Please, fans, explain those last two sentences?"

It's like responding to Phil Simms' Super Bowl performance with, "Please, fans, explain those two consecutive incomplete passes he threw in the second quarter."

 

[imjustagirl2]

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.

 

[daemon]

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.

 

[imjustagirl2]

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.

 

[Babs]

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.

 

[dooley_womack1]

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.

 

[Joe Williams]

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?

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.

 

[Bears00]

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.

 

[extracare]

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

 

[daemon]

That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Double Down]

Double Down, your comments evoke memories of Dane Iorg.

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

 

[Sxysprtswrtr]

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

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.

 

[BigDog]

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.

 

[BigDog]

There's always a reason for barbecuing.

 

[loveyabye]

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

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.

this just seems like a mean thing to say. is this board also about being mean just for the sake of being mean?

 

[Sxysprtswrtr]

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

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.

this just seems like a mean thing to say. is this board also about being mean just for the sake of being mean?

I don't have a mean bone in my body, but geez lo peez ... this is how our business works. If you write something, it's going to be scrutinized, picked apart and analyzed - all for varying reasons.

 

[KP]

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

Welcome, "newbie." Weak.