pyrrhic victory

[Ike Broflovski]

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.

 

[OneMoreRead]

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.

 

[EE94]

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?

 

[dooley_womack1]

I've been saying what Klosterman says for years.

It's painful, watching the leadership drive this industry off a cliff, Thelma and Louise style.

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

I think you're projecting in an onanistic way.

 

[ServeItUp]

High school education, Meat? I learned what a Pyrrhic victory was in junior-year high school English. But I see your point.

 

[fishwrapper]

High school education, Meat? I learned what a Pyrrhic victory was in junior-year high school English. But I see your point.

You must have went to one of dem der fancy schools.

 

[butchie]

As a SJC neophyte (newbie for you 8th graders) this has been my favorite thread. It took several pages to get to the C word that should be dominating the discussion. Context is everything. The criticism of Pat Forde's use of the phrase may be valid, but when I read it, "pyrrhic" meant "empty" to me.

 

[Bruce_Shoebottom]

If I'm editing, and someone else uses Pyrrhic? Hey, your name's on it, knock yourself out.

If I'm writing? Never in a billion years. I've got better things to do than engage in intellectual masturbation.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I nearly masturbated (intellectually) all over a page I designed back in the day. We covered a basketball team that had a sharp-shooting guard whose last name was Klein. I so wanted to run this hammer over the story:

Eine Klein Stringmusik

Of course, an editor shot me down quicker than I could explain it, and I'm glad he did. I am sure I would have regretted it, not to mention the mail I would have received from people telling me my German is flawed. But some day I'd love to live in a world that has a publication and a readership where I could get away with that head. ;D


Oh, and I don't have a problem with the proper use of Pyrrhic victory.

 

[spnited]

I can't imagine any publication allowing you to get away with that hed, JD. But it is a ****ing classic!

 

[ServeItUp]

I nearly masturbated (intellectually) all over a page I designed back in the day. We covered a basketball team that had a sharp-shooting guard whose last name was Klein. I so wanted to run this hammer over the story:

Eine Klein Stringmusik

Of course, an editor shot me down quicker than I could explain it, and I'm glad he did. I am sure I would have regretted it, not to mention the mail I would have received from people telling me my German is flawed. But some day I'd love to live in a world that has a publication and a readership where I could get away with that head. ;D


Oh, and I don't have a problem with the proper use of Pyrrhic victory.

Outstanding. I got it immediately.

George Vecsey used the word "mellifluous" in the lede of a World Series column about Ernie Harwell and that sent me scrambling for a dictionary. Would that I could work for a readership who understood it and with writers who could pull it off.

 

[Almost_Famous]

Without googling, do you know what it is?

yes

Would you ever allow it to run in the lead of one of your reporters' stories?

no

What he said. On both counts.

Why?

yeah, because I know our readers

i don't want them to have to work to read a story. I don't want them to feel like a writer is talking down to them.

Absolutely, completely, disagree. Like reading stuff where I have to look words up. Like learning. There's a difference between using $14 words to convey your point and 'talking down.'

You never learn something in AP copy. That's why nobody ever gets out of the second paragraph of AP copy.

 

[Twoback]

Doesn't matter if your readers understand it or not.
It's a freaking cliche.
It's got to go.
Now.

 

[BG]

When I first read the initial post, I wasn't sure what a "pyrrhic victory" was, but I had a vague idea.

So I looked it up, and now I know for sure, which is kinda cool. But hey...I'm just an average guy who subscribes to a couple newspapers and reads a whole bunch more online. What do I know?

 

[andyouare?]

Just my 2 cents. I saw this in today's Times of London story about the England-Spain soccer friendly.

"Even for Spain, victory was regarded as pyrrhic in some quarters. After a calamitous start to their Euro 2008 campaign, some of the country’s media descended on Manchester praying for a defeat that would end the reign of Luis Aragonés, their coach."

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but if you ever check out the Times of London, or other top, non-tabloid papers from England, there is no fear of big words. I know there are societal differences, but the style of writing is noticeable.

Also, I often read the Times' soccer coverage to pick up new words and phrases. I don't do that with USA Today.

 

[21]

Only because someone else revived this, I just want to add that I never in my life used the term 'pyrrhic victory' until this thread, and then I used it three times in one conversation with my sister, regarding the best way to deal with our mother.

She still has no idea what I meant, but at least she thinks I'm really smart.

 

[forever_town]

I remember talking to a source when I covered the satellite launch industry used the term Pyrrhic victory. I had to ask him what that meant so I could understand it for myself.

As far as I'm concerned, don't use $14 words. Say what you mean. That's my take as a managing editor of a newspaper and I'll stick with it.

 

[zeke12]

... is the word of the day on dictionary.com

 

[Mystery_Meat]

... is the word of the day on dictionary.com

... which, if you try to click on it, sends you to their archive. I guess they have trouble fitting it into the lede too.