Craig H Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 I'm sure there's something interesting in here, but the god awful grammar makes it such a chore to read. How is it possible that Dave could write the Observer for all this time and yet be such an incredibly shitty writer? He doesn't have to improve - no one's on his ass to make him improve, he's his own boss. He could've probably learned something had he been paying attention during the time when he wrote for The National Sports Daily, 'cause they probably had some pretty good copy editors putting his stuff through a wringer. I've been working at the same newspaper for 13 years now, and we have one writer who was there when I got there who hasn't improved not one single, solitary whit since I got there 13 years ago. How do you do something for 13 years and not get better at it? She makes the same stupid mistakes now that she made way back when. All she has to do is keep a copy of her unedited stuff, then compare it to the edited version, then work on those weaknesses. But why should she? No one in management is making her, no one cares. It's more work for the editors, but screw us, who cares about us? That is insane and depressing. See, in my mind, being a professional writer means having the ability to write at something about an 8th grade level. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstout Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 She spells "Santa Claus" with an e at the end of "Claus" like the movie. She writes for a living and can't spell "Santa Claus." Been doing this for 13 years, still does it. I really don't like my job, but I can't see caring so little about it that you don't improve at it. I still feel like I learn something new every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustronaut Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 In TV, we're always told to write to a third grade level. It's really sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Hold on here. What has Santa Claus gotten up to that he's showing up in your paper so often? That sneaky bugger. I knew somethign would come up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 See, that's how you end up on the Naughty list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 SOMEONE HAS TO TELL TRUTH TO POWER!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstout Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Hold on here. What has Santa Claus gotten up to that he's showing up in your paper so often? That sneaky bugger. I knew somethign would come up. Santa shows up in articles a lot around Christmas time, of course. She writes tons of articles about charities in town having drives to ensure poor kids have a Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Raven also had the capability of winning titles more prestigious than the Hardcore title, which AJ doesn't have. Really, fuck Meltzer and anyone else giving AJ a hard time for loving the business enough to actually care that she won the most prestigious belt she is eligible to win. You people deserve Kelly Kelly or whichever fitness model on your television screen week in and week out. Also, every single person that posts on this board is a mark, including myself and every worker. I thought as a board we were past the serious use of that word, but apparently not. You're posting on the internet about pro wrestling. You're a mark. Let's move on. Mark. Hold on here. What has Santa Claus gotten up to that he's showing up in your paper so often? That sneaky bugger. I knew somethign would come up. Santa shows up in articles a lot around Christmas time, of course. She writes tons of articles about charities in town having drives to ensure poor kids have a Christmas. Here I was hoping she was shoehorning in Santa Claus references into articles about a local minor league hockey team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie M. Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 I'm sure there's something interesting in here, but the god awful grammar makes it such a chore to read. How is it possible that Dave could write the Observer for all this time and yet be such an incredibly shitty writer? He doesn't have to improve - no one's on his ass to make him improve, he's his own boss. He could've probably learned something had he been paying attention during the time when he wrote for The National Sports Daily, 'cause they probably had some pretty good copy editors putting his stuff through a wringer. I've been working at the same newspaper for 13 years now, and we have one writer who was there when I got there who hasn't improved not one single, solitary whit since I got there 13 years ago. How do you do something for 13 years and not get better at it? She makes the same stupid mistakes now that she made way back when. All she has to do is keep a copy of her unedited stuff, then compare it to the edited version, then work on those weaknesses. But why should she? No one in management is making her, no one cares. It's more work for the editors, but screw us, who cares about us? That is insane and depressing. See, in my mind, being a professional writer means having the ability to write at something about an 8th grade level. Silly me. You'd be surprised at how many reporters/journalists by trade are actually poor writers. If most of them tried to publish the amount of content Dave does on a weekly basis, I imagine there would be lots of errors too. I'm not saying he's great but he's obviously prioritized the quality of his journalism over the quality of his grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie20x6 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 MR. OLYMPIA 1980 talk on today's show. BIG DAVE breaking down Arnold's legs and Mike Mentzer's psyche! That's worth a month's subscription right there. He really seems to dislike Mentzer's High Intensity Training. He must be a volume mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MORELOCK Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Raven also had the capability of winning titles more prestigious than the Hardcore title, which AJ doesn't have. Really, fuck Meltzer and anyone else giving AJ a hard time for loving the business enough to actually care that she won the most prestigious belt she is eligible to win. You people deserve Kelly Kelly or whichever fitness model on your television screen week in and week out. Also, every single person that posts on this board is a mark, including myself and every worker. I thought as a board we were past the serious use of that word, but apparently not. You're posting on the internet about pro wrestling. You're a mark. Let's move on. Mark. Horribly executed, but still non-serious. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 That's my style, I try to fail upward, but I just continue to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool arrow Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 The radio show with Oscar was much more interesting than I thought it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie20x6 Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 What is Sliced Bread #2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPA Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 What is Sliced Bread #2? Assuming that is a serious question and not some sorta meta WON joke I don't get... Sliced Bread #2 = the version of the Shiranui that Brian Kendrick does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool arrow Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Someone called in to Alvarez on the free radio show asking what Sliced Bread #1 was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Territorial Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Someone called in to Alvarez on the free radio show asking what Sliced Bread #1 was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool arrow Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 And that's what Alvarez told him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prboyle Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I'm sure there's something interesting in here, but the god awful grammar makes it such a chore to read. How is it possible that Dave could write the Observer for all this time and yet be such an incredibly shitty writer? He doesn't have to improve - no one's on his ass to make him improve, he's his own boss. He could've probably learned something had he been paying attention during the time when he wrote for The National Sports Daily, 'cause they probably had some pretty good copy editors putting his stuff through a wringer. I've been working at the same newspaper for 13 years now, and we have one writer who was there when I got there who hasn't improved not one single, solitary whit since I got there 13 years ago. How do you do something for 13 years and not get better at it? She makes the same stupid mistakes now that she made way back when. All she has to do is keep a copy of her unedited stuff, then compare it to the edited version, then work on those weaknesses. But why should she? No one in management is making her, no one cares. It's more work for the editors, but screw us, who cares about us? That is insane and depressing. See, in my mind, being a professional writer means having the ability to write at something about an 8th grade level. Silly me. You'd be surprised at how many reporters/journalists by trade are actually poor writers. If most of them tried to publish the amount of content Dave does on a weekly basis, I imagine there would be lots of errors too. I'm not saying he's great but he's obviously prioritized the quality of his journalism over the quality of his grammar. From comments that he's made throughout the years, Meltzer's process seems to be compiling odds and ends throughout the week and doing the bulk of his newsletter writing during a single night. Thus, his writing, most likely, does not go through a second pass. When he spends time on a piece, it's obvious. Just look at his LA Times articles or a few of the obituaries published in those two collections (I recall that the Owen Hart and Giant Baba ones stood out). He is not a bad writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstout Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I'm sure the LA Times articles are getting thoroughly edited by professionals. Maybe he got someone to thoroughly read over the stuff in the obit books because he had the time to do it and wasn't pressed up against a weekly deadline like he is with the newsletter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 Presumably writing it piecemeal is why you sometimes get the same newsbit twice a couple paragraphs apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Yeah, I'm fairly certain his L.A. Times and Yahoo Sports articles, and his books, all get edited. Whether or not the manuscripts for them are as poor as the WON often is I have no clue, but major news outlets and book publishing companies employ copy editors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prboyle Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Yeah, I'm fairly certain his L.A. Times and Yahoo Sports articles, and his books, all get edited. Whether or not the manuscripts for them are as poor as the WON often is I have no clue, but major news outlets and book publishing companies employ copy editors. Yes, I am aware of this and I realize I should have picked better examples to nullify the "he had editors for that" response. It’s still unfair to judge Meltzer's ability to write based off a handful of grammatical or clarity mistakes that occur over 14 or so pages of 8-point font text that is produced weekly and only represents a portion of his commitments. Put any writer in that situation (save maybe Lester Bangs) and they are bound to do the same thing. It is apparent that Meltzer often does not look over what he has written. When he does, such as his Hall of Fame bios, it is noticeable and represents a good piece of writing. Can we rather critique Meltzer on more evenhanded territory, such as his response to the Volador/La Sombra mask match vis-à-vis his love for spotfesty, million near fall matches (random Dragons Gate crud, Michaels/Undertaker WM 25)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Space is such a premium in newspaper writing, I'm guessing what gets through the editors there is a version with roughly one word left out of every eight Meltz sends them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted September 18, 2013 Author Share Posted September 18, 2013 Yeah, I'm fairly certain his L.A. Times and Yahoo Sports articles, and his books, all get edited. Whether or not the manuscripts for them are as poor as the WON often is I have no clue, but major news outlets and book publishing companies employ copy editors. Yes, I am aware of this and I realize I should have picked better examples to nullify the "he had editors for that" response. It’s still unfair to judge Meltzer's ability to write based off a handful of grammatical or clarity mistakes that occur over 14 or so pages of 8-point font text that is produced weekly and only represents a portion of his commitments. Put any writer in that situation (save maybe Lester Bangs) and they are bound to do the same thing. It is apparent that Meltzer often does not look over what he has written. When he does, such as his Hall of Fame bios, it is noticeable and represents a good piece of writing. Can we rather critique Meltzer on more evenhanded territory, such as his response to the Volador/La Sombra mask match vis-à-vis his love for spotfesty, million near fall matches (random Dragons Gate crud, Michaels/Undertaker WM 25)? It will be interesting to read Dave's first-hand comments instead of his second-hand reinterpreting what Carlos or Dr Lucha or Kris sent him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts