A small perk of moving is finding all kinds of odds and ends that you haven’t looked at in a few years. Today I came across a box of items from my days as a magazine copy editor. Installment #1: the don’t-do list.
Magazine copy is meant to be breezy, and actually Esquire has mostly good writing, but once in a while I’d come across a lazy word or expression that just had to go on the don’t-do list. The list, which I kept stuck to my monitor, was, despite my convictions, purely for my own personal amusement and catharsis. Some senior editors don’t much care for smart-aleck copy editors who accuse them of bad writing. I guess they prefer to be silently judged.
If any of our word-nerd readers have similar lists they’d like to share (Mrs. Brown? Ms. Squirrel?), I’d love to see them.
but he plays one on TV as in I’m not really a magazine editor with a job pimply little copy editors covet, but I play one on TV.
deconstruct usually intended to mean break down or simplify. Terminology swiped from the works of literary theorist Jacques Lacan in an attempt to appear smart. In the writer’s defense, Lacan probably did really need to take a good, long look at his closet and simplify, simplify, simplify.
Don’t get me wrong: … it’s just … Don’t get me wrong: I do understand Lacan. It’s just that his shoes are hideous.
enough said and, worse, ’nuff said and that is all I will say about this expression; I believe I have said quite enough.
existential usually as a synonym for depressed.
herein, herewith also therein, wherein, etc. tongue-in-cheek appropriation of jargon doesn’t make it any less jargony. At least real jargon is honest.
impossibly he stepped into the impossibly bright morning. liar!
the result: … usually a subset of the old “recipe” formula: Take one Oscar-nominated animal trainer and one saucy lemur. Stir. The result: One Oscar-nominated lemur!
say, … ; um, … ; well, … falsely apologetic, “stammering” interjections that usually introduce a really awful joke or a really lazy turn of phrase, but that by no means mitigate their dreadfulness.
Who’s Who when listing an impressive cast. What the hell is a Who’s Who anyway? And why must it almost always be “veritable”?
Zenlike antonym of existential.
Honorable post-Esquire mention, not that you don’t see it in magazines, but I think bloggers are squarely to blame for this one: Attempting. To. Communicate. Emphasis. By. Putting. A. Period. At. The. End. Of. Every. Single. Word. Lame.
February 14, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“And, well…you know the rest.”
Any use of “uber” outside the context of Hitler.
Describing something as “meta.”
“I just threw up in my mouth a little.” Damn Dodgeball.
Now, of course, I could write volumes on the academic jargon that raises my blood pressure. Guess that would merit a separate post, though.
February 14, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Y’all are making me feel very chill about this stuff. I don’t have a problem with meta- or deconstructed. Both have their uses. I’ll have to think about particular words and phrases I hate other than the usuals.
February 14, 2007 at 2:30 pm
You misunderstand my “meta” problem. I think it’s fine in its proper use as a prefix. I get mad when it’s used as a stand-alone adjective.
February 14, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Gotcha. Definitely more annoying, but I know I’ve been guilty of it.
February 14, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I also don’t like colons. They see to have no other place but in APA bibliography paper writing stuff. Am I wrong? Did I just make a crazy bold statement there?
February 14, 2007 at 7:11 pm
How about “At this point in time . . .” Like, now? Also “impacted”, properly a term for an ouchy wisdom tooth. And my favorite: “To service you better.” Stallions service; bulls service. Possibly mechanics service cars, but that’s a stretch.
February 14, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Don’t get me wrong, but I’ve been feeling impossibly existential lately. Maybe I need to deconstruct down, um, the Zen of the herein. Enough. Said.
But anyway, I think you might also like this list:
http://gawker.com/news/blogs/bad-lingo-blogmedia-clichs-222162.php
If Esquire was bad, the blogosphere* is surely worse…
* http://xkcd.com/c181.html
February 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Sendhil, I remember that Gawker list–very good one. I should admit that I’ve been guilty of using a couple of those myself, but mostly in personal correspondence. Mom, you’re really pointing out errors in usage (about which I could write volumes)–we’re talking more about lame cliches.
February 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Colons have plenty of uses. But I did remember that I hate things like “return back to.”
February 15, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I’m sure you, Will, and I could come up with a killer list of misused words and phrases. That’ll be your first assignment when Geode Editorial hires you as an associate.
February 15, 2007 at 2:48 pm
You mean you’re going to assign me stuff for fun? Because that’s what this sounds like.
Maybe you should change the name to Geode Nerditorial…
February 15, 2007 at 3:48 pm
What you call fun is what we call a style guide. And fun.
July 30, 2007 at 11:32 pm
[...] The Start of the Dont-Do’s | Jul 30th 2007 I’m determined to get back in the saddle with this whole style gripe and discussion thing. Back in February, before this site got its feeble launch, Will contributed a hilarious post to Always Double Back about the list of cliches he was determined to purge from all articles that crossed his desk at Esquire. Our readers jumped in on the comments and helped us geek out a little further with other egregious examples. See that post here. [...]