Friday, February 17, 2006

hilltop reopens

I found the new Heyamoto. It's on the re-opening of the Hilltop. She's still doing the we thing!! At least this time she seems like she really means "we", as in she was there with someone else and not when she means "me". But first she starts off the article by creating this fictional scenario and saying "you". Can't she just say "I"? What's wrong with I?


Anonymous said...

Some editors are pretty picky about I. This commenter has had it edited out of many articles until finally, this commenter stopped using I altogether.

KLJ (this commenter)

beckler said...

So which one are you supposed to use? I know that most reporters don't use "I" but she is clearly referring to herself constantly but just substituting we instead of I.

Anonymous said...

I guess she could refer to herself less? Or they could go ahead and let her write first person, if it's gonna be that kind of article.

Anonymous said...

I guess using the word "one" is too pretentious.

Unknown said...

i actually kind of dug the old Hilltop.

you could drink without being bothered. it was a drinkin mans bar.

judging by the adds and the number of tv's they've added, i bet it stinks now.

Anonymous said...

Some of the more zealous christians will use "we" when they mean "i". They're saying "me and god" or "me and jesus". Rastafarians say "I and I" in the same way, to mean "Haile Selassie I, and I". Do you think she's religious like that?

Anonymous said...

religious? her? naw. That would imply that she's got more depth than a thimble. She's probably just trying to come off as more educated than she really is. (who would want to admit that mom and dad wasted their money on that college experience?)

Anonymous said...

Wow, we're mean.

Anonymous said...

Beyond using the pronoun, "we," is there a point to the comment?


Anonymous said...

Thanks, smiller, I've wondered about that "I and I" thing ... most recently when I heard that lyric in the U2 song. I thought Bono was just talking about himself again -- afterall, for all his good deeds, it's still also about him.

And who ever thought that the Hilltop, Heyamoto and Haile would ever cross paths within the same post?!


Stephen Glass said...

"We" is a subtle ol' trick of consensus-building. It makes it sound like a merry gang of mirthmakers ambled into the place at happy hour and enlivened the whole joint with their, well, merry mirth and such, rather than a sole sulky overworked arched-eyebrow newspaperwoman with a notepad and the freshly unthawed paycheck.
Which is likely what happened -- it's best to bring along some civilians on these excursions to keep some perspective. And all news people, and people of all backgrounds, enjoy a good drink.
This comment is also meant to be consensus-building. Actually, it's done more in the spirit of chiming in at 4:58 on a Sunday morning to demonstrate what weird-assed hours people in particular lines of work come to call their own.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Ed.
Will try to have a stronger point in the future.
I am ashamed, not only for myself but for my whole family at the pointlessness of my comment on the world wide web.


werenotdeep said...

Remember when you were in Highschool writing classes and they told you to stop saying "I think" because it dumbs down your point. If you have a point that you're going to make and you have good reasons for making the point, it's already appearant that you think it.

It's a little bit different, because when she does say what she thinks, she states it as evident fact without saying "I think", but when she's talking about what she does she says "we did", "we were", "we have" and so forth. It's just as cheap. I mean, it's obvious she means herself.

If the editors don't like using "I", they should have reasons for it, and if they're smart enough to have those reasons, they should be smart enough to see that using "we" in that context is just a pretentious and cheap cover-up for saying "I".

I kind of like the suggestion that if she's just trying to avoid saying "I", she should just avoid the context of the first person (because I think it's obvious most of the time that she's just substituting "we" for "I") and approach what was going on differently.

A lot of the instances that I've read where she uses "we" she's referring to herself only, or herself and some people who she is with, either an entourage or people in her immediate vicinity.

Maybe she's trying to bust out of the kind of "fly on the wall" or "omnipotent eye" mould of reporting on cultural events and venues. But well, if she's going to put herself into the middle of what's going on, just substituting "we" for "I" doesn't get around it at all. She's still obviously reporting based on what she did.

I would say that, even though it's formulaic, she should switch to leaning more towards the "fly on the wall" and interject her personal feelings when necissary. I mean, it's hard to judge the food in a restuarant based on what other people seem to be thinking of it based on their facial expressions. But a dance club or a live music venue, you can do that. Yes, it's formulaic, but it works, and it's not as goofy as the "we for I" thing, and not as much of an obvious deterrant of just using the word "I" when you mean "I".

And Miller, I don't think so. In her articles, it doesn't really seem as though she's reporting as though she were on some holy quest from the almighty to review restaurants, bars and dance clubs. I mean, I could be wrong here, but I'd rule that out.

Anonymous said...

Whoever comments as "smillers sense of snow" isn't me. Chaffin maybe.

The relentless use of "we" is a cutesy excuse for some writing flair & probably doesn't go too much deeper than that.


werenotdeep said...

Yep, that's about the size of it.

Alice said...

this was a very intelligent conversation about literary styling and kind of makes me feel warm inside in a nerdy way. boy do i love my friends.

werenotdeep said...

Oh yeah, I knew that Scott...don't know what I was thinking. My memory sorta faded when I scrolled down the page. Sorry 'bout the identity crisis. Of course, this is Sacramento, after all.