For about a year now, I have noticed that as I peruse old articles, they have been edited. Invariably it seems, the once-sharp wit has either been removed, or replaced with a lame parody of Leno-esque overexplication.
Now, in the past month or two, I have been reading the original column (well, original to the web, that is) and i run across the start of a good barb/witticism, only to find that it turns into yet another exercise in hitting one over the head with a punchline. BEFORE i even get to read the original joke
So, basically I am asking, has his writing changed, and if not, can we get the good stuff first, please?
I’ve been more disappointed lately in the quality of the questions the Master chooses to answer, not the answers themselves. But, you raise a good point.
I’ve been reading the original Straight Dope book (I’ll let a mod link to it, I’m lazy) and Cecil was a lot crabbier back in the day: cursing a lot, and generally bashing people from Baltimore.
It gives certain theories credence, doesn’t it, how the writing style has changed over the years. Hmm… :rolleyes:
But I agree, they seem even more ‘off’ now than they once did. Maybe the geezer in him is catching up and now he’s trying to get into heaven by being nice.
Getting old made my grandparents decide to start attending church.
The strangest things about the columns in the last year or so is that the mailbag questions answered by the Science Advisory Board are usually more interesting than Cecil’s. He’s been taking a lot of lame questions. The mailbag has been more interesting than Cecil, because the questions are better and there are more columns.
I agree. Since this column went on-line the quality of the writing has decreased dramatically. When the column’s on-line site was on AOL I asked about this and the moderator said it was an attempt to reach a broader audience. I fail to see how one can attract a wider audience by lessening quality.
Oh, I dunno. I’ve been reading since '83 or so, and I haven’t noticed a decline in writing quality. In vitriol, yes, but not in literary ability.
AFAICR, Cecil has always answered some pretty boring questions, interspersed with a few exciting ones. The difference now is that we can surf straight to the ones that catch our fancy, so we always expect the more interesting questions to be answered every week. And that ain’t gonna happen.
Well, there’s definately a softness going on here. As I noted in another thread (found here), Cecil’s editor (Ahem) Ed took an original reply Cecil gave me in 95 and CHANGED IT to some soft-ass response instead of the ZING it originally contained. (The links to both the original and the newly editied reply are in the other thread).
So I dunno. Maybe Cecil has lost the “edge”.
I’m surprised he hasn’t jumped into the loop on this one.
“Kiss my ass” is the Cecil Adams we all know and love?
Pft.
“Don’t snivel, we just had the floors waxed.”
“I’d love to [open fire upon querant’s antagonist], but right now you’re the only target within range.”
“Your feelings are understandable, Ruth; there’s no question that the phenomenon of creatures with their brains up their butts has acquired a certain desperate relevance today.”
“I notice, Frank, that you hail from Baltimore, a city whose residents fall into one of two categories, in my observation: (1)persons of exceeding wit and ingenuity, and (2) complete idiots. Your letter, quite honestly, lends itself equally well to either proposition.”
Cecil, I still love you. I don’t think you’ve lost your edge. How could the Master lose his edge? That’s like saying that Picasso couldn’t paint his way out of a box. That Beethoven was a hack.
In times past (insert appropriate melodramatic violin music here), the master’s insults not only put down the offendee, but did so with a rhythm and eloquence, with a beautiful blend of wit and satire that is lacking in the phrase, “You pathetic losers can kiss my ass.”
Well, I don’t think Cecil has lost his edge. He is still writing columns that put the rest of the columnests to shame, and I salute him. He is more witty, more readable and more interesting than the rest-no one else even comes close. Dave Barry is funny, but Cecil combines funny with informative.
So what I really wonder about here, is this-
Does this mean that the Great Cecil actually reads this message board? Because I have always assumed that he didn’t have the time or interest to “lurk” here.
