Copy editing somewhat-green writers is starting to affect me. On several occasions lately I have found myself mentally editing the sentences of someone talking on TV or radio. Not a good sign.
That may be why I found this sentence in today's New York Times so striking. Then again, maybe the sentence is striking. It's from a review of Big Fan starring Patton Oswalt (whose standup comedy I love, by the way). What interests me is the placement of the "who" clause.
He's a regular guy or as close to regular as any 35-year-old can possibly be who sleeps under a poster of his favorite football star while tucked under a coverlet imprinted with the names of N.F.L. teams.
I can see why the writer/editor didn't want to put it immediately after "35-year-old," which is where, in a shorter sentence, it should probably be. To do that you'd have to move the verb phrase "can possibly be" all the way to the end of the sentence. Still, it seems the Times could have found a better way.
True, I'm not coming up with anything better -- at least not with so little coffee in me. But that's why I can't land a job at the Times.
About June
Connections
View all »
Causes June Casagrande Supports
Planned Parenthood, ClimateCrisis.net, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, Pet Orphans of Southern California, KIVA









That sentence just needs a
That sentence just needs a complete makeover. I'm wanting to start the sentence with, "For someone who sleeps under. . ." But then I'm not an editor, so maybe that is just as bad.
Yeah.
It's interesting that this sentence was in the New York Times under a big-name byline. I wonder if they sort of give "pros" a pass for stuff that less-respected writers couldn't get away with.
Or maybe it's just that, because I edit so many really green writers, I'm hypersensitive to clunkers like this. Either way, I agree it needs an overhaul.