How The New Yorker broke my heart
Feb 9th, 2009 | By John Roach | Category: Big PictureAbout a week ago I was reading an article in The New Yorker about health care. Throughout the article, they used the word “insure” to mean “to make certain.” I was shocked! Did The New Yorker make a mistake? I wondered. Did the copy editors at one of our nation’s most erudite publications let this one slip past? Or was it just a not-so-clever pun? I have never seen a style guide that allows this word for this meaning. Every authority that I’ve seen dictates that the word should be “ensure.”
Clearly the spelling and the topic of the article coincided, so I did a little digging and discussion with my colleagues. Finally, I did something I’m loathe to do — I looked it up in the dictionary. Sure enough, one of the meanings of insure is “to make certain.”
I am no longer willing to say that this was a mistake. I will say it was an odd choice, a distracting choice, but not necessarily wrong.
My point is thus: What is the article about? At no point in my discussions of the article did I actually address the topic. The talks centered around this one word and how it was a mistake or a pun on some other less-than-ideal usage.
As writers, you’ve taken great pains to improve and perfect your craft, and you’ve probably come across some tricks and techniques to make your writing a little more literary, a touch more aesthetically pleasing. But it is quite easy to take this too far and to be too clever for your own good. When you pull off a little flourish, remember there are three kinds of readers: The people who don’t realize that you did something at all, the people that will recognize and enjoy it, and people like me, who will neglect the topic entirely and focus on that one little word and whether it was a mistake.
|
This article was written by John Roach http://prowritingtips.com John is a writer and copy editor. You can follow him on twitter at . To see more posts click here |
I’m so relieved to see that i’m not the only person who read the article and was totally distracted by that use of “insure” in the article!!!! I really thought it was just my being weird and decided to let it go… and here I am seeing you write about it.
It was definitely distracting and pulled me away from fully focusing on the topic at hand.
Steve
Steve, I think my wife would say that agreeing with me doesn’t mean that you’re not weird.
So, what do you think: was it a subtle pun, a mistake, or both?
A couple of years ago, I subscribed to the New Yorker, and frankly, I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I know it used to be a literary stronghold, but I found neither the topics nor the quality of the writing impressive. I think they’re running on an outdated reputation, but at the same time, I wish they’d step it up and start living up to that reputation.
Melissa, I’m inclined to disagree with you, but not vehemently.
[...] You should probably be reading Pro Writing Tips. I finally found out what the passive voice was! You know how? Yup, Pro Writing Tips. Apparently, it does not mean writing in a way that gives the illusion of being meek and/or weak in order to emotionally manipulate people into doing things your way. Boy is my face red! They have a philosophy of grammar. I love people who take the time to have philosophies and write them down. Also, I have a litte crush on this post: How The New Yorker broke my heart. [...]
It absolutely isn’t any sort of pun/wink specific to that article. In fact, I’ve yet to go a few weeks without finding the word “insure” used where every grammar snob would use “ensure.” I was reading yesterday’s issue, for instance, and in a comment re: federal tax plan, the word insure was used. Definitely not a grammar/word choice article. I say grumble grumble to the eyesore!
Anna, you beat me to it! Actually, I forgot.
Yes, since I wrote this post, I noticed the usage again, so it must be house style. My point stands, though.
You use the term “grammar snob,” a designation I will not refute, but it’s an odd word choice. I don’t even see it as a mistake often. “Ensure” is pretty darn close to universal.
I guess I and the New Yorker will just have to agree to disagree. I hope that they’re OK with that.
Oh, I meant grammar snob in the best possible way - maybe I spent too long in college as a writing tutor to consider, really, ANY grammatical knowledge anything less than snobbery
I guess that’s ’cause I’m not a professional writer 
I totally don’t WANT to agree to disagree with the NYer. I want them to change their house style! I suppose it goes along, though, with the umlaut over the second “o” in words like “coordinate.” It’s like they’re all “Let’s make a big show about how we know technically-proper-but-rare usage.”
Anna, I’m not a big fan of the New Yorker. I pick up the occasional issue when I hear about something interesting in it. I do enjoy reading it when I do, but I often get distracted by the issues you mentioned.
There’s a fine line between obscurely technically correct and wrong, and they dance all over it, if you ask me.
Maybe I’m just not smart enough to read it.