Style Conversational Week 1259: How can Losers win so much?
One Invitational contestant’s idea: Bar high-scorers for a while so
others can get more ink
If you read The Style Conversational, you are hereby invited to the Jan.
13 potluck. Details below. (Craig Dykstra)
By Pat Myers
Pat Myers
Editor and judge of The Style Invitational since December 2003
Email //
Bio //
Follow //
December 21, 2017
People have been complaining about favoritism and inequality in The
Style Invitational since it was barely out of the maternity ward:
Preceding the results of /Week 6, / in 1993, my predecessor, the
anonymous Czar
,
added this:
“But first, a few words about excellence. Although we received more than
500 entries to this contest, and have selected only 15 of them as
winners [we’ve grown!], you will note that several people are
represented more than once, including the highly mysterious “Oslo of
Alexandria,” the first-prize winner of Week 2 who darn near won again
this week [The Post no longer allows pseudonyms]. You may reasonably
wonder: Is this fair? Answer: Of course it is fair. The Style
Invitational is the nation’s last remaining pure meritocracy. The best
is chosen, without regard to previous history, demographics, national
origin, sexual orientation, dental anomalies, annoying personal habits,
or cash inducements you may have included with your letters. In fact,
our judging is done completely blindfolded, so we cannot see your name,
or your address, or your entry. We hope this clears matters up. Thank you.”
Now slide your time-bar thingy up 24.75 years to last Thursday. A week
ago, shortly after I posted last week’s results
, I got this email from Dinah Rokach of the
D.C. area (she was fine with my reprinting it here):
/As a relatively new entrant, I find it disconcerting that there are so
many repeated mentions of the same individuals in your weekly column./
/Have you thought of a rule whereby prize recipients are limited, as in
other periodicals’ contests, to once per set interval — month, every ten
contests, for example? /
/With all due respect, it looks like you have your favorites (Facebook
group, perhaps?) whose submissions you scrutinize carefully and then
possibly pay less attention to the others. With so many entries that’s
understandable but perhaps spreading the glory should take priority./
/Just a thought,
Dinah/
For several years now, as I note in the Style Invitational Rules and
Guidelines
(to which a link appears in each week’s contest), I’ve been able to
judge the Invite without seeing the entrants’ names — something that the
Czar, in the pre-Internet and even pre-email days, couldn’t do. It takes
an hour or so of tedium each week to make a readable list, but it’s
worth it when I receive letters like this. And so I was able to respond:
/Dear Dinah: /
/Thanks for writing. But actually, I have NO IDEA whose entries I am
judging until after I choose the winners. /
/I get all the entries in one long continuous list, then make my
choices. That way, I can’t even unconsciously play favorites – which
makes it easier to answer accusations like yours. /
/After I choose the winners I search a second, complete list of entries
find out who wrote those entries. As you noted, some people get a lot of
ink. But it can’t be because I like them personally (or I can’t be
denying ink to someone whom I don’t like). /
/The reason that some people get so much ink is they are (you might
notice) really good at this game. They’re not only naturally funny and
clever, but for some of these people, the Invitational is one of their
favorite pastimes, and they work on compiling a list of 25 entries all
week long; some of them work up longer lists, then polish them, then
choose their very best to send to me. Should I tell them that it’s
unfair to put in so much effort? Also remember that while the incredibly
clever Jesse Frankovich got three entries in today, he also had 22
entries rejected. /
/On the other hand, it’s not at all the case that only frequent-inkers
appear in the Invitational. Today’s results featured FORTY different
entrants. Three of them got their first ink ever. Two more got their
second ink. Others have been sending in entries now and again over the
past 25 years and have accrued eight or ten or a dozen. More than 5,000
people have gotten ink in The Style Invitational over its history. I’m
always thrilled to see new names among the results./
/But each week – and I’ve done this more than 700 times — I choose (as I
said, blindly) the entries that I liked the most. I don’t think it would
benefit the contest or its readers to run entries that I didn’t find as
good as some others, merely because their writers were also good last
week. /
/Rest assured that I read and consider every entry that I get each week.
If you would like me to look yours up and explain why yours didn’t make
the top 54 this week among the 2,200 entries, I can explain my thinking.
Let me know. /
/Thanks for taking the time to write, and I’d be just as delighted as
you (well, almost) to see you get ink in a future contest. /
/Best,
The Empress/
Dinah thanked me for my reply, declined my offer of a critique of her
half-dozen entries in Week 1254, but continued to press her case for her
block-the-winners idea, adding some new angles:
/... But might you consider, as other periodicals do, asking winners not
to submit for a set period of time after winning? Or just letting them
know they will be not be eligible to be chosen as winners during that
time frame? ... /
/Having announced your new criterion, if the winners whom you choose
“blind” turn out to be ineligible for that reason, just continue with an
alternate selection. /
/The repeat winners may even thank you for giving them back some of
their free time. If you ask your colleagues on the health beat, they
might concur with the assessment that it’s a good thing to discourage
obsessive behavior. It may also broaden your own “constituency” —
readers who may have become discouraged — not so much for never
themselves winning — but for seeing the same winning names over and over
again albeit chosen in an unbiased process./
Well, /I’m / not a Style Invitational entrant or potential entrant, but
I know where to find them — not just the Obsessives, as I’ve been
calling them lately, but also infrequent entrants (including
unsuccessful ones) and even just-fans: And that’s the Style Invitational
Devotees group on Facebook, which now numbers
more than 1,450 members. So I deleted Dinah’s name from her letter and
asked the Devs’ opinions; I thought there was a chance that some of them
would like the suggestion.
In short, /nobody,/ among the 48 commenters plus responders to those
comments
,
said this would be a good idea. Here’s a sampling of the responses:
— /From someone with a couple of inks over the years:/ “If the
‘constituency’ includes the Post subscribers like me, who read it for
humor, but rarely or never enter, then you won’t be able to broaden the
constituency by weakening the level of humor.”
— “Her concern for our OCD is commendable.”
— “I entered, I think, six contests this year. ... I inked zero times.
Shock horror.
I enter because it’s a fun way to occupy my brain for a bit and force
myself to do even a tiny bit of writing. If I ever manage to lose
One-Hit Wonder status, it will be a fluke, but that won’t stop me from
feeling extra clever and emailing every relative who thinks jokes about
testicles are funny, my mother included. (She printed my “Ink of the
Day” and put it on her refrigerator.)”
/— From someone who has no ink: / “Don’t punish talent. Real ink must be
earned.”
—/From someone with one ink:/ “As far as I know, the purpose of the SI
is to generate content to amuse paid subscribers. Your method generates
the best content. Once the Patriots tell Tom Brady that he’s already
played a game this season and it’s someone else’s turn to be QB, then we
can consider the participation ribbon approach over quality.”
/— From a frequently Inking Loser: / “Nah, I don’t want to think i won
just because the regulars weren’t in the mix.”
/— Along the same line, from another regular: / “Imagine how bad the
person would feel when she still didn’t get ink with the varsity players
sidelined. ... It is the Empress’s job to select the funniest entries
for the purpose of bringing the most laughs to the readers. It would be
dereliction of duty to do otherwise.”
/And another:/ “As a Cleveland Browns fan, I find it disconcerting that
the Patriots are in the Super Bowl so much. Have you thought of a rule
whereby teams can only make the playoffs once every three years? With
all due respect, it looks like you favor the ones with better records.”
Meanwhile, Biggest Loser Ever Chris Doyle noted that “this year’s
distribution of Lose Cannon winners isn’t that unbalanced. So far 33
different Losers have won the 41 contests.”
So I guess we’ll be continuing with the Meritocracy Model that we’ve
been using since Week 1. And when Dinah finally gets her ink, beating
out the regular winners, she’s going to be justifiably proud as all
get-out.
*DID YOU GET YOUR LOSER POST-HOLIDAY PARTY INVITATION? *
I sent an Evite out around 3 a.m. Eastern time today (yeah, I know, not
so healthy) for the annual Loser Post-Holiday Party, the evening of
Saturday, Jan. 13 — a potluck once again at the right-near-the-Metro
home of Loser Steve Langer and Honorary Loser Allison Fultz in Chevy
Chase, Md., right over the D.C. line.
I used last year’s mailing list and added a few names of locals who I
thought might want to come. But YOU are also invited — if you’re
interested enough in The Style Invitational to read this column, you’re
crazy enough for us. So here’s the link to the Evite
, with all the details; if you RSVP to it,
that should put you on the list as well. (If you are a total stranger —
never sent an entry, etc. — the Empress will chat with you first.)
*Also: On Saturday, Dec. 30, * visiting-from-Texas Edward Gordon would
like to have lunch with some fellow Losers at Hard Times Cafe near the
King Street Metro station in Alexandria, Va. I’ll be there; email me if
you’ll be as well. It’s a chili joint.
*Winning ANTSers: The results of Week 1255*
/(*Non-inking headline by John O’Byrne)/
Chris Doyle, of the almost 2,000 blots of ink and Who Should Know,
ventured that the S-A-N-T letter block for our 14th annual Tour de Fours
neologism contest was the most challenging yet. But that didn’t stop 32
Losers (including Chris) from snarfing up 42 blots of ink in Week 1255,
using many of the 24 possible permutations.
Because “Natsturtium” — a flower that blossoms in the spring and always
withers by early October — turned out to be very similar entries from
Jeff Shirley and Duncan Stevens, we have five member of the Losers’
Circle this week, all of them (sorry!) regular entrants. It’s Ann
Martin’s fourth win and 90th blot of ink, and runners-up Jeff, Duncan
and Mark Raffman are even more heavily stained. But we also have two
First Offenders — three if you count both Mark and Emily Schwartz, who
sent their “Standex” entry (a fabric so tight you can’t sit down)
together. (In the future, I’d rather the Schwartzes — and all of you —
enter individually; the Invite isn’t a team contest, except for the rare
photo contests, videos, etc. Meanwhile, Mark and Emily can fight over
their single FirStink
for
their first ink.)
*What Doug Dug: * Ace Copy Editor Doug Norwood liked all four “above the
fold” winners (as did, for once, my predecessor, the Czar) and also
singled out Christy Tosatto’s “Tyrantsylvania,” Jon Gearhart’s
“Tyrantasaurus Vex” — I’m glad I didn’t worry that two “tyrant” entries
were too many — Jesse Frankovich’s “Misspokahontas,” Jeff Hazle’s
“rantasaur” and Duncan Stevens’s “satn.” (You haven’t heard of The
Weeknd? Then you’re not one of the 293,337,786 people, as of this
minute, who have viewed the music video “I Feel It Coming” on YouTube.)
*Jest NASTy*: A couple of unprintables * and they’re plays on the same
word:
Cat Snatch Fever: A feline STD.
Snatch: Synonym for “grab.” — D.J.T., Washington (Roy Ashley, Dean Pollock)
*/Suggestion for this very purpose by Jesse Frankovich/
--
So have a fabulous Christmas holiday, everyone — note that you don’t
have to send your Week 1258 entries till Dec.
26 — and I hope to see you at the Loser party or at the Ed thing.