Your guide to the region's top events, mixed with some commentary about life, media, gossip and politics in Washington, DC.

The Worst Style Story? The Polls Are Now Open

Share | Print

By Harry Jaffe   Published Monday, November 02, 2009

Comments

It is so hard to isolate one piece that the entire Sytle section must be named as THE source of dreadful prose in the category of major American newspaper. I have lived in DC since 1980 and have marveled time and again about the twaddle published in this section. There have been occassional decent movie reviews, but mostly the Style section is garbage. We know why Sally Quinn gets a byline but it is difficult to understand how Tom Shales and Robin Ghivan are allowed to work for the Post.

I ignore them unless I am in deep depression. Then I will read a piece and feel better knowing that (1) I am not that lame, and, (2) they are too dumb to know how bad they are.

I have come to the conclusion that the news section of the Post has become more and more like the Style section. News stories are filled with commentary & editorial remarks; there is a lot of snarky shit from assholes like Dana Milbank; the editorial page people no longer write cogent editorials. And they wonder why they are losing readers and money.

Posted by: vance, Nov 20, 2009 08:56:13 AM

Anything written by Robin Givhan.

Posted by: Shell, Nov 12, 2009 02:42:35 PM

Just about anything Blake Gopnik tries to write about art would qualify as WP’s worst piece in Style.

Posted by: Diane, Nov 09, 2009 06:40:55 PM

An article about 15-20 years ago by Sally Quinn on Princess Margaret. How absolutely dreadful, raw, and unworthy of ink were Ms. Quinn’s descriptions of the Royal hats, clothes, body and facial shape, hair, carriage, husband, education, and everything that surrounded the Princess. It was a LONG, LONG multi-page Style article.

Posted by: HelenA, Nov 09, 2009 06:23:01 PM

Esther Iverem eventually published her Robeson story on-line.

http://www.seeingblack.com/x040901/robeson.shtml

It’s bad, but Sally Quinn is much worse on her best days.

Posted by: Jamais Toujours, Nov 09, 2009 10:12:30 AM

It’s pretty much agreed that a piece on Paul Robeson by Esther Iverem was Allen’s choice of the worst article ever considered for Style but that was so bad it never saw print. In print? It’s got to be the collected works of Sally Quinn.

Posted by: Jamais Toujours, Nov 09, 2009 07:44:23 AM

"These are big pictures shot with big cameras from cranes and helicopters and printed big -- like, six feet wide -- in chromogenic color. And beautiful, that’s the weirdest thing about them."

This is a quote from the article by Henry Allen that you call "a sweet piece of prose" and include as an example of the superior writing that justifies Allen actually assaulting someone whose prose he found lacking.

The segment here from Allen is badly-written, ungrammatical, and awkward to the point of being hard to follow. It ends with an incomplete sentence. The phrase "like, six feet wide" is typical of what’s known as Valley Girl slang and is jarring in a piece about art.

Maybe the writer was just fed up with someone who writes this badly being such an arrogant critic of others.

Posted by: Bill E Pilgrim, Nov 08, 2009 09:04:38 PM

I concur with the others but more specifically .. anything by Sally Quinn that is remotely related to the subject of religion. They are not bad because she is clueless - a reporter cannot be an expert in all they report or opine on. They are bad because she is clueless AND is condescending towards those who DO have a clue.

Posted by: Martha, Nov 07, 2009 07:32:40 AM

I nominate those godawful Tina Brown columns from a few years back.

Posted by: Allison, Nov 05, 2009 03:01:51 PM

The five most dreaded words in the English language:
"First in a series by Sally Quinn."

Posted by: Madbabs, Nov 05, 2009 08:57:27 AM

Anything by Sally Quinn, the ultimate WP Royal Mediocrity.

Posted by: pazlo, Nov 05, 2009 08:16:42 AM

I’m pretty sure "Robin Givens" (the actress ex-wife of Mike Tyson) has never written anything for Style, despite what multiple posters seem to think.

Posted by: Andrew, Nov 04, 2009 12:16:47 PM

Robin Givhan’s article about the tie Bill Clinton wore when he brought the American journalists home from North Korea this summer. Good god.

Posted by: Jill , Nov 04, 2009 01:11:56 AM

ChickaBOOMer: Rope A Dope
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/11/rope-dope.html

Posted by: StewartIII, Nov 03, 2009 09:24:47 PM

O for the dear dead days when the great Post writers were not burdened with a degree in English. I’m thinking of and mourning two of ’em from the 1950s, Phil Casey and the great Harry Gabbett.

Tony Gieske

Posted by: Remembrance, Nov 03, 2009 02:53:49 PM

Going way, way back, Paul Attanasio’s drooling profile of Kelly McGillis.

Posted by: fromthe80s, Nov 03, 2009 01:19:17 PM

Style’s Bob Thompson routinely interviewed the world’s best writers and turned the interview into a piece about... himself! See his indulgent, quivering profile of Philip Roth.

Posted by: Mitzi, Nov 03, 2009 12:37:28 PM

Paul Farhi says it was an unpublished profile of Paul Robeson. Paul was apparently pretty amused by the whole spectacle in the Style newsroom, according to his chat comments.

Posted by: WestBerkeleyFlats, Nov 03, 2009 11:05:20 AM

If, under WORST, we may include hedonistic excess to the point of self parody, I nominate T Magazine.

Posted by: Arcane, Nov 03, 2009 10:49:51 AM

The one about the way John Roberts’ children were dressed too formally when he was introduced at the White House to be nominated for the Supreme Court. ("An Image a Little Too Carefully Coordinated," by Robin Givhan, 7/22/2005.)

Posted by: Joshua, Nov 03, 2009 10:00:17 AM

Anything EVER written by Sally Quinn.

Posted by: Noel Epstein, Nov 03, 2009 08:47:02 AM

The wedding piece about the "Catholic witch" and her pagan husband. Poorly written, badly organized.

Posted by: Heping, Nov 03, 2009 08:26:53 AM

How about the BJ piece by Monica Hesse showing the softer side of bigot Brian Brown?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704139.html

Only made better by the Ombudsman’s idiotic column talking about how she ’wept’ because how could someone think she condoned his bigotry she’s bi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/04/AR2009090402967_2.html

Everytime I see her byline now, I cringe.
Next up, Stalin really had a bad rap.

Posted by: The entire WaPo has become a joke, Nov 03, 2009 08:20:57 AM

Another vote for Stephen Hunter’s paean to objectifying women. SO SO gross.

Laura Sessions Stepp and Monica Hesse are also on notice.

Posted by: Kim, Nov 03, 2009 08:03:13 AM

Some poor young Janet Cooke wannabe wrote a long rant about white people moving into the District a few years back, barring the gates against these interlopers to what she called "Chocolate City" and that was only slightly more coherent than Sally’s gruel. Racist, too.

Posted by: Budd Dwyer, Nov 02, 2009 02:32:08 PM

Excellent call, Budd Dwyer! Turns out an Esther Iverem piece that was so awful it never ran was #1 in Henry Allen’s long memory.

Posted by: juniper, Nov 03, 2009 07:33:45 AM

Wawa vs. Sheetz was freakin’ awesome. I’m sorry, but you probably don’t have the same appreciation for well-stocked, well-staffed gas station delis. Even if the story doesn’t entire work (or goes on for too long) I was thankful someone finally saw what I saw and felt what I felt about those two places. The old Wawa in College Park was a landmark for students. People looted it when they heard the news it was closing.

Posted by: Jonathan Cribbs, Nov 03, 2009 07:20:55 AM

how about that piece about crack from a couple years ago? it started out with a poem about crack in italics. how about any style piece that uses italics to stand for deep thought? someone kill the italics function on the style section keyboards!!!

Posted by: dcreader, Nov 03, 2009 07:15:27 AM

Pretty much anything Robin Givens writes qualifies, no?

Posted by: ajw_93, Nov 03, 2009 06:50:03 AM

Sally Quinn’s article about Michelle Obama’s arms. I couldn’t even bring myself to finish it.

Posted by: nova, Nov 03, 2009 03:46:11 AM

I don’t think they’ve had a consistently good writer there since Phil McCombs bailed out.

Posted by: Brize, Nov 02, 2009 09:55:07 PM

Phillip Kennicott’s "The Bright Side of Gray" has to be up there somewhere.

Posted by: M, Nov 02, 2009 07:29:18 PM

Wow. Just read the Stephen Hunter piece on flesh. Epic in its blithering giddiness. One can almost see the droplets of spittle landing on his computer screen. I’m going to go take a shower now.

Posted by: Bill in LA, Nov 02, 2009 05:15:16 PM

In a just Universe, how can Robin Givens and Tom Shales be left off the nominee list of worst WAPO Style writers? Granted, the competition is stiff if individual articles are considered and Sally Quinn has the inside track. Still, it is an honor to be nominated. I can think of none more deserving than these two.

Posted by: betheweb, Nov 02, 2009 05:00:21 PM

Stephen Hunter’s ode to girl flesh has to be the creepiest article ever written. Maybe not the worst, I mean, it’s well-written. But definitely creepiest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501434.html

Posted by: CB, Nov 02, 2009 04:06:09 PM

Peter Marx is a bit emotional for a play critic - BUT he has entree. The theatre crowd love him. The readers - not so much.

Posted by: Lord Arlington, Nov 02, 2009 03:37:42 PM

Funny. The Washingtonian’s own story about Sally and her circles comes up before any in the Post.
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/3760.html

Posted by: A.L., Nov 02, 2009 03:37:07 PM

Man, I had hoped never to hear the name Alona Wartofsky again. Wow, the badness of her writing. Horrible editor too.

For my money the worst ever was when "rock critic" fanboy David Segal invited himself onstage to quote-unquote jam with his heroes, Guided By Voices, have his photo snapped doing it, then run some blah blah thinkpiece about the band’s alleged importance. Ugh.

Posted by: Sam Gruber, Nov 02, 2009 03:12:26 PM

LAURA SESSIONS STEPP or that woman who wrote about the squirrels. Just weird.

Posted by: Sally, Nov 02, 2009 03:04:20 PM

although pretty much anything by Laura Sessions Stepp is also abysmal. The wingman and hooking up articles were flabbergasting.

Posted by: andrew, Nov 02, 2009 02:59:51 PM

It is NEVER too easy to pick on Sally Quinn.

The person who wrote the "Chocolate City" piece was named Eshter Everem, as I recall.

Posted by: Zezozofe Zadfrack Glutz, Nov 02, 2009 02:57:41 PM

Long ago, in another dimension, there was a woman named Alona Wartofsky. Shudder....

Posted by: Zezozofe Zadfrack Glutz, Nov 02, 2009 02:49:12 PM

Columbia Heights hipsters and Target. Coincidentally also by Monica Hesse.

Posted by: andrew, Nov 02, 2009 02:40:57 PM

Picking on Sally Quinn is too easy. Worst writer? Worst stories? Hmmm. Anything by Neely Tucker. The man is a purple prose machine.

Posted by: Nomo, Nov 02, 2009 02:39:05 PM

Picking on Sally Quinn is too easy. The worst stories? Anything by Neely Tucker. The man is a purple prose machine.

Posted by: Nomo, Nov 02, 2009 02:38:06 PM

Oh, and that ghastly thing by Gerson this summer about how much he loves his new puppy "Blondi" as he wanders the Eagle’s Next in search of enemies.

Posted by: Budd Dwyer, Nov 02, 2009 02:34:46 PM

Within the office, Sally Quinn’s "labyrinth" story (don’t ask) of a few years back was considered pretty much the worst thing ever published in Style.

Some poor young Janet Cooke wannabe wrote a long rant about white people moving into the District a few years back, barring the gates against these interlopers to what she called "Chocolate City" and that was only slightly more coherent than Sally’s gruel. Racist, too.

Posted by: Budd Dwyer, Nov 02, 2009 02:32:08 PM

"Being blond doesn’t hurt", by Sally Quinn. Or else her astrologers’ long drawn-out ramblings, which ran in the early 80s.

Or Jimmy’s World, but that doesn’t count, right?

Posted by: Clara, Nov 02, 2009 02:23:44 PM

Anything written by Sally Quinn.

Posted by: Mark, Nov 02, 2009 02:11:45 PM

Post a comment

Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question. Because of the prevalence of spam, we ask that you fill out the code in the image below to help us eliminate spam comments. By posting here, you affirm that you are 13 years of age or older. Washingtonian.com reserves the right to remove or edit content once posted.