Wrote this passage about Steve Prefontaine in a review of Without Limits for my Journalism class. Thoughts?

Okay, totally fine with your disagreement. But I do encourage you not to try to make Pre into something he wasn't. He was an extremely talented US distance runner and one who was respected by many in world track and field. But I don't see the need for you to say his running style "entranced his generation." His death helped to transform him into sort of legend but you needn't overplay your hand.

An Econ Major wrote:

Errr... highly disagree. What made Steve so amazing was that he combined his arrogance with an undying loyalty to his passion, the sport of track. His arrogance permeated into his racing strategy, leading to the dynamic style of front-running and "gutsy racing" that entranced his generation.

"His arrogance permeated into his racing strategy" - what does this even mean? You might say his arrogance permeated his racing strategy, not "into" but I'm not sure even that would mean what you think it means.

An Econ Major wrote:

"Pre’s arrogance and unabashed masculinity are lost arts in the modern world. Athletes who today dare make brash predictions to the press or display excessive pride on the field, like Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, are labelled as brash bullies by the media. Meanwhile, the modern education system punishes normal boyhood activities, like rough-play, restlessness, and bragging. On college campuses, those achieving academic, athletic, or social excellence are advised to ‘check their privilege’ to avoid offending marginalized groups of people. One can imagine Pre, if alive today, as a renegade, rebelling against our stifling societal dogma of mediocrity."

You're taking Pre's mangled corpse and twisting it into a pretzel so that you can fit him into some asinine anti-PC rant that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie you are reviewing.

B+ for creativity.

It's one-dimensional, trite and annoying.

Back to the drawing board, jamin.

Don't forget that driving drunk was apparently OK back then, less so now.

You have told me absolutely nothing about the film. Rule number one - stick to the subject!

An Econ Major wrote:

"Pre’s arrogance and unabashed masculinity are lost arts in the modern world. Athletes who today dare make brash predictions to the press or display excessive pride on the field, like Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, are labelled as brash bullies by the media. Meanwhile, the modern education system punishes normal boyhood activities, like rough-play, restlessness, and bragging. On college campuses, those achieving academic, athletic, or social excellence are advised to ‘check their privilege’ to avoid offending marginalized groups of people. One can imagine Pre, if alive today, as a renegade, rebelling against our stifling societal dogma of mediocrity."

not a coach wrote:

Okay, totally fine with your disagreement. But I do encourage you not to try to make Pre into something he wasn't. He was an extremely talented US distance runner and one who was respected by many in world track and field. But I don't see the need for you to say his running style "entranced his generation." His death helped to transform him into sort of legend but you needn't overplay your hand.

[/quote]

Exactly! If he hadn't died young, no one would be making movies about him, or trying - and failing - to twist his legacy into a rebuttal of today's society.

[quote]Pulitzer wrote:

You have told me absolutely nothing about the film. Rule number one - stick to the subject!

Goodness gracious! I'll post the entire review when it's finished.

Thoughts? No, it seems more like you just regurgitated something you read somewhere about something without actually thinking.

Done with the whole review. Should I post it and give you blowhards some context?

An Econ Major wrote:

Done with the whole review. Should I post it and give you blowhards some context?

Stick with economics. You do not have a way with words.

I'd leave out the Richard Sherman reference and let the reader mentally insert their own example of that. It makes it a stronger statement and subconsciously leads the reader to absorb your point through their own eyes.

And the double "brash" the other guy mentioned was noticeable and mildly awkward. Nothing wrong with dipping into the thesaurus.

You're also using a lot of $2 words where 79 cent words would do just fine. I'd think a journalism prof would jump all over that. Cut your syllables by about 30%. ;-)

An Econ Major wrote:

DKCCC wrote:

I can't tell if you are trying to make the statement that "arrogance and unabashed masculinity" is a lost art because similar athletes today are criticized by the media. I think what you're trying to say is that this type of behavior is not encouraged and appreciated today in the media. That doesn't necessarily make it a lost art as you say, though.

How about: "The arrogance and unabashed masculinity that defined Prefontaine are often castigated in today's world."

I think it should be "is" instead of "are" but that's better.

An Econ Major wrote:

DKCCC wrote:

I can't tell if you are trying to make the statement that "arrogance and unabashed masculinity" is a lost art because similar athletes today are criticized by the media. I think what you're trying to say is that this type of behavior is not encouraged and appreciated today in the media. That doesn't necessarily make it a lost art as you say, though.

How about: "The arrogance and unabashed masculinity that defined Prefontaine are often castigated in today's world."

How about "Pre was a dumb jackass that nobody gave a crap about"

Critical wrote:

An Econ Major wrote:

"Pre’s arrogance and unabashed masculinity are lost arts in the modern world. Athletes who today dare make brash predictions to the press or display excessive pride on the field, like Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, are labelled as brash bullies by the media. Meanwhile, the modern education system punishes normal boyhood activities, like rough-play, restlessness, and bragging. On college campuses, those achieving academic, athletic, or social excellence are advised to ‘check their privilege’ to avoid offending marginalized groups of people. One can imagine Pre, if alive today, as a renegade, rebelling against our stifling societal dogma of mediocrity."

It reads as though if you're only another's short paragraph away from using phrases like 'cuck', 'feminism' and 'beta male'.

It's not good.

Pre was actually a beta male who was cucked by a femnazi in drag

An Econ Major wrote:

Done with the whole review. Should I post it and give you blowhards some context?

Who you calling a blowhard, beta cucked?

An Econ Major wrote:

DKCCC wrote:

I can't tell if you are trying to make the statement that "arrogance and unabashed masculinity" is a lost art because similar athletes today are criticized by the media. I think what you're trying to say is that this type of behavior is not encouraged and appreciated today in the media. That doesn't necessarily make it a lost art as you say, though.

How about: "The arrogance and unabashed masculinity that defined Prefontaine are often castigated in today's world."

Are you saying back in Pre's day it was okay to act how he did but now not so much? Ever heard of Muhammad Ali? Maybe things haven't changed at all, ehh? Guess it depends on who actually is being arrogate and has that unabashed masculinity that you mention rather than the era.

correction ----arrogant