From an otherwise excellent article about Rudy Giuliani:
Many, perhaps most, politicians probably value competence and probity somewhat less than devotion.
Uh, how about
Perhaps most politicians value competence and probity less than devotion.
Too much hyper-editing or too little? During a visit to The New Yorker, I used the bathroom. In the next stall, there were page proofs on the floor. The occupant was studying them.
the two version read very differently. is the second version a response to a query? is the second version a rhetorical question?
and the concept of competence vs. loyalty in politics is not very clear, i would argue – thus making the first version preferable on another count.
the first version just reads easier – and that has value. the seeming watery-ness of the first version would be a problem in many/most other cases (probably), but not here, methinks.
The second version is my edit of the 1st version.
I think it’s underediting. Sad, cos line-editing is something the New Yorker used to do superbly. The writer obviously wants to add a tentative note to the blank statement “Politicians value competence and probity less than devotion”, so he throws in a quibble, in fact he throws in three, then qualifies one by writing “Many, perhaps most” instead of just “Many”. It makes him sound like a nervous Nellie.
I’d rewrite as follows, with one quibble only only:
“Many, perhaps most, politicians value competence and probity less than devotion.”
It’s still not very good. “Probity” is a stuffed-shirt word – does he mean honesty? “Devotion” is also unclear – is it religiosity or loyalty?
Anyway, if the 1965-era New Yorker somehow reappears and is looking for a line-editor, let’em know I’m available.