Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

So link more of them, then. Both of you. Otherwise, enough whining about how bored you are with people talking about Chris Jones or Joe Posnanski or Jeff MacGregor or Charlie Pierce or Wright Thompson.

Dick, it's not just you who reads other writers. I read a ton too. And every day, I see something that I think would be worth discussing with other writers. But rarely is it worth discussing here. Wright's story about Cleveland would have made for a fascinating craft discussion here, whether you liked it or not, but people have proven over the years they can't handle discussing his stories. It's more fun to make Elvis Grbac jokes. This environment is simply too toxic, too full of trolls, and discussions are too easily derailed by pot shots and dick jokes. Frankly, it's not worth discussing on whatever other site you think I'm going to mention either, so go ahead and bury that trope before it hits your keyboard.

Junod's profile of Roger Ailes is another great example, even though everyone knows Junod. It's one of the most interesting profiles written this year in journalism, just because of some of the choices he made. But we can't talk about that here, because it's political, and because it would just turn into a pissing match where people who don't actually practice journalism take digs at the story. That's certainly their right, because people can post whatever they want here, but it doesn't make it worthwhile for writers to discuss a story like that here, even if it's one of the best stories this year.

The reason people don't talk about writing that often anymore here is that it's not fun to talk about writing here. Plus, how could we have a conversation about a New Yorker piece about Issa without it turning into a political pissing match? I would say that half the New Yorker pieces are like that.

Every Sports Illustrated discussion turns into "SI is such a shell of its former self" and "Why would I subscribe to this when I can just get it for free?" We can't actually talk about craft with regards to the magazine's stories. We've tried and failed too many times. So it becomes pointless. Why didn't we talk about Thomas Lake's SI story about "The Boy Who Died of Football"? Because I'd rather not see an outstanding piece of work like that shit on. That's certainly why I didn't link it here.

But whatever. I'm sure this will read, to many, like just another long-winded whiny lament by me.

Here's a great example of how to write a celebrity profile by GQ's Alex Pappademas. It's about Winona Ryder. Celebrity profiles, however vapid, are a necessary evil in the magazine industry. And this is a good example of a writer taking the standard lunch-at-a-hotel-restaurant-interview and doing something interesting with it.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/celebrities/201101/winona-ryder-forever-black-swan-star-trek

 

You're well below your usual standards with that last sentence, probably because you're reaching so hard here.

The basis for the opinion is evident to anyone reading the post. He thinks Wiley is a better writer and journalist than Whitlock. You're criticizing the piece because you apparently feel that Wiley's latter years work on Page 2 somehow makes the contrast less apt and Jones' opinion in need of further explanation? Perhaps, but that's on you and your own opinion. Feel free to blog your little heart out.

There was nothing more needed in the post. The basis for the opinion was crystal clear to anyone familiar with Whitlock and Wiley, which is the audience Jones was writing for.

 

I wasn't aware the blog was totally inside baseball. I suppose if folks come to that board with a working knowledge of who Whitlock was and who Wiley was, then so be it. But I didn't sense that.

Even still, the onus wouldn't be on me to clarify an opinion I didn't originate, would it? I'm saying the opinion has no depth and thus carries no water. You're saying it doesn't have to. It can just be what it is. And I'm saying that's the definition of Cowherdism. <i>It is just because it <b>is</b>. Because I <b>know</b></i> I'm not inclined, generally, to follow that through-line unless it's God's talking.

 

DD, I can't disagree with anything you wrote.

Nobody wants to talk about writing and reporting. Well, not enough people do. It's unfortunate.

But my line about this place was incidental to the larger point that there are more "stars" and "pros" than Jones gives credit for. Unless he and I have a different baseline about how many there should be. Maybe he means relative to all the other noise out there in the "Person of the Year: You" era, whereas I'm talking strictly head count.

 

You sure like to hear yourself say Cowherdism, huh?

Maybe that's why you're trying so hard to make this something it isn't and ignoring the obvious: Jones didn't just say it is because it is.

Let's try to diagram it for you ...

Opinion: Wiley is more than provocative.

Basis for the opinion: Wiley was a reporter. Wiley was a writer. Wiley was a journalist.

As I said, that opinion, followed by that basis, is perfectly clear to Jones' audience. Calling it by a pet name intended to impress everyone with your cleverness ignores the obvious, particularly when your analysis is ultimately wrong.

Well, at least you left the completely random penis reference out this time. I suppose that's some progress ...

 

I feel the same way on it. I thought he could have made the point better without going the route he did, and this is from someone who loves Jones' stuff and can't stand Whitlock's.

 

I'm not sure there is room.

I think Alma's use of a completely stupid and unnecessary dick reference two posts before DD's post perfectly illustrates what he's talking about.

There's almost no point to try and rationally discuss and analyze the work as work, because nobody really wants to talk about the work - they just want to attract attention to their own self-perceived cleverness (or, barring that, just attract attention).

Sound familiar?

 

And because not EVERYONE will ignore them. So you'll have 3-4 people rambling on, tossing insults, becoming more antagonistic, and soon the people who were serious about discussing the craft realize it's not worth wading through it.

 

Come on, Elliotte, I'm only posting about it in the exact context we're discussing, i.e. I'm trying to have a conversation with Alma about writing and we apparently can't have it without a completely unnecessary dick reference. There's no way I even comment on it otherwise.

 

Are you new here?