Chris Jones has never read Gary Smith -- and why

In what way?

What I've always liked about Jones in my limited dealings with him is that he's someone who takes his craft VERY seriously, but himself not at all. The handful of times I've hung out with him, you never get the feeling of "OMG I'M DRINKING WITH AN ESQUIRE WRITER" or whatever. He's just a drunk Canadian who likes to tell stories. And I like that about him.

 

It might very well be silly, Frank, but it's true.

At least it's true for the next twenty minutes or so. I'm breaking down and reading "Crime and Punishment" tonight.

P.S.: IJAG, if I could wish for someone to write something about me, it would be what you wrote. Thank you.

 

I'm not sure you can take what you do (or, more to the point in this sense, what you are) very seriously, but not take yourself seriously at all. At some point, those two worlds collide.

 

I'd be a lot more cynical if CJones didn't read Gary Smith for a bad reason. This seems to be a matter of personal preference that he feels impacts his work. That's all he needs, IMHO.

 

YGB, fair enough. I guess I meant when he's not working, he's not all serious type, or with a self-important vibe. He's just a guy with a job he loves, doing what he enjoys doing, but he's OK with being a normal guy out with his friends when he's not in the middle of a story.

 

I've never met the guy. I'm a big fan of his work. Like I said before, the guy is a brilliant writer.

I just think with some of the blog stuff lately it's been a "Hey, look at me..." or for some strange reason feeling the need to rip another writer. I know that's not what he's done with Smith, but he's done a couple things in the last few months, that I would have thought he was above doing.

 

I'm not a writer but I understand where Chris is coming from. I'm a natural born mimic as well and I have to avoid all recordings of any piece I'm working on. Either that, or I have to listen to every person that ever recorded it. Easier to not listen.

 

I understand the line of thinking to an extent. This is the first time I've thought about it, but looking back earlier in my career I'm sure I over-osmosized (word?) certain writers during certain phases, and I'm sure it was painfully evident to people who read my stuff during those phases. At the same time, I don't think I ever would have developed my current (and hopefully still evolving) voice if I had not gone through those phases. One of the first steps in the journey as a writer is to recognize good writing. If you end up mimicking, well at least it's better than mimicking shitty writing. Eventually, though, you end up taking a thing or two from that writer and incorporating it, usually subconsciously, into your own voice. At least that has been my experience. Looking back, Kerouac impacted my sentence structure. Dave Barry impacted my use of hyperbole as a literary device. Rick Reilly impacted my use of similes and metaphors. Gary Smith impacted my recognition of story. Updike impacted my sense of place. And so on. As writers, that's what we do. We internalize. Everything. The best writing is like method acting, where a short way into the story the reader forgets he or she is even reading words. Capote internalized Holcomb, Kansas and then spilled it out onto paper.

The thing I don't understand is how Chris Jones can know so much about Gary Smith without having read him. He says that a friend of his writes clever parodies of bad Gary Smith writing. But how can a person know a parody is clever if he has never read the original? And how does he know what bad Gary Smith writing is? Because as someone who has read a ton of Smith, I can't name one story I'd consider bad writing. I'm not saying Gary Smith has never written anything bad. His style can definitely be parodied. But you'd have to know his style to get that parody.

I'm not doubting that Jones hasn't ready Smith. The whole blog post just seems silly. He talks about how much of an impact Junod has had on him, yet refuses to read Gary Smith because he fears Smith would have too much of an impact on him. Hey, whatever works. But my first advice to any aspiring writer would not be, "Don't read great writing because it scares you."

Actually, come to think of it, my advice to any writer would be, "Read great writing because it humbles you."

 

I was in a press box about a decade ago and I started to say,

"I hate reading Wright Thompson..."

Another writer interrupted me.

"Oh, I agree, he goes on and an on and the stories are basically him just bragging about getting access to something that the rest of us can't and blah, blah, blah..."

I said, "To finish my sentence, I hate reading Wright Thompson because when I read him I realize that I will never in my life be able to write like that..."

 

I can't say it better than shotglass did.

 

Jones not reading Smith for the reason he gives is the best compliment a great writer can make about another great writer.

 

To answer Jones' original question, the two Smith pieces I'd recommend are his Richie Parker story and his Tiger Woods story from the mid-90's. The Parker story is just tremendous, and it came before Smith started doing a lot of experimental stuff with form. The Woods story is a remarkable read with 15 years of hindsight. A better exercise would probably be to ask people for recommendations, then instead of reading the one with the most votes, comb through the SI archive and read one that did not get any votes.