Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

[lono]

In "Squeeze Play," the protagonist beat writer actually has a romantic relationship with one of the players she covers.

That would absolutely never happen with a beat writer. They have ethics, don't you know?

 

[21]

I'd like to go on record saying that I've seen the word "trope" on this thread/site more in the past week than I ever have in my life.

Ha, I was thinking the same. Worst epidemic since 'myriad' (yes, we know you know how to use it in a sentence, now please stop using it in every sentence.). Adding it to my Methinks List.

 

[Boom_70]

You said the reader wouldn't know their names, trying to understand what that means. I can't imagine any of those writers wishing to be compared to an umpire or referee.

As to your other point, i'm curious if anyone else feels that there's a general SJ disdain for long form writers. I find that it's quite the opposite, almost worshipful to the extreme.

So speaking to your two points: (1) The umpire comparison is that you know an umpire did a good job when you don't notice the umpire. I think that a great storyteller would want the same. (2) I think it would be more accurate to say that there are two SportsJournalists.com warring factions: Those who worship at the altar of the beat writer, and those that worship at the altar of the long-form feature writer.

I want to go on record to say I like both forms.

Me, too. That's why Whitlock's dig about long-form writers rubbed me the wrong way.

My sense is that Whitlock's dig was more targeted than general.

 

[TigerVols]

This thread made me think of Hemingway the other day. I read many of the well-known long-form writers and it's anything but an economy of words. It's almost as if all the flowery language and drawn-out scenes are part of an ego-stroking code they're speaking to each other. Just think of the reader and get to the point.

I'm not sure if you were really thinking of Hemingway if you were thinking of flowery language at the same time.

I was thinking of writers who got to the point without describing every thought or scene in 1,000 words.

For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.

J. Matthew Zoss' "Houston, We Have a Problem"

I'm sorry, but there's not enough air in here for everyone. I'll tell them you were a hero.

 

[jlee]

I think we argue here enough to prove that there's no general SportsJournalists.com mind-set or, gulp, trope.

 

[21]

Props to jlee for not starting that post with 'methinks.'

 

[spaceman]

Methinks these seemingly myriad appearances are an illusion . . . a trope l'oeil, if you will.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

fnord

 

[Boom_70]

Methinks these seemingly myriad appearances are an illusion . . . a trope l'oeil, if you will.

It's only an illusion that Whitlock appears larger than life.

 

[Double Down]

This thread made me think of Hemingway the other day. I read many of the well-known long-form writers and it's anything but an economy of words. It's almost as if all the flowery language and drawn-out scenes are part of an ego-stroking code they're speaking to each other. Just think of the reader and get to the point.

This is certainly a valid opinion to have, but a few points in rebuttal:

1. The difference between great writing and good writing often comes down to preference. (Bad writing, on the other hand, is usually just bad.) What you might consider superfluous flowery language, a lot of people might just consider "writing." A lot of people buy magazines because they want to read a writer's take on the world, not because they care about the celebrity on the cover. W.C. Heinz is one of Jones favorite writers. Had Heinz decided to "get to the point, already," Death of a Racehorse would have began with a horse taking a slug to the head in the second paragraph, and none of us would have ever heard of it. Do writers these days write too often for one another first, and the reader second? I suppose it depends on the reader. If you're reading Esquire or GQ or The Atlantic, you're expectations are going to be different than if you're reading Harpers, The New Yorker or the New York Times Magazine.

2. It's sort of silly that Jones is the subject of this kind of complaint, since even among narrative writers, he's considered somewhat spartan with words. There is probably very little Hemingway would have found to complain about in "The Things That Carried Him" other than maybe the reverse telling, but I would argue that he might see why that device gives the story an intimacy it otherwise wouldn't have. Jones is not Hemingway, and only a fool would suggest that he is. But if you're annoyed by the overwriting charge that Lynch unfairly throws out there, there are much riper targets. Tom Junod and Michael Paterniti are two of the best magazine writers alive, and I will passionate defend their style choices 97 percent of the time, but they write prose that is far purpler than Jones would ever dream of.

3. (This is more general after the last few posts that directed at YGBFKM). SportsJournalists.com doesn't really "think" anything. Definitive statements like "people here don't like long-form" or "people here jack off way too much over certain long-form writers" are silly. Other than a few ideologues, people here tend to like a little of everything. I love S.L. Price, but I also really love(d) David Foster Wallace. They could hardly be more different. I like Buster Olney and Dan Wetzel. I like Posnanski and Adrian Wojnarowski. I like Tommy Craggs and Will Leitch. I like Gregg Doyel and sometimes (gasp!) Jason Whitlock. You judge the work based on whether it resonates with you, or whether it doesn't. Sometimes Gary Smith writes stories that make me want to weep they're so good (Higher Education), and other times he writes stories I can't even finish (Joba Chamberlain).

I'm not sure there is a point in turning yourself off to any kind of writer. That even includes Whitlock. heck, I still read him, and he certainly doesn't seem to like or respect me, even after finding out I'm not Les Carpenter.

While I'm not sure he made it well, Chris larger point about being a pro wasn't about looking around and seeing accomplished writers like those at Esquire and saying "See, that's how it should be done." It was about caring more about the work -- about journalism as a craft -- than your need to stand on a box with a bullhorn. That's Chris' advice when asked by kids how to break into the world. Don't be an attention wart. Personally, I think that's good advice no matter where you work, even if the closest you ever get to a magazine is buying one at a gas station. But that doesn't mean it's the right advice for everyone.

Jason has actually written passionately about his idea of being a pro as well. He wrote a very good column back in the day about how important it is to work your way up, to be bold enough to take a job in a tiny, shirtty town where you don't know anyone, and earn your stripes. That, in his opinion, gives you the knowledge and (eventually) the credibility to see through bullshirt. And he seems to view Scoop Jackson the same way Jones views him. So everyone has a different view of what it means to be a pro instead of a hack.

 

[Boom_70]

Too bad Jonesy's good advise got lost in a cheap shot.

To me in Whitlock's current job it seems logical for him to stand up with a "bull horn" .

I would imagine that Fox Sports wants to generate as many "hits" as possible to their web site.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

These last couple of posts are, in a nutshell, largely where many are at: writers who came of age in the print world, looking for the right tone and texture in a different and ever-changing print/online world.