Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

I've accomplished plenty myself, thanks. And I don't think I'm "fawning" over anyone as much as I'm speaking up for someone whom I consider to be a friend.

That said, I suppose I can see why some will see it as fawning. I can only say that's not the case, and other people can choose to believe it or not believe it.

 

So dumb, h/she doesn't know if h/she is confused or not.

 

More like disingenuous.

 

I gotta agree.

 

Actually, I suspect neither Jones nor Whitlock wears pants at all.

 

Was Whitlock treated better or worse here than on Jones' blog?

 

Gotta disagree. This misses the point. Reading and communicating with top writers is one of the things that helps you be the best writer you can be. Again, I think some folks confuse respect and appreciation with genuflecting.

As for the whole bit about "people who chronicle what others accomplish in life ..." being something that's only a half-way accomplishment ... well, that leaves me a little confused.

What you just described is journalism. Or, at least, folks who like to highlight quality journalists. This is a meeting place for journalists. Of all the things on here that you can question the value of having a discussion on, I wouldn't imagine actual journalism as a main source of criticism.

That said, I get the point about chronicling other peoples' lives to a degree. I go back and forth with its value sometimes and think we can take ourselves too seriously on it a lot of the time. But usually when I start thinking simply "living" is more valuable ... well, there's often some words that have been written that help make me want to do the living. Nice little paradox, huh?

 

Taking Whitlock out of the equation for a moment, could we dispense with the fallacy that the disagreements between the writers in question here and the agitators who apparently have the power to make adults run away and hide have anything to do with writing or journalism? Because everyone who knows any background on the "feud" knows that's complete bullshit. Jones and MacGregor and the lot of them had what amounts to a captive audience when discussing the trade. It's when the discussions ventured into other areas that the expectation of that same power to persuade became a little too difficult to manage.

 

I don't know why either left. I do know that Jones did have a couple hissy fits and stomped off while I can recall a few times where Whitlock laughed at himself when criticism fit. That says more about them as people than writers I guess.

I do know that people on this board treated Bill Simmons as the anti-Christ (and he did come here under an assumed name but I guess has long since given up the ghost on anything positive coming for him from this place). What of Jason McIntyre of the Big Lead who was made to feel completely unwelcome here.

No - let us dwell on Chris Jones and his wounded ego. That's the ticket.

 

To bad the politics board is gone. We could provide some supportive examples of their venturing outside craft discussion.

Maybe they should have stayed on "craft" and they would not have had as many disagreements.

 

Oscar, I understand your paradox, but what I love about our job is the fact that we get to be the storyteller. I don't look at it as "chronicling" the life of some significant somebody who's actually doing something, while I'm this passive observer. I have an active voice and use it, and the story-telling is important on its own merit. At least that's what warms me at night.

Not that it matters, but I don't have a dog in the Jones-Whitlock fight.

 

Support for Jones in this thread is not surprising, based on how many people really enjoyed his work and posts when he was here. I expected more, but we may have had a departure or two among those who really liked Jones.

Bill Reiter's post is the first time I remember someone coming out in support of Whitlock in a manner not meant to incite.