Chris Jones vs. Slate's Tom Scocca, Part ... 3?

It began somewhere. In one throat. It had to, as every cupcake must begin with one molecule of frosting and every fire with a single spark. Cup-cake. Who was the first to cry it out that August night, and what made it leap to the next throat and the next until 54,000 people at the corner bakery were crying it as one?

This never happened when Joe D first appeared. CUP-CAKE!?... Not for Mickey or Yogi. CUP-CAKE!?... Not for Guidry or Mattingly or Derek. CUP-CAKE!?... Why each evening thereafter, when the Frosted Delight trotted toward the bakery for a minute or two of work, did that word rise and roar again like a yearning?

CUP-CAKE...? What did it mean?

Why here, in this cathedral to achievement, where the pastry had achieved nothing? Here, where the assembly manual had been read long ago, where everyone knew how to build dynasties and superstars no matter how unsatisfying the final product turned out, how many frosting layers they'd failed to win in recent years or how many superstars seemed smug or flawed. CUP-CAKE!...

 

I'd put it in your butt.

 

Prepare your anus, Mark.

 

"No, you remember, it was the night they broke out the strap-ons on JTO."

 

That would be to dye for...

 

Do none of you remember the headline for Clemens? It's a steroid reference.

Not a buttsecks one.

 

Why do I even bother? Still...

Chris, in his original post about features, made it clear that there was a difference between the kind of feature that goes on the cover, such as one on Jeff Bridges, and the ones that have the real impact, such as all the ones he listed on his blogs. That was all I could think about Scocca's blog post. Yeah, his points were valid. But when Chris talked about writing, compelling, SPECIAL, IMPORTANT features, he wasn't talking about writing the story of Jeff Bridges' second life as a guitar player. Chris, I imagine, would happily concede that the the Bridges story — while compelling, funny, interesting — is not one of his greats; sometimes, your own rules for how to do things the right way simply don't apply.

The post by Scocca was petty.

Chris isn't perfect, by any stretch. And I'll shamelessly cross the line into the "unabashed admirer" camp. But he does us all a favor by blogging about writing. I remember, when I was learning this craft, how desperately I wished to have access to the greats, to know why they did what they did. I know why Chris Jones does what he does. That's something special. That said, I wouldn't blame him in the least if he deleted his blog and went back to the insulated life most writers lead, living publicly only between the Jeff Bridges head shot and the Ketel 1 ad. We'd all be the worse for it.

 

I don't think your analogy works. Michael Jordan can't evaluate NBA talent, but you bet your ass you'd listen if he gave you tips on how to play basketball.

Ditto for Jones and writing. He's not making hiring decisions or evaluating young writers; he's sharing his knowledge of the craft.

And, honestly, I check out his blog more for the tips ...

 

This coda has seen this thread before and will just float away now.

 

Hmmm, it's interesting. I actually went back and red the first blog post. To quote it:

"I’ll admit to missing as often as I hit. Because profile writing is hard. It takes empathy, and observation, and reporting, and structure, and access, and then a few thousand words filled with beautiful sentences. It’s tough to get everything right."

Doesn't this sort of disclaimer kind of render Scocca's point moot? Shock of shocks. Good writers do not produce something great, or even something that meets their own standards, every time.

 

Just a thought, from a fan of both writers, but isn't Scocca really criticizing your set of rules, not your ability to write? Am I missing something? Isn't this like, to use the Jordan analogy someone brought up earlier, if someone were to say "Kwame Brown and Adam Morrison weren't very good draft picks," to Michael Jordan, then Jordan were to, one-by-one, remove each of his rings, put them on the table and assume he won the argument?

Scocca was obviously being petty, and it wasn't worth a response. But if you're going to respond, shouldn't you respond to the question posed?

 

All roads lead to buttsex