Chuck Culpepper on being a gay sportswriter, thanking Brendon Ayanbadejo

Holy shit, I didn't even think about that. I was just riffing off of Versatile's "fabulous," with the joke going right over my head.

I fixed it.

 

The last two paragraphs were good.

The rest was all self-aggrandizing blather, imo.

Examples:
"I am that exotic creature, a gay male sportswriter...."
"I am believed to be the only gay male extant who can recite the final scores of all 47 Super Bowls..."
"On six continents I have hung around excellent gay people who find sports an unappealing mystery..."

Please.

 

Go away troll.

 

Outstanding, nuanced piece.

 

Good column. Personal without being overbearing. But are we operating under the assumption that anyone who doesn't think it's "fabulous," as Verse put it, should be shouted down? Because that's not the kind of thing sj is known for,

 

I think ringer's points are reasonable and even right. I could have done with less self-aggrandizing in those parts. I would have preferred more on talking with Ayanbadejo. It's a very good column, but there's no point in starting a thread with the explicit intent of lavishing praise and only praise. That makes for boring discussion.

It's strange to me that people keep calling the column subtle. It would have been subtle and still worked had he not come right out and told us he was gay. He had a subtle interaction with Ayanbadejo, not with his readers.

 

I knew he has gay when he outed himself as a Portsmouth fan.

 

I didn't read it as self-aggrandizement. I read it as ironic and playful, and probably coming out of whatever very real psychological defenses a gay sportswriter actually has to develop. In some ways, the mini-arc of the piece involves Chuck's language going from that voice and mode to a place of honest vulnerability. I thought it worked really well. The piece isn't just about the society around Chuck changing.

 

I understand that. Again, it was a very good column. I just don't understand calling it "restrained."

 

I think it just all depends on how the criticism is rendered. It's obviously a delicate subject, and it's about someone who is widely-regarded as one of the true mensches in this business. That certainly doesn't mean he's immune from critical analysis, but common sense would say he deserves the benefit of the doubt. This is not directed at anyone in particular, but if you criticize the beginning of the piece in a dismissive, eye-rolling way, then I think some pushback is fair. (One thing I think is always a little silly is when someone criticizes something here, then that criticism is criticized, and the original critic gets kind butt hurt. Feel free to rip something, but don't think those choices aren't without rebuttals too.) If people think the opening is navel gazing, then there is a way to respectfully say that that doesn't invite Mizzou saying "Go away, troll." I highly doubt he would have responded that way had ringer made the same points without "blather" and "Please."

If we were in a classroom (but still anonymous; pretend we're all wearing fricken Eyes Wide Shut masks, whatever) and Culpepper were sitting across from you, the same point could be made without being kind of a snarky about something that's obviously personal and was difficult to write.

 

I don't think anything is a delicate subject when it comes to criticism of writing. The criticism isn't of the content. It's of the words.

 

About his motives, you mean?

I guess I think it's a fine line. It's one thing to question the writer's motives. I agree that the benefit of the doubt is probably in order there. But it's another thing to question how the piece actually comes off to an objective reader. If it reads self-aggrandizing (I don't think it does), then it seems perfectly acceptable to make that criticism, regardless of the writer.