Frank Deford's "Over Time" memoir

I found it to be a breezy read by one of the best in the business. I'm trying to show students the differences in sportswriting between now and the recent past. The Deford / Sports Illustrated model was the state of the art. They elevated the craft. In a previous class, I used Paul Gallico's "Farewell to Sport" from 1937 and some of the students found that a little too dusty. The course I'm teaching is not a history course but it should have some history in it so the students realize where we've come from before trying to figure out where we're going. But there will be at least five books.

 

OK, sounds good.

 

Oh, one more thing: I WILL use BASW (Best American Sports Writing). That's one of the five books. I'm also assigning R.A. Dickey's autobiography as a foundation for a unit that will cover at least a week.

 

I thought about this some more while I was on the cross trainer on the gym. I agree the Deford autobiography is a breezy read. But I think that the Best Sportswriting of the Century could offer a nice view of the changes in styles over time. And if I remember correctly David Halberstam's forward offers a really good explanation of the changes that Deford's autobiography does not.

 

Do you really think students will read a book that's covered in one week of class? You better assign a test if you want them to even buy and skim it.

 

Lapointe's plans for his sports journalism class remind me of Indiana Jones' description of his father. To paraphrase:

"He's a professor of sports journalism. The one the students hope they DON'T get."

Using Deford's autobiography to illustrate the evolution of sports writing? OK, now you've made the students buy a book (one of five, apparently) consisting of what amount to anecdotes of days gone by, people gone by, chronicled by someone whose prime was decades ago in a medium that is falling by the wayside.

You want to illustrate the evolution? Start by having them read Death of a Racehorse. Captures the emotion of sports journalism and the fact that it won't all be watching athletes do amazing things. Also displays a style of writing that is very much of its time. Then move forward from there.

If you insist on tapping Deford, use the SI Vault online archive to find his best work, and distribute that to the students electronically. It's free, and the students will appreciate that not only did you help them avoid spending money on a book, but they'll also know you put forth some effort to do so.

Bingo. Students will understand what makes great sports journalism through consuming these stories. Use the material itself to introduce the ideas you want students to think about. At this point in the evolution of sports journalism, their ideas are much more relevant than Deford's.

Absolutely. One of five books, and this one will cover "at least a week"? Of, what, 16 weeks? You're asking your students to purchase five books for a single class? Have you considered the fact they have other classes, which will also require a heavy time and money (the price of textbooks is not friendly) commitment?

If I'm them, I pull up Dickey's wikipedia entry and am done with it.

First of all, the "recent past" of the evolution of sports journalism is pretty much the last three or four years. Just in the last decade, styles of writing have changed greatly. Again, if you want to showcase the heyday of SI, by all means. But it's better to do that using the actual articles from their great online archive, instead of asking students to consume the remembrances of someone they would (rightly) perceive as a relic as far as current sports journalism is concerned.

Be aware that students only care so much about "where we were." And they certainly don't care as much as old newspaper men. You spend too much time in the 1960s, you'll lose half the room while the other half go with it because they think there will be an exam. And all will wonder when you're going to teach them how to survive in the current reality.

 

Cliff's Notes: Consider the tools your students actually want and need, and try to teach those within the context of the effort you can expect from them. Idealism only results in frustration when it comes to teaching.

 

I actually applaud Joe for trying to push students to think and read some more instead of just watching ESPN and doing "takes." And heck, maybe he teaches a high-level class so these kids want to read Deford, et al.

Now, get off my lawn.

 

*****
Absolutely. One of five books, and this one will cover "at least a week"? Of, what, 16 weeks?
*****

So you lower the rigor of your class, because of other classes?

I think not.

 

I had read the entire Best American Sports Writing of the Century by the time I was allowed to sign up for sports-specific journalism classes. I was sports editor of a good student newspaper and had the first of three internships under my belt at that point. But I had a professor who approached the class with the same mentality: nostalgia for a past that wasn't realistic. His bona fides were outstanding, and I kept in touch with him for years to come. But I took almost nothing from his class except an A and a reference.

There's a pretty huge difference between being a good journalist and being a good journalism teacher. I am familiar enough with Joe Lapointe's work to know he's a good journalist. I don't know whether he's a good teacher, but I am skeptical about certain aspects of his approach.