Gary Smith to retire

http://forums.deeperblue.com/threads/the-rapture-of-the-deep-si-article-the-deadly-dive-2-5mb-dialup-beware.56683/

I think SI's Lindsay Schnell picked it as her favorite. No other writers did, which, again, surprised me. It's compelling. It's leaner emotionally than some of Smith's stuff, which is actually a good thing. It's a great plot.

 

Thanks for the link.

What really drove the story home again was when they had footage of the incident on the 30 for 30, and it was exactly as Smith had described it.

 

This is an honest question, Ralph:

You are quite critical of "long form," usually.

What is it about Smith that earns your admiration?

Also, someone here noted that they wished Smith would have tried his hand in something other than sports. It's funny. Whenever I would want to do the same, myself, just to break the repetition, this thought would come to me: "Well, Gary Smith writes sports, so who are you to ..."

 

I'm critical of the "Kiss the ring, or we shall be VERY upset!" attitude both prominent and perhaps not as prominent members of Longform Inc. sometimes brought to this place, and now (sometimes) bring to Twitter. I'm critical of Longform, Inc. and the need for SI and SB Nation to suddenly wave the flag of "WE are doing LONGFORM!!!" so loudly.

Good journalism is always appreciated. If it's wit and breaking news on Twitter, great. If it's longer pieces, equally great. If it strikes a great balance between longer pieces and wit like Grantland and Deadspin, perfect. If it's in newspapers, I'm not interested.

That all said, the skill of the individual is the key. Frank Isola is hilarious on Twitter. Many sports journalists are not.

Some Longform is excellent and a great read. But a lot of Longform reads like someone is trying really hard to be profound. The SB Nation story on Andre Dawkins, for instance:

http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2013/10/31/5047804/andre-dawkins-duke-basketball-profile-2013-season

Now, here's the SI story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20131113/andre-dawkins/

Effortless. Just told the story, told it well. No need for Sports Jockey As Societal Commentator and Armchair Psychologist.

(did those two stories get a "who wrote it better?" thread here? That would have been fun)

Smith often seemed effortless. When it felt like he was TRYING to tell a special story - both Pat Tillman stories, for instance - I checked out. But when he would write a story that read like it was just tossed out there, he is the best.

The Mia Hamm feature is a good example of this. The type of thing that read like he could do it in his sleep, and better than most of the writing that was out there.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1029869/

I did find later, as my newspaper career was totally flagging and I had such a profoundly bitter exit that it still haunts me to this very day, every day . . .

Hahahahaha, none of that happened, but I do enjoy that myth.

But anyway, I eventually found that I had to be in the mood to read a Smith piece, to read any longer piece. The topic had to be one that I would read under any circumstances. Gone were the days of devouring, for instance, the story about the Kellerman brothers.

http://cnnsi.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1110693/index.htm

My time was more valuable, I was less patient, and I no longer wished to be a sports journalist. And having broken away from that world, I started to understand the perception that Longform is sometimes written for other writers to say "Yes, yes! What a line, sir! Next round of bourbon is on me!"

Every story was getting The Gary Smith Treatment. Outlets no longer treated Longform as an opportunity to do special stories, but as a chance to say "Look! We are SPECIAL! 'Cause we do Longform, and stuff!"

SB Nation is by far the biggest offender, but SI's "Longform since 1954!" isn't cute or funny. The magazine is half the size it once was. Trumpeting the past only reminds me of that.

So yeah, I like a good story, done well. But I find the need for constant backslapping among outlets and individuals to be distasteful.

 

Well, clearly they're related.

 

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.

 

Grantland had been the worst offender by some margin, but some of the early nonsense hasn't frequently replicated itself.

Insomuch as I have a beef with longform, it's when the piece has been overwritten, is unnaturally owned by the author (as in, you interviewed two people and blew that up into 3,000 words, most of which were your observations and/or phony psychoanalysis), and unnaturally epic (taking a story about a specific thing and making it Universal).

Many Longform stories didn't do any of those things. But because there is more long stuff than ever before -- a result of the navel-gazing the Internet inspires in us -- some of the bad stuff is really bad, and some of the decent stuff that is just decent is elevated into the masterworks they were not.

 

Signed on for the first time in 6 mos. or whatever it was, to say a whole heck of a lot of this hit home with me.

And, I have no idea who this guy is (not a fan of longform usually? He's got like 22 posts!).

 

I bet most readers have never even heard of the term "longform"
would likely have an easier time defining the balk call.

 

And there's someone's next 3,000 words.

 

Alma, we've been really in lockstep lately in our thinking here, first with your thoughts on the poverty thread that got locked, and now this. The observations and psychoanalysis put me to sleep, which is why I have left Gary Smith behind, in a lot of ways. I get made fun of here for being a big New Yorker fan. People think I'm pretentious for it. In actuality, I just like the writing - deeply reported and the writer stays out of the way, which is ironic to say, because the magazine uses first-person a lot in its reported pieces.

 

Too bad you didn't stay out of your own way during that comment. It would have been shorter, more to the point, and better.