Gary Smith

Hell yes. Used to be the same thing when Rick Reilly wrote features.

 

Reading Gary Smith is like visiting Williamsburg, Va. Now when I was 12, I enjoyed the colonial village thoroughly. In my 30s, last time I was there, I found myself thinking that I know 80 of these buildings were restored and the rest were "recreated," so did Patrick Henry actually stand in this actual building where I stand now or was he standing in a building on this spot that was just like this one or sort of like this one or maybe not much like this building at all, but close enough for the tourists? In other words, are we standing in a historic site or are we in Disneyland or are we in both? And how do we know the difference?

So now that I am not 12 years old and I know a few things about historic preservation, I prefer maybe seeing a building or two somewhere off the beaten path that maybe lacks some drama, but at least I am not pretending something built in the 1950s was actually built in the 1750s. Many tourists (readers) will not care one way or another, they just want something fun and tidy. But my standards are different because this is something I care about in more than a casual manner.

So while I can appreciate Smith's skills, something always bothers me, like when I see a movie claim "based on a true story." Well, is it true or isn't it and how do I know which is and which isn't?

And I don't see why pretending to get inside someone's head is necessary. Take Jones' McCain story, for example. Do we know less about McCain because Jones reported only what he saw and heard, and that Jones' opinions were clearly his opinions and not his opinions masked as McCain's inner thoughts? I don't think so, and I trust the McCain story a whole lot more.

 

Gotta go with Jack on this one. I hate -- h-a-t-e -- pieces written in the second person. I hated "bright Lights, Big City" for just that reason. I find the technique condescending. I feel like somebody's poking me in the chest. And this one just seemed excessively mannered to me.

 

Oh well. Something worked, cause it's created this thread and a previous one that's had good discussion.

 

Even though I go in to new Smith pieces knowing that I love Smith, I'm usually concerned after reading his first few paragraphs. Same thing, Fenian - it always seems so condescending. But I usually get past that by the end of the next page or so. He does so many great things with his undeniably flawed form that you (or I, rather) forget those flaws.

It's amazing, to me, that he can make you forget he's there - get you totally engrossed in the characters - while doing so much capital-w Writing.

 

That was my big question.

Don't you think, though, that if he was consistently getting "inside his head" things wrong, his subjects would consistently complain?

 

Ya'll know that Smith has at least one full-time reporter dedicated to helping him with his articles, right? He's not a one-man act. I'm not at all taking away from his abilty to write, and not saying he doesn't report well. But it's a team effort over there.

 

I think people -- rational people -- complain only about the big stuff. Kid from my old high school wrote a piece after I spoke there, got quite a few things wrong even though he interviewed me by e-mail. Worth bitching about? Nah. Did he get the big things right? Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that he inexplicably got some things wrong.

 

I agree, for the most part. But aren't things different when a big-name writer from a renowned magazine - a guy you've let into your personal life - screws up?

Especially if you're a big-name athlete with lawyers and agents and PR people.

 

Why woulld anyone complain about being made to look good?.....Smith doesn't engage his subjects in controversy....he's a disciple of the Deford School of soft features on people he likes....

 

Sirs, Madames,

You're Jimmy Cannon. You shouldn't write in the second person.

Nobody asked me, etc

 

Very interesting, biting take on two of the biz's sacred cows.