Grantland so far

I did. So, did they commit themselves to long-form writing or not?

 

Long-form sports writing? Not particularly. Sure, there are long sports stories there, but as Alma's example shows, they're apparently not the raison d'etre of the site.

 

Not even the savor of wordy journalism, especially when it's done the Wright way...

 

Looking at site analytics from Alexa.com, the average visitor to Grantland.com spends less than 4 minutes on the site per visit. Not long enough to read any single typical item on the site.

(I'm stunned to see that the site for our local shitkicker TV station averages 8-plus minutes per average visit.)

 

Now, that's a telling statistic. I would not have expected that.

 

Baker's piece was great. I've been reading NYT Vows section for years.

 

Too small a sample size to draw too much from, but June to July metrics were all down a smidge.

 

Alma's critique said it. A shapeless pudding. Also silly: sabermetrics on weddings? Agreed, Simmons never announced for long-form narrative sports stories. But "Grantland" -- Simmons says he didn't want the name -- suggested writing about sports. I don't look much anymore, but for a while the only real sports story was Chuck Klosterman's on how fast a man can run. He talked to people who knew something -- what a concept, good writing muscled up by reporting. Grantland needs that, not the silly inventions of minds better off left idle.

The pop culture stuff leaves me cold. It must work for somebody, Simmons I guess. It makes me wonder what name Simmons wanted, because "Grantland" doesn't fit. I doubt he liked "Shapeless, Silly Pudding." How about "Norman"? Norman Lear invented modern TV. Or Lear's character who always put Archie in his place, "Meathead."

 

That was more entertaining than anything I've read on Grantland.

 

Really? You're that caustic about the site? There's nothing there that you've found to have artistic merit?

Either your expectations were too great, or your reality's too hypercritical.

 

I'm disappointed. There are limited opportunities for top writers to engage actual readers in a visible and highly-publicized forum. So here's a blank page, limitless options, and the result just feels lazy and arrogant and silly. Not the writing or the writers, but the complete lack of editorial direction. You have Klosterman and Chris Jones on your staff, do something great and wonderful with that. Feature it, showcase something, and let the frivolous stuff fill in around it. This is a wasted opportunity to do something unique and relevant and smart.

 

Fair enough ... good answer.