Grantland so far

I think there's some good stuff on it in a pure vacuum. Can Colson Whitehead write? Of course he can. If he spent three days working at Famous Dave's, I'm sure he'd come up with something lyrical and interesting. Katie Baker's matrimony piece is really quite clever and could easily fit inside Vanity Fair. If she really keeps at it (and, even better, actually interviews the couples on her own terms) it could develop into a helluva project.

But is it timely? Is it impactful? Does it have context? Edith Wharton wrote several of the best novels of last century about little more than Katie Baker's material, but her work had context (emotional and spiritual repression, especially of women) that gave it meaning. Where's the context in Baker's column? Where is anything but a bray and a snicker and a jab. It's a vacuum, as evidenced by the absence of comments, a stunning no-no for Internet sites. That's a newspaper, ivory tower move all the way. Too cool to have feedback?

Basic editing strategies address these fundamental problems. They also address the give-a-shit factor. There's enough going on in sports that two separate tomes about WWE seems like jackassery. Many thousands of words on a declining rap band will look jaw-droppingly absurd if a site that claims to be about pop culture simply ignores Amy Winehouse's death (I doubt it will, frankly).

On a different site - say ESPN.com - the Whitehead stuff stands out as a kind of sociological/psychological lark, a special item. On Grantland, it merely seems more skillful and more self-indulgent than the rest of the material. An even more literary, exotic cocktail at a bar that doesn't bother to serve water and domestic beer.

Simmons has often accused traditional journalists of apathy, a kind rote, this-damn-game-is-a-hassle mindset that breeds really boring work. I happen to agree with Simmons on that point. But, right now, he's guilty of apathy in a different strain - the site has no discipline.

 

I think ESPN will make this work. As Ptor says, it'll be fun to see it happen. My guess is that pop culture will shrink, sports will grow. They're apples and oranges, however much you try to make them all look like peaches. Look-at-me-write soliloquies will disappear, muscled-up reporting will take over. ESPN bosses will say, OK, we gave our showhorse his toy, time to take it back. A magazine of ideas -- Grantland -- needs a central intelligence, a set of governing principles, what Alma calls "discipline." The New Yorker has that, Grantland doesn't. TNY has David Remnick, Grantland has Simmons. One is a brilliant reporter/writer/editor-in-chief with wide-ranging interests, the other isn't. But Grantland will survive these early flailings because it has what even TNY doesn't -- it has the practically unlimited resources of ESPN, and soon, I bet, ESPN will remind Simmons of the golden rule. He who has the gold, rules.

 

I'm betting some of that stems from people who visit and don't see anything they like, or someone who visits hoping to see something new only to find nothing new has been posted yet.

 

I think Alma's made some great posts on this thread, made me think of things in a different way, and a lot of the other criticisms have been valid but I can't say I've ever looked at one of Grantland's stories and thought, "God, I wish I could read some online comments underneath it."

WELL, THIS WAS A WASTE OF TIME
FRIRST!
HAHA MORON. YOU WERENT FIRST
FUCK THE AL LEAST
HEY SIMMONS, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE NBA
KLOSTERMAN YOU'RE FACE LOOKS LIKE AN ASS
SIMMONS YOU BOSTON FUCK
A LED ZEPPLIN STORY? WHAT IS THIS, 1975?
KOBE SUCKS, HE'LL NEVER BE JORDAN
LEBRON SUCKS, HE'LL NEVER BE KOBE
AUSTIN RIVERS SUCKS, HE'LL NEVER BE LEBRON
GRANTLAND? THIS PLACE IS MORE LIKE DEADLAND

I too am conditioned to look at the comments on newspaper stories, online ones, etc. It's a habit I'm happy to break sometimes.

 

It is to laugh.

Read Ebert's typical comment feedback, then wonder why Simmons, Reilly and Loopy aren't willing to play in the same way . . .


I know . . . it's obvious, as to why. It doesn't even need to be stated.

 

Web site comment threads are by and large proof humanity is not on the road to success as a species. Nevertheless, writers for big-time media outlets who don't have comment threads are basically wearing a sign reading "I am chickenshit."

 

Well, Michael, I think you've officially won the gold medal for contradiction with that one.

 

Why is it contradictory to note that you don't like comment threads, but that if everybody else in your shop has them and you don't, that says something bad about you?

 

But if no one on Grantland has them then I don't see an issue. It's not like you can comment on Katie Baker's and not Klosterman's. And like I noted, I can live with having one - or maybe even more! - site that isn't polluted.

 

DO NOT!
YEAH THEY DO ASSHOLE
LOL! YEAH OKAY
SARCASM? THAT ALL U GOT
Gentlemen, agree to disagree?
YEAH, OKAY...WUSS