Grantland so far

Quakes · Jul 19, 2011

The Big Ragu said:

SF_Express said:

Here's why I'm perhaps a bad fit for the web, sports journalism, the future of long-form writing on the web and perhaps even this community:

I thought Alma's analysis was terrific, because it allowed me to catch up on the pluses and minuses of Grantland, which I stopped paying attention to two weeks ago.

I'm not going to claim work busy, merely life busy, and I just don't have the time go spend a lot of time reading the things Grantland is putting out there.

While greatly admiring what Simmons has accomplished, I don't care what he has to say -- my kids do, and that's fine with me, and good for Bill -- and the East Coast lean further diminishes its importance for me. I'm from Wisconsin/Florida/California, and my universe is centered elsewhere.

But further -- and this is the big disconnect, and I'd claim to be ashamed, but I'm not really -- is I don't really want to read 5 or 8 or 10-page stories on the web. So I don't. I'm part of the great unwashed masses in that regard, and so probably not a good judge of Grantland overall.

I will say that as a web guy, the archiving issues Alma describes are unacceptable. That's pretty basic stuff, should be automated and shouldn't exist on a first-class website. Not that shit doesn't happen, but it shouldn't happen to the site's star.
Click to expand...

SF, You are not alone. I read a lot on the web. I buzz around and pick up things from a lot of different sites. I sort of have my daily checklist. I have no patience for most of what I have seen on Grantland. I want to like it. I respect most of the writers I've seen on there. I just haven't felt compelled to go over there very much, and when I have, I gave up on reading pretty quickly. Very little has absolutely gripped me and felt like "must read" material. The best I came up with is that it probably isn't aimed at me. It's why I haven't commented much on the other thread. I haven't been to the site enough to really comment.

Alma, great job. I always appreciate well-reasoned analysis. I half want to go over there and pay more attention to decide whether I agree with your analysis.
Click to expand...

I'm with Ragu. I don't think I'm their target, even though I'm a sports fan and a former sportswriter who likes to read and appreciates good writing. There's too much pop-culture stuff for me -- although, to be fair, they don't hide the fact that that's a big part of what they do. Most, though not all, of the sports material seems like the sort of observational stuff that's easily tossed off and -- while sometimes interesting or amusing -- isn't illuminating or nourishing, as well-reported and well-written features are. I'd be more interested in Grantland if it were like The New Yorker, or The New York Times Magazine, or Sports Illustrated at its best. (I recognize that all of those are weekly publications, unlike Grantland.) Instead, it's more like Slate.

YGBFKM · Jul 19, 2011

After perusing the site the last couple of days, I was just thinking that the sports stuff is getting overwhelmed.

93Devil · Jul 20, 2011

Alma said:

It's been roughly one month since Grantland launched. I thought I'd start a new thread to examine it from a macro perspective instead of a blow-by-blow recap that seems to be occurring in the longer thread. Note: This post is generally critical of its effort so far. Feel free to defend/debate at will.

First, I had to keep in mind one important thing: Bill Simmons can't be the best thing on it. Because if he is the best or even near that then, well, ESPN already has Bill Simmons. It doesn't need to build Grantland as a launching pad for his work. That's why the early advertising dollars old ESPN fave Subway is one of them don't matter much. That's ESPN saying here's where Bill Simmons will be now. We'll take your money. But Grantland doesn't have to exist for Simmons to exist. So the strength of the site can't be his random, occasional contributions (the frequency of which I doubt he keeps up). It has to be the rest of it.

The strengths are, thus far, limited by the weaknesses. The design is clean, yes, but to the point that you lose any sense of what the big, commanding piece is on the site. Its an offshoot the McSweeney's design and I'd argue Grantland's going after a different demo than Eggers' outfit. (In general, it would appear that Simmons is taking pointers from people who don't know sports all that well.) The footnotes I personally like, but I've stopped reading some of them, and you can tell some writers don't have much time for them. I think Simmons' work, frankly, has been good, save his awful site opening ramble. He's written the two best pop culture columns without, I'd guess, trying that hard. His NBA column, tortured Dave analogy aside, was focused and a quick read. I like the Director's Cut series and the oral history series, but their scattershot, almost unannounced nature makes me dubious as to whether readers can count on them. Rany Jazayerli's few commentaries are forward-thinking instead of navel-gazing, but he's a rare example and, again, he'll show up once a week, or once every two weeks.

Much of the content bores me. Not the writing, necessarily. But the lack of ambition, of nails, or muscle. It reads like a lot of folks who haven't spent much time in the arena. The talent's there, the turns of phrase are there, the confidence is there but there's no virtually no risk to any of it. When there is risk The National oral history, for example the Grantland staff is merely transferring the risk to the subject. I feel as though I'm reading people watch TV, firing missiles at folks never likely to know they exist. There's a distinct limit to my enjoyment of that. Especially when Simmons, over the last decade, has already done this, and done it more effectively.

First, picky flaws: Copy editing needs to improve. Links really need to improve; when I click on Simmons archive of writing, http://www.grantland.com/columnists/billsimmons the latest update is 6.30.2011, even though Simmons has written since then. I have to click on the side archive (several times with the arrows) to get all of June's work, while July's still doesn't show.

Klosterman's meanwhile, shows nothing written before 7.6.2011. http://www.grantland.com/columnists/chuckklosterman These are sort of inexcusable mistakes to make on a Web site. The sidebar archive doesn't appear to reflect everyone who's written for the site. Why? What's the difference between someone who writes for Grantland and someone who wrote for it in the online universe? It's not like readers know writer contracts. Is there a difference between a column and just a regular report? If so what?

One flaw is an absence of continuity. The larger narrative of the sports day or even the sports week or month or year - is completely lost inside Grantland. In this way, it's quite similar to the 30 for 30 series. How I feel about Grantland is informed by what I thought of the 30 for 30 in general: Random, mostly tepid, occasionally excellent, passably interesting. But, in 90-minute digestible chunks spread over the course of a year, you didn't feel the inconsistency of 30 for 30 series. In Grantland, you do.

The story selection: Pasta on a wall. Some baseball, some fringe sports, way too much Hollywood/cable TV, way too much Molly Lambert (who is not necessarily bad, but a poor fit for this site.) Oh, and Mark Moseley's MVP year in the NFL, because you cared. And Katie Baker's moving, so she'll miss New York. And movie trailers. The insights are generally tepid. The craftsmanship is fine, but it's often writing for the sake of writing, long-winded asides, analysis paralysis, out-of-the-blue, vague celebrity profiles that don't circle around to a larger point.

The content is a bizarre mix of Bill Simmons' personal taste NBA stuff even though the season is over, the AL East beat writer in Chris Jones (this remains, to me, a stunning fuck you to fans of teams in other leagues, firm, indisputable truth that ESPN harbors a East Coast fixation) and stuff that seems driven by ESPN's interests. ESPN is about to pick up Wimbledon, so readers get a shit ton on Wimbledon (will this happen with every tennis major, or just ones ESPN is trying to win a bid on?) ESPN is showing the women's World Cup, so here comes three perspectives on the quarterfinal game. ESPN is showing Friday Night Lights reruns, so here's an oral history on the show. No stuff on the All-Star game the day after, though (was that because the AL East didn't star in it? Because Simmons deplores the All-Star game?) NFL lockout material? Barely a whisper. NASCAR? What's NASCAR? British Open? Not yet! Not one whiff of college football. But there are two thinkpieces on the legacy of Yao Ming.

I get that you're not going to hit everything. But Grantland seems to be following a contrary, almost secret sports calendar. The site fails to build anticipation or give readers a routine. It lacks urgency. It lacks anger. With the exception of Jones who has the ability to write profane/dirty/muscular without seeming like he's sucking on a Marlboro Light most of the pieces either seem written by the same mildly observant wise ass trying hard to unload their toolbox of pop culture jokes.

Chris Ryan's story on Soccer City USA is a perfect example

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6766182/visiting-soccer-city-usa

Here's a story about rival fan bases without a single whiff of quoted conversation. It's descriptive, well-written, but impossibly tame. If I were an editor, I'd say: Go back and get a little dirty. Enough with the architecture and the communal spirit from afar. Actually get in there. Chart it. Give me some life, not some distant, pleasing essay. It's not the Travel Channel.

The ratio of sports to pop culture is much too heavy on the pop culture. And, at some point, it'd be wise for the pop culture section to reflect more than a handful of cable TV shows. What, for example, defines pop culture in the last two weeks? Does Grantland reflect that?

Note that my post isn't really about the quality of the writing. It's been decent-to-strong. Simmons has perhaps picked up his game, and, more importantly, he's addressing the stuff in his wheelhouse the NBA lockout head-on. But I don't see the same toughness /rigor from the rest of the staff. The ownership seems fleeting. Legit question: Where's Jones on Jeter's 3000th hit? You have a terrific writer, a huge moment, the AL East beat and...where is he? And that's not so much to knock Jones but to knock the mindset of the site. Where's Klosterman on the Adele or Gaga or Katy Perry phenomenon? Where's anyone on Casey Anthony? Where is anyone on anything NFL or college football related?

The site badly needs writers willing to rise to the moment. To say something big is happening in Sport X, and I want Grantland to be a definitive voice on that. The opposite of risky, Grantland is actually quite safe, attempting to thrive as a boutique, high-end market while you get the rest of your groceries at, you know, a store that actually sells bread. Some of boutique items (Rany chief among them) are pretty tasty and worth the time spent. Some are much too expensive for the effort expended by the reader. But it's almost all boutique coverage. Klosterman is clearly working hard on stuff and actually interviewing people! - but it's boutique work. The exceptions (Wimbledon, the women's World Cup) appear driven by ESPN's interest to have Grantland weigh in.

Some of the problem lands on Simmons' desk as a boss. Put simply, he needs to be tougher. At some point, the site needs to chart the course from diversion (for its writers, for its readers) to compulsion. A boss has to be able to say to his writer Hey, I need you to have a take on this. You gotta be there. Maybe I'm shaking you out of your comfort zone of being a cool Grinch in a decidedly ivory tower, but turn this around in 12 hours.

And some of the problem lands on Simmons' desk as a persona. I think, even after all this time, he lacks a clear understanding for his own success. It wasn't merely his style, his aw, fuck all nature, but a combination of two things:

*The willingness to be meticulous and exhaustive on a subject (Boston sports) that had long been turned into a hoary cliché by area sportswriters.

*The passion to dive so deep into the NBA that people wanted to follow him into the core of the sport, where they will rarely go if the writing doesn't sing its way out of the trench.

Both of those things took more guts than most here admit because Simmons didn't function as an actual reporter very much because folks here fail to acknowledge the sheer emotional and creative capital that goes into what Simmons did for years. I'd argue his staff of writers has, on balance, a similar misunderstanding. Most of the work reads like the ultimate, relaxed insider, much too comfortable with their thoughts, far too unwilling to venture outside their comfort zone as reporters, but lacking Simmons' slavish devotion to creative volume or sense of subject.

I don't get the sense, thus far, that Simmons wants to be a bad guy with his writers. But, to harness and throw this site in the right direction, you have to be. It could exist for years like this, of course, because ESPN wants it to and because it wants to satiate Simmons' desire to have it. But, right now, it's a quirky, minor light, filled with writers who specialize in being quirky and minor, people who, if you said give me your fastball wouldn't know how to find the extra four miles per hour because they haven't yet bothered to see if they have it. Some of them have spent a whole career in the niche role of snappy comeback.

Is that all Grantland is destined to be?
Click to expand...

Great post.

Do you think Grantland is hurt by launching during the slowest sports season? There is baseball, and really only a few fringe things.

In the fall there will be baseball, college football, pro football and Premireship football, which should give plenty of opportunities to write more actual sports.

Boom_70 · Jul 20, 2011

93Devil said:

Alma said:

It's been roughly one month since Grantland launched. I thought I'd start a new thread to examine it from a macro perspective instead of a blow-by-blow recap that seems to be occurring in the longer thread. Note: This post is generally critical of its effort so far. Feel free to defend/debate at will.

First, I had to keep in mind one important thing: Bill Simmons can't be the best thing on it. Because if he is the best or even near that then, well, ESPN already has Bill Simmons. It doesn't need to build Grantland as a launching pad for his work. That's why the early advertising dollars old ESPN fave Subway is one of them don't matter much. That's ESPN saying here's where Bill Simmons will be now. We'll take your money. But Grantland doesn't have to exist for Simmons to exist. So the strength of the site can't be his random, occasional contributions (the frequency of which I doubt he keeps up). It has to be the rest of it.

The strengths are, thus far, limited by the weaknesses. The design is clean, yes, but to the point that you lose any sense of what the big, commanding piece is on the site. Its an offshoot the McSweeney's design and I'd argue Grantland's going after a different demo than Eggers' outfit. (In general, it would appear that Simmons is taking pointers from people who don't know sports all that well.) The footnotes I personally like, but I've stopped reading some of them, and you can tell some writers don't have much time for them. I think Simmons' work, frankly, has been good, save his awful site opening ramble. He's written the two best pop culture columns without, I'd guess, trying that hard. His NBA column, tortured Dave analogy aside, was focused and a quick read. I like the Director's Cut series and the oral history series, but their scattershot, almost unannounced nature makes me dubious as to whether readers can count on them. Rany Jazayerli's few commentaries are forward-thinking instead of navel-gazing, but he's a rare example and, again, he'll show up once a week, or once every two weeks.

Much of the content bores me. Not the writing, necessarily. But the lack of ambition, of nails, or muscle. It reads like a lot of folks who haven't spent much time in the arena. The talent's there, the turns of phrase are there, the confidence is there but there's no virtually no risk to any of it. When there is risk The National oral history, for example the Grantland staff is merely transferring the risk to the subject. I feel as though I'm reading people watch TV, firing missiles at folks never likely to know they exist. There's a distinct limit to my enjoyment of that. Especially when Simmons, over the last decade, has already done this, and done it more effectively.

First, picky flaws: Copy editing needs to improve. Links really need to improve; when I click on Simmons archive of writing, http://www.grantland.com/columnists/billsimmons the latest update is 6.30.2011, even though Simmons has written since then. I have to click on the side archive (several times with the arrows) to get all of June's work, while July's still doesn't show.

Klosterman's meanwhile, shows nothing written before 7.6.2011. http://www.grantland.com/columnists/chuckklosterman These are sort of inexcusable mistakes to make on a Web site. The sidebar archive doesn't appear to reflect everyone who's written for the site. Why? What's the difference between someone who writes for Grantland and someone who wrote for it in the online universe? It's not like readers know writer contracts. Is there a difference between a column and just a regular report? If so what?

One flaw is an absence of continuity. The larger narrative of the sports day or even the sports week or month or year - is completely lost inside Grantland. In this way, it's quite similar to the 30 for 30 series. How I feel about Grantland is informed by what I thought of the 30 for 30 in general: Random, mostly tepid, occasionally excellent, passably interesting. But, in 90-minute digestible chunks spread over the course of a year, you didn't feel the inconsistency of 30 for 30 series. In Grantland, you do.

The story selection: Pasta on a wall. Some baseball, some fringe sports, way too much Hollywood/cable TV, way too much Molly Lambert (who is not necessarily bad, but a poor fit for this site.) Oh, and Mark Moseley's MVP year in the NFL, because you cared. And Katie Baker's moving, so she'll miss New York. And movie trailers. The insights are generally tepid. The craftsmanship is fine, but it's often writing for the sake of writing, long-winded asides, analysis paralysis, out-of-the-blue, vague celebrity profiles that don't circle around to a larger point.

The content is a bizarre mix of Bill Simmons' personal taste NBA stuff even though the season is over, the AL East beat writer in Chris Jones (this remains, to me, a stunning fuck you to fans of teams in other leagues, firm, indisputable truth that ESPN harbors a East Coast fixation) and stuff that seems driven by ESPN's interests. ESPN is about to pick up Wimbledon, so readers get a shit ton on Wimbledon (will this happen with every tennis major, or just ones ESPN is trying to win a bid on?) ESPN is showing the women's World Cup, so here comes three perspectives on the quarterfinal game. ESPN is showing Friday Night Lights reruns, so here's an oral history on the show. No stuff on the All-Star game the day after, though (was that because the AL East didn't star in it? Because Simmons deplores the All-Star game?) NFL lockout material? Barely a whisper. NASCAR? What's NASCAR? British Open? Not yet! Not one whiff of college football. But there are two thinkpieces on the legacy of Yao Ming.

I get that you're not going to hit everything. But Grantland seems to be following a contrary, almost secret sports calendar. The site fails to build anticipation or give readers a routine. It lacks urgency. It lacks anger. With the exception of Jones who has the ability to write profane/dirty/muscular without seeming like he's sucking on a Marlboro Light most of the pieces either seem written by the same mildly observant wise ass trying hard to unload their toolbox of pop culture jokes.

Chris Ryan's story on Soccer City USA is a perfect example

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6766182/visiting-soccer-city-usa

Here's a story about rival fan bases without a single whiff of quoted conversation. It's descriptive, well-written, but impossibly tame. If I were an editor, I'd say: Go back and get a little dirty. Enough with the architecture and the communal spirit from afar. Actually get in there. Chart it. Give me some life, not some distant, pleasing essay. It's not the Travel Channel.

The ratio of sports to pop culture is much too heavy on the pop culture. And, at some point, it'd be wise for the pop culture section to reflect more than a handful of cable TV shows. What, for example, defines pop culture in the last two weeks? Does Grantland reflect that?

Note that my post isn't really about the quality of the writing. It's been decent-to-strong. Simmons has perhaps picked up his game, and, more importantly, he's addressing the stuff in his wheelhouse the NBA lockout head-on. But I don't see the same toughness /rigor from the rest of the staff. The ownership seems fleeting. Legit question: Where's Jones on Jeter's 3000th hit? You have a terrific writer, a huge moment, the AL East beat and...where is he? And that's not so much to knock Jones but to knock the mindset of the site. Where's Klosterman on the Adele or Gaga or Katy Perry phenomenon? Where's anyone on Casey Anthony? Where is anyone on anything NFL or college football related?

The site badly needs writers willing to rise to the moment. To say something big is happening in Sport X, and I want Grantland to be a definitive voice on that. The opposite of risky, Grantland is actually quite safe, attempting to thrive as a boutique, high-end market while you get the rest of your groceries at, you know, a store that actually sells bread. Some of boutique items (Rany chief among them) are pretty tasty and worth the time spent. Some are much too expensive for the effort expended by the reader. But it's almost all boutique coverage. Klosterman is clearly working hard on stuff and actually interviewing people! - but it's boutique work. The exceptions (Wimbledon, the women's World Cup) appear driven by ESPN's interest to have Grantland weigh in.

Some of the problem lands on Simmons' desk as a boss. Put simply, he needs to be tougher. At some point, the site needs to chart the course from diversion (for its writers, for its readers) to compulsion. A boss has to be able to say to his writer Hey, I need you to have a take on this. You gotta be there. Maybe I'm shaking you out of your comfort zone of being a cool Grinch in a decidedly ivory tower, but turn this around in 12 hours.

And some of the problem lands on Simmons' desk as a persona. I think, even after all this time, he lacks a clear understanding for his own success. It wasn't merely his style, his aw, fuck all nature, but a combination of two things:

*The willingness to be meticulous and exhaustive on a subject (Boston sports) that had long been turned into a hoary cliché by area sportswriters.

*The passion to dive so deep into the NBA that people wanted to follow him into the core of the sport, where they will rarely go if the writing doesn't sing its way out of the trench.

Both of those things took more guts than most here admit because Simmons didn't function as an actual reporter very much because folks here fail to acknowledge the sheer emotional and creative capital that goes into what Simmons did for years. I'd argue his staff of writers has, on balance, a similar misunderstanding. Most of the work reads like the ultimate, relaxed insider, much too comfortable with their thoughts, far too unwilling to venture outside their comfort zone as reporters, but lacking Simmons' slavish devotion to creative volume or sense of subject.

I don't get the sense, thus far, that Simmons wants to be a bad guy with his writers. But, to harness and throw this site in the right direction, you have to be. It could exist for years like this, of course, because ESPN wants it to and because it wants to satiate Simmons' desire to have it. But, right now, it's a quirky, minor light, filled with writers who specialize in being quirky and minor, people who, if you said give me your fastball wouldn't know how to find the extra four miles per hour because they haven't yet bothered to see if they have it. Some of them have spent a whole career in the niche role of snappy comeback.

Is that all Grantland is destined to be?
Click to expand...

Great post.

Do you think Grantland is hurt by launching during the slowest sports season? There is baseball, and really only a few fringe things.

In the fall there will be baseball, college football, pro football and Premireship football, which should give plenty of opportunities to write more actual sports.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should cover more than the AL East so they can expand their possible baseball story options.

93Devil · Jul 20, 2011

I thought it was odd that they "covered" anything.

Did Inside Sports ever really cover anything? Did Sports Illustrated, in its prime, ever really cover anything?

I look at Grantland like a magazine that used to come in the mail. It would have 7-8 articles, and I chose what I wanted to read. But I also didn't sit and bitch if there was a feature on bowling, for example, and I had no interest in bowling. I would just move on.

The Big Ragu · Jul 20, 2011

93Devil said:

I thought it was odd that they "covered" anything.

Did Inside Sports ever really cover anything? Did Sports Illustrated, in its prime, ever really cover anything?

I look at Grantland like a magazine that used to come in the mail. It would have 7-8 articles, and I chose what I wanted to read. But I also didn't sit and bitch if there was a feature on bowling, for example, and I had no interest in bowling. I would just move on.
Click to expand...

This website is nothing like Inside Sports or Sports Illustrated, in terms of scope, staff, and especially reporting, from what little I have seen. I just went over there and clicked on the top few stories, and if any reporting went into them, it apparently included very little interviewing of subjects, because I saw very few (actually none, but maybe my quick looks missed them) quotation marks in any of the 5 or 6 stories I scrolled through.

For those who have read more than I have and gone there dutifully. ... Is this indicative of the site? Some talented writers, but pontificating about subjects (i.e. -- long essays), rather than reporting on topics and letting the stories tell themselves?

Maybe that is why I haven't been drawn to the site. That kind of site is fine if there is an audience. I'm just not it. When I read LONG, I want to be educated. I want reporting to have gone into it and for the writer to come out with facts (lots and lots of them), OTHER people's thoughts and a topic that opens my eyes to something interesting or mind blowing.

This seems like a site of long essays (maybe there are some other things mixed in that I am missing). A lot of it pop culture I am just not interested in reading about from OTHER people. Am I correct about that?

HejiraHenry · Jul 20, 2011

The pro wrestling story by "The Masked Man" I read last night was a piece of work.

I eventually had to go to Wikipedia to figure out the core concept ("the worked shoot") referenced in the headline. Seems like a footnote would have helped.

Having a pro wrestling columnist at this point seems slightly off to me. The trending thing is MMA, anyway.

The Big Ragu · Jul 20, 2011

I was just thinking about my post above. And went over and had another quick look. Again, I haven't really spent much time there, and I still haven't really read much on there. So I apologize if I am being unfair. I am just trying to figure out this site now.

Along the lines of my reply to SF above, in which I said I haven't been drawn to the site, I am really trying to figure out why. ... I WANT something like this to be successful.

Here are some ideas I just had. It seems like the basis of this site isn't really the content (as it has been pointed out, there is an AL East columnist, but they are not covering baseball as a whole with regularity; there is random content apropos of nothing except the writer's whims--see the wrestling piece mentioned above. There are a lot of first-person essays,).

The one thing that does stick out to me when I look at the site is the bylines. Well, most of them, because I'd say half of them mean very little to me, while the other half are the names that always get bandied about on a site like this. So Bill Simmons (name himself) went out and got a bunch of other names, and my question now is, if that is really the basis for this site, can it be successful?

I don't know much anymore about what makes successful editorial, especially on the web, but when I was doing non-custom magazines, I did know that from an editorial standpoint, content was king. I read Dave Eggers when he was doing Might magazine in the 90s (and I was helping a bunch of guys do a similar, but not nearly as good indie magazine), not because he was Dave Eggers (I had no clue who he was at first, obviously), but because it was one of the best magazines ever put out, irreverent and funny and creative. It wasn't about Eggers. It was about the work he did. The content is what drew me.

So the first question. The work on this site? Is it special? Others will have to say, because I have not read enough. What I have tried to read has been OK -- even good in spots -- but as I said above to SF, nothing has compelled me to bookmark it and check in every day.

My two other questions: Do most of those names (the Klostermans, or take a step back and say, Jay Caspian Kang, etc.) resonate with people other than the type of person reading this thread? I wonder.

And secondly, and more importantly, if this started as an idea of Simmons getting his all-star writing line-up, and it was about the writers, and not necessarily the content itself (not saying that is the case, but it SEEMS like that might be the case to me), can the thing really be successful over time? Will that really keep an audience? I wouldn't even make it a point to read daily Ernest Hemingway essays if the only point was that Hemingway's name was above the piece, and the pieces themselves didn't do anything remarkable.

That may be a bit harsh. I honestly haven't read enough to know if the content on there has been more consistently remarkable than not. But the few things I have tried to trudge through were a mixed bag. Which gets me to this post. Is this supposed to be: "Read this, Chuck Klosterman wrote it!" Or is it supposed to be "Read this. It will be worth the time investment!" If it is the former, the site will never work for me.

I know that Simmons himself has a lot of cachet, so that will give it a chance even if everything I wrote above is correct. But to me, Simmons isn't even Simmons anymore. He is a way more talented writer than he often gets credit for on here. But his shtick that made him famous was that he was the "sports guy," i.e. the fan writing as an anti-establishment guy for other fans. And at this point, especially with the company he is keeping on a site like that (not to mention that opening essay I read on the other thread about Jimmy Kimmel and the names he dropped to tell his story), he just isn't that outsider fighting the sportswriting establishment. Maybe that isn't a problem. But I had burned out on him (and I say that acknowledging that he has heaps of writing talent [sometimes in need of an editor, though]) a while ago, which again, is maybe another reason why that site is not aimed at me.

93Devil · Jul 20, 2011

http://www.grantland.com/features

Piotr Rasputin · Jul 20, 2011

The Big Ragu said:

93Devil said:

I thought it was odd that they "covered" anything.

Did Inside Sports ever really cover anything? Did Sports Illustrated, in its prime, ever really cover anything?

I look at Grantland like a magazine that used to come in the mail. It would have 7-8 articles, and I chose what I wanted to read. But I also didn't sit and bitch if there was a feature on bowling, for example, and I had no interest in bowling. I would just move on.
Click to expand...

This website is nothing like Inside Sports or Sports Illustrated, in terms of scope, staff, and especially reporting, from what little I have seen. I just went over there and clicked on the top few stories, and if any reporting went into them, it apparently included very little interviewing of subjects, because I saw very few (actually none, but maybe my quick looks missed them) quotation marks in any of the 5 or 6 stories I scrolled through.

For those who have read more than I have and gone there dutifully. ... Is this indicative of the site? Some talented writers, but pontificating about subjects (i.e. -- long essays), rather than reporting on topics and letting the stories tell themselves?
Click to expand...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2011/07/the-sports-guy-goes-hollywood-can-bill-simmons-make-grantland-a-must-read-for-pop-culture-lovers.html

Simmons makes no apologies, again offering a showbiz analogy. “I'm no fan of the way newspaper sportswriters work, especially when they complain about people like me not going into the locker room,” he says. “All they do is point their mikes at the athletes, trying to hear what they have to say, which is usually nothing. Is that really any different from a Hollywood press junket, where every star gives the same generic answers to the same five questions? It's gotta be the biggest waste of time ever.”

93Devil · Jul 20, 2011

I understand what Simmons is saying, and I understand what others are saying.

You do have to do some legwork, though, and usually the best stuff comes from finding those who everyone else overlooks.

Cousin Jeffrey · Jul 20, 2011

Piotr Rasputin said:

The Big Ragu said:

93Devil said:

I thought it was odd that they "covered" anything.

Did Inside Sports ever really cover anything? Did Sports Illustrated, in its prime, ever really cover anything?

I look at Grantland like a magazine that used to come in the mail. It would have 7-8 articles, and I chose what I wanted to read. But I also didn't sit and bitch if there was a feature on bowling, for example, and I had no interest in bowling. I would just move on.
Click to expand...

This website is nothing like Inside Sports or Sports Illustrated, in terms of scope, staff, and especially reporting, from what little I have seen. I just went over there and clicked on the top few stories, and if any reporting went into them, it apparently included very little interviewing of subjects, because I saw very few (actually none, but maybe my quick looks missed them) quotation marks in any of the 5 or 6 stories I scrolled through.

For those who have read more than I have and gone there dutifully. ... Is this indicative of the site? Some talented writers, but pontificating about subjects (i.e. -- long essays), rather than reporting on topics and letting the stories tell themselves?
Click to expand...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2011/07/the-sports-guy-goes-hollywood-can-bill-simmons-make-grantland-a-must-read-for-pop-culture-lovers.html

Simmons makes no apologies, again offering a showbiz analogy. “I'm no fan of the way newspaper sportswriters work, especially when they complain about people like me not going into the locker room,” he says. “All they do is point their mikes at the athletes, trying to hear what they have to say, which is usually nothing. Is that really any different from a Hollywood press junket, where every star gives the same generic answers to the same five questions? It's gotta be the biggest waste of time ever.”
Click to expand...

It always amuses me when people call reporting, or going into locker rooms, a waste of time. How do they think the news they disseminate is produced?
David Carr expertly pokes holes in this argument to the head of Current.com in the doc, Page One.

Log in or Sign up

Grantland so far

Quakes Guest

YGBFKM Guest

93Devil Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

Piotr Rasputin New Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

Cousin Jeffrey Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Grantland so far

Quakes Guest

YGBFKM Guest

93Devil Well-Known Member

Boom_70 Well-Known Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

Piotr Rasputin New Member

93Devil Well-Known Member

Cousin Jeffrey Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches