Jones/ESPNMAG

Well said.

 

This thread has certainly had some great, and terrible, moments. Kind of one-stop shopping for examples of what's both right and wrong with this place and the people who inhabit it.

 

Attempting to answer Lynch's questions...

I really admired the way Jones weaved personal anecdotes (first visiting Yankee Stadium as a 12 year old; thinking about disappearing into Mexico) into the individual segments while writing what he observed (Jeter signing, Yogi, David Tyree).

 

Double D - I'm glad you no longer want to punch me in the face.

I know that once engaged in a discussion like this - I tend to keep at it and that rubs some the wrong way. Sorry.

One of the best things about this joint is the finding of excellent writings you would not have uncovered on your own. Fenian posted one not long ago on Garry Wills. I clicked the piece by Jones after reading the high praise heaped on the piece. I read the first four sections and felt duped. I hate feeling duped. I also don't like it when some anonymous "first time caller" uses 2 of his first 25 posts to call me a "fucking idiot" and to suggest I need to be put out of my misery. I'm guessing that you too would have taken exception if you were in my shoes.

Back to the piece. I appreciate that you and Fenian consider Jones a friend. As you've noted - that colors your viewpoint. But I'd bet that even Jones would admit this wasn't his best work. I'm not alone in saying it was something I couldn't even bring myself to finish. In the first part Jones used the word "I" over 30 times. It's off putting when writers make themselves the story and to go from that to Michael Phelps breakfast place was too much short attention span theater for even ESPN. Then the bizarro pairing of Armstrong and Tyree?

I'm over the anger at being duped into reading even part of that dreck. And I'm also sick of this thread. Unlike Shotty - I mean that I'm done with the posts regarding whatever the heck that thing Jones wrote was.

 

Gregg is that you?

 

Chiming in for the first time.
I can understand the feeling of being duped. Completely. This is not a year-end piece. There is nothing in here that encapsulates what happened in the previous year.
Because that would be The Things We Remember.
ESPN has typically presented its annual year-ender as a seemingly never-ending version of its Top-10 plays; a collection of meaningless quips and tidbits about the year's biggest sports moments. Tyree's catch would've had a blurb about "coming out of nowhere to make The Catch," and they almost certainly would've called it something kitschy, like "The Catch" or "The Grab." That's ESPNtheMag's M.O. - play to the mind of 12-year-olds at the first stop, and to the mind of 45-year-olds the next.

This story, broken down into 11 separate yet connected pieces, focuses not on the great moments of sports that are still fresh on our minds - really, has Michael Phelps' performance faded? - and how the great moments in sports either reflect the common man, or the athlete or anything in between.

Personally, I thought it was more than just a sports piece - and although I disagree with Boom on his idea of selling out, because a paycheck is a paycheck is a paycheck, I understand that Jones' Esquire-ish(?) writing seems out of place in ESPN.

Maybe that's why I liked it so much.
Maybe that's why others have not.

 

Again just so we are clear I liked the Jones piece. I love the "genre" as you put it. Some might consider this stuff to be a cliche but I always look forward to the "best" lists that come out at this time of year, along with the wrap up type stories like Jones has done.

As far as my question to you - the key term is "good work" - if you are asked to write about Bush accomplishments in past 8 years but you turn in something that points out his failings, would that be considered "good work" by the National Review?

 

This thread REALLY needs some cheese.

 

To go along with all of the w(h)ine?

 

As anticipated, cheap and stupid carries the day.
Move along, Boom. Your original argument was the dumbest thing about this whole thread ""I like Jones. I like this piece. But I hate the magazine it's in, therefore..."
And Chris? I don't believe I ever mentioned whether Jones and I were friends. I addressed one of your criticisms on its merits. The vehemence, I do not understand.

 

I'm curious about Chris' interpretation of Armstrong-Tyree.

 

I've been thinking about this more than I should.
So do people think that Jones's piece was meant for the magazine's regular readers or someone else?
I suspect that the magazine is trying to become more than what it currently is, so it has went out and hired writers who will not turn in the average sports piece, but instead turn in copy that will take a couple of reads to understand.
Pieces that challenge and redefine what a story means.
I can see how an average reader might like at year-ender The Jones wrote and think "WTF?" and I can see how another writer might judge the story.
The question becomes, was the article geared for the regular reader of the magazine, or for people of letters. The people whose opinion can make or break a magazine's literary reputation.
If the magazine wants to become something else, to get there, it can't be a top 10 list of what happened.
So you get what The Jones turned in.
I thought it was fantastic, well-written and it made me wish I had followed sports closer. But as I thought about it today, if I had followed sports closely, I probably would have hated Jones story.
Very interesting, at least to me.