Jones/ESPNMAG

I think Jay has just ended the thread there.

 

So what you're saying, and Fenian is backing, is that if you liked Jones' piece you're smart and if you didn't you're dumb? Is that correct?

 

No.
But if you want to take your personal insecurities out for a walk, don't forget to look both ways while crossing the street.

 

Walk on home, boy.

 

Taking a look at some of the comments, the readers who chimed in did think WTF. They are overwhelmingly not positive, or don't even comment on the story. The 11th part, about JP Howell in the World Series, got the most response, and apparently irked some Philly fanbois who thought it was a GRAVE INJUSTICE that Jones spent more time shitting on the city of Philadelphia and discussing the Rays than glorifying the Phillies' achievements.
Had this been a run-of-the-mill year-ender, yeah, it'd be more appropriate to focus on the Phillies. But those who piped in generally either didn't see the greater picture, or didn't like that he wrote it with a focus not strictly on the events of 2008. Which is, of course, their right.*

*-31 comments do not a full judgment make. But still, it's enlightening.

 

Classic.

 

Fenian is very kind and no.
Think of it like this.
You know,how you'll see stories in the paper, maybe your paper Pally, and think "that wasn't written for the readers, it was written for judges in some contest."
I think The Jones's story was written for the judges.
That doesn't make it bad, it doesn't automatically make it great. Just that it wasn't written for the regular readers. Just like Outside the Lines isn't always broadcast for the people who never miss SportsCenter.

A serious critic, unlike some who have posted here, might say they didn't get it and that the piece was pandering for those who sit in judgment.
They could break it down further that Jones's writing was imitative of what Malcolm Gladwell is doing for the New Yorker or in one of his books, or it was too similar to the widely panned SI column by Selena Roberts from a week or two back.
And that writing style, connecting two unconnected points, is being abused and needs to stop.
I could go further, but I need to eat dinner and because I'm a super nerd, I need to watch either Doctor Who or continue with my personal West Wing marathon courtesy of the Tivo.
The last episode I watched was "17 people" where Toby figures out Bartlett's MS. Classic TV.

 

You are an arrogant prick of the highest order, Fenian, certainly one of my betters in that category.

 

Saying the story was "written for the judges" seems like a clumsy construction, Jay, since it implies that this story is trolling for awards, and I promise you that was not the case and I don't think it's the point you're trying to make. I believe you're saying he wrote the story for those who would examine it more as art that entertainment, but I would offer up a third possibility: Perhaps it was just written in Jones' normal writing voice. It can appeal to whomever it resonates with, be it the drunken Phillies fan or the dude with three graduate degrees.

Let me ask this: Did Norman Mailer write for the readers or judges? Who do Phillip Roth, Don Dellilo, Jhumpa Lahiri, Cormac McCarthy, Annie Proux, among others, write for?

How about Gary Smith or Scott Price or George Packer? Susan Orlean or Ann Hull?

Don't many, if not all of them, simply write for the sake of the story?

 

This has been a fascinating, slightly horrifying thread.
I liked the piece. Liked it, didn't love it. I've read better Jones. It certainly had its moments, though. Was decidedly more "literary" than typical ESPN Mag fare (though not unlike some of the stuff they do in e-ticket). Maybe it was written for the pros ("the judges," us writer-folk, the thinking reader) moreso than for the fans who get the Mag via their ESPN Insider subscription, but that's OK. Good for the Mag for trying it and raising the bar on itself. And good for Jones for doing something different with the "year-in-review" genre.

 

Hold on there - I like the magazine. Where did I say I didn't? I've been a subscriber since its inception. Once you cut through stewy simmons and the graphics the actual writing is great.

 

So what, after 12 pages of this folderol, is your actual problem?