Jones/ESPNMAG

[write then drink]

I'm just going to take this as my cue to stay away from the site.

cracks me up whenever an anonymous person insulted by a post by another anonymous person on a message board says, that's it! he's leaving the board!!

just do it

don't say you're going to do it, then you look like you want people to beg you to come back

just leave, if that's what you want

 

[Boom_70]

70,

Sirs, Madames,

Threads like this make a case for membership by application. It's one thing to have some honest criticism from peers, anyone ranging from jg to a kid working at some Dust Bowl weekly. Or even a kid in j-school. But to have some drive-by shooting from a sj-hating troll who writes about "the media elites" is a bit much. I don't mind having pieces ship on--it has happened here and it will happen again. I have no problem with it so long as it's honest, industry criticism. And if peers want to ship on espn, knock yourselves out. Tell it here or to the ombudsman, make my day. But the lurker not-in-the-biz troll trashing those who toil and take pride in what they do and have put in years to get to their place in the game ... that isn't just tiresome. It's not an ashault on the writer. It's an ashault on the readers here. It's an ashault on the site.

o-<

It seems like you are are suggesting that readers are not allowed to criticize.

If you like a story send heaps of praise, If you don't like it then tough.

See, you're not reading closely enough ... again.

Readers have comment boxes on newspaper and magazine sites to throw their uninformed grenades into. If you are a reader and non-peer and have strongly felt opinions, send something in to the letters page. Read-only for non-SJs, I'd have no problem with. SJ would be great for peer review, the stuff of the Workshop. The unfortunate effect of having non-biz people flaming all over the place is that it drags the site into disrepute. It doesn't represent us. It's like having naturopath quacks and some guy from the health-food store commemting on the AMA site. A professional site.

o-<

Nah - it's your writing. Unless someone has the time to read your work through 10 - 12 times its barely understandable- be it a post here or one of your columns.
Everything you do is overwritten and what might be good thoughts are lost in the haze. I'm sure most give up after one read and their hair has caught fire.

 

[Angola!]

I'm just going to take this as my cue to stay away from the site.

cracks me up whenever an anonymous person insulted by a post by another anonymous person on a message board says, that's it! he's leaving the board!!

just do it

don't say you're going to do it, then you look like you want people to beg you to come back

just leave, if that's what you want

Well, he is posting under basically his own name.

Also, he has helped many of us in the Writer's Workshop and his leaving would be much worse than if you or I left.

Though I understand your general point and agree with it, just not in this case.

 

[Boom_70]

I'm just going to take this as my cue to stay away from the site.

cracks me up whenever an anonymous person insulted by a post by another anonymous person on a message board says, that's it! he's leaving the board!!

just do it

don't say you're going to do it, then you look like you want people to beg you to come back

just leave, if that's what you want

The SJ self immolation ( or is it goodbye cruel world) always cracks me up.

Even the great Jones pulled up stakes and left in a huff for about a year after feeling insulted by Big Dog.

 

[JR]

Nah - it's your writing. Unless someone has the time to read your work through 10 - 12 times its barely understandable- be it a post here or one of your columns.
Everything you do is overwritten and what might be good thoughts are lost in the haze. I'm sure most give up after one read and their hair has caught fire.

Can you cite specific examples of overwritten columns?

I'm curious, since although FoF isn't a friend, I know him and his work and "overwritten" would be about the last thing I'd accuse him of.

And which of his books did you find "barely understandable"?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Jones took a tired end-of-the-year cliche and made me read start to finish.

Thank you, Jones.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

I'm a big fan of Jones, and "The Things That Carried Him" is the best magazine piece I've read in long, long time, but there are some fair criticisms here. The ESPN piece is well-written, certainly, but I didn't particularly like the Armstrong/Tyree and Sorenstam sections, either. And the Mexico thing just flew over my head (maybe because I read it online and skimmed some parts quickly). I think the issues on here are the way those criticisms were made. I did love the Yankee Stadium, Hamilton and Munson's locker segments. Overall, it's better than any Year in Review I've seen in a while.

And Boom's suggestion that Jones should be "above it all" and not work for ESPN is patently ridiculous. As has been stated here, some of the best writers in the world work/have worked for ESPN, and it has been recognized as an excellent magazine (at least outside this little world). I still prefer Esquire, but I think I MIGHT take ESPN over SI at this point, despite some of the lowest common demoninator crap.

And hasn't word that Jones would be doing some ESPN stuff been floating around this site for months? Don't understand the overall surprise.

 

[beeranyone]

This is like Jones' third or fourth byline i've seen in ESPN. His article on UFC cutmen last month was killer.

 

[Beaker]

Jones took a tired end-of-the-year cliche and made me read start to finish.

Thank you, Jones.

Word for word.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

David Halberstam is THE reason I bookmarked ESPN's Page 2. He said that after 9/11 his interest as sports as something worthy of his writing attention was something which in many ways demeaned his time and skills. Have the times changed to such a degree that a writer of Jones' supposed skill should be prostituting himself for ESPN the Mag goes without note? If that is the case isn't it ironic that George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who have been largely responsible for making such frivolous uses of a supposed great writers time for sports "year in review' possible are the very main more often than occasional targets of such "thinkers" as yourself and Jones?

I don't expect you to answer. Nor do I expect Jones to answer either. I just hope that he pays (American) taxes and that maybe the next time he mails it in that I'm not duped into reading even a part of his dreck.

You say Jones' piece is a masterpiece among "year in review" pieces? Is that faint praise or what? Honestly - someone explain what is so freaking good about this "piece".

 

[beeranyone]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

David Halberstam is THE reason I bookmarked ESPN's Page 2. He said that after 9/11 his interest as sports as something worthy of his writing attention was something which in many ways demeaned his time and skills. Have the times changed to such a degree that a writer of Jones' supposed skill should be prostituting himself for ESPN the Mag goes without note? If that is the case isn't it ironic that George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who have been largely responsible for making such frivolous uses of a supposed great writers time for sports "year in review' possible are the very main more often than occasional targets of such "thinkers" as yourself and Jones?

I don't expect you to answer. Nor do I expect Jones to answer either. I just hope that he pays (American) taxes and that maybe the next time he mails it in that I'm not duped into reading even a part of his dreck.

You say Jones' piece is a masterpiece among "year in review" pieces? Is that faint praise or what? Honestly - someone explain what is so freaking good about this "piece".

Wow. Just Wow. Dude, it's just a magazine article. And by the way, last time I checked Jones and ESPN The Mag (who you both seem to hate) have won National Magazine Awards. You don't know Jones, as far as I can tell, so calling him a sellout, from the golden throne on which you sit, is a bit much. Cool off a little. And keep the vitriol for another board.

 

[JC]

Boom, my brother, David Halberstam used to write for Page 2 on ESPN.com.
You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work.
Jonesy's piece is a forking masterpiece of the genre, and would be wherever it appeared.
This is an argument I do not understand.

David Halberstam is THE reason I bookmarked ESPN's Page 2. He said that after 9/11 his interest as sports as something worthy of his writing attention was something which in many ways demeaned his time and skills. Have the times changed to such a degree that a writer of Jones' supposed skill should be prostituting himself for ESPN the Mag goes without note? If that is the case isn't it ironic that George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld who have been largely responsible for making such frivolous uses of a supposed great writers time for sports "year in review' possible are the very main more often than occasional targets of such "thinkers" as yourself and Jones?

I don't expect you to answer. Nor do I expect Jones to answer either. I just hope that he pays (American) taxes and that maybe the next time he mails it in that I'm not duped into reading even a part of his dreck.

You say Jones' piece is a masterpiece among "year in review" pieces? Is that faint praise or what? Honestly - someone explain what is so freaking good about this "piece".

Is that your blog linked at the bottom? If it is, the writing is excellent much better than Chris Jones.