Jones/ESPNMAG

[Fenian_Bastard]

I think Jay has just ended the thread there.

 

[pallister]

I can see how an average reader might like at year-ender The Jones wrote and think "WTF?"

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?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I can see how an average reader might like at year-ender The Jones wrote and think "WTF?"

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.

 

[BYH]

Walk on home, boy.

 

[MartinEnigmatica]

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.

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 shipping 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.

 

[zeke12]

Walk on home, boy.

Clashic.

 

[JayFarrar]

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. Clashic TV.

 

[pallister]

But if you want to take your personal insecurities out for a walk, don't forget to look both ways while crossing the street.

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

 

[Double Down]

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?

 

[STLIrish]

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.

 

[Boom_70]

OK, because Elliotte asked, and I respect him as someone who's probably already seen the Canadiens exhibit at the Hockey HOF while I have not, I will attempt to present a substantive reply to one of CL's critiques -- namely, his problem with Part III, the point of which section seems fairly obvious to me.
(I will leave aside any response to the fourth-grade snarkery attending the basic point.)
The section begins with one athlete talking about an encounter with one president, and moves from there to a general discussion of how these two men -- and athletes/celebrities/etc. -- maintain and/or rehabilitate the public personae that developed around them during the peak of their respective career. Secondarily, it seems to be a nuanced study of how we define public figures -- do we define them by the good they have done, will do, and continue to do, or by the worst mistakes/crimes/blunders/rumors of same with which they are involved. Can they come back from the latter? Should they? Is that something they can do, or something we allow them to do? As for Tyree, it seems that he doesn't want the sum total of himself to be one catch in the SB. Albeit, it's a lower level of concern than Clinton's or Armstrong's, but as a microcosmic perspective, I think it works.
Therefore, I do not believe that you can find three random people and do the same thing, and I think an argument based on that premise fails.

Fenian - the "piece" (of crap) starts with something that happened in 1999.

1999.

For a supposed 2008 "Year in Review".

Let me ask you - what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008? Did he win the Tour de France? No. Why bring him up at all? Why bring Clinton up? Seriously. You are an intelligent person. WTF? Why the grouping of Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree? It's a Mad-Lib. Someone bet Jones that he could sneak in a reference to Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree and not get it into a piece. There's no other rational explanation other than the fact that it's a piece of crap.

I learned a long time ago that, given a respectful reasoned response, the poster in question will reach behind himself and scratch his brain. It is pointless to mention that, if you want to write about the topic of legacy (who really owns it? How can it change? Can it change at all?), one might just begin -- with a quote, mind you, of your subject relating a relevant anecdote -- in the past. It is pointless to mention that it is well within bounds while writing a year-end feature to base it partly in events that happened earlier. (Let's write about the Obama campaigh without mentioning the 2004 speech, or the McCain campaign without talking about Vietnam.) These are things that actual writers do. All of this is pointless, so fair enough.
And, Boom, if NR offered me $20K and expenses to write for them -- hell, they pay Lowry and Godlberg more than the dime-a-word those two hacks deserve - I'm on it like a shot, although I suspect that what I turn in may not be what they were looking for. And the fact that you could postulate that the late Mr. Buckley's startlingly advertising-free little magazine would offer that kind of money pretty much proves you don't know deck about the subject of this thread.

Fenian - you are contradicting your own stated philosophy:
" You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work."

Please explain how I am contradicting myself.
"You write where you're asked" -- I am hypothetically asked by NR to write something for 20K Not being rich, I accept.
"you do good work" -- I will ashume, for the sake of argument, that I do this. The point of view may not be what NR expects, but this can come as no surprise to me or them. (And, remember, Boom, you are criticizing Jones only for the fact that he wrote for ESPNmag, not for what he wrote there, so don't come back at me with the notion that what I write has to be what NR expects ideologically. That's not the basis of your argument on this thread, and do change it now would be cheap and stupid.). They run it and pay me or they kill it and pay me. All books in balance.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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