Jones/ESPNMAG

[Boom_70]

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

go back and read my original post that pushed this thread into hyper space- I was merely suggesting that ESPN Mag was an odd space for Jones.

In a way this thread is like the magazine. In between a lot of junk there is some very solid work.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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

go back and read my original post that pushed this thread into hyper space- I was merely suggesting that ESPN Mag was an odd space for Jones.

In a way this thread is like the magazine. In between a lot of junk there is some very solid work.

If you like the magazine, shouldn't you be happy that a writer of Jones's caliber is willing to write for it?
I repeat, the single dumbest argument on this thread is the one that started it.

 

[Boom_70]

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

go back and read my original post that pushed this thread into hyper space- I was merely suggesting that ESPN Mag was an odd space for Jones.

In a way this thread is like the magazine. In between a lot of junk there is some very solid work.

If you like the magazine, shouldn't you be happy that a writer of Jones's caliber is willing to write for it?
I repeat, the single dumbest argument on this thread is the one that started it.

No - what's dumb is the over the top hostile responses from the likes of jmac and DD. I made an observation, If you disagree fine. Why the need for the personal attacks?

If you want something really dumb its Jmac leaving the board over this

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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

go back and read my original post that pushed this thread into hyper space- I was merely suggesting that ESPN Mag was an odd space for Jones.

In a way this thread is like the magazine. In between a lot of junk there is some very solid work.

If you like the magazine, shouldn't you be happy that a writer of Jones's caliber is willing to write for it?
I repeat, the single dumbest argument on this thread is the one that started it.

No - what's dumb is the over the top hostile responses from the likes of jmac and DD. I made an observation, If you disagree fine. Why the need for the personal attacks?

If you want something really dumb its Jmac leaving the board over this

An answer to my question would be the start of a comeback for you, truly.
If you like the magazine, shouldn't you be happy that a writer of Jones's caliber is willing to write for it?

 

[Boom_70]

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

go back and read my original post that pushed this thread into hyper space- I was merely suggesting that ESPN Mag was an odd space for Jones.

In a way this thread is like the magazine. In between a lot of junk there is some very solid work.

If you like the magazine, shouldn't you be happy that a writer of Jones's caliber is willing to write for it?
I repeat, the single dumbest argument on this thread is the one that started it.

No - what's dumb is the over the top hostile responses from the likes of jmac and DD. I made an observation, If you disagree fine. Why the need for the personal attacks?

If you want something really dumb its Jmac leaving the board over this

An answer to my question would be the start of a comeback for you, truly.
If you like the magazine, shouldn't you be happy that a writer of Jones's caliber is willing to write for it?

Comeback from what? I never left.

In answer to your question - yes I am happy to see Jone's work in ESPN, just as I would be to see any good writer who's work I enjoy.

 

[JayFarrar]

DD -- I agree that writing for the judges is a clumsy construction. I think most writers -- the ones you mentioned, the ones you didn't -- write for themselves.
Just as you said.
I don't know an artful way to say it, or write it, I guess. I just think that ESPN knew what they were getting when they hired The Jones and they knew it wasn't going to be conventional sportswriting.
That it was a literary leap of faith that the editors hope will result in new readers and, perhaps, positive press from the literary types.
I didn't mean to imply that The Jones was writing to get awards, my intent was that the editors hired Jones in hopes of getting their magazine literary recognition.

 

[Boom_70]

DD -- I agree that writing for the judges is a clumsy construction. I think most writers -- the ones you mentioned, the ones you didn't -- write for themselves.
Just as you said.
I don't know an artful way to say it, or write it, I guess. I just think that ESPN knew what they were getting when they hired The Jones and they knew it wasn't going to be conventional sportswriting.
That it was a literary leap of faith that the editors hope will result in new readers and, perhaps, positive press from the literary types.
I didn't mean to imply that The Jones was writing to get awards, my intent was that the editors hired Jones in hopes of getting their magazine literary recognition.

But it's like putting a Steinway piano in The Blarney Stone.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

DD -- I agree that writing for the judges is a clumsy construction. I think most writers -- the ones you mentioned, the ones you didn't -- write for themselves.
Just as you said.
I don't know an artful way to say it, or write it, I guess. I just think that ESPN knew what they were getting when they hired The Jones and they knew it wasn't going to be conventional sportswriting.
That it was a literary leap of faith that the editors hope will result in new readers and, perhaps, positive press from the literary types.
I didn't mean to imply that The Jones was writing to get awards, my intent was that the editors hired Jones in hopes of getting their magazine literary recognition.

But it's like putting a Steinway piano in The Blarney Stone.

And if McCoy Tyner were playing it, I'd go to the Blarney Stone and pay $75 to watch.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

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

You mean aside from "Boom" being one of the biggest attention whores on the board?

 

[shotglass]

Established and agreed, but why should we go over it a fifth time? I actually agree with Lynch ... it's time to drop this.

 

[spnited]

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

go back and read my original post that pushed this thread into hyper space- I was merely suggesting that ESPN Mag was an odd space for Jones.

In a way this thread is like the magazine. In between a lot of junk there is some very solid work.

Boob's orginal post

What a sell out. Seeing Jones in ESPN the Mag makes me feel like I did when I heard The Stones doing Microsoft commercial on TV.

This is about as incongruent as if Bill O'Reilly started writing a column for the NY Times or Keith Olberman took over for Sean Hannity.

 

[jlee]

Wasn't in love with it. Great writing, but boiled down too much. I would much rather read an extra 15,000 words on Phelps or the horse-lieutenant/nurse tale.

It goes to show that the "year in review" premise is flawed in a one-shot structure. If Jones can't make it mind-blowing, most writers have no chance either.

Sadly, trolls arrived before a polite discussion could commence.