Gary Smith probably doesn't read you

Mr Magazine,

Based on the contents of his last book, Gay Talese should have been spending all his time reading every magazine he could get his hands on. I would have believed him when he said he wasn't reading magazines but I'm skeptical about Gary Smith's claim ... a psychological point a writer like Gary Smith would have a field day with.

YD&OHS, etc

 

Wow, I hated that Chris Rock piece. Have to give it another shot.

 

I have read the Friedman piece twice now and have two questions.
1) If GS wants to write fiction, what's stopping him? If I were GS, I would point out that it isn't the workload or the lack of ability. It must be something...deeper.
2) What if there isn't a psychological conflict at the core of someone? What if there isn't "a secret he doesn't know?" Where does the approach go then/
I ask these questions as a serious admirer of his work.

 

Sure... when you are making up their thoughts for them.

 

You must have skipped that Tillman piece.

Amazing how Albom gets ripped mercilessly around here and Smith gets blowjobs galore.

 

He's wife's too busy turning around fiction books under the guises of non-fiction.

 

I'm pretty sure an "amateur philosopher" is one who hasn't hired an agent or declared for the draft.

Gary Smith is a way better writer than I am. incredibly talented. The first time I read one of those SI profiles he specializes in, I was amazed and humbled.
But.
By the time I'd read a dozen or so of them, I could almost predict what was coming. There's always some sort of buried-deep "revelation" that explains why the person is like he is. Is life really so neat? Do all of us have some episode from third grade that provides the context for our lives?
Again, I'm not capable of doing what he does. But some of what he does, I don't think I'd want to do. A few times, I've been reading along and thought, "Oh, bull-shit."
He'd probably say the same thing if he read me.

 

Gary probably influenced me more than any writer besides Rick Reilly growing up, but I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, beardpuller. Awhile back, I asked several of my non-sports friends (still in journalism) to read a Smith story, and they all scratched their heads and were like, WTF?

There are certain stories of Smith's that I love, and believe represent the best of what we do. Crime and Punishment. Higher Education. Shadow of a Nation. Tyson the Timid, Tyson the Terrible. Running Out of Time. The Chosen One.

There is absolutely no denying that he's one of the best we've ever seen.

But more and more, there are also pieces that feel too forced. Mawkish. As Ragu would say, too Disney Story-of-the-Week. I've had this conversation with friends before, and written it here, but I'll say it again: Gary Smith writes for believers. You have to buy into the way he's telling the story. Don't read this story about Mia Hamm. She wouldn't want you to. Um, ok. I guess I won't.

Maybe it says more about me than it does about Smith, and maybe I'm more cynical at 30 than I was at 20, but it's harder for me to believe in some of it now. To buy in. The Joba Chamberlin story, to me, was almost unreadable.

It makes me sad, in a way. Perhaps newspapers have beaten hope out of me. But I find more satisfaction, lately, in writers who seem less married to their style. I could list some of them, but many have already been mentioned. I will say though, in all honesty, that when I pick up S.I., I get greater satisfaction right now reading S.L. Price's stories than I do Smith's. Price may not have the body of work to equal Smith's right now, but within the pages of their magazine, I'd argue Scott is doing better work.

It's hard to find fault, however minor, with people you so greatly admire, and whose work you will never come close to measuring up to. But when I see Friedman saying Gary is still the undisputed heavyweight champ, my thought is: I don't honestly believe he's reading all the really good stuff that's out there.

 

These days it usually takes a Smith story for me to pick up an issue of SI with any level of excitement... It's kind of sad, because up until recently, I would read it cover to cover every single week...

I'm not saying it sucks or anything, but I just don't have any real desire to read it anymore. I've been a subscriber since 1979 and the first issue I got for my birthday had Willie Stargell on the cover... When my current subscriptions runs out, I don't see myself renewing...

 

BP from a reader perspective you have hit the nail on the head. I will read everything that Gary Smith puts out but now I feel that I have become a bit jadded. As you so well put the outcome now seem predictable - like a show on Lifetime or NBC"s Olympic profiles. Some of Smith stories now seem a bit forced. It's almost as if SI is putting to much pressure on him to provide a perfect "Gary Smith" every time. The outcome has become a cliche.

 

Giggity, I'm not saying it's his best (it isn't even in the same arena with the Carson piece), but I always know with his work that he'll bring an interesting slant to a person that I've never seen anywhere else. And I could be wrong, but it always seems that he draws things out of the subject that make you go, "Wow, I didn't know that about him/her."

 

The analysis doesn't even have to be at that depth. To me he's like the Rolling Stones. I appreciate their stature, own some of the albums, usually won't change the radio station even if I've heard that song a thousand times already, can't even think of anything I've heard that I thought was bad, but they've never been it for me and I can't explain it. If someone wants to tell me the Rolling Stones are the greatest rock band ever, I'm not going to argue because the bands I've enjoyed most really aren't in that league and I know it. But I don't have to worship something just because a lot of people do. If I've read half of Gary's magazine stuff, I'd be guessing high. I've never thought he was even the best-ever sports writer named Smith, but I understand why many people would argue otherwise.

As for him saying he doesn't usually read other sports writers, there is no elaboration on that point, so I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to convey by revealing it. If he's being a snob, fuck him. If it's meant as advice for young writers, I think it's pretty horrible advice. If he's saying he uses a much tighter filter than he used to, well, I can see that because I do, too, and sometimes that means not reading Gary. On the other hand, it might have been that as he reached for another slice of pizza during the interview he was trying to make the point that he tries to stretch his mind with other stuff.