My favorite female columnist brings the funk today....

The column might have been good had Jemele initiated and reported a conversation with Hnida about the similarities of their experiences. Instead of one story built on the two, we get two stories masquerading as one.

 

Couldn't disagree with you more. Narcissistic? Are you kidding me? Hill is taking a different approach to storytelling, and is adding her own perspective to the Hnida story, a story that everyone knows already. And, how can you compare Hill's experience to Hnida? You can't compare one's torture to someone else's. Emotional scars are just that, scars. And just because one scar might be 10 in. deep, doesn't mean the 2 in. scar hurts any less.

I can understand how some would find the constant interjection of the first person to cause issues with the flow, but I find the technique refreshing in this particular column.

Oh, and just a thought; Has Page 2 of ESPN.com ever been read so much, especially now that we're (term, used loosely) dissecting every single one of Hill's columns?!?! They should give us a kickback on ad revenue from the SportsJournalists.com community alone.

 

A strong 2,000th post.

 

No question. Hill gets people talking, at least on here.

I am getting tired of people like Whitlock pushing their theory that anybody who doesn't like Jamele Hill is just jealous. Since you are the one who started that here, Jason, I will point out that while I often disagree with you, I don't think I have ever said your opinion didn't deserve respect. How about we try to agree or disagree while showing some respect for one another? Saying nobody can have a problem with Hill without it being jealousy is wrong and disrespectful.

I have one problem with Hill. I do think the blog incident was extremely unprofessional and it reflects badly on sports writers in general and women in sports journalism in particular. It's not fair that what one woman does reflects on the others in the business so strongly, but it is reality and I am fairly certain she is smart enough to know that.

That said, I have only ready two of her columns so far (this one and Larry Johnson) and I liked both. I thought the writing on this one was a bit disjointed at times, but the angle of revealing her own history along with Hnida's worked.

I have two close friends, one who was raped in a situation very much like Hnida's (by a guy she had considered a friend) and another who was sexually assaulted. Hill's story reminded me of conversations I had with them. And when a writer makes the story relevant to your life, makes you feel something, they are doing the job.

I don't think she needed to put herself in the Johnson story, but I didn't mind it. I think you use that only when it is absolutely necessary, like it was in the column on Hnida, but to each his or her own.

 

I wonder if Tony Romo feels the same way about Martin Gramatica?

And go fetch me a beer, newbie. And a shot of Jameson to make up for your soccer remark.

 

Beer and a shot of John J?
I'll be taking this next stool here and the newb can make it two.

 

I think the column was well-written and I certainly feel sorry for Jemele and what happened to her, but I agree with several others. I would like to see her grab another club out of the bag once in awhile instead of the one marked 'I.' And it seemed to me at times that Katie's story kinda took a back seat.

 

I have no problem with the first person, no problem with the use of self.

If you're writing a column, ostensibly giving your opinion, then why pretend that you're not in the room? There are plenty of devices for doing that, of course, but most of them create distance between reader and writer.

Too many "I's," I'll agree, can be off-putting -- if they don't wind up leading to something bigger. But if they do, then the first person can be powerful and effective. And I think it works for Hill, here.

 

I didn't say the word 'I' couldn't or shouldn't be used by a columnist. Just that it should be used in moderation, that's all.

 

If you're going on in your column about how you think the BCS sucks, or why steroid users should be drawn and quartered, then "I" is perfectly fine. But if you're making somebody else the focus of your column, he/she should probably be more than a metaphor for the columnist. It may have worked better with her making it a column along the lines of "I read Hnida's book, and her pain brought back mine," then have her catharsis. Or it should have been a deeper talk with Hnida about Hnida. I will say her writing is getting better; maybe there are nurturing editors at ESPN, after all. But this column, as heartfelt as the subject clearly was, felt like a half-measure.

 

I have a question or the esteemed Mr. Whitlock:

Are you ever going to post in the English language again or do you really have such an overwhelming need to prove your street cred to us to posting in jive?

 

And you sound like one of those guys who think that since I never played football, I'm not authorized to write about it.

How many games did your TEAM (kicker included) win because he made some kicks?