S.L. Price on A-Rod/Richard Ben Cramer

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20140116/ben-cramer/

 

Outstanding piece by an outstanding writer.

It seems that the conundrum can be boiled down to this: When the writer (Cramer) is far more interesting than the subject (A-Rod), you're going to have some problems.

I suppose that Cramer got spoiled writing about Ted Williams and DiMaggio, and thought A-Rod would be equally fascinating. But most athletes make really boring biography subjects, at least while they are still active.

 

I thought this was an amazing story that demonstrated just how obsessive you have to be to be considered any good at this line of work -- and the toll something like that can take on your personal life.

 

I love any story where they reference a Trash-80.

 

That's a good point and maybe the subject for another thread. From my experiences, I was at my absolute best as a journalist when I was at my absolute most miserable as a person. It's not like that for everybody, but it is that way for a lot of people.

 

Liked it but it seemed like the story should have been split in two parts
to give it proper justice. One part on the fascinating life of RBC and the
other on trials and tribulations of doing the ARod book. Story as written
seemed to jump around too much at least to me.

 

I think it's difficult to excel in any field and have a robust personal life for the simple fact that you are competing against people who don't have to divide their attentions.

 

Was it the A-Rod book or the health problems that got to him? The guy was a war correspondent on the INSIDE of the siege of Beirut in 1982 and did amazing work. Hard to believe a narcissistic dumb ballplayer could be a subject he couldn't handle.

 

When you spend years writing about a single someone, that person quickly takes residence in your head. Maybe permanently.

 

This. Having a life is a wonderful thing, and I'd rather work to live than live to work anymore.

 

I agree with Boom_70 on this. Two interesting subjects, not sure they meshed well enough for the story to rise to "great."

I see the point about DiMaggo and Teddy being more interesting, but A-Rod is interesting in that he epitomizes this era -- talented, insecure, fame whore, no self awareness, morally bankrupt, vapid, wealthy, childlike. All those things are fascinating, but it's not a redemptive or a particularly compelling (or commercial) theme. A great A-Rod book would not be a great seller. I'm sure all that weighed on him.

 

His relationship/marriage with White was sketched only in broadest strokes, but it was kind of chilling, the way it was left. Furtive and damaged at the end. Real shame.