Simmons Cliff Notes

You know, newspapers are shrinking. Telling people to write more like Simmons is a physical impossibility. No paper would even stand for it on their Web site.
Good writing is good writing. Times have changed since the 1920s, too, but a Heywood Broun story is still worth reading.
I dislike Simmons' writing. It's a matter of personal taste. I have no envy. I got to do stuff in my career I enjoyed that he didn't get to do. I don't envy people richer than me. What's the point of that?

 

Bill, if you're reading this, remember: You can't unsee us.

 

MikeG, if you think I was telling people they need to write as long as Simmons, you missed the point entirely.

 

Look, many of us are voracious readers. We read -- and like -- and appreciate -- all sorts of writing, not just sports journalism. Trust me, nobody hates Simmons because he represents "a new-age form of sports journalism." He didn't reinvent the wheel here -- go read Nelson Algren or James T. Farrell ranting about the White Sox sometime. "Fanboi blogger"-types have been around for a long, long time, even before computers.

Writing has not changed; the medium has evolved. There's a difference. Simmons has nothing to do with that, because that's far beyond his influence. What he's done is create a niche within that medium, and been quite successful at it. Good for him.

No, the reason sports writers hate Simmons is because he can't resist taking shots at sports writers every chance he gets. He whines incessantly about the indignity of writing preps at the Herald and about not being given a chance to write his (never-ending) column when he was 23 years old. The truth is: he sucked, as a sports writer. He couldn't make deadline, he couldn't fit a hole and he had a bad attitude. We've all worked with punks like that, and they don't get any respect either.

He moved on, done well for himself, and that's fine. But HE can't let it go. And yes, that's going to piss some people off.

 

Well, he's got the pencil-necked geek part down.

 

Buckweaver wrote: "No, the reason sports writers hate Simmons is because he can't resist taking shots at sports writers every chance he gets."

Good thing nothing like that ever goes on here.

 

Posnanski does the long-form, first-person blogging way better than Simmons.
Does anyone else see this is as an effort to compete with Reilly? Instead of trying to get better, Simmons just gets longer.

 

SilentB It is MY OPINION, and that only, that Simmons is not a good writer precisely because he indulges his every stylistic whim. Writing has to go somewhere. His writing reminds me of Stephon Marbury bouncing the ball at the top of the key, waving his teammates to the side as he waits for the inspiration of his one on one move.
It's not that I don't think he has talent. He does. But it's spoiled talent. He needs an editor, a tough one. Two years of that relationship, and he could be a superb writer.

 

This story could have been half this length. Simmons writes to hear himself talk. The footnotes really didn't add anything other than the fact Simmons was trying to show everybody he knows more "shit" than the average reader.

 

Posting stuff on a message board is a little different than making it a staple of your work.

 

DaddyMac,

Is it really a staple of his work? Something you can count on seeing almost every time you read a Simmons column? I don't read him enough to know, but would be surprised if that were true.

And just so you know, it's not so uncommon for one big-city columnist to ridicule (usually indirectly and not by name) another in print. Although I dont think it happens as much as it used to.