Simmons on Boston beat writers ...

...or Bill Simmons.

 

Holy news flash, batman, Songbird informs us that Simmons is a Celtics fan!! Let us know when you decipher his position on the Pats, Sox, A-Rod, Manning and the Karate Kid trilogy.

 

Good point.

 

Out of the blue you quote that part? Man, I can smell that blue font from here. Woo-wee! You sure did got me good!

 

Decent observation, Simmons is particularly resented here because he's making far more than any of us despite consistently making inexcusable errors that would get most of us fired, displaying limited skills beyond the smart-ass cracks and pop-culture references and boston shit, and frankly being a 2d rate journalist by professional standards. Its similar to the reason skilled musicians resent Ashlee Simpson and trained thespians resent Keanu Reeves.

But most of Simmons readers don't give a shit. They're just checking in for some time-killing amusement while sitting on the can or wasting time when they're supposed to be working.

 

1. Following doesn't equal quality. A shitload of people eat at McDonald's every day, but there's a hole in the wall bar up the street from the place that makes better burgers. Why? Because it's not mass-produced, greasy, shallow-tasting crap. This can also be said for Bill's insights.

2. You want quality reporting AND quality writing? Go read some of Pat Forde's stuff. Pat knows his shit, writes like the wind blows, and -- get this -- he actually talks to the people he writes about. It's insightful. It's entertaining. When you get done reading Forde, you feel like you know more about the people you watch playing sports on television. And he does it in about 20 percent of the words Simmons needs to tell me that a.) Yankees fans are dickheads, b.) Peyton Manning couldn't carry Tom Brady's jockstrap and c.) his buddy J-Bug laughs at all his jokes.

3. This isn't jealousy. It's an absence of respect. I respect the hell out of guys like Forde, Bill Plaschke, Ostler and every other columnist out there, down to the dude opining on T-ball in Podunk, Mont., who busts his ass to do some research, talk to some folks, and put a quality product out there.

 

The guy is a good writer who makes mistakes like every other writer who ever lived and used "Its similar" instead of "It's similar" and "2d rate journalist" instead of "second-rate journalist. And yes, IU, that's just nit-pickery on my part. This is a message board, so I'm just busting your balls. I've found mistakes in Hemingway novels. Is that his fault, or the publisher's fault?

And my observation about his love of the Celtics is in the context of he's writing from the heart. At least he doesn't fake how he feels about the team he loves. Trying to project that statement, someone would counter how journalists shouldn't be fanboys. Well, shit, Bob Ryan is the biggest fanboy around, but he is Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe so it's OK for him to espouse his love of the Celtics and Sox and Patriots.

I've read Simmons a handful of times, and most of those columns have been about basketball. He writes what he knows, and does it damn well. I skim over the pop culture references, but IU, try reading newspaper sportswriters across the country. It's the new thing, this newfound ode to pop references in gamers, features, columns.

So when I say he's "a definite fan of the Celtics," I point out the obvious because in no way, shape or form is he faking his feelings. Nothing wrong with voicing frustration for your team when said team sucks. Let the man write. Either read him, or don't read him.

 

What he knows? There are numerous examples of him not knowing so much about his supposed pet sports subject.

 

You're right, Dooley. Like I said, I haven't read enough of him yet. What I have read has been solid. Maybe those were his good days.

 

Umm... where do you think they're reading all of our ground-breaking work?

 

Two very fine sentences, OTR. Well-said.

For a person whose readers apparently measure the 'fittingness' of his columns by how many flushes they last, I'm not sure we're talking about real high-brow stuff here.

I am reminded of Simmons' intern contest, when one entrant's story basically consisted of how he hooked up with someone else's girlfriend and ended up ejaculating on her eyebrow. I'm not making this up. Billy gleefully reported on this guy's essay entry, deftly avoiding spelling out the particulars, but it was quite clear what was being said if you understood Bill and the language he employed.

Simmons is popular. He is not particularly refined or cooth. That doesn't have to be important to you, but it is almost beyond debate at this point.

I think the only thing missing from Bill's observation of this would-be intern's written submission was a Beavis and Butthead "huh-huh, huh." The world 'puerile' comes to mind, as it often does with William.

 

My biggest question is why does it always come back to Simmons never talking to the people he writes about? He doesn't try to be a traditional columnist and celebrates the fact that he is different than the traditional media. I'll admit that he doesn't help matters when he continues to take shots at the print media (considering that his failure there led him to where he is today) but I don't think I've ever read him say he'd do a better job. You can review something critically without being able to do it yourself... we all do this everyday, and if we didn't we'd never be able to criticize Ryan Leaf, because he's still a million times better at football than any of us.

If you don't think Simmons is a good writer, that's fine and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to criticize him for not being something that he's never claimed to be doesn't make sense to me. Millions of people buy Ashlee Simpson albums and millions buy Bob Dylan albums. Just because Simmons has a huge readership that doesn't make him terrrible (Simpson) or genius (Dylan). My point being that to say he's not good because a lot of people read him and then ticking off all of the crappy things that have huge followings (American Idol being the favorite of many around here) as some sort of rational that he isn't good makes no sense to me. I could run off twice as many things that are popular that are great. The amount of people reading him doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of his work, one way or the other. What it does is speak to the fact that many people like his work. They can relate to it, think it's funny, etc.