1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sports Illustrated: The Book of Tebow

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by H.L. Mencken, Nov 25, 2013.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Best line in the Deadspin piece: "(Q)uite possibly not meant to be read," in reference to a lot of the masturbation that passes as "long form" sports writing these days.

    I started reading the Tebow piece, because I usually love Lake's stuff. Loved his piece on Michael Jordan's coach. Love, loved, loved his piece on Darrent Williams. But I think he's trying at this point to make every piece a Thomas Lake Story.

    A lot of these stories are being written so that Wright Thompson, Chris Jones, Thomas Lake, and a few other young guns can jack each other off on Twitter. It's tiresome. I haven't written anything resembling long form in quite a while at this point, although I have in the past, and plan to in the future. The best advice I ever read on the form is that you should have a fact in every sentence. (Compare Lake's Darrent Williams piece with this one to see what I'm talking about.)

    I think that's what readers care about. Not a sports hack's dime-store philosophical and psychological - or, in this case, embarrassingly simplistic and pandering theological - musings. I hate stories like this, where the voice employed is so clearly forced and strained. Nobody talks like the writer talks in this story. Nobody. Thomas Lake, I'll wager a paycheck, doesn't fucking talk like this. Thomas Lake doesn't sit around making Buddha-like proclamations about the role of "grace" in one's existence. But, you know, what matters more than actual readers is getting a "#Phenomenal" from Charlie Pierce or some other high priest.
     
  2. 3_Octave_Fart

    3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

    Once again, this is a piece that needed an editor.
    Not talking about length - though it certainly is bloated - but for purposes of clarity and readability.
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    There's this idea that to write lengthy, your prose has to soar to justify it. That's crap. I know that people - including you - don't like that I read the New Yorker and The Atlantic. But those magazines, other than maybe an Adam Gopnick, are written in a very clear, no-frills prose that puts ideas, arguments, and story above keyboard masturbation. For some reason, this generation of sports writers is instead influenced by New Journalism show ponies. It's not all the stories, mind you. Lots of great stuff in SI and the Mag every week. But the guys that seem to get the Twitter blow jobs are the ones who write about grandpappy's whiskey still and how grace flowed from its dark womb.
     
  4. 3_Octave_Fart

    3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

    I like tight writing ... I don't think there's any higher praise a writer could receive.
    Agreed on everything else. These are being written for peer recognition.
    I'll back out now before the usual warring over this topic begins.
     
  5. Small Town Guy

    Small Town Guy Well-Known Member

    I'd like to find the tweet where Charlie Pierce ever praised someone's work.

    The people who bitch about the dreaded longform mafia complimenting each other too much on Twitter apparently don't realize that the Gawker Empire/Awl/SB Nation writers spend much, much more time masturbating/flogging/beating off/diddling/jacking off/spanking the monkey/rim jobbing/blowing/orally pleasing/fellating/wanking each other's work. Which, by the way, is fine! Why anyone cares how others use Twitter is beyond me.

    And only since Twitter have writers done long stories or wanted people to see those stories? It's a new phenomenon? When New Yorker writers were churning out 50,000-word stories stretched out over three issues in the 1950s, they didn't want people to read them or get complimented? It was pure, and the only handjob they needed was from William Shawn?

    And do we have evidence that actual readers are as offended by these stories as people here or on Deadspin? Guess what, actual readers do really read these stories. Some really like them, some hate them, but shouldn't they have the right to make that decision instead of being told they're not going to like it? Writers seem to get much more upset about these pieces than actual readers. And saying people don't actually read them is fairly insulting and strange. Like telling someone they couldn't have actually read all those books they claim to have read. A lot of regular readers complimented the piece on Twitter; I doubt they were doing it simply because they wanted to metaphorically play with someone's penis online.

    As for the actual story...I didn't like it that much, probably owing primarily to the subject matter but also to some of the writing. I have liked a lot of Lake's other pieces much more. And the layout played havoc on my crappy computer. I do still prefer Grantland's layout for long stories or SB Nation Longform's.

    But did it need a cliched Deadspin takedown? No. But then again, I'm as over them as many others are with long features.

    Pieces like Marchman's -- and so many like it on Gawker sites or other similar places — are they written for readers, or are they written just so they can get an attaboy from Tom Scocca or some other high priest?
     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    One problem with Lake's story: Tebow is just not that interesting. As a cultural phenomenon, he is. Or was. As a football player, he is. Or was. But as a guy, he seems pretty vapid. He's nice. And that's great. He's religious. Which is great in America in 2013. But his theology doesn't seem to be any deeper or thought-through than any of 100 "God is great" posts I see on my Facebook feed every day that get 46 "Likes."
     
  7. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    That's exactly where I stand on this. I read the entire thing because I respect Thomas Lake and usually like his stuff. But this story was just ... not that interesting. It didn't cover any new ground, it didn't offer any new insight (on football, on Tebow, or on religion.)

    And the Deadspin "takedown" was pure crap, as are most Deadspin takedowns these days.

    Are there legitimate criticisms to make on this story? Then make them, if you must. But overwritten snark don't impress me much, either.
     
  8. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    A follow-up to the story. How Lake wrote the story with so little access and why the story was so long.

    http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/highlighting-excellent-journalism-in-all-its-forms/233431/how-sports-illustrated-reporter-captured-the-athlete-in-the-book-of-tebow/#.UrHDLRAuWAM.twitter

    If the Poynter folks had a clue, they would have sent this answer back to Lake for a rewrite.

    <i><b>Q:The story sparked lots of discussion, including some criticism, particularly from Deadspin. Their review alleged, among other things, that your story offered little new information about Tebow. How do you respond to that (or any of the other criticisms)?</b>

    A:I’ll respond with a question of my own. At your funeral, what do you want people to say about you? Do you want them to say “the guy was great at cutting people down.” Or “he sure knew how to dish out ridicule and scorn.” Or “he proved his brilliance through relentless cruelty.” The smartest people I know are also the kindest. And that’s no coincidence.</i>
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Why?
     
  10. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member


    That's a...pretty bad answer. On several levels. You don't answer/address critics by invoking "what will be said at your funeral?" It's olympian, pollyannish nonsense.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    As well as being an ad hominem attack that doesn't come within 10 zip codes of answering the actual question.
     
  12. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    No, but it's a fair point and the one that he chose to make rather than answer the question. Is it Poynter's job to protect Lake?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page