Vintage Reilly here

I'm glad you do. But my best stuff is satrical so it can't be compared to Reilly's. And for it is worth, I've always enjoyed him as a writer, excluding the last few months. He's sort have lost a step. He def. does not deserve to be bashed, at least not like the dwarf, Simmons or Whitlock.

 

My journalistic curiosity begs me to ask: "Has Reilly has ever posted on SportsJournalists.com that anyone knows of?"
Again, just curious and just wondering.

 

Yes. Apparently, I stopped by on the other thread. Ugh.

 

What?

 

I mentioned how I enjoyed his latest column on the other thread and some wiseass gave the tired line..."Thanks for stopping by, Rick."

Never heard that one before. How clever.

 

Jesus, isn't that part of the job? Cultivating sources? And even if this stuff is dropped in his lap at this stage of his career, he still executes.

 

I think the topic is pretty damned hackneyed. Not to mention wrong on its merits. But the prose is pretty.

 

that's part of what I had mentioned and i gave due credit for someone who, despite maybe having things "fall into his lap", takes the initiative to go with it. i am actually complementing the person on both accounts, for being successful and well known enough to have things come his way maybe quicker than others and also having the push to then follow through on it.
i know a lot of folks who have things all but given to 'em and still don't do a damn thing with them.

 

Imagine how the high-profile writers feel about it, then.

But really, RS, you don't have 1/1,000th of RR's writing talent? That's a wee bit too deferential, if you ask me. That's like suggesting you're not worth $3K a year.

 

This isn't about Reilly, but kind of an extension of my earlier comment. I have a hard time reading stuff written because it affected the writer. I don't have a problem with personal involvement with stories, but if someone is being affected by something (cancer, Special Olympics, losing a job), I'd much rather see that interest depicted in stories about other people. Otherwise you get the impression of "this matters to me, so this matters to you," instead of "This matters to you, so this matters to me."

 

Interesting distinction, Dan.

One problem I have with what gets offered as pathos, and often wins contests, in sportswriting is the approach of "This matters to a fabulously gifted, extraordinarily wealthy person, so this matters to you the schlub who might have the same alcoholic or cancer patient or broken-home situation in your own life."

So many people have hardships and heartaches and are expected to buck up and perform, I've lost interest in reading about an otherwise fortunate soul's hiccups in life.

 

You know before things started "fallling into his lap" he had to work to get where his is .. you to SI.. They don't just anyone. And if you can't do the job, they don't keep you.
I think you are underselling Reilly's ability ... by a longshot.

If you can turn out three columns in your career - are you even 35? - as solid as any one of Reilly's I'll be amazed. Please don't take that as insult to your ability, because I don't mean it that way, but Reilly is arguably the greatest sports columnists in the last 20-30 years. And easily the most high profile.

Like Sonner ...
I'm jealous as hell as of Reilly. I like to write, but I don't have his talent. Not. Even. Close.
I admire his work. And Kindred. And Jenkins (early stuff) and a host of others. Guys whose work I could mimmic but never exceed. Not on my best day and sure as hell not on a consistent basis.

Reilly's column was good. Yeah it's a tired story, show me one that ain't.