I thought this column was considerably more good than bad. But YMMV. Just to be sure, however, you do know what the last line refers to, yes?
I admit I didn't sniff out the Animal House reference at first, even though I've seen it more than once (I may have mentally discarded the earlier AH mention in the sea of other showy references he made after that). Clever device that I still think falls flat given the substance of what he wrote before calling back to it. But, fair, it is a nice punchy ending.
I guess that "good" is a relative term here. A lot of people hate Dan Shaughnessy and I'm not one of them. When he's motivated, he can really write. The dude has talent and can turn a phrase or capture what it's like to be at a big event. Does he do that every day? Absolutely not. I think that due to Boston having an unprecedented 20-year win streak in all four major sports, combined with him pretty much sticking to the sports section of the daily newspaper, Shaughnessy's sphere of influence has significantly waned in these years. No longer is the CHB the de facto voice of the "common Bostonian", the world has eclipsed him.
Thanks for these thoughts. I see where you are coming from here, and I'll try to check my biases in response.
I would argue that his sphere of influence has waned largely because he hasn't tried in 20 years. His standout talent is being a contrarian and stirring the pot, which naturally will look more desperate after 20+ years of winning than it did when the "Curse of the Bambino" was the elephant in the room every season. He made himself a household name during that era, but still: didn't Bill Simmons surpass him as the de facto voice of the Common Bostonian sometime in the early 2000s? He has stuck to the pot-stirring angle relentlessly in the face of that changing world, because he can do it in his sleep and hasn't been compelled to evolve.
I think that this piece is about that mortality, or at least scratches that surface. At least that's how I read it. And not only that but it was kind of refreshing for a guy who has been saying for years that he knows all the answers to admit that like Keyrock from SNL's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, this world frightens and confuses him. I especially thought it was poignant when he wrote about how he's three times older than Rafael Devers. IDK, I've been thinking about this a lot lately and while Shaughnessy is 20+ years older than me, I see where he's coming from.
I dunno, he milked an entire paragraph out of the mathematical revelation that being 3x older than someone means that you have spent three days on earth for every one day that they have. I get that aging is a universal phenomenon, but this whole thing struck me as performative. Roger Angell reflected on mortality. CHB boasted on and on about how he has kept his head buried in the sand on purpose. Is it inherently vulnerable to be frightened and confused by a world whose changes you have publicly (and profitably) scoffed at for years? That's not something he gave any thought to. Nor did he give thought to much else beyond listing anachronisms one after another.
I think that being a sportswriter would suck. The people who cover you who lie to you but also think that you're out to get them and the people who read your pieces think you suck. Not only that, but you have bosses who are up your ass to do more, but the teams you cover provide less and less access. And you know you have it worse than the generations that come before you, thanks to stories from old timers who talked about sitting in train with Babe Ruth as he downed beers and told stories. And you don't have the luxury of winding down after a long day and getting lost in a ball game.
I think it's sort of admirable that he's still doing this. Is it as admirable as Bob Ryan and his seemingly never-ending lust for sports? No. But I think that Ryan is an anomaly. BTW, I don't think that the above absolves Shaughnessy for his truly, truly crappy hot sports takes that he makes every so often. I think that they're dumb as hell, but I get why he does it. Like I said, I just happened to find this piece refreshing in honesty.
So I agree in principle with a lot of this, but it's also what gets me riled up about this piece. The low bar set by decades of crappy sports takes
does make this column different. To me, it's only honest in the sense that he admits to doing all these crappy takes on purpose. There's nothing refreshing about that -- most readers have probably sensed that he loves to mock modern norms -- but it bothers me that he lays it all bare in typical lazy form and expects empathy for it.
This is where my thoughts converge with
@ifmanis5. I think being a sportswriter would suck, too, but especially for someone who is eager to prove themselves through passion and insight, only to discover that they have it much worse than the Dan Shaughnessys of the generation before, who established themselves as TV personalities when the going was good and have since been collecting paychecks to hold petty grudges and shit out columns about whatever they want.
I think it would be admirable if he was still doing this
well. Ryan is a curmudgeon too, but he has stepped out of the way and still has passion for what he does, when he does it. This column was Dan pouring cement on his Ignorant Old Guy perch and intending to keep loudly being ignorant for as long as he can. I don't think any boss of his has been up his ass to do more in a very long time. For him to continually suck up a large salary and valuable space on the Sports page at the expense of others who haven't had the opportunities he takes for granted, he needs to do a
lot more self-reflection than he does in this column, IMO. He's clearly not willing to, and I get it. It's just kinda insulting, I think.
Yeah. He thinks that all scorers bow to the home team. It's dumb, but understandable. I don't think he's the only person who kneels at this altar.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that one before.