Grantland

[Fishercat]

You might want to stay off the internet today, nothing but everyone destroying the season finale.

The thing, for me, that makes this different than very similar articles like Sepinwall's or Dowd's, is that they at least took the time to make sure all their ducks are in order. Simmons cannot even be bothered to remember Holder's actual name, and that's in addition to several other errors. This was a lazy, entitled effort. No one required him to watch the show and he's mostly angry because he made an assumption that wasn't true. He said very little that hadn't already been said elsewhere and better. I am glad he won't be watching next year.

 

[NatetheGreat]

That finale fucking sucked, and the more people that shit on AMC for pulling that nonsense the better, IMO

 

[weeba]

Mo Ryan's review was also quite scathing: http://www.aoltv.com/2011/06/19/the-killing-season-1-season-finale-recap/

 

[nattysez]

So this is fun: http://deadspin.com/5813690/introducing-the-grantland-comments-and-corrections-desk

 

[weeba]

Natty, you just beat me to that

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Or Seinfeld. I'd keep watching right until George's fiancée dies from licking the envelopes, then I'd be done.

Seriously? I've heard the "After Larry David left, it stank" idea and it just doesn't fly. You're telling me seasons eight and nine aren't as good? They're a little bit more absurd and slapstick, but they had one of the best physical comedians ever in Michael Richards and the use of absurdity was masterful - George turning into a genius while Elaine turns into a bimbo because they can't have sex, Kramer turning into Jerry when borrowing Jerry's apartment because of the Kenny Rogers sign, the dog jokes when Kramer takes pills for a dog, etc.

The worst episode, by far, of the last two seasons was the finale and it was written by Larry David.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Did you read the last paragraph? The point of the article was that attitudes like Britton's are needed to change the losing culture. The 1999 reference was a juxtaposition of clubhouse cultures/attitudes. I don't really buy the premise (smacks of "not enough five-step handshakes" sans the racial component), but the point isn't particularly obscure.

We read a lot of articles about "changing the culture" when Showalter got there last year. And we read some more when he shot his mouth off in spring training about Theo and the Sox' budget. Oddly enough we're reading fewer such articles now that the O's are ensconced in their usual place in the standings.

They don't need an attitude change. They need better players and more FO competence.

 

[OzSox]

I thought the Ana Ivanovic article today by Louisa Thomas was a good idea with poor execution. The basic premise of the article was that some women players choke, but she didn't really make much attempt to really explain why, and there wasn't enough commentary from the players in this respect. It ends up reading like a jumbled semi-biography of Ivanovic, with a couple of paragraphs about two other players thrown in, with a description of the process of hitting a tennis shot included. In the end I was left not really sure what the point of it was - that Ivanovic should be better? That it's hard to find a coach? That we can already say with certainty now that when Caroline Wozniacki wins a major, she still won't be a 'winner'?

This could have been a definitive article on the mental state of players in women's tennis in big moments and what makes someone a 'choker' or a 'winner' - I would have preferred a story that went far deeper into Ana's mental state (with more comments from her), perhaps opening with a historical summary/moment (maybe returning to Jana Novotna, since her Wimbledon final meltdown was so famous), and a counter-section on the so-called winners such as the Williams sisters with comments from them about their mental state during big moments, to be contrasted with Ivanovic's.

 

[DJnVa]

EDIT: Already covered.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

So this is fun: http://deadspin.com/5813690/introducing-the-grantland-comments-and-corrections-desk

The Chris Jones lost virginity item is absolutely classic. What I just don't understand is why they hide from their mistakes. I thought the corrections in the Black and Gold column were going to become policy and was encouraged by that, but now it's right back to screwing shit up and pretending it never happened. Patrick Beverly?

Why does it matter? It matters because it changes the way you read and consider the opinions that are being put forth. The one thing Chris Jones is sure about, he's not right about. Why do I want to read the rest of his reporting on the American League East again?

 

[Curtis_Lesspanic]

Kramer turning into Jerry when borrowing Jerry's apartment because of the Kenny Rogers sign

One of the single funniest half hours of TV I ever witnessed. "Vile Weed!"

 

[Foulkey Reese]

delete

 

[Foulkey Reese]

Humblebrag amuses me to no end.

http://espn.go.com/espn/grantland/story/_/id/6665462/humblebrag-hall-fame

 

[Curll]

They've already changed the layout and ad delivery? Migrated the site to ESPN.com's TLD after the DNS fuck up?

Yeah, they're fucking clueless.

 

[dirtynine]

Here's my reaction to The Killing finale, which touches heavily on Simmons et al.

 

[johnmd20]

Here's my reaction to The Killing finale, which touches heavily on Simmons et al.

Bad link.

 

[dirtynine]

fixed here.

 

[JerBear]

They've already changed the layout and ad delivery? Migrated the site to ESPN.com's TLD after the DNS fuck up?

Yeah, they're fucking clueless.

www.grantland.com still works, DNS takes time so they added a subdomain to their working domain. Sounds like a good plan to me.

The layout is the same for me as its always been, I'm not sure what you're seeing.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

fixed here.

Still dead btw

 

[dirtynine]

Still dead btw

ah crap. trying one last time.

if that doesn't work it's the first link on mwillis.com

 

[Foulkey Reese]

ah crap. trying one last time.

if that doesn't work it's the first link on mwillis.com

I enjoyed that. The show really has an odd group of followers. Well done.

 

[Tartan]

ah crap. trying one last time.

if that doesn't work it's the first link on mwillis.com

Excellent post. It more or less sums up my thoughts too. While I was (quite) disappointed by the finale, I don't regret watching the show. I tend to avoid paying attention to TV fandoms of any sort (they can be so reactionary to any aspect of a show that doesn't go the way THEY wanted it), but I the noise made over The Killing's finale was hard to ignore.

And I know Simmons loves his boob jokes, but seriously, the cheap shots about Merielle Enos' outfits were just painfully unfunny, and weren't made any less so when he went meta on them in the footnotes.

 

[LESDL]

I thought ESPN was supposed to be a sports-related organization, and that Simmons was supposed to be a sports writer. I know one of his "things" is many constant social references such as movies and TV ad nauseum, but WTF is ESPN doing wasting space and allowing him to write an entire column on a TV show? There's no mention of sports and no effort to make any connection.

 

[donutogre]

I thought ESPN was supposed to be a sports-related organization, and that Simmons was supposed to be a sports writer. I know one of his "things" is many constant social references such as movies and TV ad nauseum, but WTF is ESPN doing wasting space and allowing him to write an entire column on a TV show? There's no mention of sports and no effort to make any connection.

Have you not read Simmons at all for the last 10 years? This is hardly the first time he's written a column with no connection to sports.

 

[Kevin Jewkilis]

I thought ESPN was supposed to be a sports-related organization, and that Simmons was supposed to be a sports writer. I know one of his "things" is many constant social references such as movies and TV ad nauseum, but WTF is ESPN doing wasting space and allowing him to write an entire column on a TV show? There's no mention of sports and no effort to make any connection.

You're thinking of SPN.

 

[LESDL]

Have you not read Simmons at all for the last 10 years? This is hardly the first time he's written a column with no connection to sports.

I do not read him as much as I used to. I cannot recall another entire article that was completely non-sports related.

But that still doesn't answer my question. Why is ESPN allowing this? How does it contribute to the coverage of sports?

 

[cromulence]

I do not read him as much as I used to. I cannot recall another entire article that was completely non-sports related.

But that still doesn't answer my question. Why is ESPN allowing this? How does it contribute to the coverage of sports?

I think you've missed the idea behind Grantland. It's supposed to be a merging of pop culture and sports - check out the articles about hip-hop lyrics and reality TV for reference. Some pieces are 100% sports, some 100% pop culture, and others are a mix.

 

[LESDL]

I think you've missed the idea behind Grantland. It's supposed to be a merging of pop culture and sports - check out the articles about hip-hop lyrics and reality TV for reference. Some pieces are 100% sports, some 100% pop culture, and others are a mix.

So in other words ESPN wanted to keep him happy and agreed to his pitch to create a platform in which he could write about anything he wanted, no matter how unrelated to sports. It's "cultural" after all. What a crock.

 

[PBDWake]

I do not read him as much as I used to. I cannot recall another entire article that was completely non-sports related.

But that still doesn't answer my question. Why is ESPN allowing this? How does it contribute to the coverage of sports?

Because it's not ESPN? Because it's Grantland? It's an ESPN owned subsidiary. Not ESPN.

 

[PBDWake]

So in other words ESPN wanted to keep him happy and agreed to his pitch to create a platform in which he could write about anything he wanted, no matter how unrelated to sports. It's "cultural" after all. What a crock.

I'm not quite sure you're really clear on what Grantland is and what it's relation to ESPN is. ESPN owns it. But it's a separate site, with separate editorial staff and content. It aims to be profitable in its own right, and ESPN will see the profits. Or is ESPN not allowed to invest in products not entirely related to sports? I'm not really sure what your issue with the site is. You're not paying for anything. You were never misled into believing what Grantland was, unless you went in completely blind with horridly incorrect assumptions by not looking into any of the background on the site. Especially for a business like ESPN, which was original brought to life by being an investment of Getty Oil, I would expect that they're willing to invest in a venture they see as profitable.

 

[loshjott]

The Walt Disney company owns ESPN but I've seen tons of content there on TV and on the web with no reference whatsoever to Mickey Mouse. What gives?

 

[tims4wins]

I can't even find the Simmons article on The Killing any more. Grantland is kind of difficult to navigate.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

I can't even find the Simmons article on The Killing any more. Grantland is kind of difficult to navigate.

It looks pretty awful on mobile devices too. Content aside, the actual website is pretty freaking terrible.

 

[LESDL]

The Walt Disney company owns ESPN but I've seen tons of content there on TV and on the web with no reference whatsoever to Mickey Mouse. What gives?

Come on now.

As far as it being separate- in actual web name and location, sure. But with a prominent link/ad/whatever with Simmons' name and picture on the main ESPN front page, it's not actually separated from ESPN too much in fact.

Pretty much every post in this thread makes mention of articles or blog postings that have something to do with sports. This article about the TV show has no possible relation to sports or its part in popular culture.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Shut up, stupid.

 

[tims4wins]

I seriously can't find the article. Not with a Google search, not with a Grantland search, not in Simmons' archive. Anyone have a link? I never got a chance to read it.

 

[LESDL]

Nice. Well-said.

 

[Hextall]

I seriously can't find the article. Not with a Google search, not with a Grantland search, not in Simmons' archive. Anyone have a link? I never got a chance to read it.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6680958/hackery-first-degree

I got the link from my browser history (read this this morning)... but couldnt' find it by searching on grantland either.

 

[tims4wins]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6680958/hackery-first-degree

I got the link from my browser history (read this this morning)... but couldnt' find it by searching on grantland either.

Thanks

 

[PBDWake]

Come on now.

As far as it being separate- in actual web name and location, sure. But with a prominent link/ad/whatever with Simmons' name and picture on the main ESPN front page, it's not actually separated from ESPN too much in fact.

Pretty much every post in this thread makes mention of articles or blog postings that have something to do with sports. This article about the TV show has no possible relation to sports or its part in popular culture.

When Osama Bin Laden and Michael Jackson died, or other major news events, they had front page links to ABC news. You might be the only person who cares.

 

[Beomoose]

I guess I'm officially one of the weirdos Bill hates (not a shocker) because I rather liked The Killing. I wouldn't call it the greatest thing ever by any stretch of the imagination, but I rather enjoy the approach they're taking tell the story. I don't believe in the idea of the writer/network/show-runner being "obligated" to give the audience answers, anymore than I expected the "X-files" to tell anyone what the fuck was really going on or "Seinfeld" to tell anyone what the fuck the point of the show was.

 

[NatetheGreat]

The German basketball article and the Federer article were both really solid, though the Federer article suffers simply for being about a guy who DFW already wrote the ultimate longform profile of. Even the more goofy stuff, like Klosterman on Rock VORP, is pretty funny.

 

[Tartan]

I guess I'm officially one of the weirdos Bill hates (not a shocker) because I rather liked The Killing. I wouldn't call it the greatest thing ever by any stretch of the imagination, but I rather enjoy the approach they're taking tell the story. I don't believe in the idea of the writer/network/show-runner being "obligated" to give the audience answers, anymore than I expected the "X-files" to tell anyone what the fuck was really going on or "Seinfeld" to tell anyone what the fuck the point of the show was.

Some people dislike any story that doesn't move forward with its plot like a minecart. Simmons seems to be one such person, and he's more or less said so in the past. I remember he said (I forget if it was an article or podcast) that was hesitant to see Inception because it looked like its plot was going to be too confusing. Given his dislike of the ending of the Sopranos and the entire 6th season of Lost, it's not a shock that he didn't like The Killing. I don't mean that in any sort of condescending way, for what it's worth. There's absolutely nothing wrong with disliking any of those things.

 

[PBDWake]

In a far more puzzling decision, the "Sportstologist" wrote an article on how the Bruins playoff beards apparently made them all like like homosexuals. It's a puzzling leap of logic. It was probably written as a jest, and I don't mean to imply it was mean spirited or anything, I just think that the "Bear logo equals Bear Homosexual" leap didn't connect on any level. Mostly because of the whole square is always a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square point.... Stereotypical Bear men do have beards, yes, but not all (indeed, I would say most men) who have beards are not Bear homosexuals. So yeah. Swing and a whiff on that one for me.

 

[doctormoist]

Someone's treading on Eric Van territory assigning VORP-like stats to musicians.

 

[Burt Reynoldz]

Someone's treading on Eric Van territory assigning VORP-like stats to musicians.

All those musicians are of age, far as I can tell.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I really, really enjoy Grantland. So far it's far exceeded my expectations. However, it seems that in the last week the stories are sort of top heavy.

What I mean by this is that the first half to three quarters of the piece explains the piece, sort of sets it up, gets to the conflict (if there is one) and then it just sort of ends. There are times when I'm reading along, enjoying how the author is really plumbing the story and then the next thing I know, it's done. The ending came too soon and I'm left wanting something more.

For example I just read the piece about Jordan Hamilton and Robert Mays does a good job of establishing Hamilton's world, but the ending is just there. It doesn't seem like there's much of a resolution or even much of a point--which doesn't mean that I think the story was worthless. It wasn't. But the ending was hurried and it was flat.

I don't think that I'm doing a good job explaining the feeling that I'm experiencing when reading these pieces but there doesn't seem to be a beginning, middle and end. There's a lot of beginning, a bit of a middle and a very hurried-up end. Does anyone else feel that way?

 

[page 2 protege]

I really, really enjoy Grantland. So far it's far exceeded my expectations. However, it seems that in the last week the stories are sort of top heavy.

What I mean by this is that the first half to three quarters of the piece explains the piece, sort of sets it up, gets to the conflict (if there is one) and then it just sort of ends. There are times when I'm reading along, enjoying how the author is really plumbing the story and then the next thing I know, it's done. The ending came too soon and I'm left wanting something more.

For example I just read the piece about Jordan Hamilton and Robert Mays does a good job of establishing Hamilton's world, but the ending is just there. It doesn't seem like there's much of a resolution or even much of a point--which doesn't mean that I think the story was worthless. It wasn't. But the ending was hurried and it was flat.

I don't think that I'm doing a good job explaining the feeling that I'm experiencing when reading these pieces but there doesn't seem to be a beginning, middle and end. There's a lot of beginning, a bit of a middle and a very hurried-up end. Does anyone else feel that way?

Definitely agree, with Louisa Thomas' piece she goes into pretty great detail about her personal tennis experience as a young child. Ties in her feelings of Kimiko Date in 2 different decades and her growing appreciation for different forms of Tennis, which leads and briefly touches on how Roddick has changed his approach. It seems at that point the story would go into great detail about the philosophy of his approach, struggles he has experienced...etc. But instead of going in-depth...it just ends.

 

[Average Reds]

Definitely agree, with Louisa Thomas' piece she goes into pretty great detail about her personal tennis experience as a young child. Ties in her feelings of Kimiko Date in 2 different decades and her growing appreciation for different forms of Tennis, which leads and briefly touches on how Roddick has changed his approach. It seems at that point the story would go into great detail about the philosophy of his approach, struggles he has experienced...etc. But instead of going in-depth...it just ends.

Both you and JMOH are right, and it's got to be something of an editorial style that they are cultivating.

I have no idea why they are doing this, but this is clearly happening all over the site. Articles get you warmed up, they draw you in and ...end. And awkwardly at that.

 

[JMDurron]

Both you and JMOH are right, and it's got to be something of an editorial style that they are cultivating.

I have no idea why they are doing this, but this is clearly happening all over the site. Articles get you warmed up, they draw you in and ...end. And awkwardly at that.

I'm not very familiar with many of these writers, but I've enjoyed most of the Grantland pieces that I have read so far. Is it possible that the pattern of awkward endings is due to writers who normally do longer pieces being held to some kind of word count limit, and they are simply cutting themselves off at the end instead of fundamentally changing how they write the beginning and middle portions of their columns/posts?