Comments on: Dear Rick Reilly, What The Hell Is That? http://pitchersandpoets.com/2009/05/20/dear-rick-reilly-what-the-hell-is-that/ both have their moments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:23:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jason http://pitchersandpoets.com/2009/05/20/dear-rick-reilly-what-the-hell-is-that/comment-page-1/#comment-196 Jason Fri, 29 May 2009 07:25:35 +0000 http://pitchersandpoets.com/?p=442#comment-196 Reilly is an amazing stylist. I think that's why I enjoy his columns so much. As you said, he can be quite cerebral. His voice comes through, which is more than you can say for other sports columnists, or writers in general. The piece he wrote where he followed Kobe around for an entire day was brilliant. And I don't say that often. Great blog, by the way. Reilly is an amazing stylist. I think that’s why I enjoy his columns so much. As you said, he can be quite cerebral. His voice comes through, which is more than you can say for other sports columnists, or writers in general. The piece he wrote where he followed Kobe around for an entire day was brilliant. And I don’t say that often.

Great blog, by the way.

]]> By: Ted http://pitchersandpoets.com/2009/05/20/dear-rick-reilly-what-the-hell-is-that/comment-page-1/#comment-190 Ted Mon, 25 May 2009 13:25:11 +0000 http://pitchersandpoets.com/?p=442#comment-190 Part of the problem is the "humorist" angle that guys like Reilly often try to work. Reilly could respond to criticism by claiming that it's a satirical look at what people consider the shortcomings of baseball. Problem is, satire is at its core based on truths, rather than this Jim Murray knock-off junk. I mean, did Reilly just stumble upon the fact that baseball games are long, after decades of covering sports? Was this the topic that the modern condition just forced him to write? Generally speaking, I think it's fair to give a frequent columnist the occasional phone-in like this one. Reilly has done a lot of reportage in the past, and even if his columns can be sappy, they are at least exploratory. That said, it doesn't say much about his creative drive that this column is even in his brain anywhere. Part of the problem is the “humorist” angle that guys like Reilly often try to work. Reilly could respond to criticism by claiming that it’s a satirical look at what people consider the shortcomings of baseball. Problem is, satire is at its core based on truths, rather than this Jim Murray knock-off junk. I mean, did Reilly just stumble upon the fact that baseball games are long, after decades of covering sports? Was this the topic that the modern condition just forced him to write?

Generally speaking, I think it’s fair to give a frequent columnist the occasional phone-in like this one. Reilly has done a lot of reportage in the past, and even if his columns can be sappy, they are at least exploratory. That said, it doesn’t say much about his creative drive that this column is even in his brain anywhere.

]]>