Over at Deadspin, the inimitable Charlie Pierce makes like Dikembe Mutombo, rejects Bill Simmons’ new book, then wags his finger in Simmons’ grill:
Simmons actually reveals himself to be a better than passable memoirist; the passages about his father are touching, and they hint at a family subtext that actually would have been worth exploring in a little more depth. The book ends with a warm pilgrimage to the home of Bill Walton. There is some real writing in this section. Unfortunately, it is interrupted by Bill’s wondering if Walton will read his book and Walton’s assurance to Bill that he will, and Bill’s leaving the Walton manse, apparently on a golden cloud. You are not the cosmos, son. Get the f*** over yourself. But, prior to the universe’s once again becoming Bill’s personal hand mirror, there is something very, well, sweet going on here. Somewhere in these pages is a real book, and somewhere in that book is a very real heart and a very redeemable soul, and that just may be worth the digging.
You’ve been served by the best:
I've been going back and forth on whether or not I wanna read this. I feel like I'll eventually just get a used copy at Strand a few months from now and get around to it then.
I've been a Simmons fan since '01, I won't say he "jumped the shark" but he definitely turned some kind of corner around '03 (when he moved to L.A.). Right now I think his best work is in the podcasts and mailbags, his written analysis is often half-baked and his pop culture references are recycled to the nth degree (Ivan Drago, Steve Sanders, Mr. Miyagi...ok, I get it). I still consider myself a fan, I just don't think he's what he used to be.
Lets just call it like it is, this book is 700 pages of "this is why I should be given a front office job by an NBA team"....which can be as tiresome as 700 blog comments on "this is why I should manage the Yankees"
700 pages is too long for the best writers.
[2] For 99.99% of sports books it really is, I mean you can probably get 700 pages out of the life of Muhammad Ali or the story of the Berlin Olympics...but even then you're seriously stretching it.
His biggest problem, and something that Pierce rightly calls him out on, is that he apes other writers(and I do think Simmons is legit talented in his own right). He isn't David Foster Wallace, he isn't Chuck Klosterman (who also isn't DFW), and he isn't Halberstam...he's a good, witty, clever, sometimes (often?) insightful sportswriter. Why can't that be enough?
I've read the chapter on Isiah. If you substituted the name "Isiah Thomas" with "Tony LaRussa", and the name "Bill Simmons" with "Buzz Bissinger" and changed NOTHING else about that piece...it would be mercilessly (and rightfully) ripped all across the blogosphere as being sycophantic drek.
I should note that I just wrote that screed while listening to Simmons latest podcast where he gets into a deep discussion about the Real World/Road Rules Challenge...and yes I'm enjoying it.
I criticize because I care Bill!
Every night I tell myself
I am the cosmos,
I am the wind.
But that don't get you back again.
[3] Witty like a TKE pledge. I've certainly had enough of that boring bullshit in my life.
He's really crap. I'd rather read the Congressional Record.
Speaking of Chuck Klosterman - he's awful. Also I saw him on Rome is Burning and he said baseball is the "least interesting" sport. I guess he can "write" but his lack of insight is appalling.
I can't hate on Simmons too much, he provided me with many many hours of entertainment in the early aughts, especially when the Red Sox were losing. After that, not so much, and I try to say it's b/c his writing congealed into a self-satisfied Leno-esque schtick. But Pierce really nails it here (the crack about Anthony Michael Hall is really good), as Simmons is mostly just an amusing guy who was a little ahead of the curve, who, for all his pop cultural glibness, offers little insight into sports that can't be found in people like Mariotti. I find most of his columns unreadable now, but his podcasts are still good, featuring an interesting array of guests and material (Real World/Road Rules Challenge included). Anyway, he hasn't done too much to deserve either the accolades or scorn in my book, just another gigantic head who occasionally makes me laugh.
I've maybe read Simmons 2 or 3 times in my life, so forgive my ignorance, but why would anyone want to read this book? Is it about his life as a sports fan? That's not exactly a compelling topic, IMO.
Simmons was much more interesting to me as a suffering Sox fan. Even when the Pats started winning, the Sox's failures just made him that much interesting. Now? Every team he roots for has won a championship in the last decade. How many sports fans can say that? So he has to start finding new teams - the Bruins and his foray into European soccer. The Thomas section shows how much he's changed. I mean, his 2002 version would have ripped his 2009 counterpart to shreds and in multiple columns.
He's an interesting sports writer. That used to mean something, but I'm afraid our culture is so fragmented it's just another blog today. If he worked at writing books, I'm sure he could master the art.
[9] Its about Basketball, not any particular player or team or era, but just "Basketball". It is literally called "The Book of Basketball"...so, yeah.
[9] It's #1 on the Times list. So to answer your question, many, many people.
[12] I'm really happy for Simmons that he's #1 on NYT. Especially when you look at who he's beating:
2. that "Freakonomics" guy (seriously, people need to stop with that book)
3. Mitch Albom (no comment necesssary)
4. Malcolm Gladwell (Some people, i.e. Bill Simmons, love Gladwell. I am not one of those people)
5. Glenn Beck (REALLY no comment necessary)
[12] The question was why, not who.
I read Simmons occasionally. I don't share his pop sensibilites but appreciate his take. He's entertaining. As I've said before, reading him is like listening to an old time FM DJ--he riffs. And while he riffs well, that does not make for good writing. And his biggest sin as far as I can tell is that he's self-indulgent.
[15] I actually first read him when he was the independent Boston Sports Guy. It was amusing for a post or two to read about how difficult it was to be a Boston sports fan (shouldn't they all have been nominated for saint hood?), but quickly grew tedious and, yes, self indulgent. On a couple of occasions, I've happened on something he has written for Page 2, but never came away impressed. In fact, it seemed little different from the Boston Sports Guy material. If anything, I guess he might appeal to those who see him as the voice of the "common fan", but that doesn't resonate with me.
The indulgence and laziness in his writing is what keeps me away. I've heard his podcasts are lively.
iused to read simmons very religiously and with enjoyment when he first started at page 2.
however, to me the combo of him moving to la and the boston sports teams doing well turn him into an obnoxious, egomaniacal, self-important asshole.
i think he actually believes he has something to do with the pats or something - which is annoying and lame.
but what really bothers me about him is:
- he wants to be taken seriously but when he gets called on his bullshit his response is - i am just joiking, i am not serious (leicth pulled this bs too)
- he wants to act as if he is still an outsider when he is clearly an insider at this point
- and lastly i find it ironic that he has a bit of a feud with someone like bob ryan becuase they have the same new england uppity bullshit of casting themselves as these great liberals that frown on other but write subtely racist shit way too much
- oh and he doesn't know nearly as much about basketball as he thinks he does
this guy is just the topic of the day isn't he? AV Club has a good interivew with him:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/bill-simmons,35319/
In it he explains how baseball isn't fun to follow.
Although he did put out this gem:
Even Mike Francesa of New York, when he had Mad Dog with him, he’d never do stuff like that. Now that he’s on his own, he’s kind of just going after everybody. He’s just angry. What are you angry about? You make $4 million a year. Seriously, what are you angry about, Mike Francesa?
[19] the one funny thing i read from simmons was a page 2 entry about mike and the mad dog. but it wasn't really funny because of simmons, it was funny because i knew what he was talking about.
he seems like a huge dick to me, but like william [9], i've only read him maybe 3 times ever. that was plenty for me. and i have no idea why people would want to read his book. then again, i don't really know why anyone wants to read books about sports at all, and i know very few people here will sympathize with that. i love watching sports, i love the yankees, but i really don't have any interest in reading a book about backstories and whatnot. i just don't care in that way.
Am I the only person who still enjoys reading Simmons? I find his baseball analysis to be blah at best - though he's made it clear he's less interested in baseball in general, and really only pays much attention to the Sox, than he was say 5 years ago, which is fine with me - but his football analysis is alright and his basketball stuff I generally enjoy, perhaps because I know less about basketball than football or baseball.
He's generally not what I'd call a "prose master" - but sometimes he is a great writer, other times less so. His work, to me, sounds nothing more than what a passionate, well-intentioned, sometimes well-informed friend would say if discussing sports in a bar - except its written down, not spoken. That works for me.
As for the Isaiah thing, what I don't get is Pierce's takedown of it. Simmons made peace with Isaiah - who, let us not forget, had threatened to kill Simmons if he ever met him in person - chatted with him amicably and wrote about it, but does that mean he'll never rip Isaiah again? Where's the beef?
I love Pierce as a writer, I find his stuff on politics quite enjoyable, and on a writing level, I get where he's coming from - but just in terms of basketball, I'll take what a Kevin Pelton says over Charley Pierce. Pelton likes the book, and that's good enough for me.
[17] et al - his podcasts are sometimes boring (picking lines with "Cousin Sal" of Jimmy Kimmel are usually blah) but on the whole, quite excellent. There's one he did with Jeffrey Ross a couple of months ago - I came away thinking it was the best interview I'd ever heard, of anyone, ever. No hyperbole. It was a work of art. He has talent for that, for sure - his 30-for-30 interview with Brent Musburger is another excellent one.
The problem with being cutting edge is that, in 4 years, you aren't cutting edge anymore - you're mainstream. So too with Simmons, and I am ok with that.
[21] The pop-culture shit is boring..maybe I'm out of the loop over here but I find it a bit sad that anyone 40yrs old would watch "The Real World" or any other reality show..I still dig the sports columns and loved the podcast with Brent Musberger (and previously Marv Albert).