Glenn Dickey has a column in today's Chronicle about Ben Braun and the current Cal men's basketball game. It's Dickey's job to analyze things like basketball teams. I've been there ... all those years I wrote about baseball for the Prospectus and John Benson, I analyzed baseball players, and sometimes I said things that were less than positive. I never heard back from any of those players ... why would I? ... although a friend once told the late Bobby Bonds my opinion of the legendary Todd Benzinger and Bobby lectured my friend for an hour about the greatness of Benz. Once, Benson called me on the phone to ask why I was always so negative about Benzinger, a man who, John assured me, was a real prince of a guy. I told John that people didn't buy his books to find out which players were nice guys, they bought his books to find out who the best players were on the field.
In today's column, Dickey has some negative things to say about one Cal player in particular. It's opinion masquerading as fact, but I think that's allowed for a columnist ... we understand when we read a Glenn Dickey column that when he says "Player X lacks toughness," it should be read as "I think Player X lacks toughness." Still, I have a passing acquaintance with the player in question ... he never took any classes from me, but he tried to get into one, we had a few conversations, and if I see him on the street we say hi and ask how it's going. And so, when I read Dickey's criticism of the player, I felt bad because I know the guy.
This doesn't mean Dickey should only write positive things. In my own sportswriting days, I tried very hard to keep personal attacks out of my writing ... I would say "Todd Benzinger is a pathetic excuse for a major league baseball player" but not "Todd Benzinger is a pathetic human being." I would say "can't hit his way out of a paper sack" but not "has psychological problems which prevent him from achieving his potential." And this is where I think Dickey goes wrong in today's piece ... he doesn't say "Player X isn't getting it done on the court," he says "Player X has emotional problems." Dickey doesn't know anything about the player's emotional makeup; he can critique the team and even the player by sticking to concrete facts about three-point shooting or whatever, and that will be damning enough.
But the point is, while I may draw the line at pop-psych pseudo analysis based on the unknowable-to-us personality traits of public figures, I still believe it is crucial for us to use critical thinking skills to analyze the world around us. I am, myself, a critic, not a ballplayer or an artist. And I don't apologize for that. When I wrote for the Prospectus, I had an audience of, I don't know, at least tens of thousands. When I write this blog, I have an audience of, I don't know, at least tens. What I owe my readers is the full application of my skills to the project at hand. Sometimes that means constructing an explanation for why I think The Wire is the best show on television today. Other times, that means constructing an explanation for why I think the William Hung Fifteen Minutes is problematic, or why I think Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark suggest a rather creepy attitude towards women, or why I think Blade Runner or Revolver or Billy Joel is overrated. That is to say, I don't see my job as being simply to promote stuff I believe is good. I think my job is also to point out the problems with stuff that isn't as good as other people believe, or to analyze stuff that has important cultural implications but nonetheless sucks.
Athletes likely get v.tired of journalists, because all an athlete wants to do is perform, while a journalist wants to talk about it. I imagine the same is true of artists ... they create, critics tear it down. Like Lou Reed said on Take No Prisoners, it's hard when you pour your life into something, only to get a C+ from "Robert Fucking Christgau." If you are a critic who is particularly concerned about being considerate of others, perhaps especially if you have a soft spot in your heart for the artists or athletes whose creations you analyze, you will end up only writing about stuff you like. And you'll never hurt anyone's feelings, and you will be rightfully proud that you never called some amiable college student the G-rated, OK-for-the-Chronicle version of a pussy, just to make a point. But some of us think there is a useful area between "it's all good" and "you're a pussy." And I am far from perfect in this regard, but I try my best to attack the creation, not the creator. I'm sure Neifi Perez is a terrific guy. But as a major-league hitter, he is worse than putrid, and it isn't going to do me or anyone else much good to focus on what a good fellow he is.
Recent Comments