The Press Box - Doubts About DeSantis, Mean Magazine Stories, and RIP Texas Observer

Episode Date: March 27, 2023

Bryan and David touch on a few obits, starting with the Texas Observer, which may or may not be shutting down (0:43). Then they discuss the presidential campaign’s first walk-back of the season, featuring Ron DeSantis and his stance on the invasion of Ukraine (12:08). Later, they dive into the Wired profile of popular fantasy author Brandon Sanderson and discuss the writer’s approach and the backlash to the piece (30:12). Plus, the Overworked Twitter Joke of the Week and David Shoemaker Guesses the Strained-Pun Headline. Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Producer: Erika Cervantes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's official. One Shining Podcast is back, and I am your host, Tate Frazier. And as March Badness begins, we're covering everything from Selection Sunday all the way to the championship and beyond. We're going to have great guests that are coming through on the show. And look, if you're a friend of the program and you're already subscribed, you don't have to do anything. OSP is back. It's going to be right back in your feed. And if you're not a friend of the program, and this is your first time on the rodeo, then let me tell you this. You need to go to Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast. and smash subscribe today because the OSP show is back.

David? Yes. I hate to lead the podcast with media obits, but we've got three really sad ones to report today. Oh, God. We learned yesterday, last night, David, that the Texas Observer apparently is no more. Oh, man.

What a sucky piece of media news that would be. The Texas observer, for those who were not lucky enough to read it, was, how would you say this? The voice of unrepentant liberalism in a state filled with unrepentant conservatism? I think that's a good way to put it. I mean, obviously it all requires so much nuance, right? I mean, it is a vestige of a time when there was a vibrant, widespread liberalism in the state, which is not that long ago. Okay, can I stop you there? Yeah.

Because I'm not sure that really was ever the case. How about widespread democratic rule in the state? That's exactly right. Democratic rule and a cultural identity within the state that went along, I mean, that really kind of epitomized a moment in time. And it sort of spilled out of that. Also, you have got to say, I mean, we talk about these literary obits with some frequency and we have over the years.

It was one of a very, very few and diminishing number of just fantastic magazines all around. This is not a political magazine. This is not Mother Jones or something like that. You know, this was a lifestyle magazine, an outlet for incredible investigative and long-form journalism. I mean, it was just a, it was an all-around wonderful, periodical, consistently for by and large, over a huge span of years. a place for great writing. Yeah. I tweeted out from my personal account

a story that Larry McMurtry wrote about the Astrodome in 1965 for the Texas Observer called Love Death and the Astrodome. It's awesome. Yeah. It's like here is this wildly talented writer going into this new ballpark

and writing about what it feels like. Awesome. Yeah. So cool. To your point about Texas as a state, yeah, I mean, I just remember again, you and I were growing up there kind of at the end of Democratic rule in the beginning of Republican rule, where the observer felt not only important, but a little dangerous. Representing a viewpoint that at least outside of Austin wasn't a viewpoint you heard all that much. True, yeah. Either in the press or around the kitchen table. but you know it goes back to again when texas was run by conservative democrats and the observer was going

not so fast yeah throwing rocks in the best possible journalistic way yeah god that was a cool place the texas tribune which broke the news says the closing of the observer raises questions about whether small progressive publications can survive the digital transformation of journalism and the information ecosystem during a time of rapid social, demographic and technological change. True, I guess,

but I think those questions were being raised for the entire lifespan of small progressive publications. Yeah. This was never, we're going to make a shitload of money doing this. This was filling a niche. This was doing something

because we thought it was important. and we thought it was the right thing to do. I guess there's a report today that maybe the Texas Observer will survive, or there is a last second bid to keep it alive? According to a tweet by Stephen Monticelli, he was an investigative reporter there. He said, the death of the observer may have been exaggerated

as editorial staff formulate a counterproposal to the executive board. I guess that's all still developing. It would really be a pity, especially if there was a drive and a willingness to continue it, an even greater pity if somehow people were prohibited from doing so. There's obviously an audience, you know, even if it's a dwindling audience for this. I mean, they have a subscription number that a lot of magazines that we have friends that work for would be eager to have, you know, and made a move in recent years to be more online after making a deliberate move to be less online. And those are the decisions that periodicals sort of have to make in this day and age.

Also, Texas Observer was always available for the articles, are always available for free in an effort to get that good writing out there into the world, which was unique. I mean, hard to imagine diminished subscription rates that much, but maybe in the modern era. I think, you know, in some ways, people who weren't from Texas or haven't spent time in Texas

always kind of look at the state and the way that we people who have lived there identify with it with a raised eyebrow. You know, when I tell people I lived in Kentucky and North Carolina and Texas growing up, they're like, oh, the South. And I'm like, well, I think somebody from Mississippi would probably disagree with all three of those.

But specifically Texas, Texas is a very specific place to people who live there and the people who are looking in from the outside. And it's not a monoculture, although politically has certainly has been edging in that way in recent years. Hopefully, that's not, you know, hopefully we're moving in the other direction a little bit right now. But there's a reason why the Texas Observer has survived

as long as it did, whereas, like, you know, there aren't comparable magazines of the South that have been able to do the same thing or other sort of regional magazines outside of the very biggest states that do have more of a ideological monoculture. And it's that even the subcultures self-identify there sort of, right? You're still a Texan first and foremost. And then you're a Texas liberal second, you know, whatever. And it is sort of a different level of heartbreak that a magazine with that sort of

foothold cancer ride. Speaking of magazines, we also lost magazine writer Bill Zemi, whose work

appeared in Esquire, Rolling Stone, and other places. Bill Zemi wrote about a ton of stuff,

but he was an expert on late night. Back when network late night shows were the thing. He was in

with both the David Letterman camp and the Jay Leno camp because he was in with them before

they were the Dave and Jay that we knew. But most amazingly, he wrote a story about Johnny Carson, the king of late night, forever the king of late night, in 2002 after Carson had walked away from the Tonight Show. And the amazing thing about that story is when Johnny Carson

walked away from television, he did the full John Madden walk away, maybe even more so. I'm not coming back for specials. I'm not coming back for, you know, sitcoms. I'm really not going to allow myself to be interviewed. I'm gone. Yeah.

Just absolutely gone. And Bill Zemi told this amazing story of constantly asking Carson's assistant if he could get that interview, you know, working on her, working on Johnny. He finally gets it and writes a story called the man who retired in June 2002, which again, in this little world of magazines and entertainment is like getting Dr. Livingston. I mean, it was like, whoa, Johnny Carson gave an interview. He was also at the end of his life working on this Johnny Carson book. He told Neiman's storyboard, it's a huge book. I've gone through so much material. It's ridiculous. I have access to all the shows digitally. It's mind blowing. It's overwhelming. You can never have too much information.

But in this case, yes, you can. There's always. is this nagging thought. What if I'm missing something? That makes me nuts. Really hope that book sees the light of day. Because nobody was put on this earth to write a Johnny Carson book more than Bill Zemmy. By the way, he also hosted an episode of Later on NBC in 1996. Talk about living the part. And then finally, David, we also lost Jerry Green, former sports writer with the Detroit News and the Associated Press.

Jerry Green covered the Super Bowl. And when I say covered the Super Bowl, he covered all the Super Bowls till health problems kept him at home this year, David. He covered 56 consecutive games from Super Bowl 1 to Super Bowl 56. Unbelievable. I remember Kevin Clark and I seeing him in the press box,

the 2020 Super Bowl. I was like, that's Jerry Green. Wow. Working on the street. Here is a clip of Green talking about Joe Namath, allowing him and a few other sports writers a rare interview, as they say in journalism at Super Bowl 3. Joe Namath wouldn't speak to the media.

But that did not stop Jerry Green. So Namath and his babies are walking there. A few minutes later, Namath has agreed to speak to a few of us. are you interested and I said are you bleeping me he was very very very charming

and friendly it's a very famous photo you can see of Namath and all the sports writers before Super Bowl 3 which of course he would guarantee the Jets would win Jerry Green's in that picture

coolest thing by the way about press boxes is when you not only have multiple generations but you have guys like that who you're going to be like that guy was at Super Bowl won.

That guy covered the Detroit Lions NFL championship, aka the thing before the Super Bowl in 1957. God. Jerry Green. Gone at 94. Coming up on today's show, David, the latest from the 2024 presidential election, including the first time a candidate admitted making a boo-boo, sort of, doubts about Ron DeSantis.

And we ask, is political punded history repeat? meeting itself with Donald Trump. Plus, Wired Magazine published a pretty mean story about a fantasy novelist. Is that such a bad thing? All that more on the press box. A part of the ringer. Podcast Network. Media consumers, Brian Curtis, David Shoemaker, producer Erica, Sarvantis here.

David, we had the first major walkback of the 2024 presidential campaign. Oh. Also known as a candidate taking a statement they made and clean. it up like I do with all those cracker crumbs I left on the sofa while I was that I left while watching the first episode of succession. I was so excited to see with what was going to come after like I do with. It could have been so many things. I was fumbling that thing all the way toward the goal line. Let me tell you. Jerry Green would have written a mean story about me. Today's walkback comes from Ron DeSantis. He called Russia's invasion of the Ukraine a territorial dispute while trying to win the heart and of one Tucker Carlson.

Well, in an interview with Pierce Morgan, Ron DeSantis has a new opinion. He now thinks Vladimir Putin is a, quote, war criminal and says, I do think that he should be held accountable. Here's DeSantis walking back his old position on Ukraine. Well, I think that it's been,

a territorial dispute. I think it's been, you know, mischaracterized. Obviously, Russia invaded that. That was wrong. They invaded Crimea and took that in 2014. That was wrong. What I'm referring to is kind of where the fighting is going on now, which is that western border or eastern border region, Donbis, and then Crimea.

And you have a situation where Russia has had that. I don't think legitimately, but they've had. There's a lot of ethnic Russians there. So that's some difficult fighting. And so whatever, the conflict area, that's what I was referring to. And so it wasn't that I thought Russia had a right to that. And so if I should have made that more clear, I could have done it. But I think the larger point is, okay, Russia is not shown the ability to take over Ukraine,

to topple the government, or certainly to threaten NATO. That's a good thing. They've been weakened. You now have the fighting in those areas. I just don't think that's a sufficient interest for us to escalate more involvement. I would not want to see, you know, American troops involved there. But the idea that I think somehow Russia was justified. And that's nonsense.

I love when you get to walk back something that you say that you so obviously meant. are in the presidential season, presidential campaign season, I guess. There's a lot going on in the DeSantis campaign. You're going to get to it. You're going to get to it. But this is, this happens a lot. The guy's an absolute imbecile and is clearly getting caught up in mainstream big picture politics the first time in his career and is suffering at it. I mean, this is what you got to do. We, we've, we've, we've, we've, we've talked now for a couple weeks in a row about how he only does Fox. I mean, doesn't do any quote unquote mainstream media.

Well, this is what happens when you're just living in an echo chamber, right? It might be surprising to find out that some of the things that pass for facts in your normal environment don't do, don't pass must or elsewhere. So the first statement was to Tucker Carlson. And then he went all the way to Pierce Morgan to try to walk it back. You think if there's a third stanza in this particular, story he'll go to all the way to like Gateway Pundit or something. I love the whole tradition

of the walkback where the politician like DeSantis is never really changing their mind or as we say in politics evolving on an issue. What he's just doing is telling the foreign policy establishment in Washington

I'm not the kind of guy who would make that statement about Russia. Right. I'm not. all those words he said there, I was just talking about a very specific part of the fight. No, no, no, no.

That's just a message to people in his party, people outside his party. He's saying, no, no, no, I'm not that guy. I'm not the hands-off Vladimir Putin guy that I sounded like. He's also telling the press, I think, by doing this little walkback, that you can stop asking me about this now. To the extent that I ever let you ask me questions to begin with,

if you come to me and say, what about that controversial position on the invasion of Ukraine? I will say, well, look, look at his previous statement. He has clarified that. We will point you to his previous statement, as they say in Washington. He's already, he's already talked about the known reason to ask Ron DeSantis anymore about Ukraine. Yeah. I love he said it was mischaracterized, too.

Yeah, that was great. This sparked a whole doubts about DeSantis' news cycle in Washington. We know he's on his book tour for the newly published tome, The Courage to Be Free. We also know that this rollout hasn't gone exactly as he intended because his poll numbers have gone down or flatline, when before that he seemed to be gaining on Donald Trump. It feels like DeSantis would love this to be a George W. Bush 2000-style campaign, where he can come in and unite the various wings of the Republican Party. Physical conservatism, social conservatism, Trumpy conservatism, and say, I'm a uniter, not a divider.

But the single problem for him is that Donald Trump, whose wing of the party he is trying to put under his tent, is running for president. Yeah. Yeah, you can't, it's, it's hard to be the uniter when you're actually a fighter, right? You've got to fight against somebody to succeed in the unification. Yes. And that's where the doubts come from.

Is like, are you going to be able to hang in there? Yeah. When this guy starts going after you, this candidate who is not going to observe Marquess of Queensberry rules? Is this a war or a territorial dispute? As I think what we're kind of getting at. Yeah. I mean, this is, you know, there's a lot unknowable about a candidate before they get

on to the national stage. I've always had my doubts about DeSantis and it could be proven wrong time. time again. But this just feels like this is exactly the wrong moment to be, from a DeSantis campaign point of view, to be casting doubt about whether or not you're sort of ready for the fight. And in a number of different ways in the past week or two, it seemed like he's not there, not quite.

Did you see the story about the reporter, Ben Montgomery, who worked for Axios? Down in Florida. No. He received a press release, and I use that term advisedly here, but he received a press release from Ron DeSantis's administration. Oh, I did see this, yeah, I'm going to tell the story. The press release was, and I'm quoting Creative Loafing Tampa Bay here, was about how the governor held a roundtable, quote, exposing the diversity, equity, and inclusion scam in

higher education. Montgomery replied by writing this is propaganda not a press release and then the communications director for the Florida Department of Ed

tweeted that out that is Montgomery's response which led to Montgomery's firing from Axios. Yeah, not great. Not great in a lot of accounts but you know how are you firing somebody over that?

I don't understand this need for we know how Axios is firing somebody over there. No, I know. Because we know exactly what Axios is and wants to be. Yeah. Yeah. And they'll claim the sort of need for journalistic integrity and impartiality and everything else, even though obviously that's not the deeper motivation here.

Want to also talk to you about Donald Trump, David? Donald Trump did not get the date of his looming indictment correct. Said it was going to be last Tuesday. Hasn't happened yet. That's kind of funny. Not so funny. Donald Trump posting a photo of himself with a baseball bat like Robert De Niro and the Untouchables next to a photo of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg

and referring in social media posts to potential death and destruction. also did you see where he held his big rally on Saturday? Oh, did I ever? Yeah, my old stomping grounds, Waco, Texas. You might think, given all the news coverage and new books about a certain anniversary in Waco, that Donald Trump was making a point by holding a rally there. Not so. According to Politico's Meredith McGraw, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick came on stage and said he wanted to address fake news that the Trump campaign came to Waco because of its connection

to the 30th anniversary of the Waco massacre. Yeah, I just want to be clear. The person who's making this claim is not the reporter who you just named. This is Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, a Trump supporter.

Continuing with Meredith Begraw here, says Trump called him and asked him to pick a town for the rally and he suggested Waco. Just picking a Texas town. Well, wanted some access to the silos. I was going to be near by the Kalachis.

I'm not sure if fixer-upper is a much worse metaphor than the siege at Waco, although I guess that one's much more loaded politically given, you know, Trump's history and trying to actually incite insurrections and court the insurrectionist factions and wings of American politics. The, I don't know how much time I want to spend. what has been getting into that because as we saw with the own trump white house we saw with trump's previous campaign they do manage to fall backwards or potentially fall backwards into some of the most like loaded or boneheaded or just unbelievable situations like this and waco is a is a

literally very central located town with an available airport not very few people use David is serving as the Waco Chamber of Commerce here. But yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Did they ever say how many people showed up for that? I didn't see it. They were expecting, there were expectations of 15,000.

And I just saw the word thousands being thrown around the day of. So I'm not sure that it actually got the 15. But it would seem to be a lot. I'm sure whatever the Trump campaign tells us will be an accurate representation of how many people were in the crowd. You see the picture that was floating around of somebody selling somebody who was selling, somebody who was selling t-shirts with Trump's face, but they were also selling like hot dogs and foot massages. That was the three things from the little tent that we're being told.

No grilled cheese sandwiches, I think, and foot massages. Those were the three things that were available for sale. Trump T-shirt, foot massage, grilled cheese sandwich. Yeah, and the foot massage is $5, but free with purchase of a presumably a shirt or a grilled cheese sandwich. Can you make my grilled cheese sandwich before you do any of the foot massages? Let me just make sure that's in that particular order. Yeah, you sound like a big government liberal, Brian, just trying to get your nanny theory. Our friend McKay Coppins of the Atlantic is getting 2016 vibes from the 2024 campaign.

He tweets, can't put my finger on it, but the more the smart conservative set mocks Trump and praises DeSantis, the more reflexively skeptical I become of the latter's prospects. the 2016 primary vibes are just so strong. I feel the same vibes, though I can't tell whether we're learning from 2016, were the Republican establishment and Fox News and everybody was against Trump and then Trump on anyway. Or if we're over-correcting from 2016. Oh, how so? and just thinking that Donald Trump can win no matter what happens. Indictment.

Opposition from Fox and Fox host. Shadow ban from Fox. It doesn't matter. Donald Trump will win. Well, I think you're right in one sense, which is that it doesn't matter. Trump will win. I mean, I don't know for sure that he will win, but I do think that what Trump's victory in the last primary and his lead now proves is that the Republican Party has like a political machine

in terms of nominating a presidential candidate and, seeing that person into the White House is pretty broken. And that includes the exoskeleton or whatever of Fox News. You know, I mean, like, you know, these things certainly have their power and their appeal. But when we saw from all the leaks, it came out of the Dominion lawsuit, that it doesn't matter how much the host on Fox News hate Trump, he's still going to wield all the power. he's obviously out here in somewhat diminished form now in some ways but i'm not sure that

that really matters in terms of his his aspirations in the primary i think that the most basic thing that we've seen so far though is that despite all of the hype if you want to use the word that he's gotten over the past three four years uh rand desantis is is not necessarily any better a candidate than Marco Rubio was or that Scott Walker was before him. I mean, it's a, you know, these sort of institutional frontrunners, it's sort of, it's almost like they, they, they're, it's a sort of a self-defeating mantle, right? I mean, as soon as you kind of get out in the lead, there's nowhere to really go. And if Trump's there, there's no one, no one, there's no machine that can whisk you into the White House if you have somebody actually fighting

back. One last item for you. Politico notes that South Carolina Senator Tim Scott is getting ready to jump into the Republican field. Tim Scott is doing subtle things like visiting Iowa and New Hampshire next month. But there's an interesting subplot in his candidacy. Lindsay Graham, also a Republican senator of South Carolina, wants Trump to pick Tim Scott as his running mate. Lindsay has been pushing Tim Scott as the running mate since pushing him was possible, a Trump advisor tells Politico, adding that it was not impractical to think about Scott in such a role. If he comes out and says Donald Trump is responsible for January 6th

and does the Pence line, it's probably going to hurt him, the advisor continues. If he talks about opportunity zones and low taxes in the future, it won't be a detriment. Once again, we are drawing the line, that Republican candidates who are not Donald Trump

have to operate between in order to win the nomination. If you come out and blame Donald Trump for January 6th, but if you go out and talk about opportunity zones, hell, you'll be fine. Opportunity zones is obviously a stand-in

for just talking about politics, retail politics or, you know, politics separate from any sort of infighting with the Trump campaign. Listen, it's not. If you want to be vice president, then yes, that is probably the most direct line there. If you have any piece of you at all that wants to be president, the first thing, the rule number one is don't try to steer clear. Don't try to avoid confrontation with Trump.

Don't try to pretend like he's just another candidate. You got to beat Trump. You got to beat him and you got to beat him. You got to go on the offensive from day one. I mean, or whatever your version of the offensive is. coming up in 30 seconds Wired magazine published a pretty mean story about a fantasy novelist.

Is that such a bad thing? But first, David, let's do the overworked Twitter joke of the week where we celebrate a gag that was so obvious that all of media Twitter made it at exactly the same time. Send your nominees to at the press box pod where they're always gratefully received

got a lot of tweets when Alabama lost to San Diego State in the NCAA men's basketball tournament about saying Alabama was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember that was the Alabama coach's excuse when an Alabama player allegedly brought a murder weapon to the scene of a crime. Thanks to Skodas Delinda for tipping us off on that.

But this week's winner comes from my buddy, Patrick Horan. Listen to this clip from LeBron James, who is apparently somewhat close to returning to an NBA court. Did anyone ever suggest surgery? Yeah, two doctors. Why did you decide against it? Because I went to the LeBron James of Feet, and he told me I shouldn't. He went to the LeBron James of Feet.

It was an overworked Twitter joke to write, Wow, he went to Quentin Tarantino. Wow, we're not expecting that one. I want to spit out my Coca-Cola. kind of a deep media cut there. Wow. If you thought, oh,

wow, that's what the movie critic is about. Congrats. You made the overworked Twitter joke of the week. All right, in the notebook dump, I want to talk to you about this feature story that appeared in Wired.

It's by a writer named Jason K. The story is about a fantasy novelist named Brandon Sanderson. Sure. Do you know who Brandon Sanderson is? I know him. I know him by, reputation by book cover

I've never read Brandon Sanderson I know he wrote I know he wasn't he the what's the term of art for someone who completes a series after the original author dies do we have a term for them I don't know that we do he's the he was the relief writer for the Wheel of Time series if I remember correctly but I haven't read any of that

either so the fireman coming in from the bullpen yeah super productive Sanderson made $55 million dollars last year 40 plus of that was from some Kickstarter. Not that that makes a huge difference, but that's the,

that was. Yeah, but if any writer could be like here, pay me to write something or publish something and people paid them 40 million plus dollars. Mm-hmm. You've made it in this world. Yeah. The piece got a lot of attention online.

Because Kay went off to investigate how Brandon Sanderson had become so successful, who he was, what drove him, what his empire was like, those kinds of things. And he found that he did not have an especially high opinion of his writing. And also of Brandon Sanderson, the guy, or at least Brandon Sanderson, the subject of a magazine profile. Right at the top of the piece,

he says, I find Sanderson depressingly, story-killingly lame. He also tells him in one scene in the piece, maybe nobody writes about you, I say to Sanderson, because you don't write very well. Yeah. I can tick off some of the other observations in this piece that Kay makes, says almost nothing Sanderson says was quotable. He didn't like what he wore to dinner. He says, here, I'll quote a little bit more of his own work.

Sanderson has said, I detest rewriting. I write for endings and I write to relax. It shows. He writes by one metric at a sixth grade reading level. etc, etc. What did you make of this profile? So I caught on to the, I think I read this relatively early,

at least in the news cycle. I don't actually know when the story dropped, but I assume I read it pretty soon afterwards. But still, even with just a few tweets about it, I was pretty well prepared for what I was going to experience. I don't know. I mean, I feel like the entire response has been, I can't believe this writer went in

trying to turn Sanderson into a villain or a dupe and came out being the villain himself. Maybe I've just been around this too long, but by halfway through, it just felt like there is no plausible solution except that the writer set out to be the villain himself. Maybe that was the method of making this thing interesting, or maybe he was just like, oh, I mean, it's almost,

it felt like a spite read. You know, you get an assignment for your editor, and you're like, oh, you want me to write about that, huh? Okay, well, watch this, you know? Who knows? I mean, I don't know that I don't even remember the writer's name off the top of my head. I'm not sure that this will necessarily convey into some grand career of, you know, long-form hatchet jobs or something. But I'd say that the odds are more in his favor than when he started the piece.

So, you know, it's, it was pretty interesting. I mean, I think it was, if you take it at face value, I think it was obviously naive, wrongheaded, idiotic. to go into a piece like this, even for Wired is the right way to say it or especially for Wired and to be so dismissive of the subject. Because I think that the rightful critique, even if, again, taking at face value of this piece

is that he, their author spent a lot of time trying to find something, trying to get something explained to him by a fan, by a friend of the writer, by the writer himself, that was sort of so self-examined, evident, it didn't, it didn't merit explanation. Does that make sense? And what was that in particular?

Well, a writer, an artist is exactly as good as his, as the audience deterrent, deems him to be, right? No one's arguing that Sanderson is Hemingway, and even that is just such a hand-wavy, a hand-wavy reference that it doesn't, that it lacks all meaning. but no, I mean, that's kind of not, that's sort of so beside the point, you know? I mean, it's like, it's like a, I mean, the generous way of looking at it was that it would be like one, like some sort of web 2.0 or 1.0 like slate pieces where it's like, we got a famous French food critic to go to the new McDonald's in Topeka,

Kansas, you know, or whatever and just watch the sparks fly. I don't think that, you know, this writer didn't come to the position of being a great literary critic or anything really close to it. So it doesn't really have that sort of internal wit, or inherent wit. But I don't know, it just seems like sort of a genre writer, a mass market writer, a writer who makes $10 million a year off writing

and sometimes $50 million a year off of his writing. Like, is anybody, does anybody need, is anybody demand? landing an investigation into this? I mean, this feels sort of like a blog. It's like it's a blog post that sort of, you know, exploded into a story for no particular reason. So I read it as, I guess,

a semi-conventional magazine pitch, which is here is somebody who is very successful in this corner of pop culture that a lot of people, and I'm going to raise my hand as being one of those people, does not frequent. Sure. So I'm going to go off and explain to you how this person became so successful.

Yeah. Because not every fantasy novel is being paid $50 million to write books over the course of a year. In fact, almost probably nobody is, but you have one or two, George R. Martin, right? It was like there are one or two people in the whole world who would make that kind of money to write any novels, much less fantasy novels. Yeah. That kind of huge dough.

So that's how I took it. And then the writer gets embarked on this quest. and they find out, I don't like these books. And he says in the piece Jason K does, he's a reader of fantasy in this. So this is not, you know, I'm coming in as a Jonathan Franzen guy and finding these books not to be of my liking.

But then he also says, he doesn't like him as a person. So then it feels to me like a writer in a weird place of being like, I've gone off to investigate this interesting story or this just interesting phenomenon and maybe explain it to people. and I just don't know what I'm supposed to write now

because I just don't like this guy's work. Now there are interesting ways around that, right? I mean, I don't know again. And again, it's a situation we've all been in. I guess. I mean, not to that degree, but we've all found ourselves, I don't know what I'm going to say about this, and maybe some of us have dashed off a fully like self-reverential,

unpublishable version of it before you get to the real thing. well and what's interesting to me is again not being totally acquainted with this world i am interested in the mechanism of how you go from being like people like me to people will be paid me this much money to write books how you became that big he talks about the story about how he's hearing these you know anecdotes from sanderson but they've all been written up before that may be the case but i don't know any of these anecdotes so i was interested in that he touches on this idea of how Sanderson, who is a Mormon, how his faith connects with writing fantasy novels, which is like a really interesting.

And he, in cases in the piece of that was one of the most interesting things he said in the whole and all their encounters. I would have been interested to go further and there and just explore that a little bit more. If we're explaining how something happened, how somebody became this huge novelist or widely read novelist, I guess I'd be interested in that. but he doesn't seem like he could get past the idea that he just didn't like the subject. Or didn't like his books or some combination of both.

So we're left with this piece that is sort of about that as much as it's about anything else. Yeah. I think I agree with all that. And I think that, you know, this is in the spirit of criticism. I mean, you can critique the piece on that, on its own merit. if you take that view of it, right? I mean, if this is, if Brandon Sanderson did not exist, how does this piece hold up, right?

If this were a work of fiction, you know, or whatever, if this were, you know. Well, we're going really meta here. No, I'm just, I'm just saying it can be, it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily, it doesn't, I mean, there's a reading of it that doesn't really involve Brandon Sanderson at all, because the piece for all the times his name was used

and the pictures of him and the ostensible subject of it is much less about him in some deeper way than it is, it is more so about the author. But there's, you know, we've had a lot of, there's been a long tradition of that in journalism too. I don't think this was a particularly successful piece on, even if judged that way, though. I just think it was,

I think that there's such an unreliability to it. And the way it was published too. You can't obviously take the editor's editorial staff out of the equation here. If every single person picked this piece up and just said, why was this written? Why was this published? then I think that almost invalidates it. Clearly history has proven that wrong in numerous instances,

but as an act of service, if everybody is just perplexed and arguing about something on Twitter, it probably didn't succeed in the way that it was intended to. I do think it's a different thing when you go and find somebody who is Uber famous over to a big swath of humanity, and write the negative magazine piece about them and be like their work isn't any good or isn't very good.

I think that's different. Again, and again, if I'm ignorant, then that's my fault. But then somebody like this who I think a lot of people come in like, I don't know that this person's work. Maybe I've heard the name. And you're telling me a person who I don't know isn't good. I just think that plays very, very differently. That's a good point.

Yeah. We're talking about mean magazine stories or, you know, critical magazine stories. I will say this. I did not think this piece was successful. I didn't like it because I didn't think it took me anywhere. I don't think by the beginning, the end of it that I really went any particular place. But I do give K points for being honest about how he felt.

Because there's an easier way to do this where you go, you have all those same impressions. And then you either don't mention the fact that you don't like this guy's work or you soft pedal it so much that the reader barely. notices. Well, it's served up for you. And it's convenient for every. Yeah, but it's convenient for everybody, right? Yeah. And then Sanderson likes a piece. His fans like the piece. Your editors probably like the piece more because it's just easier to publish. And you don't ever say the thing that you think. And I think as writers, a lot of times, we are lured into that place where

you're, you know, you are encouraged not to just say the thing that you think. And so, again, I think there is a case, again, I didn't like this piece, but I do think generally speaking, there's a case for awkward honesty over smooth or dishonesty in journalism. Yeah. If that makes sense. I agree. And the point I was trying to make was that, or there was just making is that the P. Sanderson as a writer kind of tease all this stuff up for you.

You don't have to point out that he's a bad writer. You can, if you, if that's what you believe, you can just include excerpts from his books and let those do the thing. You can talk about how the speed of what she writes and his reluctance to ever rewrite. And you can talk to people about that sort of thing. You don't need to, I mean, it's just, it's just so unnecessary.

It's so over the top to do, I mean, it's like, like watching a documentary and having a sort of inherently problematic or comical subject. Like you, you know, if you're watching Great Gardens, you don't need the director to like come in over the top and just be like, look at this. idiot, you know, look how ridiculous this person. I hope you're getting what I'm getting here because these ladies are bonkers, you know? I mean, it's like it's, it's, it's just,

it's not, it's not necessary. It's not artful. I'm not questioning the artistic merit of it, but it's just, it there, of all of the, of all of the literary profiles you could do where you wanted to make sure that the audience knew that you didn't think that this was a good writer. No one demanded less effort than Sanderson. So you're arguing for be honest, but just let the facts essentially hang out there. Yeah. There's a way to do this without planting your foot in the ground and being like, dear audience, I don't like this guy.

Sure. It's a lot more effective that way too, right? Leading a horse to water and all that. Maybe. Sanderson had a response on Reddit, which was like the nicest response of the subject of this kind of piece ever. Or he says, well, he,

meaning K, legitimately seems to dislike me in my writing. I don't think that's why he came to see me. He wasn't looking for a hit piece. He was looking to explore the world through his writing.

Also encouraged his fans not to pick on K online. Anyway, by the way, I have some comps. Comps? Like other articles of the sort or other books like Sanderson?

Yeah, we need more press box comps here. I love a comp list. Journalists who were not making fiction megabucks going to interview novelists who are. Oh, Brian. Right about them?

You know, in like in book publishing, this is a huge thing, right? Every time that you pitch a book, you got to have the comp list. You got to have a new money ball. It's a new blind sign. Yeah, exactly. It's like, yeah, but you have a whole list because you got to look at, you can't just have money ball, right? You can't just have the best sellers because I'm going to be just like, you're being

ridiculous here. We can't sell this in saying it's going to sell a million copies. So you got to have a variety. I love the press box accomplice. has to be a thing. So here we go. Eric Connicksburg on Harlan Coben in the Atlantic 2008 and Jonathan Mahler on James Patterson in New York Times Magazine 2010.

Oh, I remember the existence of that piece. I hardly remember what it said. Those are off the top of my head. People might have more. Did Jonathan Mahler go to a James Patterson convention and just talk about how much he detested it? I don't think of his approach was exactly the same. Anyway, thanks to Triler and E-Bel for.

putting that on our radar. It's time for a feature that nobody to test. It's time for David Shoemaker guesses the strained pun headline. Yeah. Monday's headline about a family whom the government allowed to keep a pet nutria was not a rodent too soon. Excuse me. Today's headline comes from Deep Sluat Dog, frequent contributor to these parts.

It's from The Guardian. David, it's a story about myths being used in movies. Okay? Why is Hollywood abandoned ancient Greece? Tolkien-inspired mythology has taken over our screens, while a treasure chest of epic fantasy tales lies unused. All right, David, so we have ancient Greece has been completely abandoned by the movies. Mm-hmm.

What was The Guardian's, Strainpun headline? Greece So the vehicle for stories about ancient Greece would be The mythology Okay Miss maybe Misses And Miss and movies

And Misses Here we go Hits and Hits and Wait hits and misses Hits and myths Hits and myths Hits and Miss

Oh, hit and miss. All right. There we got. I was missing the actual reference there. All right. He is David Chewaker. I'm Brian Curtis. Production Magic by Eric Eservantes.

It's a big week here in American culture. That's right. It's WrestleMania week. Hell yeah. It's a David Shoemaker's biggest week of the year. So David, on Wednesday, why don't we meet up and record a little mini pod, a little mini discussion. about what it's like to cover professional wrestling in

2003. Love it. I used to think there were two beats in American sports that were just totally an upheaval right now, golf and college football. Pro wrestling with the entire Vince McMahon saga is on that list. Yeah.

I want to hear what that's like. And then I'm going to visit with a wrestler, or I should say a figure from the wrestling world that holds a very special place in my life. He is Bruce Pritchard, big creative guy inside world wrestling entertainment and the man who portrayed Brother Love beginning in the late 80s.

Also, a podcast are more successful than you or I will ever be. Hell yes. Should we go write a piece about him and Conrad Thompson? You know, going to their conventions. Wait, do a convention. Yeah, I think we should do it. That would be great.

Except Bruce and Conrad are the best. Anyway, coming up with, Wednesday plus more lukewarm takes about the media. See you then, David. See you later, Brian.