Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Bill Simmons and what he means for society
I swear, I've got a ton of good ultimate material, but no point in using it when this site gets about three hits a day. So, for now I'm just going to enjoy a place to put random crap.
So apparently, the job of writing a blog about super bowl week for ESPN.com, which has gone to Bill Simmons for the last four years (except one year maybe?), has now been given to Chuck Klosterman. Now, the reason for this is probably something innocuous, like that Simmons has a new kid in the house and was tired of traveling on his book tour and his Patriots are not in the game anyway, so he'd just as soon stay home this year. But nevertheless, it makes me think about the whole Bill Simmons phenomenon.
If you are in the center target ESPN demographic (21-35 year old male who has no problem watching a couple hours of sports broadcasting a week), then it's very likely you already know who Bill Simmons is. He's easily the most-referenced writer on the message board of the football fantasy league I play with my high school friends. He gets brought up all over the place on fan boards around the net. Heck, some people even call him their favorite writer.
There's an anti-intellectualism in American culture in general, and in the "ESPN demographic" population in particular. What I call the "Bill Simmons phenomenon" is the fact that a writer, a columnist, has managed to transcend this anti-intellectualism, to the point that macho 20somethings having an argument in a bar can reference something he said by name and not get ridiculed for it. He's managed this trick through a variety of factors, but mostly through two things. One is the subject matter of his columns - gambling advice, talking about fantasy sports, running commentaries of sporting events, TV shows, and NBA drafts where he is constantly on the prowl for "unintentional comedy", mailbags where he virtually banters with his readers, and columns where he indulges his New England fanboy side. The other is his writing style - tons of pop culture references, undisguised homerism, opinions that are admittedly based on emotion rather than fact, and a willingness to make fun of his own writing or other media sources without hesitation. In short, in both subject matter and writing style, he sounds a lot more like a fan than the average sports columnist.
I find this interesting because, once you've read him for a while, it becomes clear that he does not fit the fratboy demographic that he is writing to. He is a writer, through and through, and he shares a lot more in common with the typical gen X writer than his target audience. He drinks a lot more coffee than alcohol, he is intensely self-critical, and he is always drinking in his surroundings in a never-ending search for material. I think there's a common perception out there that Bill Simmons is the everyman sports fan and that's why his writing is enjoyable, but that's wrong. He's just a writer who figured out how to write the way the everyman thinks he would write if he had a column. In truth, the everyman would suck as a writer, but reading Simmons allows him to indulge himself and believe, if only on a subconscious level, that he would and could sound like that too. There's nothing wrong or dishonest about this. Simmons is legitimately a sports nut, and he's developed a writing style that hits his audience in a unique and successful way.
For this reason, I find it especially interesting that they chose to replace Simmons with Klosterman this week. For Klosterman is essentially the archetypical gen X writer. The big difference between him and Simmons is that Klosterman's material is not generally targeted at the sporting demographic, or written from the perspective of the typical sports fan. In the abstract, I think Klosterman's the better writer (although Simmons is certainly a good writer). It will be interesting to see how the Superbowl blog, a Simmons staple, plays out in his less specialized hands.
So apparently, the job of writing a blog about super bowl week for ESPN.com, which has gone to Bill Simmons for the last four years (except one year maybe?), has now been given to Chuck Klosterman. Now, the reason for this is probably something innocuous, like that Simmons has a new kid in the house and was tired of traveling on his book tour and his Patriots are not in the game anyway, so he'd just as soon stay home this year. But nevertheless, it makes me think about the whole Bill Simmons phenomenon.
If you are in the center target ESPN demographic (21-35 year old male who has no problem watching a couple hours of sports broadcasting a week), then it's very likely you already know who Bill Simmons is. He's easily the most-referenced writer on the message board of the football fantasy league I play with my high school friends. He gets brought up all over the place on fan boards around the net. Heck, some people even call him their favorite writer.
There's an anti-intellectualism in American culture in general, and in the "ESPN demographic" population in particular. What I call the "Bill Simmons phenomenon" is the fact that a writer, a columnist, has managed to transcend this anti-intellectualism, to the point that macho 20somethings having an argument in a bar can reference something he said by name and not get ridiculed for it. He's managed this trick through a variety of factors, but mostly through two things. One is the subject matter of his columns - gambling advice, talking about fantasy sports, running commentaries of sporting events, TV shows, and NBA drafts where he is constantly on the prowl for "unintentional comedy", mailbags where he virtually banters with his readers, and columns where he indulges his New England fanboy side. The other is his writing style - tons of pop culture references, undisguised homerism, opinions that are admittedly based on emotion rather than fact, and a willingness to make fun of his own writing or other media sources without hesitation. In short, in both subject matter and writing style, he sounds a lot more like a fan than the average sports columnist.
I find this interesting because, once you've read him for a while, it becomes clear that he does not fit the fratboy demographic that he is writing to. He is a writer, through and through, and he shares a lot more in common with the typical gen X writer than his target audience. He drinks a lot more coffee than alcohol, he is intensely self-critical, and he is always drinking in his surroundings in a never-ending search for material. I think there's a common perception out there that Bill Simmons is the everyman sports fan and that's why his writing is enjoyable, but that's wrong. He's just a writer who figured out how to write the way the everyman thinks he would write if he had a column. In truth, the everyman would suck as a writer, but reading Simmons allows him to indulge himself and believe, if only on a subconscious level, that he would and could sound like that too. There's nothing wrong or dishonest about this. Simmons is legitimately a sports nut, and he's developed a writing style that hits his audience in a unique and successful way.
For this reason, I find it especially interesting that they chose to replace Simmons with Klosterman this week. For Klosterman is essentially the archetypical gen X writer. The big difference between him and Simmons is that Klosterman's material is not generally targeted at the sporting demographic, or written from the perspective of the typical sports fan. In the abstract, I think Klosterman's the better writer (although Simmons is certainly a good writer). It will be interesting to see how the Superbowl blog, a Simmons staple, plays out in his less specialized hands.
# posted by Tarr : 1/31/2006 09:27:00 AM
