Although rumors were flying around the Internet for most of the week, I didn't really believe Steve Rushin was leaving Sports Illustrated until I flipped open this week's issue and came upon his farewell column. Like the hundreds that proceeded it, this column was full of clever word-play and inventive phrasing. It's the kind of creative writing you won't find in any other magazine, and certainly not on any blog out there.
While I didn't start reading Rushin religiously until I had already made up my mind that journalism was for me, he had a profound impact on my motivation. In April of 2001, Rushin wrote a column about how sports, unlike much of American life, rewards absurd aspirations. It started with him recalling his childhood days, when he wrote about the Minnesota Twins on his mom's typewriter in his basement, dreaming of one day working for Sports Illustrated. It continued with quotes from a dozen athletes or coaches saying how they realized their dreams through sports. He quotes Willie Wonka.
My favorite part is toward the end:
The world belongs to those who see its possibilities. Dreaming is like believing in God or enrolling in the United frequent-flier program: It costs nothing, yet has potentially transcendent rewards. Why not dream? Yours can be aduaciously gigantic: A teenage Ted Williams, after all, dreamed of people seeing him and saying, "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived." (Now, remarkably they do just that.)
Or your dream can be laughably humble: Seven years after I graduated from high school, the Twins won Game 7 of the World Series at the Metrodome, and I drove a rental care through downtown Minneapolis to my childhood home in the suburbs, where I wrote, in the basement, the story for Sports Illustrated.
The dream fulfilled is every bit as fantastic as I once imagined it to be.
The column inspired me to dream big. So I did. I had several in mind, but the biggest one was to get a chance to cover the Final Four. Two years later, I realized my dream (granted, Dwyane Wade, Travis Diener and Robert Jackson had something to do with it). I covered the Final Four in New Orleans for the student paper at Marquette, but not before unfolding a copy of the column and reading it one more time on press row.
Rushin was unique in the fact that he made you stand on your head. For the most part, his was a light-hearted foray into the world of sports that couldn't be found elsewhere. Some didn't like that he wrote about his family alot, but I thought Rushin was at his best when he was at his most genuine. The columns about his wife, his daughters, his dad or his brothers were his best.
Those that only know him through his column should run out to a book store and pick up "Road Swing" and the "Caddie Was a Reindeer" right now. You won't be disappointed.
I know that I and many others eagerly await his next endeavor.
2 comments:
I never miss a chance to mention that
I bought my paperback copy of "Road Swing" at a used book store. When I got it home I found that it was apparently autographed by Rushin to the guy who dumped it at a used book store.
That's not exactly a glowing endorsement, but I enjoyed the book.
Alas, now there is only one reason for me to subscribe to SI -- the photos. Rushin has been my favorite columnist for a long time. He played a large role in my becoming a writer as well.
Too bad it was not Rick Reilly who decided to walk.
Now I hope SI keeps taking awesome photos. If they don't, there's not much reason to buy it.
And while I'm here...I didn't feel like signing up for the forum, but I'd like to add my two cents in the WIAA photo/video "debate."
The endless buzz about it at the WNA conference was nauseating. Now that the state newspapers are taking it to the readers, I'm actually a bit angry. Well, as much as a pacifist can be angry, I guess.
It's a $100 fee -- for state events only! Papers still get to take photos, write stories and use interactive features on Web sites.
The only thing the WIAA is saying is pony up for years of taking cash off the top by selling prints. If papers can't raise their print prices enough to offset the $100 fee, don't sell prints. Have the players' family and friends buy a few copies of the paper and get out a pair of scissors. It wouldn't be horrible if you could add a few single-copy sales.
Although the WIAA is a non-profit, doesn't it make good business sense to make a few extra dollars while at the same time having a bargaining stance with the private contractors that sell the photos at a highers price than the papers? (Nice sentence. Maybe I shouldn't be a writer. I'm tired. Give me a break.)
It's a matter between the WIAA and the newspapers. I wish the readers would be kept out of it. I also wish the papers would not try to make it seem like "The Man" is keeping them down. They've been getting by on a loophole for years. As long as there is a private contract, that loophole has to end because there's no reason why a business would willing want to be undersold.
I know $100 is a lot for a Gannett newspaper, but whatever.
My favorite part is how, at least in The Northwestern's editorial, there's a chance for papers to play the martyr. In the NW editorial they mercilously bashed the fee but never wrote that they would not pay the fee. It's all set up for the papers to be the good guy with their painfully obvious PR spin.
"It's not fair. We wanted you to know what a meany the WIAA is. However, because we care for our readers so much, we are going to take the finacial hit for you, because you are the reason why we do what we do. Aren't we great?
Love you,
The WNA and even the filthy non-member newspapers"
Works out great that way, huh? Needless to say the topic should not have been taken to the readers, to whom the papers are doing a huge disservice by making them a choose a side in a meaningless ($100) debate. Gross, indeed.
I could go on for days on this, but I think you get my point. I wrote a response on The Northwestern's Web site, but it took me too long and my session timed out and I could not retrieve it. You are the poor souls who must bear the brunt of that miscue.
In my NW response, I offered to contribute $25 toward the fee if that meant I would not have to read another pandering editorial. I also suggested it take a collection at the games so the struggling outfit can give the coverage and services it so badly wants to offer to its precious readers, who are left hanging in the wind until a miracle happens and the day is saved.
Hereafter, I'll offer that to you, because I like you much more, John. Though it must be stated that the divine Mr. Casper did not come out against the proposal. He asked what I thought of it. Now after my long-winded, sloppy writing, I'm sure he rues the question.
Disagree? Let me hear the other side. I could be wrong.
p.s. while I'm here as well: Critique?
Post a Comment