George Will (1941-), American Newspaper Columnist, Journalist, and Author

[DonRocks]

I love Boswell's writing too, but as to your second sentence you should chomp down hard on your tongue. George Will is a horrible prose stylist, whose work manages to combine slapdash under-writing with pompous, ersatz "erudition". George Will couldn't carry Thomas Boswell's jock, if you'll pardon the expression.

I promise this is not a political statement, but I have never been able to finish an entire George Will column. Speaking *only* in terms of his writing, I agree with Herschel: Will was incredibly boring to me thirty years ago, and he's just as boring to me today. There have been several times when I've started one of his columns, determined to finish it, but I've given up in the middle - even when the column has been about baseball.

[The Hersch]

I promise this is not a political statement, but I have never been able to finish an entire George Will column. Speaking *only* in terms of his writing, I agree with Herschel: Will was incredibly boring to me thirty years ago, and he's just as boring to me today. There have been several times when I've started one of his columns, determined to finish it, but I've given up in the middle - even when the column has been about baseball.

Yeah, although I tend to disagree with just about everything Will has to say (especially when he makes stuff up that isn't true), I'm only talking here about the quality of his writing.

[DonRocks]

Yeah, although I tend to disagree with just about everything Will has to say (especially when he makes stuff up that isn't true), I'm only talking here about the quality of his writing.

[Like the U.S. Senate thread, this is going to be a test of both my patience and my moderation skills. For a partisan such as Will, here are the ground rules:

Do:

Discuss his reputed erudition, dry writing style, biography, love of baseball, syndication, reporting content, factual errors, philosophy (in a detached fashion), and other non-political and non-religious characteristics.

Don't:

Praise or criticize his conservatism, atheism, political viewpoints, etc., but it's perfectly fine to mention them as factual components comprising a broader discussion.

This is where Al Dente chimes in and says "His column on baseball seems to have been influenced by the fact that he's such a right-wing, butter-sucking, ileocecal valve."

No!

There isn't a single subject or person that cannot be discussed here without sinking into a political or religious diatribe. If we can have a topic about Thomas Boswell, then we can have a topic about George Will. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Al Sharpton. Or the SAE video. Or anything else. This is a forum for educated adults who respect other people's political and religious viewpoints, and are aware of their surroundings and readership.

Please understand that as moderator, I will need to delete any post that passes judgment on politics or religion. I'm well aware that the wisecracks are coming, so please understand that I'll be deleting those as well, but will have a smile on my face when I do. Please also remember that this is not Facebook (as much as people like Facebook, the truth is that the vast majority of comments there are devoid of substance, and the worst-of-the-worst could be written by a six-year-old neo-Nazi).

I didn't bring up George Will, but these two posts about him don't belong in the Thomas Boswell thread; yet, there is absolutely no reason to delete them (although saying "I tend to disagree with just about everything X has to say" is nothing more than saying "I'm a Y," serves little purpose, and might be construed as inflammatory by a large percentage of the readership - this holds true for all values of X when X is a political or religious subject. Please be respectful of other people, even if they don't agree with your political or religious viewpoints.]

[Kibbee Nayee]

I love Boswell's writing too, but as to your second sentence you should chomp down hard on your tongue. George Will is a horrible prose stylist, whose work manages to combine slapdash under-writing with pompous, ersatz "erudition". George Will couldn't carry Thomas Boswell's jock, if you'll pardon the expression.

I don't disagree with you, but I should have said "George Will, when writing about baseball..."

George Will when writing about politics, or whatever he writes about on a regular basis, is unreadable. George Will, when writing about baseball, actually speaks from the heart and is damned good about it. He is known as "Stretch" in the SABR community, which was his childhood Little League nickname.

George Will once began one of his rare baseball-only columns (this was 30 years ago at least), with "The Bible, who some refer to as the Sporting News of Religion..." Hooked me from the first line.

[DonRocks]

George Will once began one of his rare baseball-only columns (this was 30 years ago at least), with "The Bible, who some refer to as the Sporting News of Religion..." Hooked me from the first line.

Here you go: 

[The Hersch]

I don't disagree with you, but I should have said "George Will, when writing about baseball..."

George Will when writing about politics, or whatever he writes about on a regular basis, is unreadable. George Will, when writing about baseball, actually speaks from the heart and is damned good about it. He is known as "Stretch" in the SABR community, which was his childhood Little League nickname.

George Will once began one of his rare baseball-only columns (this was 30 years ago at least), with "The Bible, who some refer to as the Sporting News of Religion..." Hooked me from the first line.

I never cared enough about George Will's views on anything to consult his writing on baseball, so my views on that subject are obviously uninformed. I do remember, though, someone whose views I always found interesting and generally well-informed on Usenet back in the old days referred to George Will's baseball book as White Men at Work. I have no idea how just that characterization might be, but I felt rather warned off by it.

[DonRocks]

I do remember, though, someone whose views I always found interesting and generally well-informed on Usenet back in the old days referred to George Will's baseball book as White Men at Work. I have no idea how just that characterization might be, but I felt rather warned off by it.

Considering there's a 70-page chapter highlighting Tony Gwynn, probably not very.

[The Hersch]

 Considering there's a 70-page chapter highlighting Tony Gwynn, probably not very.

For what it's worth, here is the post, from June 12, 1991, in rec.sport.baseball, that I was referring to:

Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball by George Will

Some good writing on the functioning of a team, and on the attitudes of ballplayers, but a very strangfe book.  Aside from a visit with Tony Gwynn (before his partial fall from grace), it's pretty much "White Men at Work," and I get the feeling that there's something missing from Will's account -- the play in the work. And ever since he wrote that piece for the NYT Book Review telling Ted Williams how he should have hit (!!!!!), I'm less of a fan. (But the piece on Pete Rose, a review of the Rose/Giamatti book, in the NYRB was pretty good.)

Remarkable that I can recall that at will nearly a quarter-century removed, isn't it?