What is the importance of cover art when judging the quality of a wrestling book?

[tomk]

It is Observer awards season and I am always bothered by the candidates that people talk about for the best wrestling book award.

 

People rarely discuss the importance of cover art to wrestling books. Is wrestling book content overrated on the internet?

 

The IWC seems to ignore how important advertising/ballyhoo is to books. Books are really not about actual content (in the end they all are essentially just letters and pictures on paper organized in different ways). This is especially obvious in the case of wrestling books which are filled with careless misspellings, odd grammar, haphazard organization, and self contradicting statements. A wrestling book's value should be understood to be truly less about the words used in them or how those words are organized. The wrestling books value is really about what it takes to get you to purchase them off the shelf (the covers).

 

A good example of the IWC's myopia is that in the 2010 awards Mick Foley's "Countdown to Lockdown" got the observer wrestling book of the year award. It's cover design is just fucking awful, colors are obnoxious, photo is poorly developed and shoddy looking, and the shape of the book is dull. There is no way the casual customer would connect with it and want want to pick it up.

 

OTOH, Kartinka Herbert's "Slam" cover is beautifully designed is larger and has a fucking elaborate die cut slip case.

 

There is a whole long discussion to be had about die cuts and how a book cover with a hole in it is far more sophisticated than one that insists on the books closedness, not letting you peer into multiple layers.

 

Might be worth us having separate discussion threads on back covers, book spine and binding, typography and paper stock as well. But I think those are topics that could be introduced later.

[Johnny Sorrow]

[JerryvonKramer]

I didn't think this was very clever.

 

Also, mock while you will, but I did actually do a course in "Material methodologies" when I was at Oxford that looked into the impact of typography, font, paper stock and the binding process on the meaning of a given text. True story. Not a field I took any great interest in, but it does exist. There is quite a lot being done at the moment on how reading a physical book, for example, differs from reading an electronic book. If you're really interested tomk and you weren't being facetious in this thread, a good starting place might be here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transferred-Illusi...s/dp/0754670163

 

Also I think the idea that mic work is analogous in any way to a book cover is idiotic and since you took the trouble to make this ill-thought out lampoon, I have no problem saying that.

[El-P]

Doesn't matter. It all appears the same on Kindles.

[WingedEagle]

Bravo. Once a year this kind of garbage is great. Good work.

[tomk]

I didn't think this was very clever.

 

Also, mock while you will, but I did actually do a course in "Material methodologies" when I was at Oxford that looked into the impact of typography, font, paper stock and the binding process on the meaning of a given text. True story. Not a field I took any great interest in, but it does exist. There is quite a lot being done at the moment on how reading a physical book, for example, differs from reading an electronic book. If you're really interested tomk and you weren't being facetious in this thread, a good starting place might be here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transferred-Illusi...s/dp/0754670163

 

Also I think the idea that mic work is analogous in any way to a book cover is idiotic and since you took the trouble to make this ill-thought out lampoon, I have no problem saying that.

 

Clearly my attempt at light satire failed. I think part of the failure was due to the fact that I actually care about design and put some thought into comparing the design of two books.

 

Yes of course it is fair to discuss someone's mic skills. It is fair to discuss someone's skits. Each of the yearbook sets have multiple skits and mic work pieces on them and there are threads discussing those things.

 

Wrestling mic work is fascinating. Dean Rasmussen often talks about wrestling mic work as being the last place where you could listen to traditional Southern Oratory. In the US at least post microphone/post recorded sound/post radio/post television speaking is normally about the art of small intimate vocal gestures. We talk alot about the movement from the vocal styles of Al Jolson to the crooning of Bing Crosby, the movement from the speeches of William Jennings Bryant to the fireside chats of FDR. In the 80s at least , what we spoke of when we talk about good mic work is far closer to the Jolson/Bryant model than the Crosby/FDR one.

 

Wrestling skits are fascinating.

Johnny Valiant pimping Brutus Beefcake is like very little else on Saturday morning children's television:

 

 

LOSS:

 

Mic work is very important when debating mic work.

There have been several threads asking if mic work is important when judging a wrestler, or if other things are overvalued when judging a wrestler---and it feels to me pretty contentless. If I wanted to discuss micwork, there is nothing to stop me from starting a thread on micwork. If you want to argue that the basketball sketch is a five star sketch, nothing preventing you from actually discussing the merits of that sketch vis vis the Brutus sketch, Jimmy Valiant declaring War or Dr Wagner kicking the cat out a window. But multiple threads whining that people are ignoring the importance of micwork and sketches, when you don't seem to have any interest in discussing mic work (what makes for good wrestling mic work) or sketches deserves mockery.

 

I apologize if my mockery wasn't clever enough to get that point across.

[S.L.L.]

You know, I've said a few times now that most of the problems Jerry faces in his arguments are semantic ones, and really, this is the case here yet again. But it is different in one respect, in that Jerry's previous semantic misunderstandings made him seem like a guy who just plain didn't understand the terminology he was using (his claim that "psychology" meant "psyching out your opponent", for example...I'm reminded of an old Daily Show sketch where Steve Carrell thought "keeping hydrated" meant "inhaling hydrogen"). But here, it's purely a matter of the context of how those terms are used. "Good/great/best wrestler" as Jerry defines it is not defined incorrectly at all. The problem is that he's wandered onto a board that - not unlike many internet wrestling message boards - frequently uses the term "good/great/best wrestler" interchangeably with "good/great/best worker", and that alternate definition is used so often that everyone here understands and accepts it, even though they know it's not the only definition, even though they don't dispute the value of the other definition, and even though they use that alternate definition themselves in things like HOF discussions and whatnot.

 

I think if Jerry could learn to distinguish between "good/great/best wrestler (all things considered)" and "good/great/best wrestler (in-ring)", a lot of his problems with this issue would go away.

[Matt D]

I do think that some of the problem is that in order to defend a wrestler he wants to defend he has to loop in the rest, so he's going for the definition which best helps his cause.

[goodhelmet]

We all do that.

[NintendoLogic]

The problem is that Jerry operates under the assumption that the guys he marked out for as a kid are the end-all be-all of wrestling and works his way backward to whatever argument he thinks will lead to that conclusion.

[Matt D]

We all do that.

That we do. But we also understand the fact that it can be aberrational to what everyone else is talking about.

[Childs]

Don't think that's fair, NintendoLogic. Jerry was open, for example, to embracing Jumbo as an all-time great when he participated in the DVDVR All-Japan voting. We all have our favorites, guys we see in the best light no matter what. Jerry at least makes a real effort to explain what he loves about a Dibiase or a Flair.

[Loss]

Don't think that's fair, NintendoLogic. Jerry was open, for example, to embracing Jumbo as an all-time great when he participated in the DVDVR All-Japan voting. We all have our favorites, guys we see in the best light no matter what. Jerry at least makes a real effort to explain what he loves about a Dibiase or a Flair.

Agreed.

[NintendoLogic]

My first post was probably unnecessarily harsh, so I apologize for that. Still, while Jerry is willing to make arguments for the guys he likes, he seems to struggle with following those arguments to their logical conclusions and tends to shy away from addressing the strongest objections. That's what gives me the impression that they're not entirely thought out.

[JerryvonKramer]

Three points here:

 

1. Criticism 101 says that you should have a consistent theoretical / aesthetic framework when judging like for like items. Unless you're Aristotle it's difficult to come up with that from scratch unless A. you're reacting against an existing framework or B. you start with something you really like and work backwards from your conclusions to try to figure out how you got there. I do both of these things, I don't pretend to have a fully formed framework, justing working it out as I go along. I'd be suspicious of someone who was 100% sure that they've got eveything worked out.

 

2. I was a massive mark for IRS as a kid too, I had a big brief case and even got myself a pair of clear lens glasses at one stage. And Rotunda is one of the people I've been consistently most down on. DiBiase in WWF has become something of a hobby-horse of mine because I think he's sold short here. Certain people here are doing a very good job of testing that hypothesis and I'm trying to let it run its course. I spend the vast majority of my wrestling time watching and talking about stuff I DIDN'T see as a kid.

 

3. If I don't always follow my arguments through, it's because I am open to be persuaded otherwise. For example, I went long and hard at the Sting for HoF argument but the opposite side persuaded me that they were ultimately right and his case is weak. Arguments aren't a win or loss thing for me, if the opposition is right and persuade me to see that I'm wrong, I'm happy to concede.

 

(SIDE POINT:With this recent debate, Loss made a very good post and persuaded me that he was broadly correct in it with some lingering reversations. That reservation, incidentally, is that the wrestling and non-wrestling aspects of what a given wrestler does are dialectical and that the binary thinking that easily separates them is missing something fundamental about wrestling. I also suspect that, as *I think* OJ said, most people don't do that to the extent they profess. My feeling is that people don't want to have or think about that conversation, so I'm not pushing it.)

[jpchicago23]

I think you should be able to like what you like and not even have to jump through hoops to defend it. I mean who gives a fuck if someone disagrees with it, no one here or anywehre for that matter is the be all end all of wrestling and has the authority to say what is good and what isnt. Debate is cool but some people take it too far and shit on people's opinions as if their way of seeing wrestler A is the right way and that's the gospel. I mean sometimes you just like what you like with no rhyme or reason.

[Loss]

Sure. But the purpose of wrestling message boards is to talk about why we like what we like. There's no animus on my part when I'm having a spirited discussion with someone. Well, maybe a little with Flair/Bret ...

[Matt D]

Please imagine this in my best Judd Nelson making fun of Anthony Michael Hall from the breakfast club voice.

 

"I like this!"

"I like that!"

"That's great that you like that!"

"That's great that you like this!"

"Well, have a good day."

"You too! Have a super swell day."

 

I think we've had a month or two span of some great notes and the reason, as always, is that people back up what they say (or at least try to). I say they continue to do so or else they will be the subject of horrible peer pressure and ridicule. On PWO you're not just allowed to like what you like, dammit. Here, you march through the walk of death on hot coals with paddles smacking you each step of the way.

[JerryvonKramer]

I do feel a bit guilty about not replying to Dylan here. That's the debate equivalent of a duck and weave, but he's asking me to justify why DiBiase is better than The Nasty Boys.

 

This is arguably the only wrestling board on the internet that would require someone to make that argument, it's hard work.

[jpchicago23]

Right, i love the debate and thats all good but when someone people act like they're knowledge is the gospel and shit on other people's opinions is what gets me. Its not everybody and its only really here and there but damn more positivity and shedding light and stuff would be good to see. Are people that jaded about wrestling?

[Loss]

We're all going to do that from time to time. I personally don't think it's a big deal if someone tells me to fuck off in the middle of one these debates, if it's in the context of a spirited argument over something that everyone involved knows is meaningless, but we're having fun. I try not to do that because I realize not everyone sees it that way, and I want this to be a place where people enjoy posting and reading.

 

We all have things we care about more than we should in our lives -- this being one of them for me -- and I think it's entertaining. Tone can be misread on a message board, but I'm sure lots of us get in arguments in our own lives with people that are close to us where a transcript may read a little ugly, but it's all in good fun. That's how I look at this.

 

I don't think that's an invitation to start calling everyone an asshole or an idiot because of differing opinions on Ted DiBiase, but I also think having a thick skin is helpful. After all, we're just talking about wrestling, not anything important like where to go for dinner.

 

As for opinions, I think my opinions are right. If I thought they were wrong, I would change them. I sometimes do think they're wrong and later change them. It doesn't mean I can't be wrong, but it does mean I'm pretty sure that my thought on something is correct, or else I wouldn't think it. I suspect deep down that everyone here is the same on that.

 

Debating people over trivial things is one of my favorite real life things to do as well. One of my friends recently did his top 10 Prince songs, and I started berating him over the lack of non-singles. It's just what we do.

 

The give-and-take is fun. It's why interacting on a message board beats reading and writing a column every day of the week. When you have people who enjoy a hobby as much as we do here, occasionally the gloves will come off. I see nothing wrong with that myself.

[Matt D]

I think on this board we know what we get into the second we log in. There are plenty of other places to go on the net and talk wrestling, and even one or two which are normatively similar enough that you won't be goggling in disgust.

[Ricky Jackson]

Right, i love the debate and thats all good but when someone people act like they're knowledge is the gospel and shit on other people's opinions is what gets me. Its not everybody and its only really here and there but damn more positivity and shedding light and stuff would be good to see. Are people that jaded about wrestling?

Compared to a lot of other boards and wrestling hangouts on the internet, this place is a haven of politeness and understanding. I think the difference between here and some other places is that, yeah, a lot of otherwise conventional internet opinions are challenged (eg. the greatness of Michaels and Angle), and you need to back things up with something more than "Flair sux, Bret rulz u loser", you are dealing with people who watch more wrestling in a day than most do in a lifetime, so they can argue just about ANYTHING and back it up in a way that is well thought out and not just a bunch of swearing and ridicule. You can like whatever you like, but if you choose to make a post with a arguable statement of some sort ("Sting should be in the WON HoF") someone is going to step up and challenge it. Just don't take it personal.

[evilclown]

This isn't going to be about me? BAIT AND SWITCH!

[jpchicago23]

Right, i love the debate and thats all good but when someone people act like they're knowledge is the gospel and shit on other people's opinions is what gets me. Its not everybody and its only really here and there but damn more positivity and shedding light and stuff would be good to see. Are people that jaded about wrestling?

Compared to a lot of other boards and wrestling hangouts on the internet, this place is a haven of politeness and understanding. I think the difference between here and some other places is that, yeah, a lot of otherwise conventional internet opinions are challenged (eg. the greatness of Michaels and Angle), and you need to back things up with something more than "Flair sux, Bret rulz u loser", you are dealing with people who watch more wrestling in a day than most do in a lifetime, so they can argue just about ANYTHING and back it up in a way that is well thought out and not just a bunch of swearing and ridicule. You can like whatever you like, but if you choose to make a post with a arguable statement of some sort ("Sting should be in the WON HoF") someone is going to step up and challenge it. Just don't take it personal.

 

 

Yea i totally agree with you i guess i was just thrown off by a few comments i saw. I mean wrestling in itself is very subjective and there are many different variations and to me thats what makes it great. I just think of an opinion as an opinion and not the truth if that makes sense? This is a very good board and is my favorite that i've ever come across by far.