evilclown Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Will be speaking to him soon. What've you got for wrestling's leading mainstream voice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Will be speaking to him soon. What've you got for wrestling's leading mainstream voice? Is it too snarky to ask about his influences in terms of writing about wrestling? I'd at least be curious to know his background as a smart fan. Did he come in with the online boom in the late 90s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 Not a question but tell him to knock off the Reality Era crap he keeps trying to push. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 I'm mean. Did he read anything other than Fall Guys when working on the early chapter(s) in the book? If so what? It is clear from the book that he is a big fan of WWF. To what degree did that shape the way he framed the book, and does he think the historical narratives promoted by the WWE were a major influence on him? Also, to what degree did his own status as a fan, effect the way he wrote about certain people (I'm thinking of someone like Pillman here in particular)? The sidebar on the Ultimate Warrior seems out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the book (obviously you aren't going to ask this unless you preface it with "critics say..."), why did he feel it needed to be included? Given that this was the rare book on wrestling published by a major publisher, with a huge media blitz, what was the fact checking process like? Did he consult others with knowledge on the history of wrestling? Wrestling journalists? Does he feel any responsibility for the fact that his book is likely to be a "go to history" for certain sorts of fans? There are many things about the book that could be debated, but some facts are wrong. As wrestling culture and geek culture tend to overlap a ton, does he view his critics as nitpickers missing the bigger point, or when someone points out an error or flaw does it bother him and make him think "I wish I would have caught that?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 My poorly worded question would be something like, "Since WWE TV rights fees have eclipsed PPV revenue for several years now, do you believe the structure of building feuds with the payoff at monthly PPVs is going to be vastly altered in the near future?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Ewiak Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 "The sidebar on the Ultimate Warrior seems out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the book (obviously you aren't going to ask this unless you preface it with "critics say..."), why did he feel it needed to be included?" He answered this in either his Grantland podcast he does or the podcast with Simmons. Basically it was, "Warrior's too wacky not to write about." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstar Sleeze Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 I wanted to ask a question about he chose to format the book and how that ties into the objective of the book, but first could someone confirm this is the actual table of contents (got this off the Amazon Sample Page): Goldern Era Hackenschmidt Territorial Era Gorgeous George Fabulous Moolah Von Erichs Terry Gordy Bruiser Brody Wahoo McDaniel & Chief Jay Strongbow The Spoiler Wrestlemania Era (Awfully termed) S.D. Jones JYD Andre Capt. Lou Savage Liz Road Warriors, Fabulous Kangaroos Rude Bulldog Perfect ULTIMATE WARRIOR (LOL, he gets his own era. Suck it Bret & Shawn!) Modern Era Attitude Era Crush (WTF) Bossman Owen Yoko Borga Pillman Kanyon Benoit & Guerrero Is that really the table of contents? If so, why did he exclude JCP/WCW wrestlers? (Arguments can be made for Roadies and McDaniel, but overall they were clearly neglected) What was he trying to achieve with this book? Is it supposed to be a survey of the colorful characters of pro wrestling or something more? How did he decide which wrestlers to include? What is the take home message of this book? What specific assertions about the tenets of pro wrestling did he try to convey in this book? Since the book reaches back to nascent carny period of wrestling at the turn of the 20th century, how does he feel the fundamentals of wrestling have changed? Obviously, the presentation has changed, but if you strip away the big arenas, all the production values has pro wrestling really changed from Gotch vs Jenkins or Gotch vs Hackenschimdt? Asshole question: When WWF gloriously rescued pro wrestling from the smoke-filled recreational halls, dingy bars and sweaty bingo halls in 1984, did all other pro wrestling promotions cease to exist? Based on the table of contents, I feel like this is supposed to be a series of vignettes aimed at childhood 80s WWF fans as they garner a little more insight of their favorites whilst feeling intellectually stimulated as the author masquerades as deep by connecting these vignettes to larger social issues. I gleaned that just from the table of contents. I could be totally off base so I would really like to hear his answer for the the intent of the book. The evolution question, he could easily side-step or miss the point and does not interest me as much as why he chose to do this book as a series of profiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstar Sleeze Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 "The sidebar on the Ultimate Warrior seems out of place and inconsistent with the rest of the book (obviously you aren't going to ask this unless you preface it with "critics say..."), why did he feel it needed to be included?" He answered this in either his Grantland podcast he does or the podcast with Simmons. Basically it was, "Warrior's too wacky not to write about." I may be misinterpreting Dyaln's question. I don't think he was asking why Warrior was profiled. I think Warrior is an essential person to profile in the history of the WWF post-1984. It is why Warrior got his own Interregnum Era? Usually Bret & Shawn get the sort of bridge era between Hogan & Attitude Era with Warrior being a failed experiment in the Hulkamania era. However, he recasts history as Hogan -> Warrior->Modern (New Generation, Attitude, and Now). Thus it does seem weird to me. That maybe another great formatting question. How did he break down the eras? Why is the modern era not further parceled into the New Generation, Attitude and Modern era? Why is Warrior treated as an interregnum era? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 If you want to be nice, I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts on the territories and the international scene, if he has any at all. If you want to be mean, please ask all questions about wrestlers using their real names and try to use inside terms as much as possible. Try to sound as teen smark as possible. (Example: "How did Bollea get away with not jobbing to Borden at Starrcade? Ego run awry that he treated Borden like a jobber?") If you want to be cruel, bombard him with questions about the decline of Joshi and the history of lucha libre. You could also get his opinions on how All Japan TV going from one hour to 30 minutes in 1994 affected the promotion's mid card talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Why are Blue Panther and Satanico on the cover? That is them, right? If so, where is the lucha section? Does he agree with me that Satanico is the greatest lucha worker of the tape era? Is Blue Panther better off without the mask? Will Cien Caras ever make the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame? El Dandy so underrated he's overrated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilclown Posted November 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Good stuff. Reader questions, I think, can be snarkier than journalist questions.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Why is Warrior treated as an interregnum era? I'm guessing he previously wrote a really big piece on him and wanted to shoehorn it into the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superstar Sleeze Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Why is Warrior treated as an interregnum era? I'm guessing he previously wrote a really big piece on him and wanted to shoehorn it into the book? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.