Tributes I & II

[sek69]

Anyone ever read the two Meltzer books? I scored them both off eBay for like $24 total including shipping and I was wondering if anyone here has ever read them. Specifically, are these just collections of Observer bits (which would be fine by me) or does he add new information?

[goodhelmet]

I have both but I think they are just Observer articles put into book form. Unfortunately, I don't have any of the older Observers that would confirm this.

[kjh]

I believe they're just edited versions of his Observer articles.

[Loss]

On that note, is Lex Luger the only guy to ever get a pre-emptive WON obit? Just curious, because he basically used Liz's bio to write about Luger as well, and I don't think he's ever done that for anyone else.

[shoe]

On that note, is Lex Luger the only guy to ever get a pre-emptive WON obit? Just curious, because he basically used Liz's bio to write about Luger as well, and I don't think he's ever done that for anyone else.

 

 

Well the Davey Boy Smith one in book 2 was full of Dynamite stuff. Then again they were tied with each other for years.

[sek69]

I got the second book tonight, and I noticed something. Now I've only been a WON subscriber for a less than a year but when he does an obit in the newsletter it seems like he always ends with a paragraph on the time leading up to the person's death. In the book, it seems like there's a paragraph missing where it just ends well before the person being talked about dies.

 

Like for the Andre story, it basically ends with his last WWF run in 1992 and a brief mention of returning to All Japan. No mention of his final appearance on WCW TV, or him being in Paris for his father's funeral when he died (which I always thought seemed a poetic way for the big guy to go out). Hell, there wasn't even a mention of the famous shitting-on-Bad-News story which Dave *always* finds a way to work in when talking about either guy.

[sek69]

Finished reading both books, excellent reads. The first book seemed to be more of a direct copy of the usual WON style obits and didn't seem to be edited like the second book where it feels like the story was cut off midway. It's also funny to see how he lifts from his own work, since the Road Warrior Hawk story had some parts lifted pretty much verbatim for the story in the latest WON about the formation of the Horsemen.

 

Did Meltzer ever mention why there's repeats between the two books? I thought the Owen and Andre stories were done better in the first book (despite Dave again mentioning the "Andre shit on Bad News" story that was left out in the second book), I don't see why they needed to be reprinted.

 

Having said all that, I can see why folks like Keller get bent out of shape and call Dave ghoulish for making money off dead wrestlers. On one hand, you figure Meltzer wants to write everything he can about a guy in an obituary since it would probably be the last time he'd go in such depth about a person, but after reading two books full of stories of steroid abuse and drug overdoses it kind of gets creepy. It's not his fault, it's just reading story after story of how guys from the 60s and 70s seem to live long lives and guys from the 80s and 90s all die in their 40s from enlarged hearts makes you want to suck on a tailpipe after a while.

[Bix]

Finished reading both books, excellent reads. The first book seemed to be more of a direct copy of the usual WON style obits and didn't seem to be edited like the second book where it feels like the story was cut off midway. It's also funny to see how he lifts from his own work, since the Road Warrior Hawk story had some parts lifted pretty much verbatim for the story in the latest WON about the formation of the Horsemen.

I don't think he even does it intentionally, but his set talking points get in the way.

 

Having said all that, I can see why folks like Keller get bent out of shape and call Dave ghoulish for making money off dead wrestlers. On one hand, you figure Meltzer wants to write everything he can about a guy in an obituary since it would probably be the last time he'd go in such depth about a person, but after reading two books full of stories of steroid abuse and drug overdoses it kind of gets creepy. It's not his fault, it's just reading story after story of how guys from the 60s and 70s seem to live long lives and guys from the 80s and 90s all die in their 40s from enlarged hearts makes you want to suck on a tailpipe after a while.

Keller was actually nastier and really petty about it, saying that Meltzer was just using the obits to so he could call the deceased's friends for comment and then use them as sources.

[jdw]

I think with some there's been a feeling that Dave is marketing issues off deaths.

 

Is he?

 

Yes.

 

Is he ghoulish about it?

 

I don't know. Perhaps I'm use to it now that the updates pimping obits don't make any impact on me.

 

Do I give a shit?

 

Sure. Largely because they're one of the things I tend to find interesting in the WON. Dave may end up having 70 issues this years. The ones that I tend to read with some interest and care are largely the obits. The rest is generally "crapped reading material" - as in stuff you read while taking a crap, or while doing something similar. Standing in line ordering food. In line at the bank. While taking my nightly walk if it's still light out.

 

That's not to say what he writes is garbage. But the 900th itteration of "Vince Is Nuts And Changes His Mind On A Daily Basis" itsn't terribly interesting at the moment. Orton having problems isn't interesting at all - he's had them before. Etc.

 

The Obits are worth reading, even when I disagree with them. Some of the MMA stuff is readable. A bit of the WWE here and there is readable. But large chunks of the newsletter are skim material, similar to reading The Sporting News.

 

So I tend to enjoy the obits. It makes bitching about his marketing of them a bit tough on my part.

 

 

John

[Bix]

But the 900th itteration of "Vince Is Nuts And Changes His Mind On A Daily Basis" itsn't terribly interesting at the moment. Orton having problems isn't interesting at all - he's had them before. Etc.

Oh c'mon, Vince making fun of Louisville and almost shutting down the whole developmental system is pretty great.

[anarchistxx]

Isn't reading while taking a nightly walk quite difficult?

 

Unless, of course, you stopped at a bench to read, or walked at a less than brisk pace.

[Loss]

The Observer isn't really calculated enough to "market" anything. It's obvious everything Keller does is planned and structured, but I always got the feeling from Meltzer that he just wants to write a lot about wrestling and hopefully make money doing it. I never feel like I'm being peddled, because he interacts with people regularly who don't even subscribe to his newsletter.

[jdw]

Oh c'mon, Vince making fun of Louisville and almost shutting down the whole developmental system is pretty great.

 

Shutting down the whole developmental was 1-2 sentences in a 12 page issue. Dave's written about developmental in the past. It's not a terribly fresh story.

 

It's also Jody Hamilton, and I could give a flying fuck about him.

 

 

John

[jdw]

Isn't reading while taking a nightly walk quite difficult?

No.

 

 

John

[goodhelmet]

The comparison to the Sporting News could not be more accurate.

[sek69]

I can't decide which is the best story of the books so far, it's between:

 

1: The WWF going to the Illinois commission to get Kerry barred from facing Lawler by stating an ancient statute against wrestlers competing with amputated limbs. Meltzer stated there was no reason to do this business-wise, they were just being dicks and trying to ruin the show.

 

or

 

 

2. Hogan trying to get WCW to sign practically the whole Anoa'i family just so he could get his win back from Yokozuna. A Samoan Invasion on WCW TV would have been tremendous. Also, the WWF kept it from happening by promising big pushes for Yoko and Fatu, which according to the timeline would suggest the reason behind the "Makin' A Difference Fatu" gimmick.

[sek69]

In the interest of not starting another Meltzer-centric topic, anyone ever order any of the Observer 80s Yearbooks? They look interesting but that Canadian dude who sells them (and pre 90s back issues) was A) irritatingly vague when I asked about them and charges out the ass for shipping on them. If I'm expected to pay 50% shipping on a book, at least tell me something other than "I make 'em myself!!".

[shoe]

I have the 89 Observer Yearbook ironically autographed by Mark Henry and it's a pretty fun read. They have all the observer awards of that year, plus all the previous years. It has a summary of the key things that happened in 89 and for the past decade. They have a list of the top workers, and the top 100 matches of the 80's. Plus a lot of other neat stuff.

[jdw]

The Yearbooks are worth having. The 1986 one is pretty lightweight, and the 1987 (Best of the first five years) isn't as good as one would think. The 1988, 1989 and 1990 were all good reads.

 

1982 is really just the first issue. Worth having if you're collecting everything, but as a stand alone doesn't give you much. 1983 and 1984 are yearbooks/issues on the old (1983-85) original format of the WON. Worth having, but they don't have as many added items of interest as the 1988-90 ones.

 

1985 was actually just an issue of the WON, not disimilar to now. It was a hard one to track down for some reason... one of the last of all of them that I picked up in the early 90s. Probably the least essential of all of them, just for collectors/completists.

 

The 1989 Yearbook was "the" collectors item back in the day, along with the Who's Who book. Dave's opening piece on the decade and Bowdren's Top 100 were seen as great reference items. They age... oddly.

 

The 1990 Yearbook had a "Top Stories of the Year" section that at the time looked like one of the better things Dave had done. I haven't read it in a while, and don't know how well it holds up. At the very least it does give a good idea of what was seen as the the top stories of the year at the time, and what he thought of them. To a degree one wishes he continued doing at least that in the following years. Wade does it, but Wade is focused on just the US. Whether one agrees with Dave or disagrees with him, having a quick reference of the top stories of a given year in one place is useful.

 

 

John

[Loss]

I really want to get the full lot of '89 Observers and the Yearbook at some point in the near future. That always felt to me like it was the time Dave had more fun covering wrestling than any other time period, because he loved the Flair stuff that year so much, and there was a near-constant stream of Turner politics that year.

[jdw]

The politics were a bit of the first part of the year with Scott. After that, I don't recall a lot other than (a) Steamer getting screwed, and ( the baggy not being liked. But other than that, it was one of the less nutty politics year. 1990 and 1991 were where all hell broke loose, and it would continue on from there.

 

The 1989 WONs were great reads when I first got them. I think in hindsight it would be an interesting year to write about (along with 1990) less for how it was seen then but how one can see it now looking back.

 

John