Thursday, April 04, 2013
Everyone is going to be writing about Roger Ebert, and that's fine. His writing was perceptive and I enjoyed reading his stuff. The whole "battle" idea of cancer, or illness in general has always seemed to me to be a very bad way to describe what happens to people. In contrast to that Ebert lived with his disease the way I'd hope I would. He wrote meaningfully about it, and he continued to do the work he loved. A class act, who certainly suffered but never complained. I hope it went easy for him.
All that said, I'm afraid that the death of Stan Issacs is likely to be over looked, and that would be a shame. Isaacs was the sportswriter for Newsday that covered the Mets, and he was terrific. It is fair to say that reading his stuff was an important reason I still read newspapers, and have always loved sports.
All that said, I'm afraid that the death of Stan Issacs is likely to be over looked, and that would be a shame. Isaacs was the sportswriter for Newsday that covered the Mets, and he was terrific. It is fair to say that reading his stuff was an important reason I still read newspapers, and have always loved sports.
// posted by Bill @ 4:30 PM 
|
Comments:
<< Home
With all due respect, I'm not sure you're in the best position to describe what having cancer is like.
(Ducking) My point, perhaps made inartfully, was that it is a too-glib description of a horrible thing. We say that someone has battled cancer and we think we have described what they have experienced, but we haven't really. It has become a commonplace expression that is stripped of whatever meaning it might have had. And seriously, is that what you say? "I battled cancer"?
<< Home
Post a Comment