I read articles in the section “Sports Nut” since I am a big sports enthusiast. The style of the writer seems to be one of either direct connection or a narrative style.
Citing lack of support from the household the writer says “Unfortunately for the USTA, national organizations with comprehensive mission statements don't produce tennis champions. Crazy tennis parents do.” As sports go, there are those crazy parents and I can agree with the writer.
The writer next starts out the paragraph with “Consider the Williams sisters. As the story goes, their father, Richard, upon learning of the lucre that women's tennis offered, decided to make his next two kids into tennis pros.” Connecting one point to another helps this writer’s narrative style and keep the reader interested.
The style allows me to browse because it keeps giving scenarios where parents have overtaken their children’s lives in order to make them millionaires and champions in sports.
The article takes an unexpected turn but it still keeps me reading closely when the writer says “sociopathy—the utter lack of a conscience…happens to be really useful on court.” I like when writers touch into the psychology of sports simply because a fan or an outsider to a sport does not know the ins and outs of training, competing, and winning on a consistent basis. Because simply put, “Great players reduce their opponents to targets that must be eliminated.”
It sparks an emotional response because I have been involved in sports all the way until I attended college. So it makes sense to me and I want to speak out to defend the writer’s words.
The Slate prose, despite the ads and such that overlap them, is something I definitely like to read on the screen. When something is on the screen that appeals to me, I can read the pieces and stay interested, especially when it talks about sports.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply