I don't have an axe to grind with him at all I just don't care for him. I often don't disagree with what he has to say rather how he puts it or how he gets to whatever it is he's trying to say. I agree with you that what he says is often a great articulation of how some CDCians (ites?) feel but I'd hardly say that is necessarily a good thing. I wouldn't argue that it's a good thing to get people reading his articles. At that Gallagher is a pro...but that's not really what I was saying.
I think this article is good, and while I don't really have an opinion on Gallagher as a person, I do think he's quite the wordsmith sometimes. I don't really know what a 14 year old's journalistic style would be, but it seems to me like you've just got an axe to grind with this dude, which is fair, but I don't. And to me, the article is a great articulation of the consensus that many Canucks fans--perhaps embarrassingly and shamefully--are experiencing. Or, less shamefully, they can be found all over this forum flat out declaring their paranoid beliefs, opinions, and insane delusions.
No I think it's absolutely true that most canucks fans (or fan of any team that hasn't "won it all" in a long period of time feel)are a bit emo. Again I didn't really question that at all. I will say though you saying he's good and saying he's basically saying the same things some fans on CDC say (the doom and gloomers if you will) is a contradiction to me.
The subtitle of the actual article says "strange things are justifying the fans' traditional sense of dread" -- and I think that's entirely accurate. The entire point of the article is to highlight the seemingly absurd sequence of events that have happened in a brief recent period, and how they seem to fuel Canucks fans' fervor, and how is that NOT true at all?
That is his job and I wouldn't advocate for him to be fired from that job. Is the director of the highest grossing movie of any given year the best director that year? When a journalist starts reading into things and then follows it up by saying that an individual never really said that but of course his interpretation must be correct and that's his main point that sends up a great big red flag for me. I'll say again because it was the main point I was was trying to make to you before. Saying that he is articulating what happens to some fans on CDC and then saying that's a good thing in terms of his writing seems silly to me. I think we can agree he's good at his job because he gets people to read his stories however that doesn't mean he's a good writer. Those two things are not the same thing in my opinion. Plenty of fantastic writers probably don't get a shot because nobody wants to read what they write on mass like somebody who sensationalizes stories. Writing is subjective though so it's debatable. My feeling is that he's not a terribly good writer but he's good enough. If you feel differently I have no issue with that and I never meant to say otherwise.
The title of the article isn't "the Canucks are cursed," nor does Gallagher use the word "curse" in his article, that's a liberty the OP took, and a bunch of people ran with it in the thread. Gallagher is a smart guy, do people HONESTLY think he believes the team is cursed? No, but there's a long series of weird absurdities that have happened, and continue TO happen, to this team, and he's just adding a dramatic flare to it, because that's basically his job.
Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 28 February 2013 - 04:21 PM.