Ok, let’s all get on the same page here:
Read this column titled “An Open Letter to Kyrie Irving“, written by Chris Cusack, which appeared in the Chronicle yesterday.
Then read my post from yesterday titled “An Open Letter to Chris Cusack“.
Finally, read Shane’s post on Seth Curry Saves Duke titled “Kyrie Invites Drama: Chris Cusack, You’re All Right in my Book“.
Now you’re up to speed. I’m an enormous fan of the SCSD blog. Literally one of the best blogs out there, never short on compelling opinions. I don’t even think he’s wrong in his defense of Cusack, and I’ll be the first to admit that my response was entirely emotional and knee-jerk. But it’s a blog, that’s kind of my job to do just that. So I’m going to do my job once again and give my knee-jerk, emotional response to Shane’s post that contradicts what I wrote in my post that contradicts not only what Chris Cusack wrote in his post, but what he was REALLY writing in his post. Okay, I’m already confused. To try my best to clarify what I’d like to accomplish in this post … in re-reading Cusack and in reading Shane’s blog, I have changed my mind on some things, but have also strengthened my stance on others.
First off, anyone claiming Cusack’s piece wasn’t well written is just looking for a way to get under his skin. That’s childish. It’s clear that he’s a good writer. I’m not even going to address that.
Second, the responses that jumped to mentioning racial overtones – I doubt those individuals really read the article. I’m picturing the blogger who read that a Duke student wrote an open letter to Kyrie Irving and immediately ejaculated at the thought of being able to write yet another piece about how Duke students are rich, white snobs who love nothing more than to tell minorities what they should and should not value. You don’t get my time either, race blogger.
Third, let’s examine the joke that everyone missed according to Shane and Cusack. Evidently it’s clear that Cusack wrote from the viewpoint of a caricatured portrayal of a Duke student. The article was douchey (and yes I know that’s not a word, but I’m going to continue to use it – I don’t care). That’s not up for debate. Some feel that the piece was douchey because Cusack made light of the benefits of going to the NBA by pointing out all of the experiences that Kyrie would miss by saying he wouldn’t miss them. Funny stuff, right? Meh. But at least that joke was clear to me. I felt that it came off as douchey, which was the intention of the writer, and I totally get that. I didn’t find it to be a very creative approach, but I got it.
Shane, and Cusack, go on to talk of the perspective of the speaker, who in this case is allegedly a caricature. I’ll buy it. I’m not even going to argue for a second that it wasn’t the case, and I’ll just concede that Cusack (and Shane) changed my mind on that one. But it doesn’t change the fact that the column, even from the satirical perspective of a fake-douche, is douchey. Let’s examine:
Duke has a perception problem. To the “outside” world, Duke is filled with spoiled kids who wear their sense of entitlement as proudly as they wear their Duke colors. Fair or not, that’s the perception. And it’s not entirely off-base. As Shane pointed out with his mention of the famous Elton Brand letter, there are many among us who have done exemplary work in painting this picture of “Duke people”. This is not unique to Duke by any means; our peers from UNC and NC State like to prove time and time again that thinking before speaking isn’t necessarily a rule that’s followed closely. But for this sake of this point, it’s important to understand that Duke has this perception problem. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
Let’s discuss satire first. Satire is at it’s best when a small, subtle trait is magnified to enormous proportions to the point where the subject of the satire becomes a cartoonish figure defined by that small trait. The joke isn’t on the subject at all, it’s on the audience as they’re made to feel foolish for focusing on such a small piece of the subject to begin with while ignoring the bigger picture in front of them. The key to good satire is to let both the subject and the audience in on the joke, and to bring them together through humor. Laughter ensues, and everyone walks away feeling great. The problem with Cusack’s piece is that he shows a lack of awareness that his audience was never going to see THAT satire. First, the caricature hits too close to home, it’s not cartoonish enough. Second, the misdirection of the “humorous” look at the decision points is too distracting. In short, I disagree with Shane … this was not made obvious by Cusack. To give a backhanded compliment, Cusack played the role of “entitled Duke fan” too well. Now let’s look at this and how it couples with the above conclusion regarding Duke’s perception.
Again, outsiders (aka “Duke haters”, aka “people”) do not view this sense of elitist entitlement as a small, subtle trait of Duke students/fans. To them, this is THE defining trait. Cusack displays a complete lack of self-awareness when it comes to this. Or he sees it but doesn’t give a shit. Either way, that’s bad news when writing something like this. By choosing to use this satirical approach from the perspective of a caricatured Duke fan, he’s accepting that only a small percentage of his audience is going to be in on the joke. This creates an awkward dynamic where a handful of readers skim through the comments of his piece laughing at how obtuse the readers are. A small minority is positioned to look down on a vast majority. In a nutshell, that’s elitism.
And that’s where, in my opinion, Cusack accomplishes being the douche that he first set out to make fun of.
Having said that, Mr. Cusack, DO NOT stop writing. Part of my point yesterday is that many writers make a name for themselves by doing exactly what you did yesterday. Write something – be wrong to many, be right to a few. Either way, you’re being talked about. But if you choose to follow that approach, I strongly urge you not to do it using the Chronicle as a platform. Perhaps CBS Sports is hiring.
Devilwolfing 