Much of the reaction to the report here of Randy Ortonâ€™s rumored suicide attempt in the spring of 2006 looks through the wrong end of the lens. This is typical of a mentality holding that the paramount value is to protect the business. In reality, such a stance is destroying the pro wrestling business.
And itâ€™s doubly ironic because if the story is proven true â€“ as Iâ€™m confident it will be â€“ and proceeds to reach a certain threshold of public awareness, Ortonâ€™s bosses at World Wrestling Entertainment will have no qualms about incorporating it into a new storyline. (As I post this, Teddy Long is â€œsemi-comatoseâ€ from a Viagra reaction.) They wonâ€™t miss a beat, and the fans will buy tickets and pay-per-views on the basis of a fiction loosely based on a fact.
For an example of a much more sensible reaction to the Orton story, you can turn to a blog of his fans called â€œRKO Rules.â€ See the post and discussion board at http://community.livejournal.com/pieces_of_randy/37697.html. Imagine that: people who actually express concern about Randy Ortonâ€™s health and life, rather than knee-jerk denial of unpleasant news and fear of his being wiped off their TV screens and fantasy worlds.
1. You and I disagree over what is â€œa major detail.â€ As browsers of my blog can see, I immediately corrected the error about the Legend Killer gimmick, which did indeed precede Eddie Guerreroâ€™s death (though, for defenders of WWEâ€™s taste, I must say that the correction might be worse than the disease). I also immediately â€” as in minutes â€” corrected Congressman Tom Davisâ€™s state in my column for BeyondChron; that kind of copyedit touch-up happens all the time between editions of a newspaper. Which shows better faith: my lack of defensiveness about these very minor errors, or your need to hype them as â€œmajorâ€ without even referencing the quick, voluntary corrections?
2. Why you represent that I claimed â€œthat Randy Orton was â€˜downgraded for a few weeks in TV storylinesâ€™â€ is simply mystifying. Please read the following consecutive sentences, as quoted in your own item: â€œSome vague number of the miscreant wrestlers, not named, were â€™suspended,â€™ but the suspension appears to have consisted of simply being downgraded for a few weeks in TV storylines. From the same evidence, Randy Orton was not touched at all.â€ One universally accepted fact is that Randy Orton was not in this current round of suspensions. Your reading of my written words is much sloppier than those very words.
3. Unquestionably, Kennedy et al. were kicked off TV for a while, and that was most inconvenient for them and for WWEâ€™s creative team. I also understand that some, most, or all of them are being rushed back in 20-odd days, which makes for a strange 30-day suspension. And in any case, arenâ€™t suspensions, by definition, â€œon-air downgradesâ€? Whereâ€™s the â€œmajor holeâ€ promised by the intro to your bullet points?
4. You seem to be saying that if Randy Orton did not attempt suicide between September 2006 and September 2007, but did attempt suicide between March or April of 2006 and September 2006, then a report of such an incident â€œwithin the last yearâ€ (quickly amended to a more accurate time frame) is utterly invalidated. I think your priorities are trivial, and I think most reasonable readers would feel the same
5. I donâ€™t think youâ€™re saying that I had no right to include those details of Ortonâ€™s private life (which were culled, by the way, from a joint interview he and his fiancee did this spring in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch). Still, when a writer has to explain too much, heâ€™s probably composed a passage too cryptic for comfort. I therefore accept your criticism on this one. I thought the information in that paragraph was interesting, but the item could have done without it and probably would have been better received without it.