Rope Opera: How WCW killed Vince Russo

[Ian Austin]

Got it for Christmas.

It completes the 'Why did WCW die?' trilogy of books. I've read Bischoff's, I've read Wrestle Craps, and now I'm reading Russo's. And the first thing I'm finding is that this guy is an excruciatingly bad writer of prose.

Anyone else agree? It's hard getting through the book. He keeps going off on tangents.

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2010 11:03:57 GMT -5 Ian Austin said:

Anyone else agree? It's hard getting through the book. He keeps going off on tangents.

Think of them as swerves and it will all make sense.

[ICBM]

I'd like to get ahold of this but have no desire to pay for it. Anyone read foley's latest?

[Dean-o]

This book was a huge disappointment. Not much about the death of WCW and Russo's decisions and more about him finding God.

[Jimmy]

I rather liked it but I rather like Russo so there's that.

[percymania]

Russo a bad writer? Naw........

[kingoftheindies]

Dec 26, 2010 11:03:57 GMT -5 Ian Austin said:

Got it for Christmas.

It completes the 'Why did WCW die?' trilogy of books. I've read Bischoff's, I've read Wrestle Craps, and now I'm reading Russo's. And the first thing I'm finding is that this guy is an excruciatingly bad writer of prose.

Anyone else agree? It's hard getting through the book. He keeps going off on tangents.

Agreed, at times his book got unreadable because he would get sidetracked during chapters, but his stories were SO random.

HOWEVER, his book is an interesting read when it's coherent. He says he left WWF not because of money but because it allowed him more time with family. He also talks about how disorganized WCW was, and how hard it was to deal with certain wrestlers.

It is worth a look, and is very interesting. Just feels so disorganized

[Ian Austin]

Nearly finished.

I do love seeing his perspective on things. But I find myself disagreeing with all of his 'logic' on his WCW actions. And the sad fact is he doesn't want to discuss it in detail because of his conversion, so he skims over a lot of the inane stuff he did. Although it is funny when he justifies David Arquette by saying Vince McMahon hires celebs for Wrestlemania - ignoring that when Vince does it, it's usually for a PPV and people usually have to pay to watch 'the match.'

When you combine this with a LOT of God talk (even as a Christian it's grating) and some stuff that makes him come across horrendously unsympathetic (he says he fought through the concussions to be 'one of the boys'), it's an intriguing read marred by a rather awful writer.

[BlackoutCreature]

So basically the book has some interesting stuff hurt badly by his lack of attention span and his refusal to accept that he's ever wrong? Sounds like he wrote it the same way he used to write Nitro. I'm kinda wondering where his editor was on this thing?

[Madman Szalinski]

If he can't write a television script, no way he can write a book.

I'm not even gonna download it. I'm just going to point at RD & Bryan's book, then say out loud "thanks for calling Vince."

[Ian Austin]

Dec 27, 2010 6:44:28 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

So basically the book has some interesting stuff hurt badly by his lack of attention span and his refusal to accept that he's ever wrong? Sounds like he wrote it the same way he used to write Nitro. I'm kinda wondering where his editor was on this thing?

Non existent.

He almost makes a good point at the end though. Namely that hating the man for his writing is harsh. I'd concur with that. He's not a particularly good writer, and he comes across as foolish, but I don't think I hate the guy. He clearly tries hard, even if his attempts are left wanting. While I think his ideas on wrestling are ill-fitting (he repeats his 'masked wrestlers don't sell' rant... which any sane person could cut short with one name: Rey Mysterio), he at least tries to present WHY he thinks said ideas.

It's worth a read, but in the trilogy I'd rank it third best. Death of WCW is the best, Bischoff is almost convincing with his half-truths, and Russo comes across as too 'converted' to go into detail.

[Deleted]

Dec 27, 2010 9:44:19 GMT -5 Ian Austin said:

Dec 27, 2010 6:44:28 GMT -5 BlackoutCreature said:

So basically the book has some interesting stuff hurt badly by his lack of attention span and his refusal to accept that he's ever wrong? Sounds like he wrote it the same way he used to write Nitro. I'm kinda wondering where his editor was on this thing?

He almost makes a good point at the end though. Namely that hating the man for his writing is harsh. .

I love that he already accepts he's not a great writer with this sentiment. Its like he knows he's not a good writer and is already on the defensive about it.

I don't think anyone hates Vince Russo like that though. People mostly know him from his creative work so when I see the phrase, "I hate Vince Russo." I assume that the implied meaning is that "I hate Vince Russo's writing."

Like when someone says, "I love Frank Sinatra." They don't know Frank Sinatra, they know his music. That's what they're talking about.

[Ian Austin]

Pretty much.

Forgot the worst bit, actually. He comes across really harsh to the non-veteran TNA talent. Basically says he agrees with the veterans stance in the MEM angle. I don't think he quite realises that AJ Styles gained nothing from that feud and it almost tanked Samoa Joe's career. He asserts that the veterans are working to get people over, but before that feud AJ and Samoa Joe were already at Main Event levels... and no-one else in the youngster camp got any perks from the feud,

Oh, and his shade of grey comment is just nonsense. Real people may act that way, but in a storyline there needs to be consistency because it's FICTION. It's not real. Ergo you have Superman on the good side, and Lex Luthor on the bad side. Lex Luthor can do good things and Superman can make mistakes, but when you switch the roles you're just confusing people in regards to who they should root for.

Or, a better case in point. If Andre and Hogan constantly switch roles, who do you cheer for? The point of the feud was Hogan beating Andre and conquering his fear. Without that hook, the feud means nothing.

[tigermaskxxxvii]

Dec 26, 2010 19:22:21 GMT -5 Dean-o said:

This book was a huge disappointment. Not much about the death of WCW and Russo's decisions and more about him finding God.

Which I kinda thought was kinda covered with the first book. i agree with the sentiment that Russo comes off very stubborn and scatter brained (although the fact that his brains literally got scattered by a concussion probably doesn't help matters).

I love how one of his arguments as to why David Arquette as WCW World Champion was the right move by saying how he saw Arquette interviewed on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and how the first question was about his title reign years after the fact. Yeah, well one time Leno's lead off question in an interview with Hugh Grant was about his arrest for paying for sexual favors. That doesn't mean it was the right decision on Hugh's part!

I did however enjoy the story of his attempt to return to the WWE and the politics that blocked that. As well as the story of Disco Inferno breaking up the monotony of booking meetings by drawing some crazy Martian invasion angle on the room's chalkboard.

[Ian Austin]

Fair enough on the earlier book.

I love how one of his arguments as to why David Arquette as WCW World Champion was the right move by saying how he saw Arquette interviewed on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and how the first question was about his title reign years after the fact.

What Russo doesn't get is that using Arquette wasn't bad per se. Heck, even giving him the title could've worked. The only problem is he should've been used for PPV the same way that Vince used Trump/Tyson for PPV.