Chris Jones on "Animals," his Zanesville Zoo massacre story

McHale was hurt in 1987, and Kendrick Perkins missed game Seven in 2010.

Lakers fans are still fine with celebrating both titles.

 

You want to win because you want to make money for you company so you can continue to be employed. You want to win so you look as good as possible, which would help you get a better job or a raise. This isn't some fantasy world. And I'm pretty sure the 2000-02 Lakers are just fine with their three rings in which they beat the Pacers, 76ers and Nets in the Finals.

 

First, if I'm looking to hire someone, I look at context. Winning alone is not enough. The terms on which the person won and who he competed against matters.

And, sure, the Lakers certainly "are just fine" with their three rings. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't feel better had they beaten better competition. It's not an on-off switch; it's more like a dimmer.

 

Before this conversation grows any more insane, let me just point out again that I didn't slash Chris's tires, I didn't elbow him in the face, I didn't bad mouth him to anybody. This wasn't Michael Jordan breaking Grant Hill's ankles. If I got to someone first—and we were there at the same time, remember, starting with the same pool of sources, fair chase and all that—I tried to establish a rapport with them and hoped they would talk only to me or at least spend more time with me. That, in my world, is a common practice. If we're profiling somebody, for instance, we make sure that we're profiling them alone. Because of the stakes and our time constraints, we can't really do it any other way.

Why is winning the goal? Well, do you know how many people would like to take my job from me? There are six writers at large at Esquire. I would like to remain one for a long time. That's not going to happen if I get my ass handed to me.

I swear, I feel like I'm in some kind of alternate reality here.

I'll go at this a different way. Someone commented on the Gawker story about this little tempest that they couldn't understand why Heath didn't use some of the anecdotes I had in my story—as though all of the possible anecdotes were put before us in some kind of buffet, and we got to pick and choose what we used. I worked to get the story I had; Chris worked to get the story he had. Some of our material overlapped, and some didn't. The stuff that didn't, that I had alone, I'm going to do everything I can to keep my own. For narrative journalists, each little story within your story is currency. You're not going to give any of them away.

I really don't understand this debate. It's really strange.

 

I'm flummoxed as to why this is even a debate.

It is a competitive profession. It was a better profession when it was MORE competitive, i.e., more two-paper cities.

 

Here? Noooooooo.

 

I still haven't read either story - waiting at home for both mags; in the meantime I'm going to break out the 1988 Game 7 Lakers DVD and watch Isiah hobble around. And I will feel remorse - but do have one question on the writing:

I thought that was an interesting line just because for 40-plus years, one of the hallmarks of New Journalism, now creative/narrative nonfiction was that it was often designed, as the saying went, to be nonfiction that read like fiction. Yet here you seemingly made sure it wasn't the case. Interesting how it mixes in with the idea that some feel it reads like it could be a (fictional) movie. No real deep observation, just something that sounded different from what we've read about longform nonfiction for decades.

 

Here are my bona fides. I'll think of a question in a minute.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azrael

 

You know we're not supposed to accept Wikipedia as fact.

 

Chris's move is ANTI-competitive. More competition is supposed to benefit consumers, not suppliers. Readers are better off if writers are competing on an even playing field. Chris, by attempting to create an exclusive contract, was not. Companies doing this draw antitrust scrutiny.

 

I understand what you're saying, just don't agree. Readers are better off if writers are scratching and biting and rumbling for themselves, for their story.

Although I think AP might have openings for pool reporters. ;D

 

People are overreacting to his word choices earlier in the thread.