Dr. V's magical putter

And, Alma's right. This is the key phrase in Simmon's statement:

"For us, this had become a story about a writer falling into, for lack of a better phrase, a reporting abyss. The writer originally asked a simple question — So what’s up with this putter? — that evolved into something else entirely. His latest draft captured that journey as cleanly and crisply as possible."

Everyone at Grantland, and all the writers who praised the piece for three days, put themselves in Hannan shoes. They imagined the the wild ride he went on for 8 months.

They felt a chill go up their spine when Hannan discovers -- SHE'S A MAN!

This wasn't "the tale of a troubled man who had invented a new life for himself", it was the tale of a writer.

None of the writers who praised Hannan put themselves in Dr. V's shoes for even a moment.

I'm so incredibly disappointed in so many smart and talented people who were unable to muster any empathy for the woman who committed suicide. Instead of thinking of her as a wild, "mysterious" and colorful character, maybe we could think instead of how terrified she must have been. And, it was legitimate terror, as Hannan had already outed her to at least one person.

How sad, and terrifying must have her final moments of life have been?

 

She/he/whatever made the agreement with regard to what would be discussed between the two of them. That would only govern their interaction.

Suppose a subject said "I'll only talk about X" (and that's all that was said) and then, in the midst of the conversation, reveals inadvertently that he/she knows where Hoffa is buried. Is the reporter obliged to keep that quiet?

Surely you don't think the reporter, in talking with a subject after the subject says "I'll only talk about X", is obliged to do NOTHING other than firm up details of X.

 

Agreeing to an interview is not tantamount to a life inspection from an ethical perspective, and once the person dies -- without revealing a word about their transgendered identity -- their death should not pave the way for you to plow ahead with your story.

It's scary thinking, at work here. If, for argument's sake, Vanderbilt had told Hannan her history off the record, the rules of the game are: It's off the record. Except for <i>extreme</i> circumstances of public good. Here, Vanderbilt's history should have remained permanently off the record with her death. Her death could even be construed to have meant precisely that.

Her death should have been some big, bright fucking lights to write this story off as a lost cause. Instead, it was seen as a reason to press on. That speaks to how everyone at Grantland saw this story: Like it was some movie.

 

I think you (and others) are way off-base here. Just because people aren't willing to lay the blame for her death at the feet of this reporter doesn't remotely mean they're not empathetic with her. This reporter didn't cause her to kill herself. She did that on her own, and you should never lose sight of that fact.

 

Hannan clearly did not want to be bound by her ground rules. (And, btw, it is "she", not she/he/whatever.) He declined to be bound by them at first. He did not call her. He tried to work around her, talking to McCord, and doing other research.

But, then he goes back to her. He talks to her on the phone, and she again sets the same ground rules. And, she sends him, and he accepts a putter.

Sounds to me like he accepted her ground rules. He didn't have to. He could have done the story without her cooperation, or he could have chosen to not do the story.

And, what's really fucked up is that it looks to me like he used the knowledge of her status as a transgendered person as leverage against her. He appears to have held that over her, and even outed her to at least one person (And, I'd like to know if he outed her to others. It appears he was cavalier with this information, so I have no reason to believe he didn't share it with others.)

 

Suicide is a complicated thing. I'm not prepared to lay her death at Hannan's feet. He certainly didn't help. He should have known that the suicide rate among transgendered women is off the charts. He should have known that she would have a legitimate fear for her life, safety, and well being if he outed her.

He should have known that revealing her lack of academic credentials would be disruptive, and embarrassing -- though at this point, the success of the putter would likely rise or fall on its own merits -- but that revealing her transgendered status would be life threatening.

My issue with the writers who praise Hannan is that it was nearly universal, none of it was couched in concern for the woman who committed suicide, and most reacted defensively when criticism came Hannan's way.

How could so many top writers universally praise an article that ESPN/Grantland now admits had serious flaws. What was it that drove them to connect with the writer, and not the subject, and why did that connection blind them to the problems with the article?

 

Hypothetically speaking, no. But when a person dies having never revealed their <i>most-protected detail about their life</i> -- a detail that's not definitively germane to the small, hollowed-out putter she made, you have to ask: <i>What's the newsworthiness of the story in front of me? Essay Anne Vanderbilt, were she alive, would have never wanted me to reveal this information. It's possible she died to protect it. So is her putter and the shifty business dealings she had with a few people worth the impact this significant revelation will have on her memory? <b>Is it really that important?</b></i>

Grantland's conclusion appears to have been, yes, it was that important, because the artist, Hannan, had spent so much time on it, and Grantland's mission of "finding" young voices superseded the sanctity of Vanderbilt's private life.

And I still can't help but think Hannan thought he had moral permission to explore and share as he pleased based on Vanderbilt being a liar. Which is an awful lofty judgment to make when the public good isn't remotely at stake.

 

And, look, I'm not a Chris Jones hater.

He's argumentative, sure, but that doesn't bother me. Why not stand up to yourself.

And, maybe because almost any article that receives praise also receives its share of "haters", there is an inclination to fight back against the haters, to defend the work, and to defend the writer.

But, Chris Jones, among others, made a complete ass of himself in this episode.

 

Writers are self-absorbed. (Well, we are.) And, in part thanks to Grantland, the primacy of the author's journey is a trend in the business.

 

I was prepared to further criticize Christina Kahrl for ducking the discussion over the weekend, and for coordinating her column on the issue with ESPN/Grantland/Simmons.

They clearly looked to her, as a prominent member of the transgendered and ESPN community, to give the official criticism, in which she would bash the article, but absolve the motives of the people involved.

But, God damn if she didn't write one hell of a column.

She references her own journey, but unlike Hannan's, her column isn't about the author, it's about Dr. V, CeCe McDonald, and Islan Nettles. And it's beautiful.

http://grantland.com/features/what-grantland-got-wrong/

 

I thought the story was interesting. As a long sufferer of the golf obsession, I am always intrigued by the snake-oil-salesman facet of the equipment game. The subject of this story was clearly some combination of nutjob and con artist (among other things), which was especially fitting for the ostensible milieu of this story. That she had once been a he was icing on the cake.

This issue of "outing" is way off the mark here. Her authority re: golf club design rested on a past that she had created ex nihilo. The sex change underscores the totality of that creation. And let's not kid ourselves that her having once been a man was known only to her. Others knew. She may have convinced herself that it was her secret, but people convince themselves of impossible things all the time.

 

A re-write of the article:

http://si.arrr.net/device/2014/01/18/dr-v-an-edit-after-the-fact/

Does it work? Does it work better?