Esquire's "most gripping story you will read this year."

I can't read it right now. But I will. And I'm sure it will be amazing.

Jonesy, you don't give yourself enough credit. Which is one of the reasons I love you so.

 

Thanks. I guess what I meant is, and I think you answered it - how the hell could someone go back to giving a shit about what Delmon Young has to say, or whether someone is "playing with more of a motor" in spring football practice this year than last, after you write that. I mean, I guess we're all professionals, so we have to suck it up and do it.

And that's not a commentary on covering sports, which I don't consider unimportant, as much as it is the absolutely soul-sucking inanity of a lot of the questions and coverage.

Though subject matter is part of it, I meant more like the ability to go that deep with your reporting and get at a real story instead of just ... yeah, inanity. I feel the same way after I read a really good Feinstein book or something like "Moneyball" (despite its condescending tone - I'm strictly talking about the depth of reporting and the lack of easy cliches and generalizations on a single topic) or "Into the Wild," etc., etc., etc. Any of them.

I guess I'm saying I'm jealous of you, Krakauer and your ilk.

 

Jones, I'm reading it in spurts right now--it's incredibly heart-wrenching. I really started choking up at just that point that Joel mentioned, with Micah slipping his ring on his brother.

Amazing work.

 

About Mr. Jones's piece I'll say this: I am deeply proud and immensely grateful to be working in his time.

And for those of you who rightly admire this remarkable story, I'll commend to your attention another longform Esquire classic, 'M', by Mr. John Sack. Two of a kind.

 

Started this thing, got about a third of the way through and figured I had most of the story. Did I miss anything? I keed, I keed. Really an amazing piece.

I'm actually more interested in the reporting of it though. You've been gracious enough to talk about this story Jones so I'm wondering if you'd indulge us with some info of how the hell you actually got all of this information together so vividly. Be as general or as specific as you choose, but I'm really interested in roughly how many people you had to speak to for this, how much (if any, I guess) of this were you actually present for, how much time did you spend with some of the people you interviewed, etc. I've never written anything near this long (and may never) but I'm very interested in how much it takes to put something like this together.

 

Just finished it and have similar questions to Boobie. The writing was great, the story was great, but the reporting was breathtaking. The way you set each scene with such vivid details was amazing. I'd really like to know how you got all of that information. Don't sell yourself short Chris, this was a spectacular piece.

 

Thanks for making me cry Jones, you blankity blank.
I bawled like a baby reading it last night.
My dad was an active-duty military death and got the 21-gun salute at his funeral. It was 15 years ago and obviously not war-related, but still. So thanks or no thanks for taking me back.
Just gut-wrenching for me.
The detail you got was incredible. The things you reported, I only thought, well, I only thought it was things the families knew.
I stand amazed.
Pick a spot for the National Magazine Award you are sure to receive.

 

It's why we play the game.

 

Jones, you magnificent bastard, God bless you for that story.

I've been waiting and waiting for the post office to deliver this issue. I finally read it online. Not fun tearing up at work.

 

You could go through that thing part by part and come up with 100 different examples in each, but for some reason in that whole 17,000 word article, two seemingly little things stick out -- I have no why -- that really enrich the story. If they were left out, no one would miss them, but from a storytelling point of view they were just beautiful.

1. The anecdote about one of the coroners? (I can't remember exactly what the title was) polishing the soldier's things so carefully. When it's said that the soldier's family will appreciate the act, the coroner tells the person that the soldier is being cremated. Sorry if the details of that exchange are a little fuzzy, but I've only read it once, but it really stuck out as a poignant moment.
2. The seemingly meaningless detail about how the soldiers had to adjust their night-vision goggles to either see close up or far away and most choose to see far away. The pay off coming when they're looking down at Montgomery, frantically adjusting their goggles to see close up.

Again, there could be a million of these things from this piece, and for whatever reason these are two that stand-out.

 

I think the restraint you showed made it better. You made it about the story instead of about the writer. The detail was so great and the flow was so smooth that it didn't need further adornment. I think it was Clapton who said it's about what notes to leave out.

So how did you go about organizing the notes? You told NPR you talked to more than 100 people. Did you outline it?

And how did you cut 1,000 words? Did you and your editor go through it and trim here and there, were chunks wiped out, did he work alone and then take it to you, did you work alone and take it to him?

I know you're recovering from surgery. Just whenever you get back.

 

I haven't read this story yet. I don't even know what it's about.

But I did just get an offer from Esquire to buy the magazine for $10.99 for the next two years, so I will so I can get the next amazing Jones story!