Jeff Pearlman on Walter Payton

Thanks for providing much needed insight and good luck with the book.

 

I think given that the NFL's Man of the Year award was renamed the Walter Payton Man of the Year award, in part to honor his legacy as both a great player and a humanitarian, and it turns out he may not have been any kind of a great humanitarian in the first place, makes this hugely relevant and worthy of including in his biography.

As for this thread, it strikes me that there's a parallel here between the people who think Pearlman shouldn't have written this book and/or included the parts that made Payton look bad, and the parents who call up newspapers and complain that we only show up/write stories when the news is bad (or when their team loses).

How many threads have been started on here about idiot parents and dimwits on the phone who make such complaints? But including Payton's character flaws in his biography is over the line according to some on here? That comes off as hugely hypocritical.

 

I have not read the exerpt because my SI has not arrived this week, and I might not read the book unless someone loans it to me.

But aren't true biographies supposed to paint an accurate, balanced picture of their subject, even if some of what is written may not paint the subject in a favorable light? Sounds as if this has been accomplished.

Leavy's book about Mantle and Robert Caro's bios of Robert Moses (a dispicable person) and LBJ pulled no punches. But they are examples of outstanding journalism.

 

Me neither.

 

The argument I always hear is, "Not around to defend himself."

Text from my brother last night, a usually rational fanboy: "I think the fact that he took Tylenol and Vicodin is not a huge surprise. He played NFL football. He probably hurt everyday. I'm not too keen on these books and stories that need to pick apart people's personal lives like that ... especially of a dead person who can not speak for himself."

 

It makes me thing: Do you have to be a little bit of a bad person to be a historian or journalist? Or at least lack a kind of sympathy or empathy that others have?

 

I don't think -- and I'm obviously not Pearlman -- that those stories aren't meant to show what a duplicitous asshole Payton was. They were meant to show him that he was like a lot of other ex-athletes, even those fortunate enough to be able to retire on their terms. So often, they're broken and battered physically and emotionally. Heck, as far as the boredom, think of all the retired relatives you have who drive people crazy because they can't figure out what to do now that they don't work anymore. Now imagine that person is 40.

 

I agree that we learn something from these books.

I think - and understand I'm playing devil's advocate, because I want to be able to support what we do - the argument is that the individual's desire to keep those details personal and private should trump that. That it's not our place to put it out there, particularly if the person is dead and "can't defend himself." And probably even more particularly if the person's loved ones are still around to deal with the fallout.

 

Does the fact that Payton abused painkillers and cheated on his wife diminish his charitable works? That's what the "humanitarian" aspect of the award is for. Hell, Derrick Thomas won the Man of the Year award (albeit before the award was re-named), and no one ever claimed that he was a saint in his personal life.

 

And now, the search for the son-out-of-wedlock:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0930-pearlman-payton-walter-chicago--20111002,0,3330318.story

 

I honestly don't see why there's a controversy about this book. Pearlman's goal was to write a definitive bio of the guy — warts and all. He did so.

Kudos, Pearlman. I can't wait to read it.

 

We now learn that Payton is not a lot different than LT only LT is upfront about his failings.