Posnanski and the Paterno book

Rebecca Lobo?

 

I know you can't quit me, so a few corrections.

People without tattoos are pussies, the worst thing a person can do is vote Democrat (followed closely by watching too much TV), and I have been and remain a big fan of condescension. Not a big fan of arrogance, though.

 

Wait for the book.

But I do wish I were waiting a little longer for it.

 

Spitballing ...

Given the fact Paterno has become the most reviled man in the NCAA this side of Dave Bliss ... Would it be possible for Pos' book to evoke sympathy for JoePa?

As I said before I think Pos' book - despite the warts-and-all claim - was going to be more praise than pan of JoePa... Maybe that doesn't change now either.. Everyone is piling on JoePa and PSU - and rightfully so... Does Pos' dare try to pull out sympathy for the old man?

I think that's one his strengths and it would be a hell of a trick.

Edit: One more thing ... If the book is harsh on Paterno I suspect it will have been hardened by the facts: No. 1 Paterno died and No. 2 there is plenty of concrete evidence he had a huge role in the scandal.
It's much easier now to trash Paterno. And I seriously doubt Pos' book would/will be that tough if neither of these two things happened.

 

The plot thickens: Paterno started negotiating his own retirement in early 2011, after a grand jury began investigating Sandusky.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-got-richer-contract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp

 

I suspect that the book is not going to be as binary one way or the other as this board seems to suspect. He's not going to glorify Paterno. He's not going to crucify him, either. Not in the way that some anticipate or, better phrased, demand. If the Buck O'Neill book was any indication, Posnanski is pretty good at inserting himself as a character in a book-length narrative. Now, that's not everyone's cup of tea, but it might just be the correct approach here. And perhaps it might be the only way to approach it, given the time constraints and the whirlwind that has occurred while he was working on this. It will read like a travelogue, in a way. A narrative about a sports writer's front-row seat to Paterno as man and myth as this all came crumbling down.

I'm not abandoning my pretty solidly held conviction that he should have been more skeptical to begin this project. As I said, every piece of circumstantial evidence available leads inexorably to the conclusion that this was going to be sugary sweet goo. And that's either:

(a)
Really naive on Posnanski's part, as many of us began rolling our eyes about the Paterno myth years ago. That isn't hindsight. The evidence is all over this board, time-stamped if you care to dig;

(b)
Incredibly cynical, or, at best, old-fashioned sports writer myth-making, as he would have been writing a portrait he knew not to be true, just because he knew there was an audience for the myth; or

(c)
Like Buzz Bissinger with "Friday Night Lights" or John Feinstein with "A Season on the Brink," at least once the process began rolling for those two, he played it very close to the vest with Paterno and family, which would have been somewhat sneaky and borderline unethical. It's one thing when a story changes. I can accept that. I've done that. We've all done that. It's another thing entirely, however, to pitch a story you are not intending to write. For the record, I don't think he did so.

Again, my guess is that he neither buries nor glorifies Paterno, but tries to put this all into some sort of context. I suspect some of the larger themes addressed will be myth vs. reality, the dangers of exalting an individual over an institution, and the complexity of any one human being. I suspect it will be every bit as much about the football culture at Penn State as about Joe Paterno. And I suspect we will get at least some prose where Posnanski himself talks about the mental and emotional process that this has taken him through.

Paterno's story is Shakespearean, perhaps as much as any sports figure who has ever lived. And I think that's how Posnanski approaches it, with Paterno as Hamlet, the flawed could-have-been hero. A few pages ago, someone said that Posnanski isn't a journalist so much as he's a storyteller. Now, that's a false dichotomy in a way, but I also think it's a good point, at least broadly speaking. And it might actually come in handy here, if he approaches it the way I strongly suspect he might. Of course, there will then be an argument to be had about whether that approach is a cop-out, but that's for another day.

 

I'm not sure the context has been fully set yet.

 

Dick, I'm anxiously awaiting your book.

And, no, that wasn't some kind of shot. I really like your take on approaching the subject. Hope Pos handles it that way and would love to have seen how your book would have turned out if you were in his place.

 

Good post.

 

Gotta go with DW here.

I don't see why it's so complicated to admit _ not just in this case, but every case _ that good people can do really, really bad things and a usually good person can be "flawed" or make a terrible decision with tragic consequences.

There can be two truths that exist at the same time. 1. Joe Paterno did a lot of good things in his life. 2. Joe Paterno made horrific decisions that led to a child molester roaming free for 14 years.

To me, calling him the "worst kind of man" oversimplifies the issue and is the easy way out. It's much harder to tell a nuanced story and admit to ourselves that almost everyone is capable of committing serious offenses. Why did it happen with Paterno? How could it? I hope Posnanski tries to get into these issues. And like you EF, I hope no punches are pulled.

But there is no doubt that Paterno would have gone down as a hero were it not for this unspeakable tragedy. So I think the "flawed could-have-been hero" tag fits quite well.

 

No, an "easy out" is saying anybody is capable of doing what Paterno did.