Posnanski and the Paterno book

Whatever makes you sleep better at night.

 

I'll sleep fine knowing I made no effort to excuse a man who abused his power to aid the serial rape of children.

 

And that's exactly why I'm glad Joe Posnanski will write this book and you won't. I can get my emotional, 10-year-old comments from message board posters. I can get my adult, thoughtful commentary from a seasoned pro. Best of both worlds!

Look, I can understand the visceral reaction to this. It's sickening. But my hope is Posnanski will go beyond that. I think he will. That doesn't mean you pull punches.

I have no dog in the Paterno hunt. I dealt with him exactly one time for about 90 seconds at a Hall of Fame induction. I'm a fan of good journalism and storytelling and I'm hoping Posnanski produces some.

 

We can only hope the sickening nature of what happened is presented with nuance.

 

Seriously, what would you consider a nuanced take on Paterno?

 

It amazes me when something like this happens and people break out the "almost everyone is capable of committing serious offenses" argument.

No, they're really not. The percentage of people who are capable of allowing child molestation to go on for years without making any effort to stop it is thankfully quite low.

Allowing child molestation is not a character flaw. It's a sign that you have no character whatsoever.

But hey, he won a lot of football games.

 

That's a good question. And that's why I'm not writing the book.

I'm not suggesting that there's anything nuanced about aiding a child molester for 14 years. There's not. I'm suggesting that I want a biography that shows a man's life in totality, and we can draw our conclusions. Maybe he's a piece of shit. The overwhelming evidence certainly says he was when it came to the Sandusky case. Like I said, I hope Posnanski's book offers insight into the full story. Maybe we'll see clues that something like this was coming. Maybe not.

Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I just believe most people are complicated.

 

Folks are now discussing the odds that the Paterno statue comes down. On some campus mural, the halo above his head has been removed and replaced with a blue ribbon on his jacket "remembering the victims"-- the sight of which can only be described as something between grotesque and laughable.

Penn State is really struggling right now. It's an institution and a community in major grief... in transition and "WTF-do-we-do" mode.

This is a horrible situation for Posnanski. His book signings may coincide with the taking down of the statue.

 

This book has already been reviewed here pre-publication more than most books are reviewed in their entire lifetimes. Breathless to see what happens when there's an actual book to read.

For an author, there's nothing harder than writing about an unfolding new story. Nothing. You can nail it down on Monday, and by Tuesday the entire story has changed; you have zero control over the subject or your content. But most readers are capable of understanding the limitations of a printed book; there are plenty of other mediums for up-to-the-minute coverage of a developing story. A book like this one can only hope to give a broad indepth perspective that provides a foundation for everything that follows. It can't anticipate every future development, no matter how long you postpone or delay it.

No doubt there will be other books specifically about Penn State and this nightmare; this book appears to be something different. But for now, from a publishing perspective, this is the right book at the right time, if in fact the author is able to update one more time before the publisher hits "Send."

 

When did the book go to press? Or has it?

 

Whether one agrees, ultimately, with the poster's conclusion or not, it is completely within bounds to speculate, even ahead of publication, about whether a particular writer is the right person for a particular assignment. Isn't this what the publishing company pondered when it purchased the rights to publish this book? Isn't this what any publishing company has to determine when it purchases the rights to publish any book? Just speaking from personal experience, a big reason that I was able to secure a book deal a few years ago was because I was writing about a topic related to the beat I had covered for several seasons. They liked the topic, first of all. But they also were convinced that I was positioned to write it. In wondering whether Posnanski is best positioned to write this book, aren't posters just engaging in the same kind of analysis that publishing houses do dozens of times each day? Or, by analogy, the kind of speculative analysis we constantly apply to other fields?

In other words, is this different than wondering before the season whether Chris Sale will make the transition from reliever to starter?

Is this different than wondering before the season whether the New York Jets will find a role for Tim Tebow to contribute?

Is this different than wondering how the Supreme Court is going to rule on the Affordable Care Act?

If the argument is that it isn't fair to reach a final conclusion about the contents of the book, then that's a fair argument. But if the argument is that we should all wait until publication to discuss whether Posnanski is the right man for the job, which he may or may not be, or what angle he might take, that is going too far. Why does Joe Posnanski deserve more deference than Chris Sale? Why does Joe Posnanski deserve more deference than Tim Tebow? Why does Joe Posnanski deserve more deference than Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts? He has a long and distinguished track record as a columnist and feature writer. He has a book proposal, excerpts of which have been published elsewhere. He has written about and commented upon this project. The New York Times has addressed this very subject on its sports front.

I don't mean to mischaracterize anyone's argument, particularly Double Down's or Swenk's. I understand that most are quite a bit more nuanced than, "Don't talk about it until it comes out." But there does seem to be at least a hint of that mindset present in posts by multiple posters throughout the course of this thread. And I guess this post is just my long-winded way of saying that while unalterable conclusions about an unpublished book are, indeed, misplaced, speculation about the author's forthcoming performance, predicated upon a substantial amount of evidence to draw from, seems perfectly reasonable.

 

I didn't get the sense this debate was about deference; it's about the unmitigated fact that we have no idea what's actually in the book. And I have tremendous sensitivity to authors who have written magnificent manuscripts only to have uncontrollable events change every possible aspect of the story they've written.

But to your point: You can wonder about what a pitcher or quarterback might do, but until he does it, no one--not even the pitcher or quarterback--knows the outcome of the game.

In the case of the writing of this book, someone knows the the outcome of the book. The author wrote it, the publisher read it, and people in a position to make decisions about such things decided how to proceed. The finished product exists (or perhaps almost-finished, we don't know). The outcome isn't unknown, it's just unknown to us. So it seems entirely rational to see what the author ultimately did with the subject before determining whether or not he succeeded.