Posnanski and the Paterno book

I just don't really get the demand that he "take a stance."

Many biography subjects (or their lives) are so complex that it's hard to reduce them that way. The Jobs book told what kind of a person he was, what kind of a boss he was, what kind of an obsessive perfectionist he was.

Do we really need Isaacson's opinion that, "Apple might have been better served had Jobs been more XXXXXXX or less XXXXXX " ?

Or can we not form those opinions on our own?

To me, once an author's stance has been made clear, it colors everything else he writes.

You could read a book about Peter the Great whose author takes the stance that he was a hero. And another whose author takes the stance that he was a horrible, evil tsar. I don't want to read either of those, because I know he was both incredible and terrible. Give me a book that tells me both and doesn't try to steer me into thinking one way or another. If an author can lend some perspective, that's great. But otherwise, I don't need the author to take a stance.

And just because "that story has been told before" is no reason not to write it. How many biographies on Lincoln or Shakespeare are there? Don't most of them cover familiar ground? I know 95 percent of the Paterno story is old news to most of you, because you're sports journalists. Most people aren't. It's hard to believe, but there are great swaths of people who, even today, have no idea who Joe Paterno was.

 

I think the hardest writing -- and the best writing, typically -- is the kind of writing where the facts are presented beautifully neutral, but it a way where people who deserve score are hung by their own words and actions, not the writer's voice. Scott Price does this all the time. Katherine Boo as well. Eli Saslow. Michael Kruse. Susan Orlean. David Grann. John Jeremiah Sullivan. There are plenty more.

I love writers who are at their best when they have thunder behind their words. Pierce. Tabbi. Pat Jordan. Tommy Craggs.

But I think it's a bigger challenge to write in a way that lets the subject force the reader to make up his/her mind. And the reward is often greater. One of my favorite features every written is called "The Trophy Son" by Randall Patterson. It ran in the Houston Press. It was in BASW seven or eight years ago. It's about a high school kid whose parents decided to sue their son's coaches when he was benched. And it's written a way where it absolutley makes the parents look ridiculous, but if the parents read it, I'm convinced they would think it was completely sympathetic. You can interpret it how you wish.

http://www.houstonpress.com/1998-01-15/news/the-trophy-son/

I don't know if Posnanski has even attempted something similar here, but I do think from reading some of the excerpts, if they didn't have Posnanski's name on them, no one would have a problem with them. They're written for you to decide. I read that section where Paterno sobs about getting fired, and his kids talk about how they've ruined his name, and I see a sad, angry family in denial who never got it. And I would have written it the same way. Their actions show you how detached from reality they are, just as Paterno's threat that he was going to pull Penn State out of the Big 10 do.

I'm sure there are parts of the book that read like a defense of Paterno. And they might very well be a defense of Paterno. But they also might be a really good reporter saying "You decide if this worship is deserved, or if it's pathetic."

 

As to how many Lincoln or Shakespeare biographies there, however many it is, the answer is "far too many." So that isn't a very good argument for the reason behind another Paterno book.

Nonetheless, if something new comes to light regarding either one -- say Honest Abe was a slave trader in his spare time -- and the next biography comes out a year later and he's available to answer questions about it and yet the book comes out with hundreds of pages of his greatness and then at the end "oh yeah, there was this other thing, could be a catastrophic moral failing, maybe not, I don't know" -- that book wouldn't go over all that well either.

 

I don't think it's Posnanski's name so much as everyone's familiarity at this point with how the book was conceived and reported. I used to scoff at bloggers' claim that there was something to be gained from a lack of access. But I'm not scoffing any more. I think it does make some sense. That said, for some reason, publishers, and most readers, I think, still love "authorized" biographies or books. I recall Pearlman talking about taking fierce criticism because he didn't land interviews with Gooden and Strawberry for his Mets book. Seth Davis was asked all the time why he didn't interview Bird and Magic for his book. Whenever I float my own modest proposals, the first question from the mouth of both the agent or any prospective publisher is, "Do we already have such-and-such's promise to cooperate?"

Sports books are such a hard sell to begin with. Interest in sports is very regional in scope. Fans want hagiography. Enemies don't have interest in reading about a figure that didn't play or coach for their team. Maraniss's Lombardi book is such a rarity, a clear-eyed profile that seemed to stoke the interest of both sides. It's no surprise that the Paterno book was initially intended to be marketed as a feel-good Father's Day book. They were trying to reach that elusive crossover market.

 

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypresscreek/article_ff0e5aae-065d-50e2-abfe-62cc46938479.html

"Scoreboard," says coach Hooks.

 

Whatever happened with the Rutherfords lawsuit?
Thrown out of court, or some other resolution?

 

Not sure if this has been posted but Paul Campos, a law professor who's done some excellent writing in the past on fake law school jobs numbers, absolutely crushed the book in Slate Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/paterno_bio_disgusting_and_disgraceful/

 

I got it all wrong. Posnanski turned in an excellent example of journalism.

How does Allard Baird feel that he's been called out more than Paterno by Posnanski for doing nothing more than making poor personnel moves. I'd be furious if I was treated worse than a child-rape enabler. That's what's so insulting by Posnanski's effort and that's why he's an excellent stereotype for jock-sniffer sports writer.

 

From Posnanski's GQ interview:

I still don't understand why Posnanski doesn't tell us who these people "around him" are. What kind of influence do they have over him? Are they making decisions for Joe? Does Joe consult with them before making up his mind on big decisions?

 

Hater. He's just jealous because what has he achieved?

--Pearlman

 

The sixth word of the column, the last name of an incredibly famous painter being used as an example of bad writing, is misspelled. Why would I read further?

 

Because everyone has typos and people make even more now that the bean counters have fired all the copy editors.

I'm a lawyer now. Some lawyers often write stuff that money and, sometimes, even lives hinge on. When lawyers find typos, they fix them and observe that everyone has typos. They mostly seem to think that typos are something that happens when you're writing a lot. They don't get pedantic and inside insist that one typo - even a misspelled name of a party in the suit - undermines the whole piece. I've gotta tell you, it's common sense and fairly refreshing.

That's not to say that an error-filled story or brief doesn't undermine the author's credibility. Of course it does. But one typo? It's almost always just silly to place that much importance on it.