Posnanski and the Paterno book

[Versatile]

I place higher standards on a column that, based on what you insinuated, takes another writer to the cleaners.

 

[Stitch]

I place higher standards on a column that, based on what you insinuated, takes another writer to the cleaners.

Hopefully the blue font is bright on that post, because it's not showing up on my browser.

 

[YGBFKM]

Some of the best writers I know are horrific typers. And some of the most arrogant copy editors I know are much better at pointing out mistakes than catching them.

 

[Versatile]

You're both right; I'm being rather petty. I guess I'm just forking sick of it. I don't deny that the excerpts haven't been good, but I can't forking figure out why everyone and their mother feels the need to act as though Joe Posnanski is the problem with sports journalism. This is a profession that counts Lynn Hoppes and Mitch Albom among its highest paid, that continuously spools out retread bullshirt, that lays off quality reporters and editors every day, that has no forking clue how to find a niche in the Internet era.

Posnanski forked up with this one. He didn't approach it the way he should have, and maybe that somehow is indicative of some God-making tendency that he has. This book will forever color opinions of him, and that's how it should be. We should hold writers to their words. That's all they are to most of us.

But Posnanski also is one of the most consistently thoughtful, nuanced sports writers working. He's developed a following through intelligent, detailed and informed takes on sports. He's embraced new lines of thinking and worked hard at every turn. But for some reason, people are latching on to this book as though it's the gravest crime ever committed. Would anyone flinch if another author had written the same thing? Most sports biographies devolve into hagiography. For every terrible human being ever to succeed with a ball, there's a fawning biography.

This criticism of Posnanski is absurd, not in the logical merits but in the vitriol. I've never seen so many negative reviews for a simple sports biography. I understand that he put himself in this position, that he took on the public eye with his statements in the Paterno class (which he probably didn't think would be broadcast nationally). So, yeah, if you're going to write a rip job of one of the best in this business, at least spell "Salvador Dali" correctly.

 

[Jim_Carty]

Would anyone flinch if another author had written the same thing?

To most reviewers, this isn't about Posnanski. They don't know all the inside baseball that goes on in our business or this site. They're not ripping Joe because they have some ax to grind with him or his style, they're ripping a guy who was at ground zero of the biggest scandal of this generation in college sports, with better access than any other journalist, and whiffed. The only reason they're interested and reviewing the book is because it had the opportunity to give us unique insights ... and it fails to do so.

He mostly whiffed. That's the issue, at least with the reviewers, and yes, I firmly believe the reaction would have been the same with any other author who had the same access and wrote the same book.

 

[YGBFKM]

Given the single hazy event that occurred and the ultimate fallout involved here, this biography was going to get ripped regardless. Posnanski just had the unfortunate timing to get the opportunity of a lifetime.

 

[Alma]

There is an expectation that a biographer provide insight, not merely deep reporting.

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/

WFW on how great that story was. It's such a thorough takedown of high school sports that everybody involved is probably still down for the count. And it's a classic Texas story, too; that's maybe hard to make out on a first read.

But Posnanski, great as he's been at times, was never that sublime.

 

[dreunc1542]

Not a sports story, but Tony Horwitz hangs people with their own words really well in Confederates in the Attic without ever really condemning them himself.

 

[ralph russo]

Since I've now read the book cover-to-cover, I figured I'd chime in.

If you are among the many who are filled rage because of what Paterno did or did not do in the Sandusky case, you will hate this book and feel Posnanski failed miserably. And probably even want to hate Posnanski. For those people, any story about Paterno that does not vilify him at this point is not worth their time. I understand where that comes from and why. I'm sure Joe does too. In fact, he told me and I wrote that.

That's not me. The overriding feeling I have had during this awful story _ which I have covered from the fringes, the NCAA sanctions, JoePa's firing and death _ is sadness. Disgust and anger, but also lots of sadness and confusion. Because horrible stories make sad. I guess I'm just a big wimp.

Anyway, I think if you're a Penn State/Paterno zealot, you will probably like this book and see it as a possible step toward redemption of JoePa and in some way a defense of Penn State. I don't believe Joe Pos intended it to be that and having read it I don't believe it is that.
But so much negativity and vitriol has been directed toward PSU/Paterno _ most very much deserved, some not as much _ that anything NOT negative, anything that gives even the slightest benefit of the doubt to JoePa, I'm sure is viewed as a win for them.
And I use the phrase benefit of the doubt cautiously, because I don't think Joe Pos was giving anyone the benefit of the doubt as much as he was laying out all the facts available to him. And at least some of the facts still leave room for debate about levels of culpability and motives for the failures of Penn State's leadership. Not excuses, mind you, but reasons. Big difference.
However, I could see many of those who have already made up their minds on both sides viewing the telling of those facts as giving the benefit of the doubt to Paterno.

When I was reading the book it was clear the entire thing was written through the lens of the scandal, which is exactly what Joe Pos was trying to do and of course what he should have done. Even when writing about Paterno's early years, I felt Joe Pos spotted and highlighted the cracks in Paterno's armor.

Does much of the book portray Paterno in a positive light. Well, yes, but the fact is for 84 years he did a lot of positive things. So if you're going to write a book about that guy, it's going to be really hard to make it factual and leave out all the positive stuff.

I find myself struggling with the question Joe Pos was trying to get people to think about in the book. How do we judge this life? How do we judge any life? I think what has drawn me to a career in journalism is a desire to look at both sides of every argument. I'm forever the Devil's advocate. I'll challenge people who I generally agree with because I want to hear them support their claims with facts.

I think anger clouds the ability to analyze facts and make rational judgments. And I think when it comes to the Penn State story over the past 10 months, anger has been the predominant emotion for people on both sides.

When I interviewed Joe the other day, I really didn't care to hear all that much about his opinion on Paterno, though if you read the book or even the review in the Times, he gives his opinion of Paterno's role in the Sandusky scandal. I wanted to hear about the process because I was looking for some new information _ if possible _ about Paterno and his family.
I had never really met Joe before. Nothing beyond a passing handshake and hello. He's seems like an incredibly likable guy. But I didn't see the news value in asking him to analyze Paterno or the evidence in the Sandusky case. He's not qualified. And, quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing people's opinions and rants about this as if we're breaking down the pros and cons of a college football playoff.

I thought it was interesting that the Paternos didn't try to cut him off, because at some point when your family is in crisis you might look at the stranger in the room with the tape recorder and say, "Get the heck out of here!" Though I thought it was also interesting that the family clearly saw Joe's presence as a way to get their side of the story out.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm giving Joe Pos the benefit of the doubt for some reason because he doesn't seem like a screamer and a ranter and I am neither. But I thought he wrote a fair book under tough circumstances.

 

[ralph russo]

Would anyone flinch if another author had written the same thing?

To most reviewers, this isn't about Posnanski. They don't know all the inside baseball that goes on in our business or this site. They're not ripping Joe because they have some ax to grind with him or his style, they're ripping a guy who was at ground zero of the biggest scandal of this generation in college sports, with better access than any other journalist, and whiffed. The only reason they're interested and reviewing the book is because it had the opportunity to give us unique insights ... and it fails to do so.

He mostly whiffed. That's the issue, at least with the reviewers, and yes, I firmly believe the reaction would have been the same with any other author who had the same access and wrote the same book.

Why whiffed? I'm going to play devil's advocate here. He was there to write a book on Paterno and he chronicled the central figure's last days in that "biggest scandal in the history of college sports." What did you expect him to unearth? A confession of some sorts from Paterno?

If you're point is at some point he should have stopped writing about Paterno, and started writing only about the scandal, and taken on Sara Ganim's role of tracking down victims and trustees and law enforcement to dig up something that has not already been unearthed, well then I see your point. But what he had was access to Paterno. He had access to the house and the hospital and all those hand written notes, and his family and friends and "advisers." That's the only thing he had that nobody else had. So that's what he wrote.

Maybe the problem is, at this point, nobody wants to read that book because they think there is a better one out there. And maybe there is, but not necessarily from the access points Joe Pos had.

 

[Stitch]

Single hazy event redux.

 

[Double Down]

Single hazy event redux.

Still certain you would have handled it better, ever step of the way? Because reading these threads, you seem like very much the expert. I'm genuinely curious where this feeling of absolute condescending superiority comes from. Maybe Pos did a poor job. Maybe he said some foolish, emotional things. Maybe he whiffed.

Convinced you would have done so much better? Truly? Because I bet you would have absolutely shirt your forking pants and curled up into a ball and wept for months if faced with similar circumstances. Is your unwavering belief in yourself what gives you moral authority to act like a brick ad nauseum and say something like "this shows us what kind of man Posnanski really is?" Because you know you would have crushed it, and nailed Paterno's ass to the wall?

Maybe you're right. Maybe you would have done a much better job, and thus, you're totally justified in being a relentless deck on this subject. Somehow, I think not. I think it makes you feel better to pretend you would have had the answers here that Pos, I guess, did not. What inspires you to believe that, I can't say. Because it ain't experience. And it ain't facts. If that makes me an asshole to point that out, so be it. I've seen you take so many shots, over and over, I really don't care about the moral scolding I'm certain I'll receive for this. But we both know, don't we Stich, you posses neither the talent nor the intellect to have done this better. What counter argument can you make to prove I'm wrong? None.

Chew on that next time you want to kick a little more dirt on the pile.