Posnanski and the Paterno book

And you are?

 

I'm someone who does his best not to shit on other journalists for sport. Doesn't mean I'm perfect, but I generally try not to pretend I'm capable of shit I'm not capable of.

 

+1

 

but the book still is a complete pile of shit, right? i mean really, who in the fuck are you attempting to kid? the best writing associated with this book came from a prof from colorado ... typo and all.

and it's not sport on stitch's part. the man (joepoz) had the opportunity to tell the real story of a man who turned a blind eye while his defensive coordinator and then former defensive coordinator continued to "horse around" in the PSU showers with little boys.

guess most of us expected a little more (actually a lot more) from a guy we once respected.


and why do you feel the need to defend this crap? do you actually think that any of us actually have or ever will read your, well, copy? because it sure seems as though you are desperately attempting to put yourself on the same level as joepoz, which my friend, you certainly are not. in fact, your vicious attacks are a rather embarrassing plea for attention.

 

Maybe we'd be better off if we could stick to criticizing the writing rather than the writer.

 

Ralph, I'd suggest that the vast majority of folks in the general public are neither filled with rage nor looking for any level of vindication of/for Paterno, they're just people who would like to understand this situation better.

Why does it whiff? I would give you too main reasons: (1) it's superficial; (2) the author intentionally interjects ambiguity when the facts show there really is no ambiguity, which creates the impression he's either blind to the facts or refuses to acknowledge them. The second point has been addressed in reviews and on this thread, but the first point really hasn't been talked about very much.

The best biographies of a living person often result when a top notch biographer has access to that person and then combines that access with drilling down into the people around the subject to expand the picture. The reporting then leads the reporter back to the subject, who either confirms or denies or expands on what the other people said. There's not enough of that in this book. The mosaic of people around Paterno at different points in his life isn't deep, it's superficial. The reporting is shallow. The anecdotes are shallow. And not just about the Paterno-Sandusky relationship, but if we concentrate on that for a moment, I have no doubt that deeper reporting into the people who had been around both men for years would have provided us with greater insights. Not a smoking gun, but more understanding and nuance.

This isn't a serious biography that could be put in the category of something written by, say, Stephen Ambrose. That's the bottom line and it's a shame given that no one will ever have the access he had.

 

Extremely shallow so far, as I noted earlier.

I'm starting to wonder if Paterno is, underneath it all, interesting enough to actually carry a work of this ambition. I think that most sports figures actually probably are not, especially if you don't have the cultural significance of a Lombardi or Jackie Robinson or Namath to go along with it.

The writing is good, because Posnanski is a good writer. And at least pre-scandal, I feel like the reporting was certainly comprehensive. But there isn't a lot of there there, really. There are a few pages at one point where Posnanski quotes verbatim from letters Paterno wrote home from the Army. They are like watching paint dry, although he tries to attach some significance to the tea leaves. For example, Paterno admires how much some battalion practices. I've also been surprised to read Posnanski keep coming back to a quote along the lines of, "The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital." He seems to regard this as a famous Paterno quote, and quite insightful. The problem is that I've seen it, in various incarnations, attached to many, many coaches. Bob Knight for sure. It's as much a part of his mythology among Indiana fans as it is part of Paterno's mythology for Penn State fans. It's odd to read as Posnanski treats it straight, without even noting that it's kind of a sports cliche at this point.

What Posnanski probably regarded as a compelling part of the Paterno story actually, I think, makes it somewhat boring for a biography - and that's his lengthy reign at one school. Obviously that's a huge component of the scandal, because he was able to amass so much clout, but it makes the rest of his story a bit of a snooze. People's lives are interesting when there are multiple stops and challenges along the way, which don't really begin in this case until the last decade of his life.

 

Great stuff from Dick and Russo and Carty.

Anyone alleging to know what he or she would have done as the author of this book is either delusional or a liar. Especially if they haven't read the book.

Totally disagree that there's a jealousy component to the criticism; to me, the attacks lie somewhere between ignorance and satisfaction that someone else failed.

 

Jim,
Good post, although I would add that we should probably actually be thankful it wasn't like an Ambrose bio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Ambrose#Criticism

Haven't read the book, but again, from the second the project was announced, when Joe talked about being a dream book that would give him the chance to write about all the things he ever wanted to say, Paterno just seemed like something of an odd subject. Not because of what we now know about him and not because people knew he wasn't the saint portrayed all those years, even before the scandal broke, but because there had been so much written about him, including several recent bios.

Can people find new things to say about people who have been written about extensively? Of course. We mentioned Shakespeare. But Greenblatt's Will in the World somehow managed to say something new. I just didn't know what could be said about an old football coach that hadn't already been said.

 

Which is along the same kind of "nyah! nyah! You don't get it! You don't have Pos' CAREER!!" lines as the simplistic "jealousy" accusation.

In the end, Joe Posnanski is a journalist who is more suited to write the Paterno biography he originally set out to write. He's not a guy who relishes scandal, and he is not a guy whose career has been spent crafting investigative pieces that uncover the seedy underbelly of (fill-in-the-blank).

That's not a criticism (try real hard not to accuse me of "JEALOUSY!!!" "IGNORANCE!!!" or "SATISFACTION!!!!" here; such blanket descriptions are lazy and not really worth addressing). But it is true.

Some journalists know how to uncover scandal. But they can't write. Posnanski's strength is storytelling, Americana-type stuff.

It's no stretch to say it's likely that Sara Ganim couldn't write like Joe Posnanski. But he wouldn't do what she did here. Everyone has their niche.

 

I think some of the disappointment comes from the fact that Posnanski is such a good writer, and had so much access.

Now you combine that with the fact that a lot of folks wanted a Paterno rip job from the book, and didn't get one, with the fact that Posnanski had already signaled we wouldn't be getting one, and you have a lot of built up venom, ready to be unleashed.

I really do feel like Posnanski must have grown to really like Paterno, and even his idiot kids. He's just so unwilling to say anything clearly negative about them. The GQ interview is useless. He says nothing.

Even where Paterno's claims of ignorance are diputed by the Freeh report, Posnanski points it out in the most mild way.

I think a lot of us wanted Posnanski to point out the Emperor has no clothes, and he's just not willing to tell us this. Even if he knows it, he's going to "let us decide".

And, that does disappoint me. If he knows it, he should tell us.

 

Well said, YF.