Posnanski and the Paterno book

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]



This. Most of these coaches are not interesting. Without fabrication, it is thus hard to make them interesting. We so want some movie like narrative, some great truth....for most, it doesn't exist. Man coaches for a long time, wins a lot of games, dies.

 

I DON'T get it. Do you? I'm not in Pos's situation, and neither is anyone else here.

Lazy is having the luxury of throwing grenades at an author who had tough problem to solve, when the attackers don't have to solve the problem and likely never will. Ignorance is judging the book without reading it.

I can respect, "I read the book and it's the worst piece of garbage ever." I can't respect, "It must be garbage and Posnanski has his head up his ass so I'm not reading it."

I have no problem telling you, I wouldn't have read it before the scandal, and I'm not planning to read it now. Only so many hours in the day and I never intended to spend them on Joe Paterno. But I also wouldn't spend that time ripping a guy for writing a book I didn't read.

 

One more thought, is it possible that Posnanski's reluctance to criticize Paterno more forcefully is a sales/marketing strategy?

Folks who are furious about what happened at PSU, and wanted a harsher punishment are unlikely buyers of the book. Is he trying not to offend his target market?

 

Sorry if pointing this out makes me a jealous loser or whatever, but why wouldn't a cavity-search thorough examination of Paterno's relationship with Sandusky be the No. 1 mission of this book after the scandal broke?

The men coached together for more than 30 years. Even if they weren't "close friends," you don't work with another human being for that long without gaining some valuable insight into that person.

There should've been a treasure trove of anecdotes and recollections that would cover far more new ground than page after page of re-hashed JoePa bio.

 

So Pos is above criticism?

 

He's not an individual who has earned a lot of criticism for how he treats people or approaches his business.

 

Of course not.

Posnanski's work isn't above criticism. No one's work is above criticism.

But how about we just stick to criticizing the work, rather than trying to psychoanalyze the author? Or offer half-baked moral judgments on his character?

 

Last I heard, Sandusky was still the anti-Christ in this story.

 

Certainly not. But there is a huge gap between "The work sucks" (fair criticism) and "The guy is a coward, and this work is a reflection on his character, regardless of what he's ever done at any point in his career." (Kind of bullshit.)

There is also a way to respectfully criticize someone's work, while at the same time fully understanding and acknowledging the complicated situation they were in with the project. I think Dick Whitman is doing an excellent job of that.

I think there are legitimate questions worth asking for Posnanski's biggest critics: Would you have walked away from the entire advance, entertaining the possibility you might never write a book again? Would you have simply refused to turn the book in when the publisher demanded it, possibly engaging in a legal battle over how much of the advance you had to then forfeit? Is there any possible way to believe there are flaws in the Freeh Report and write about that, especially when people like me are hammering people like shotglass in a fairly dickish way for daring to suggest Paterno might not be the monster we angry villagers need to throw in the lake and drown, in part because we need to feel better about ourselves at this moment?

Critical thought is a good thing. But the more it becomes about rubbing shit in someone's face and less about the actual work, the more the burden shifts to the critic. How would you have made this better? How would you have handled the real world complications that arise when you say you would have marched into the publisher's office and let them know how it was going to be? Would you mortgage your house to pay off a fraction of the advance and write the book that your harshest critics demanded?

No one is above criticism. But as fellow storytellers, authors, intellectuals, whatever, we should strive for criticism that's more realistic and less childish.

 

Posnanski might say that huge gap is actually describing Paterno's entire life, and it's the intended (if not the original) purpose of the book he wrote.

Just a thought.

 

This is the best question you ask, and a very legitimate case can be made for answering yes. And I don't think you have to have been in Posnanski's shoes to answer that question. Not that one. Maybe some of the others, but not that one.

I'm arguing a little bit here, so bear with me.

As a sportswriter, there aren't many better than Joe Posnanski. He paints pictures, turns phrases, uses emotions and creates momentum with his words. I quite doubt 95% of the people here can write as well as he does when he's good. So I frankly see little point in the assertion that, please, just critique the work.

The question at hand here appears to be a moral/ethical/human one. Now, we can say: No one here can judge. I can agree to that, if we add the word <i>ultimately</i>. Since I'm a Christian, I figure God will do that. But, being human, we're going to discuss the moral choices made in this deal by a lot of different people. Including Paterno's biographer. And Posnanski's talked enough about this book to make himself fair game on that front.

He did so in this column: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2012-08-15/joe-posnanski-joe-paterno/57081354/1

When Posnanski writes the words, "I had come to write a true book. That was what mattered," he is inviting, whether he knows it or not, readers to challenge his concept of "true." Because that's a big statement to write. <i>This is a <b>true</b> book</i>. And when you add the phrase "That was what mattered," you're declaring a moral.

And, by quoting the Ox-Bow Incident, Posnanski is inviting even more examination. He is indicting - whether he wants to admit it or not - all the writers who opined in "haste and strong feeling." That includes a lot of well-considered journalists, doesn't it?

Lines like: "I searched for what is real," and "the best biographies are, I think, complicated. They stir many emotions, not all of them happy ones, not all of them angry ones" and " I could not allow myself to get caught up in the shifting winds of this story," he is telling the reader that his account is trustworthy, and, IMO, a reader can easily infer that he is saying that his account is far more trustworthy than all the other things you might have read about Paterno.

Far from knocking the guy down, I, as a reader, am up for the challenge Posnanski's given me. He says what he's written is real and true and complicated, and I'm sorry, those adjectives aren't related to the art of the prose. They're related to the moral thrust of the thing.

 

Appreciate the responses Jim and Dick. I sort of cut and ran last night because it was late but was really looking forward to seeing what if any response I got.

I'll add one thing on ambiguity at the risk of making myself a target. Actually it's a question: Have journalist looked at the Freeh Report with enough of a critical eye? Is there enough ambiguity there not to vindicate the people at the heart of this ghastly lack of action by Penn State but to allow us to consider the motives and the nature of the sin.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this stuff. My wife certainly thinks so because she and I have volleyed back and forth on this and at a certain point I can tell she thinks I'm splitting hairs, dealing in semantics.
But I think I'm finding a shade of gray between pure evil and a sin of omission brought on by denial.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think there is some ambiguity when it comes to the why and how Paterno failed.

And, Dick, you couldn't have said it better. Fact is the people that we cover, most of them, are really not all that interesting because for the most part they really aren't doing anything that is all that important.
Which of course says a lot about us, doesn't it.

Ok, I'm hitting and running and again. Thanks again for the response Jim.