Pearlman does preps

[Elliotte Friedman]

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm astonished at the criticism on this thread.

Guy got one more chance to go back to his roots and write a high-school gamer. Yeah, maybe it was a vanity project, but so what? This is not your regular reporter-sent-to-cover-and-write story. This is a fun assignment.

It's as much about the experience as the writing. I don't understand the criticism, or why Jeff is so defensive about it.

 

[Alma]

I have a question, for real, and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just fascinated by this whole discussion.

Forget whether you think my article sucked or not, and I ask, Why is it so bad to write a prep gamer as more of a feature-gamer? I mean, yeah, the 40 guys who played in the game, and their parents, are reading to see their names in the story. But I can't imagine the majority of the OC Register sports section readers care about the Laguna Beach-Bolsa Grande outcome. So why not make them care by actually trying to make the stories interesting? Again, I'm not making this a debate about whether my article worked or not. But, throughout my life, I've skimmed past a solid 98 percent of prep stories because they're boring and I have no interest in the outcomes. What draws me to an article is a lede that sucks me in, or an interesting character. The Register still has a large circulation. If I write the standard, "Laguna Beach beat Bolsa Grande behind two touchdowns from Steve Sanders ..." lede, I'm basically writing for .002% of readers. No?

So is it possible the old way of prep gamers is the wrong way? That you're catering to a small number, not the overall readership?

I'm probably not right here. But it strikes me as interesting.

The old way is boring and rote. You are not "wrong" about this.

But when it's a full-on beat, and most preps writers across the country are working 3 or 4 different sports, 5 days a week...it's like cooking at home. Are you really bringing your A cooking game every night?

And, as I wrote before, some preps writers can be focused on the scrapbook aspect of the job. The role can attract, as I like to say, "human almanacs." They're parts rules official, part historian, they get off on taking meticulous stats, and they love ratings. And, in some places, that's all part of the beat. It's four stories a week, and keeping track of a whole lot of numbers and names for all-county, all-metro, who signs with which local school, who set the conference record in doubles, etc.

 

[Alma]

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm astonished at the criticism on this thread.

I get it to some degree.

To the long-term detriment of the financial model at many publications, there has always been an unusual preference for write-pretty take out stuff than the nuts-and-bolts stuff readers need to know and probably, on some level, want to know.

This preps story eschews the typical ham-and-egg model that preps writers have been trained to follow - for some good and some bad reasons - in favor of flourishes that, generally speaking, most writers have convinced themselves they're not allowed to use in stories if they come at the expense of the model. I don't know why they convince themselves they can't, but they do, and so it goes.

Having never had some awe for - and thus no consternation toward - longform feature writers or feature writing - I think the longer a story is, the better chance there is to screw it up or be less interesting than a Wikipedia entry about the same person or event - I neither genuflect at that altar nor blame the people good at it for some of their write pretty tendencies. (Blame and finding fault are two different things.) But that tension often exists at the root of the industry. Always has.

Who's the best journalist? Well, obviously the one working at Sports Illustrated or Grantland or ESPN! I've never thought that held true no more than I'd hold Adam Sandler being the best actor out there because he keeps getting great money gigs. But most people do, and thus it informs the criticism of so nice of you to slum with preps for a night, and of course you turned into starry-eyed show.

I liked the copy of the story and that was it. But for some others, there's a certain freight to it.

 

[BDC99]

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm astonished at the criticism on this thread.

Guy got one more chance to go back to his roots and write a high-school gamer. Yeah, maybe it was a vanity project, but so what? This is not your regular reporter-sent-to-cover-and-write story. This is a fun assignment.

It's as much about the experience as the writing. I don't understand the criticism, or why Jeff is so defensive about it.

But you still have to serve the readers. And I have no doubt jeff going from where is now back to preps was very difficult. And I understand his approach to it. I just don't think it worked. I'm pretty sure the Tennessean version of jeff wouldn't have written it this way, because he's just a different writer now. And I also think, as someone already pointed out, jeff would find the right voice if he spent some time getting used to the beat again.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

if that was the case, BDC, why would anyone do anything differently? It's one prep story in a season of them. Are the readers really not served by this?

 

[WriteThinking]

I have no problem with featurized game stories. For the most part, I like them -- prefer them, even.

This one was just a little bit overdone, that's all.

 

[silvercharm]

I've covered pros, colleges and preps throughout my 35+ year career. College football for a long, long time. I've found in coming back to preps, if you check your ego at the door, you'll find that covering high schools is a pretty good gig. With more and more pro and college programs cutting access to next to nothing, and particularly college, you'll find the access to high school athletes and coaching refreshing. After all, we're in the storytelling business. There are stories to be told in high school, too.

 

[jeff.pearlman]

Elliotte, I don't think I'm being overly defensive—at all. I love this dialogue, and find it really interesting and fascinating.

The reason I stopped coming here years ago is because, honestly, it often feels like, if you have established any sort of name in the biz, you can't win. If someone calls your writing shirt, and you say, "OK, show me your stuff" you're an overly aggressive asshole who—because he writes books or for ESPN or Yahoo or whatever—is arrogant and demeaning. And if you engage and dig into a conversation, you're being overly sensitive.

I love, love, love talking journalism. Seriously love it.

So ... can't a guy just talk?

 

[Dick Whitman]

If someone calls your writing shirt, and you say, "OK, show me your stuff" you're an overly aggressive asshole who—because he writes books or for ESPN or Yahoo or whatever—is arrogant and demeaning.

That's not remotely close to what I said.

 

[Dick Whitman]

You have made a career out of writing purposely polarizing stuff, and then you, like clockwork, get worked up when someone criticizes it.

 

[JackReacher]

Jay Farrar -- OCR still believes, and I agree, that names are important and the more the better (but to just run the rosters if, of course, ridiculous and a stupid way for you to try to make your point). A few years ago, OCR required that all names in prep copy be boldface. It isn't done any where else in the section.

Is this true? Holy heck.

 

[WriteThinking]

I love, love, love talking journalism. Seriously love it.

So ... can't a guy just talk?

Man, you sound like my kind of guy. That's always been my sentiment...

That's not remotely close to what I said.

I don't think his quoted comment was directed specifically at your comment, but rather was just a general true statement making his point.