23 Reasons Why J.R. Moehringer can't write a profile about Pete Carroll

I would loudly disagree with this one.

If you want to make that argument, it's Pierce who wrote such a good story about Woods that it couldn't be done right again, but I contend that's somewhat false because Jones wrote a story about Tiger that -- while not quite reaching the iconic status of "The Man. Amen." -- was better than anything written about Tiger since Eldrick told Pierce dick jokes in the back of a limo.

Gary's story "The Chosen One," while technically perfect and artistically beautiful, looks ridiculous in retrospect. Its inclusion in The Best American Sports Writing of the Century, ahead of Pierce's piece, is preposterous. It's not even in Smith's top 10.

 

As a profiler, though, don't you have the responsibility to include some (or even one) of those voices? If for no other reason than to serve as a counterweight within the piece? Even if you set it up, then shoot it down, you are at least giving the piece a few moments to ponder whether Carroll is too good to be true. Flaws are something we can empathize with. Does Pete have any flaws within this piece?

 

It certainly doesn't seem like Pete has any flaws in this one. Even after an the embarassing loss to Stanford, this piece has him coming out smelling like Roses (get it?).

But as I read this piece a second time, I realized what made me like it so much. It is the same thing with "Resurrecting the champ", something that might not be appreciated by the average reader. This piece goes really in depth with not just Pete, but with the writer's relationship with his subject. As a writer, that was profoundly interesting to me. Maybe J.R. went in with this worship of Pete beforehand, but it seems to me that his appreciation for the coach grew and grew, like a crecendo, in this piece.

Maybe this piece doesn't point out Pete's flaws, whether he has them or not. But I think the approach J.R. took instead of the standard "show the opposition then shoot it down" worked much better.

 

Rags,

I agree with nearly all of what you're saying. I think the "other side" malady of journalism most often manifests itself in the politcal stories where that "other side" may be one lone, lunatic voice who is given equal time under the false pretense of objectivity. As you said, sometimes the story is exactly as it seems. And I think real in-depth quality magazine writing (especially a profile) can be, and is often, subjective, especially in the hands of someone as talented as Moehringer. But I the profiles I admire the most are the ones that explore a little darkness in their subjects. Not necessarily in quotes or the lone angry voice, but with a scene or a moment that reveals something more is going on here than we'll ever really know.

S.L. Price's piece last year about Ray Lewis did this, I thought, particularly well.

Again, I'm not really critical of this piece, which is excellent. I just think it's an interesting discusison.

 

I can't get the link to work again. I hadn't completely finished it.

 

Nice job shitting the bed on this one, LA Mag. A piece that's been roundly hailed as a great piece of feature writing and your web site breaks so no one can read it.

 

hmmm. yeah, price found a dark side to depict in a piece on ray lewis? challenging.

maybe the essence to the carroll piece if that he has no "dark" side. who woulda thunk it? someone in the public eye with nothing to be afraid of someone digging up? stunning!

how cynical even we ink-stained wretches have become. even his biggest detrctors as an NFL coach during his time in n.y. and boston never found any "dark" side to carroll. maybe, just maybe, there isn't one. possible?

 

It's impressive what a condecending prick you are every time we try to talk about writing, shockey.

 

eureka! that makes a lotta sense, dd. thanks for playing. : : :

 

Yup. I enjoyed. I read his feature that won the Pulitzer, and about a page in, I was stunned. Amazing writer.