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

Thanks, shockey, and if I ever need help crafting a 12-inch NFL notebook, I'll seek your counsel. You've shown repeatedly, despite your age and experience, you do not posses the intellect to understand any discussion that does not square with your worldview of writing or journalism. Even if you did have something to teach, it consistently gets lost in your arrogance. There are countless people with more experience and expertise than you have on kind of writing Moehringer did here, and I look forward to hearing their opinions, even if they challenge my own. In the meantime, you enjoy the free taco bar.

 

amazing piece of work. funny, just started the tender bar today

 

At risk of great personal and professional ridicule, I'm going to have to take the dissenting opinion on this one.

First off, let me say that I think -- and this kind of goes without saying, but anyway -- I think that JR is a tremendous talent. "Resurrecting the Champ" remains my favorite magazine story of all time, and it probably is at least half-responsible for my becoming a long-form writer in the first place. And I named The Tender Bar my book of the year in Esquire last year. All to say, I don't have any envy issues here -- before that old saw comes out -- and I'm not knocking JR's ability, not one bit. I wish I was half the writer.

But here's my take: There's a point in that story when JR talks about The Profile, the standard mag-story template. And he's bang on, and it's a template I've fallen back on before probably too much, because reading that, I actually started to feel kind of sweaty, like I'd done something bad. It was like JR was talking to me there. Apparently, I've got some shaking up to do.

So, JR knows what would be the standard route here. And he knows that the scene of Carroll walking through the music halls is the opening -- it just is. Reading it, I was like, that's my opening. And I'd be willing to bet good money that JR started writing the profile that way. He was going for the standard format, and he was going to open with that scene. And then he felt that a) he was falling back on old architecture and b) he wasn't doing justice to the story. He was probably thinking, I've got all this great material, and I'm going to fuck it up if I do just a boring old story.

But my feeling is, When you have material like this, just tell the story -- it's not boring, and it's not routine. Great material is rare enough these days that the story will stand up even if it's built on a common foundation. I think the rest of it -- the 23 reasons, the subheads, the (too frequent) writerly interjections that I don't think non-writers will understand or give a whiff about -- kind of clutters it up. It's like putting 1,000 beads on a wedding dress when just a couple might do. (That's probably the gayest metaphor I've ever written, but hey.)

Alternatively, I think that when you're faced with a grand, epic subject like Carroll, the best thing to do is go small. Focus a lot of weight on one moment or one scene. It's like the Ali movie with Will Smith -- it failed because it was too big. I thought then that if you just focused on the Ernie Terrell fight ("WHAT'S MY NAME?"), that would have said more about Ali than a decade's worth of material ever could. So here, maybe if JR did a story based entirely on that night out on the streets with Bo Taylor, that would have been a really resonant and beautiful and unusual story all on its own, no dress-up required.

I also kind of groaned at the last line.

Now, I'm probably guilty here of something -- dullness or hackery, probably a bit of both. Maybe I'm too conventional thinking, maybe I'm just dumb. But really, I feel like the writing messed up this story. I feel like there were some great moments in there, but I really had to do a lot of work to sift them out, like I was panning for gold. (There's a manlier metaphors, bitches.) And I really feel like non-writers would have given up about two-thirds through.

Just to be sure, I believe it's good to experiment, and I believe that good writing often involves taking risks. But I'm not sure this was the story for JR to do it on. I'd love to know if I'm right -- if he actually starting writing it one way and then tore it up and decided to go with this one. It felt like that to me -- like it was forced, too conscious almost. We've all been there. I feel like an asshole for calling him on it here. JR, if you read this, I think you're a great writer and I admire you and your work very much. I just feel like this story was Corinthian when Doric would do.

That metaphor's just a plain old reach, by the way.*

*Or maybe that's a simile. Or an analogy. Fuck, I don't know anything anymore.

 

Interesting points, Jonesy. Can't say I disagree with many of them, although I still think the piece worked ... somehow. Maybe it only worked because I am interested in the craft of writing, but it worked for me nonetheless.

Now, consider yourself ridiculed.

 

The anecdotes were there. The material was there.
But, the breech of the formulaic is the reason why we're talking about this piece.
For me, this one had a locution found only in a fabulous few.

 

Marvelous storytelling ... J.R. had total access and he made the very most of it ... As fishwrapper notes, the anecdotes were there, the material was there, and so were the quotes BUT J.R. used Carroll's sparingly ... what he relied on, what he showed readers and not merely told them, were layers upon layers of detail ... To me, the minimal quotes from Carroll amid all those details produced a piece highly reminiscent of Gay Talese's "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold" in Esquire http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ1003-OCT_SINATRA_rev ... and that's saying something

 

God damn, I totally forgot about Frank Sinatra has a cold and that is the greatest story I've ver read.

Now, I'm mad at myself.

Double Down, your dedication to the craft is appreciated. I enjoy these discussions greatly, and you and JMac start most of them, so, thanks.

Jones, I see all of your points. And I can understand them.

The thing about it — it just works for me. Kinda like the Chiarella (I think it was Chiaraella)) story on Halle Berry that "she" wrote. At first, I hated the idea. Then I kept reading, and reading and by the end I was like, Fuck I wish I thought of this.
Also, kinda like Chiarella (or Junod? Or who am I thinking of?) about Charlize Theron in Esquire's hottest woman story.

It's interesting how "new journalism" has morphed into an era where even we feel like we need to tweak it.

Sinatra has a cold, Kramer's Williams feature — those were some of the first of their kind. Now, the narrative approach — show someone in a vulnerable situation and keep coming back to it — is almost hackneyed.

Still, it's my favorite way to read and my favorite way to write. I think there is still something to be said about paiting a picture at the beginning of a story.

Also, DD, one of the reasons I listed the Smith piece on Woods is because I've never fucking found a copy of The Man. Amen. and it kills me that I haven't read it.

So, DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ELECTRONIC I CAN READ OF CHARLIE PIERCE'S THE MAN. AMEN.

Thanks,
GBNF

 

Don't see it online, but it was in the 1998 BASW.

Find that at amazon, and you're golden.

It really is amazing.

 

Rather than comment on this piece, I'm going to post some questions about it, and about this thread. In service of the younger writers here who often ask about learning to read as a writer. Just workshop stuff to think about.

- Why did Mr. Moehringer feel it was necessary to arrange this profile as he did?

- Was it written in draft this way, or was it written as a straight profile, then dismantled and rearranged?

- Having read it, do you have a sense of who Pete Carroll is?

- Do you have a sense of why Pete Carroll is the way he is?

- Why does Pete Carroll visit South Central?

- How bad a neighborhood is South Central?

- How much time do you think Mr. Moehringer got with Pete Carroll?

- How many people did Mr. Moehringer speak with in doing his research?

- Why is Mrs. Carroll not among those quoted? Or the Carroll children?

- What obstacles did Pete Carroll overcome to become Pete Carroll?

- Is conflict necessary in every narrative?

- Is conflict always a thing external to the subject of the profile? I.e. man vs man or man vs nature.

- Or is conflict possible (perhaps even desirable) in the interior life of the subject? I.e., man vs himself.

- Where was the conflict in this piece?

- In "Frank Sinatra Has A Cold," how many times did Talese speak to Sinatra?

 

um, excuse me, dd. but i genuinely don't comprehend what comment by me so riled you up here. i suppose that's just my inferior intellect at work yet again.

if pointing out that spotlighting a "dark" side in a feature on ray lewis was not a difficult reach for price, as opposed to carroll being given a pass in this piece, well, i don't think i was being condescending there. if my sarcasm hit a nerve with you, i sincerely apologize. no sarcasm there.

happy holidays, dd. sincerely.

 

Jonsey, as always, many thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do not think Moehringer would be offended in the least. I think what you wrote broadens the way any of us can look at the story, and that's the reason I linked it in the first place, for discussion.

I asked a friend to take a look at the piece, and while he said he enjoyed it, he pointed out that the technique here isn't something completely new. You write a profile, chop it up and rearrange it, and piece it back together. It's essentially the technique used in "32 Short Films About Glenn Gould," and a few other pieces. (Or 32 Short Films about Springfield, if you prefer.)

Some beautiful writing, and some wonderful reporting. I'm seeing though how we might be more enamoured with the device than the regular reader. I think it works, and obviously I was moved enough to post it here for discussion, but it takes some buying into. Mr. Jones and I had this discussion once about Gary Smith, although because he does not read Mr. Smith, I was making most of the arguments and he was drinking beer. Smith is obviously brilliant, but you have to buy into the storytelling technique to really get it. You can't be a cynic. If Smith writes, "Don't read this story. For Mia Hamm's sake. Don't read it or even look at the pictures" you can either say, Ok, I'm done or I'm intrigued. I'll read on. But if you read on, it's not likely you're a cynic. You're a believer.