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

Shockey,

My grouchy feelings for you date back to our squabble on the thread about the story David Hyde wrote about finding Jake Scott, in which I offered up the theory that the piece, while excellent, might have been better had it not revealed the writer found Jake Scott in the third sentence, since much of it was set up as a mystery of whether or not Scott had disappeared and could he, in fact, be found. Your response was to essentially tell me I sucked, that the piece was great, it was pathetic to be at all critical of something that good, and to post a bunch of eye-rolling emoticons. My point was, both there and here, was that even great pieces of journalism can be reimagined, if only for those still discovering their voice and attempting to learn by reading stories here. My point about Price's story on Lewis was not that it's easier to find darker moments in Ray Lewis than Pete Carroll as a profiler (obviously), but that few journalists are as good at Price is as writing a story (or, in particular, a scene) that strips a subject bare and reveals him for who he is. It's not about coming up with a negative scene or anacdote about of someone. It's about coming up with one that subtle and honest and reveals something a person's words cannot. Ray Lewis tried to sell Price on a number of things in regards to the way he lives his life now, and Price painted him as neither a saint nor a sinner, but something in the murky middle. My point was not necessarily that Moehringer did not do this, because there are several wonderful scenes in this story that say a lot about Pete Carroll, but that the story Price wrote about Lewis did it without the "I'm a writer, trying to write this story, and it's tough" angle.

What annoyed me, again, was your quick, smart ass dismissal of anything I was trying to say about the craft that might have posed questions about this piece in the same way I posed them about the Jake Scott piece. ("Challenging! Who woulda thunk it! Stunning!").You took a similar tactic on the thread about Karen Crouse's Jets' stories we discussed. Just because someone's approach to writing a piece differs from yours does not make it lame. And just because a piece feels amazing on first read (which this did for me) does not make it above a further discussion.

Perhaps I'm somewhat uncool for suggesting this, but instead of wiseass comments, what I'd love to hear from you is why this piece works for you. What about it, as a seasoned veteran, impressed you? How difficult is it to write a profile like this when your notebook is overflowing with anacdotes? These are things you could teach a lot of people, including myself.

 

I can definitively answer the last question: zero. And it's probably such an amazing story because of that. Talese didn't owe Sinatra a goddamn thing.

I was out for some pints tonight and I've been thinking about this story and the discussion. I was wondering whether I must be wrong because everyone else likes the story so much, and maybe I am. But then I thought, the fact is, I like stories with archs and beginnings and endings and flow, in the Talese style. I'm neotraditionalist, I guess. This story really is more like the Gould movie, like DD said, like snapshots or a slide show rather than a story. I would like to read what JR would have come up with had he taken a traditional approach with it. I bet it would have been awesome, and I would have liked it more, and we probably wouldn't be talking about it here.

 

Here's the intriguing thing to me about this discussion:

We as writers strive so often for that perfect turn of phrase or that perfect anecdote or comparison.

What we're seeing here — in Moehringer, in Talese, in Smith, in Price, in Pierce (PLEASE, A COPY OF THE MAN. AMEN!!!) — is their ability to simply transcend story-telling.

Some think it works, some think it doesn't, but the fascinating argument is how, better than any other writers alive, they've mastered the ability to take a story and tell it in a new way. As sports writers, they have. Like Klosterman (sometimes, though I don't hold him to their standard) and like Chiarella, other writers can do it well, with non-sports.

 

I don't have a problem with how he told the story. I don't have a problem with the writing. But when you look at it closely, you see notice the moral of the story is that the journalist couldn't come up with any reasons to dislike the guy - so he basically handed over any objectivity. He and Petie are friends now. Congratulations.

My concern is he didn't really try very hard to be objective. There's really no evidence of it.

 

Objective...the biggest lie in journalism. No one is objective. Get over it.

 

Are you regurgitating one of your professor's lectures on objectivity? I bet money you are.

Simon, you have to mix in the good and the bad when you do a profile. You have to be skeptical of all the shit the subject is spoon-feeding you. You can't take a side. The writer has taken a side. The subject's side. That's his thesis of the story: Pete Carroll is so great I'm biased. That disturbs me a bit.

And yes, I heard the whole "no such thing as objectivity" argument when I was in college more than a decade ago. It's bullshit. Yes, everyone has preconceived notions from their own experiences but you get past that by treating everyone fairly. Listen and most importantly, play devil's advocate with everyone. Even with the people you think you might agree with. If you're willing to challenge your own views on a daily basis you can be objective.

 

Jonesy,

I've been thinking about some of those same things -- arcs and beginnings and endings and flow -- and I submit to you this story has them all.

Look at it like this: if JR had rearranged the order of the 23 reasons, wouldn't the piece have read differently? A big part of why the story worked for me is the seamless manner in which each "reason" built upon the one before it. This wasn't just a bunch of pages from a notebook ripped out and shuffled together, or a box of slides jammed into a projector willy-nilly. It was more like a Picasso, with a bunch of seemingly random shapes and figures appearing at first to be disjointed, but actually playing off one another with a carefully considered greater purpose. There was definite flow there, and even some nice arcs. JR just disguised them a little bit.

 

guess i'm just a simpleton and a geezer who reads a story once and decides whether i like it ot not without the over-analysis that it gets on this board. certainly, discussions are healthy.

i always contend they get tiresome, guilty of paralysis through over-analysis. the same tendency that many of us accuse those we cover of suffering from.

yes, i'm an old fool who reads a piece and knows whether i like it or not. no discussions are going to sway me. i'm old and stuck in my ways.

believe me, i wish i could be young again. well, not really. but i don't believe anyone -- inclyding you, dd -- needs to defend why they like a a piece.

the carroll piece worked splendidly for me. so does just about everything price or smith writes. just like just about everything karen crouse writes rubs me the wrong way.

different strokes. again, i can't help my sarcasm. it's a way of life to me. worked pretty well, although maybe better in person than on a message board or e-mail. i'd like to think most people who know me get me and appeciate the humor. you obviously don't.

guess i'll have to live with that, dd. i'm cool with it. and please, please, please HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

 

This is the new New Journalism. But it's not new. Ever read the Algiers Motel Incident?

 

I liked the story, liked the format.

Would I have liked it more if it was written in a more traditional way? Maybe. Then again, seeing as how I was reading it at 3 a.m., I might have been less inclined to stick with it.

 

Simon, you're playing academic semantics. Don't fall into the radio talk show host trap so early in life, where we spend hours trying parse the words of the words of the words.

You know what everybody means, you know it when you do it and you know it when you don't. There's balance. And there isn't.

 

Alma, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the story, if you have time.