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

Here's my basic thing on this story, aside from my first comment:

I found it an extremely easy read, and fun, and there's a lot in there.

I don't know how to make it simpler. I enjoyed the damn thing, a lot.

 

DD,

Gotta read it all. Then I will. Although you covered many bases already.

 

That's about as succinct as it gets.

 

With all the discussion about craft, I think this point gets lost. Did you like it? Did you laugh, smile, think while reading it?

For me, it was yes dozens of times over. I respect that J.R. went for something different. Did it work? That is up to each individual reader. For me, it did because I enjoyed the hell out of the story.

 

A story that length, even with the same details and tone, would be much harder to enjoy in a more traditional format. The approach, for me, closed the inevitable assumptions most readers bring into a structured profile.

 

Editude, I think that's part of why I really liked it, which is surprising. I'm never really a big fan of the breaks in stories, be they stars or subheads or just a storytelling tool to direct me somewhere else. I like things to flow.

But this one, somehow, I loved for feeling like I was getting to see all kinds of things. It was like I was at an amusement park and as soon as I got used to one thing, Moehringer said, "No, wait, look over there!" and it was something just as fun.

I thoroughly enjoyed this piece, and I'm going to have to leave it there, like SF_Express did. I'm not nearly smart or worldly enough to be able to break down its virtues and faults like Double Down.

 

I had enormous fun reading that damn thing.

 

Someone here has to know J.R.

Drop him a line and ask him to stop by and explain his approach to this profile.

I'd really like to know if the recent ESPN.com E-Ticket story on Carroll influenced his decision to tell the story in a different way. I bet it did for the simple fact that not many people would read two 100-inch profiles on the same person within a month.

That said, I thought the piece was outstanding. People always say there's an art to writing; I think the art is in storytelling. Here, J.R.'s engine was a gimmick, but it still kept pushing readers deeper into the story. By reason 7, 8 or 9, they're past the point of no return and are going to see it through til the end.

In a time of smaller stories -- seems like half the people on the board complain about stories that are too long -- that makes this approach a success. It was long, but not overwhelming. It was informative, but the biographical information never slowed down the story or altered its pace. I didn't find it too rah-rah and I sure as hell wasnt thinking the story needed another "voice."

By the way, I bet the USC beat reporters are thrilled about all these reporters coming in and getting inside access.

 

Man, I wish I could put something together like that.
It's not just the ability to tell the story like that, he was able to gather the information and organize it in such a way that I can't do at this point.
I always say my interviewing skills are what needs the most work but this guy, he didn't even have to interview. It was just his observation and the way he took in the situation and remembered it all on the streets that got to me. It's a great skill.

Then again I'm just starting in this business, 23 and seven months out of college. I have a long way to go. But, this is a good thing to aspire to, being able to tell a story like that.

 

I have no more information than anybody else on the board about how Moehringer constructed the story, from the initial thought and query letter, through his days with Carroll, all the way to breaking down and explaining the 23rd reason. But I will guarantee that he didn't just open his eyes and follow Carroll around Los Angeles for a couple days.

Moehringer, most likely, landed three or four days with Carroll, maybe more, and during that time the two shared a lot of conversation. That much is apparent. And Damaramu, when you have that much time, you have conversations, not interviews. Maybe the notebook isn't open, maybe the recorder isn't on, but you talk and you remember a lot.

Carroll can be wonderful -- almost any reporter anywhere in the nation can place a call to the Southern California SID and receive at least a few minutes with the coach over the phone, trust me -- but you still have to make him talk.

 

Ah, I see what you mean.

I also thought it was good enterprise to just be able to try a different story "outside the box" so to speak.

It makes me want to do more than the formulaic stories I feel I've cranked out. Sure they're all different per say but they follow the same basic formula, and I think that's what most people mentioned here he didn't do. He didn't follow the typical feature formula.

Then again when you're young and inexperienced you can end up really screwing it up if you try to go too far outside the box.

 

I really feel like that one douchebag who gave Pulp Fiction a bad review because it wasn't chronological.