Canzano "Lost and Found" on Freeman Williams

Sirs, Madames,

The part that we know about FW is unappealing. The part that we don't know (or that the writer can't establish beyond rumor) is troublesome. The story feels a little innuendo-driven, certainly not generous on that count and if you're going to err, should you err on that side of things.

A drunken reporter who wanted to get into a scrap with me a few minutes before wanted me to loan him $20 bucks at last call. I guess it's a judgment call: Does it tell you anything about character?

Re: a subject's request for money. I had this very problem with a non-sports story that I'm polishing off. A "reformed" criminal in Albania was hitting on a social worker and a journalist (not me) for what he said were funds for his rent and food. I have it as the end of my story -- the guy not only asked for it while I was there but text msged it too. It seemed relevant to me because the social worker went into his pocket and because he tried to find the criminal institutional help.

YD&OHS, etc

 

A lot of layers to consider here. It'd be nice if Canzano stopped by to explain a few things.

The column has a framing device that I'm presuming Canzano designed once he realized there had to be some contradictons in the whore/janitor/liquor store guy's statements and Williams' reality. Some columnists would just disregard their statements as bullshit, reference it once somewhere in the column, and leave it that. Canzano, instead, makes these conflicting realities the whole point of his column. <i> What's truth? What's fiction? Come along with me, as I break the fourth wall! </i>

It's useful, because you keep checking Williams' actions and words against those original charges. Canzano lets his readers know he's torn, and thus we are. Canzano drops in some details (forced laugh) to make us think Williams is lying. And maybe he is. But we know the original respondents can't totally be accurate, unless we believe, for example, that Williams is a overweight crack addict who just go beat up and gained 80 pounds in the last year, since he walked so dazed past the joint a year before.

So, it stands to reason - why are their statements in the column in the first place? Why not just tell the story without the bookends?

For one thing, I don't like the microcosm. As a rule. I don't need you to tell me what a particular story is symptomatic of "X" out there in the real world. If I can infer it, whatever. If I can draw my conclusions, fine.

But when Canzano writes this:

<i> "But while we're talking about mixed emotions, and split worries, and the deep, revealing intersection where sport meets life, there's a former NBA player with no known address that might be as good a place as any to begin the discussion." </i>

I feel like I'm getting a thesis statement. The storytelling has stopped, and the instruction manual has begun. I understand columnists must do this, of course, to make sure everyone knows it's a column. Their personality must be "present." I simply find the written personality of many columnists to be the same hyperanalytical, overthinking social worker type that wandered off the beach of Lord of the Flies after doing a case study on the war of English boys. Maybe it's the arrogance in me, not needing to be told all the secret complexities of human nature.

Beyond that...I respect Canzano's work. I think he's sincere, and I think he wrestles with issues, cares about people, etc. But, more often than not, he writes about it in a "just so" kind of way that makes it seem...a little sensational.

Mentioning the guy asked for twenty bucks is one thing. It's part of what happened, so whatever. But underlining it the way he does:

"But before that he did something no other column subject has done.

Williams asked if he could borrow $20, and mumbled something about paying it back someday."

...is the kind of "he's pooooooor!" kicker that denigrates the subject for asking for money while seeking to further the thesis/framing device mentioned above.

I'm not saying, mind you, that was Canzano's attempt. I find that to be the way his writing comes off to me. LeBatard's too.

 

This is from Canzano's blog ... apparently, the ending was not his choice:

By the way, the version of the column you read isn't complete. The last two paragraphs were cut. I loaned Williams the $20. I don't think he intended to use it for drugs. I wouldn't have given it to him otherwise. He said he needed it for one of his daughters, but I think he probably just doesn't have any money. As I drove off, he was waving and smiling, and slipping the bill into his pocket.

 

how often do you read canzano?

 

The implication of your question is that I'm completely wrong in my assessment, but I'd say I read him 4 or 5 times per month.

 

I was thinking the same thing. He should have asked to go up to the apartment and if he didn't have a key, then maybe he is homeless. Well written, but he should have verified one way or another about him leaving on the street or leave it out.

 

not at all. i was just trying to figure your familiarity with JC.

 

Hardly ever read him. Loved the column, especially the ending.