Please feel free to rip these apart...

Hey, listen, dude, it takes some serious brass ones to post something here, and really, I appreciate that you did. Talking about this stuff is how we'll all get better.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I know when I started out, and when I was first able to throw some "first person" stuff in there, it was pretty tempting. It's fun, it's good for the ego, those words come out easily, and sometimes -- as in the Aldridge story -- it's much harder to construct a story without you in it. It would take some real creativity to excise yourself. But you'd be surprised how much better stuff reads without that easy goop in it. The reader already knows you're there. You don't need to announce it.

I will probably be slayed for saying this, but my favorite "columns" are really just features with a little more oomph to 'em. "I" columns are fine if you're really spouting an opinion about something, but your stories weren't opinion pieces. They were stories. But because you're a columnist, you wrote them the way some columnists might have -- or how you thought a columnist might write them. Well, you don't have to do that. You can be the columnist who writes killer stories that just happen to have his picture at the top of them.

And don't be too hard on yourself with this, either. There's a lot of good stuff here. Some solid reporting, some clean, economical writing. That's the stuff you want your readers to take away from your work. Let it do the speaking for you, you know?

 

Tru -

I'll echo The Emperor Jones and others on pop culture and its dangers. Klosterman and Simmons pull this stuff off, but only barely, and at some expense to their gravitas and authority. Read any Simmons thread hereabouts and you'll see what I mean. If your only point of reference is a television show or a breakfast cereal, you've already lost a lot of the serious arguments you'll try to make.

Since pop culture is at once a trap and a crutch for young writers, try thinking past it. Your 70s Show impulse contained a good lede, even without reference to the show. "Mothers don't like surprises." Which is true in about every family in the world. Try to think your way past the the pop reference into what's really true about people everywhere.

The second piece, per Jones, should open with the kid heaving into the trash can. Opening a piece "in scene" is always a good default setting. (Uneasy lies the bigbig head that wears the shiny crown of SJ's newest MOY, but filled with good advice it is, too.)

The last piece is a pretty clean miss. About which I'll say this - use it to learn from. By really reading it. Go through it again when you have time, but as an editor rather than the person who wrote it. Then you'll catch metaphorical tangles like "the laundry list of things on his platter." Learn to read your own stuff critically, the way a really fine editor should. Get rid of the weak phrases and weak ideas, the poor constructions, and anything that doesn't advance the argument or the story.

As to the photo moment in that piece, even though you're a Texas fan, keep your affinities and affiliations to yourself. They should never intrude on your work as a journalist.

And while it's possible to write well in the first person, try not to use it as another crutch. As BuckW makes plain, readers will question why you're in there. Make sure there's a very good reason.

Thanks for posting.

 

Jones mentioned it, but the third column really had something. You got this top draft pick for an extended period of time, being very open and casual. A news/feature piece would have been extremely well read and, if done correctly, could have put you in the eyes of your next boss.

 

Right, but here's a question...

If I tell him I'm going to be doing a story on him, he might not be so open and candid, right? I definitely see what you're saying though. If I'm ever stuck in an airport with a potential Top 3 NBA pick again, I'll take it into strong consideration.

 

You didn't go into the airport and a five-hour delay with the idea of doing a story on Aldredge. It just kind of fell into your lap. Call it what you will, but talk first, take what you can get (and you got a lot) and write second. You wrote a column about the experience anyway, so what's the difference if you take yourself out of the picture?

Like Jones said, be happy without yourself in the story -- we're all guilty of injecting ourselves where we don't beling -- and, perhaps, tighten your work. Your voice will develop.

 

Tru -

Please understand that nobody's trying to pile on here. You fell into a good story opportunity at the airport and we're just trying to help you make the most of the experience by learning from it. So a couple of additional thoughts, just on that third piece.

1 - There are times when first person narration may be the best way to tell a story. We're not saying never use it. But use it judiciously. In this piece, it's a perfectly legitimate approach, but I'd have used a little less you, and a lot more him.

2 - Fewer details about things like flight times.

3 - More details about him. You tell us generically what he's wearing and give us his program stats. But what does he look like? What does he sound like? What does he sound like when he's on the phone? Is his tone of voice different on the phone when addressing his coach/agent/friend/grandmother? Is he polite? Brusque? Annoyed? How big are his hands? How big are his feet? What sort of shoes is he wearing? Are they in some way connected to his endorsements? What's on his iPod? What's he snacking on? What's he reading? Does he sit up straight? Does he slouch? Does he fidget? Is he frightened to fly? Does he watch women walk past in the waiting area? Men? Does he assume he's recognizable and work it? Or shy away from it? What kind of luggage does he have? Or are his clothes rolled up in grocery bag? Etc., etc., world without end.

4 - I assume you had a notebook on you. Just as a general aside, reporters and writers of every kind should always have a notebook on them. Always. For moments just like this. If you don't want to write in front of the subject, excuse yourself and make notes in the bathroom.

5 - Which raises an interesting practical/ethical question. Did you ever tell him you were going to write about waiting in the airport with him?

6. Just because you shared the experience with him doesn't mean that that's what the story should be about. For instance, this is a case where you've got a young athlete who's perhaps about to become famous. He isn't yet, though. Here he sits in the airport, stuck, grounded, just like anyone else. A year from now he'll be on a charter, or waiting in the first class lounge of the Ambassador's Club - because he'll be an NBA player, and won't have to suffer sitting and waiting where just anyone can walk up and talk to him. His life is going to change entirely, virtually overnight. You've caught him just on the cusp of the big time, and on the cusp of the fantastically weird privilege and isolation that come with it. A year from now you might not even be able to schedule time with this kid. Maybe that's a story. Just a thought.

Thanks again for letting me think this through with you.

 

Those are some really interesting points. Come to think of it, it would've been cool to mention that he was just like on row 8 of the plane, and he had a middle seat. The person in the aisle switched with him, but clearly he still had some pretty horrible leg room. I remember thinking "man, I'm 6-3 and hate sitting in planes, how the hell does he feel?"

Cool. Thanks.

 

After a shakey start, this has turned into a very nice little thread. The benevolent power of the Workshop prevails!

 

Sirs, Madames,

First, apologies. I have been delinquent in my missives on WW.

Now, to Mr mltru2tx, let me accentuate the positive. You found some good material. To me that is the toughest part. I think where you tripped up is, well, over-doing it, over-writing, over-thinking, over-everythinging good story ideas.

A couple of pts already discussed here.

The 70s Show--the only case you could make for its inclusion would be if it pertained to an incident that happened in the 70s. I hear what my fellow posters are saying about pop culture references (Simmons and others). It's a pt about SI and ESPN promoting the spread of a lazy fallback. I would like to note however that it's not true of everything that appears in those pages. Of the latter I can speak with first-hand experience--I did a rough count on stories I've filed with the latter and you'd be hard-pressed to find one pop culture reference every 3,000 words.

The I thing--I'm not as opposed to using 1st person as most here. I think it's okay in suitable cases, which do happen but far from routinely. Memoir and participatory pieces have a legit role in journalism of every stripe. I've written first-person pieces for magazines where there's no other route to go--your own life's story, right? This, however, was exactly the opposite case in your story here. You should have been a fly all on the wall, neither subject nor reader seeing you.

YHS, etc

 

The Raptors GM is Bryan Colangelo NOT Jerry Colangelo. Jerry is his father and an executive for the Pheonix Suns

 

Written like a good sports fan ... and we all should do a better job with our spell check.

 

For me, it's a turnoff when you say "please feel free to rip these apart."
It sets a negative tone from the first pitch.