Gary Smith

[sirvaliantbrown]

I think people -- rational people -- complain only about the big stuff. Kid from my old high school wrote a piece after I spoke there, got quite a few things wrong even though he interviewed me by e-mail. Worth bitching about? Nah. Did he get the big things right? Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that he inexplicably got some things wrong.

I agree, for the most part. But aren't things different when a big-name writer from a renowned magazine - a guy you've let into your personal life - screws up?

Especially if you're a big-name athlete with lawyers and agents and PR people.

 

[jaredk]

Why woulld anyone complain about being made to look good?.....Smith doesn't engage his subjects in controversy....he's a disciple of the Deford School of soft features on people he likes....

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sirs, Madames,

You're Jimmy Cannon. You shouldn't write in the second person.

Nobody asked me, etc

 

[85bears]

Why woulld anyone complain about being made to look good?.....Smith doesn't engage his subjects in controversy....he's a disciple of the Deford School of soft features on people he likes....

Very interesting, biting take on two of the biz's sacred cows.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Why woulld anyone complain about being made to look good?.....Smith doesn't engage his subjects in controversy....he's a disciple of the Deford School of soft features on people he likes....

Very interesting, biting take on two of the biz's sacred cows.

He went right for the porterhouse, too.

 

[Needles]

Why don't we keep in mind one important thing here, that Smith's rap sheet is spotless. He has never been accused of bending facts or butchering quotes, let alone been accused of fabrications. This isn't Albom we're talking about.

And if Smith and Deford are bargain basement writers, exactly who is worth a damn?

needles

 

[jaredk]

Not that there's anything wrong with that....and I wasn't trying to skewer any cow, sacred or not....by the power of their talent, they've earned the right to choose their topics.....not all of us are built to sink the gaff even in the deserving....

There's a wonderful scene early in Deford's book about his daughter, Alex....goes something like this: Alex is maybe 9 yrs old and Frank is driving and he says something spiteful about another driver...Alex scolds him, "Daddy, don't be mean," the tiny girl scolding her big daddy, and Frank says, "He couldn't hear me," and Alex says, "But you're still being mean".....maybe, after Alex's death, Frank just didn't want to be mean to anybody....

 

[jaredk]

Needles, come on....who accused them of being bargaiin-basement writers?....they're classy writers with impeccable reputations....my quibble with Smith's method is so small as to be invisible to most readers....I just happen to have done enough interviews on enough stories to know that there comes a time when the writer has to decide, "Really? Oh, that's good, did it really happen? I know he said it happened, but did it? Can I trust him? How do I make sure it happened?"....and when I as a reader find myself asking that question repeatedly during a story, I begin to think the writer has stretched his credit with me to near the breaking point.....happens often with Smith, almost never with Deford.....

 

[Needles]

I understand your point, believe it or not. It's just that those writers tend to be so achingly thorough that it is hard to believe one would write something as fact if there wasn't damn good evidence it happened. If there ever is a time I don't believe Smith is not as certain of himself (and his reporting) as he typically is, it's when he writes something on deadline. The Pat Tillman story rings a bell, and so does the one he did on steroids last year.

But if you have months to do a story -- and in the case of the Agassi piece, more than a year -- there is no reason why you cannot be certain of every fact. Smith, I have been told, annoys the hell out of many of his subjects because he calls repeatedly to ask what was behind the ketchup in the refridgerator or what Mom was wearing under her apron. The interviews, in one sense or another, never stop. It's painstaking, but apparently Smith does not mind doing that, even if the subjects do ... for the time being.

The saying is, Report five or 10 times more than you'll write. For an 8,000-word story, just think how much Smith DOESN'T write. You've got to think some of those things he is uncertain about are somewhere in the recycling bin.

needles

 

[goalmouth]

Rick Bragg won a Pulitzer using legmen, and we know what later happened to him.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Gotta go with Jack on this one. I hate -- h-a-t-e -- pieces written in the second person. I hated "bright Lights, Big City" for just that reason. I find the technique condescending. I feel like somebody's poking me in the chest. And this one just seemed excessively mannered to me.

You have to go with Jack on this one. You hate -- h-a-t-e -- pieces written in the second person. You hated "bright Lights, Big City" for just that reason. You find the technique condescending. You feel like somebody's poking you in the chest. And this one just seemed excessively mannered to you.

Pass the Bolivan Marching Powder ...

 

[MileHigh]

Perhaps someone could just ask Agassi -- he's playing all summer, through the U.S. Open -- and/or Graf what he/they thought of the piece and how it turned out and if Smith nailed it or were there some spots that weren't exactly right, etc.

 

[FootballScribe]

I would love to see something with a breakdown of how his subjects felt about Smith during the interview process and then again how they annoyed or not annoyed they were with him after the piece came out.

IN the Agassi piece, Smith alludes to how Agassi asks him as many questions as he asks Agassi. I'd be interested to see how much interest Agassi had in Smith after months and months of painstaking interviews and questions or if he considered Smith a friend after spending so much time with him.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Gotta go with Jack on this one. I hate -- h-a-t-e -- pieces written in the second person. I hated "bright Lights, Big City" for just that reason. I find the technique condescending. I feel like somebody's poking me in the chest. And this one just seemed excessively mannered to me.

You have to go with Jack on this one. You hate -- h-a-t-e -- pieces written in the second person. You hated "bright Lights, Big City" for just that reason. You find the technique condescending. You feel like somebody's poking you in the chest. And this one just seemed excessively mannered to you.

Pass the Bolivan Marching Powder ...

HH --
That may be the single greatest postmodern post in the history of SportsJournalists.com
Well freaking played, sir.

 

[awriter]

Hell yes. Used to be the same thing when Rick Reilly wrote features.

I wish he would go back to that. His Marge Schott feature is one of the greatest profiles ever written.

 

[Ira_Schoffel]

This thread reinforces two truths I have known for quite some time ...

Gary Smith is a phenomenal writer who might just be the best at what he does. What he does, however, should not necessarily be confused with critical reporting.

And Jaredk and Frank Ridgeway are two of the wisest and most ethical folks I've had the chance to meet in this business ... and I haven't even really met them. If either of y'all ever make your way down Tallahassee way, the beer's on me.

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sirs, Madames,

I have no doubt about the truth in Gary Smith's articles. They operate in their own fact-based reality. Which is fine. Which is the pt.

YHS, etc

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

Sirs, Madames,
I have no doubt about the truth in Gary Smith's articles. They operate in their own fact-based reality. Which is fine. Which is the pt.
YHS, etc

There is some sort of joke here, right?

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

But if you have months to do a story -- and in the case of the Agassi piece, more than a year -- there is no reason why you cannot be certain of every fact. Smith, I have been told, annoys the hell out of many of his subjects because he calls repeatedly to ask what was behind the ketchup in the refridgerator or what Mom was wearing under her apron. The interviews, in one sense or another, never stop. It's painstaking, but apparently Smith does not mind doing that, even if the subjects do ... for the time being.

This is what I was wondering when I started this thread. If you had the time and balls to try your hand at a Smith-style piece as an unknown, would it even be possible? Wouldn't your subject quickly hate and then shun you?

 

[Columbo]

The better question is, when does even the most dogged interviewer quit believing everything he's told? People recreate events the way they remember them. Memory is flawed. Yet Smith presents memories as facts. If he's there, observing, I believe him; but if he's recreating from others' memories, or telling me that a hawk in the sky looked into Mike Tyson's eyes (as he once did), his use of detail suggests fiction more than journalism.

I could not agree more.

Every syllable dead solid perfect.