Great read: New Yorker piece on Kip Litton

[Dick Whitman]

Unfortunately behind a paywall, but it's a remarkable piece of narrative sports journalism:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_singer

The basics are that this Michigan dentist has, allegedly, been going around the country cheating in marathons. Allegedly, he's gone as far as to invent races and make Web sites for them, with fake results from fake runners. It's all very elaborate.

He's a University of Michigan graduate, so I had to chuckle a little bit at the fake race director's name he allegedly made up: Richard Rodriguez.

Anyway, well worth your time to read. And a great example of a piece where the writer does eventually inject himself into the story and it works. Reminds me a little bit of the Wayne Drehs piece on Steve Bartman in its structure.

 

[YGBFKM]

Is that a real name? Kip Litton? He should have made up a better name for himself.

 

[Tarheel316]

I read the story. Talk about bizarre.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The good dentist has company:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/31/paul_ryan_s_marathon_history_runners_world_wonders_aloud_whether_the_vp_candidate_was_as_fast_as_he_claims_.html

It blows my mind that someone in a position like Ryan would just blatantly lie about his marathon finishing time. Something easily verifiable like that. Just dumb-founding.

 

[Azrael]

And the NYer unlocked Mark's story.

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_singer

 

[YankeeFan]

The good dentist has company:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/31/paul_ryan_s_marathon_history_runners_world_wonders_aloud_whether_the_vp_candidate_was_as_fast_as_he_claims_.html

It blows my mind that someone in a position like Ryan would just blatantly lie about his marathon finishing time. Something easily verifiable like that. Just dumb-founding.

To create a better narrative, Ryan created a composite marathon, and compressed the timeline.

 

[BillyT]

Thank you.

That's a fascinating, well-written story. that I never would have seen otherwise.

 

[imjustagirl]

I've found a new message board through that article!!

 

[Dick Whitman]

The good dentist has company:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/08/31/paul_ryan_s_marathon_history_runners_world_wonders_aloud_whether_the_vp_candidate_was_as_fast_as_he_claims_.html

It blows my mind that someone in a position like Ryan would just blatantly lie about his marathon finishing time. Something easily verifiable like that. Just dumb-founding.

To create a better narrative, Ryan created a composite marathon, and compressed the timeline.

The far better comparison is Bill Richardson, phantom draft pick of the Kansas City A's.

But your larger point stands: Why, at least in the cases of Richardson and Obama and Rubio, does the D.C. press corps fall asleep at the wheel when it comes to the public narrative/mythology these guys construct for themselves? It seems like the first time someone runs for city ****ing council, someone should be checking out every line of his or her resume. Might not get you a prime seat at the bar at the next D.C. cocktail party, but it seems like a pretty elementary obligation of a political journalist.

 

[Amy]

I save up my New Yorkers for airplane reading and read that article week before last on my way to Montgomery, Alabama. Loved it. I even saved it and have it sitting on my desk.

 

[playthrough]

I save up my New Yorkers for airplane reading and read that article week before last on my way to Montgomery, Alabama. Loved it. I even saved it and have it sitting on my desk.

I saved my New Yorkers with the same idea in mind until realizing that I could fly around the world six times and probably not get through the stack. Had to let the subscription go.

 

[JPsT]

I save up my New Yorkers for airplane reading and read that article week before last on my way to Montgomery, Alabama. Loved it. I even saved it and have it sitting on my desk.

I saved my New Yorkers with the same idea in mind until realizing that I could fly around the world six times and probably not get through the stack. Had to let the subscription go.

This, though I'm subscribed through Next Issue. Heard a guest on NPR this week remark that he was a few weeks behind on his New Yorkers, which prompted one of the other panelists to ask, "Who isn't?"

I do the same thing with Wright Thompson pieces. I want to have time to read the whole thing, savor it, make sure I'm in the right mindset and I end up reading everything he writes four months after publication.

 

[Double Down]

I liked the story a great deal. Very entertaining read.

But let me play Devil's Advocate here and make a point I will very likely be attacked for making. Just try to think about it in a mature, workshop-y way before you answer:

This story essentially asks two questions about Kip Litton, and it does not answer either: How? Why?

Obviously Singer is one of the greats, and who am I to question his choices, but -- entertaining as interesting as the story may be -- it's still a narrative mystery that has no conclusion other than its obvious he made it up. Why did do it? How did he do it?

Not every story needs resolution, but I still have some questions that leave me unsatisfied. Does he really have a sick kid? Is he sick himself?

Again, it's a really good story, and it contains some excellent writing and thinking and reporting, but I think it does not rise to the level of one of Singer's "great" stories for the reasons I stated.

How? Why?

 

[imjustagirl]

DD,

Understood, and a valid point. But only one person can answer that, and he wasn't going to do it. At that point, you just put out there what you know.

I kind of liked that it left it open.

 

[Double Down]

I don't mind open ended stories. I often like them, in fact. I think it's worth a debate though. Think about this too: Singer also altered the story by reporting on it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Obviously that's what you do. But I wonder if there would have been a way to catch Litton in the act somehow at the Boston Marathon, had Singer not tipped his hand. Again, this is just a larger philosophical craft discussion.

 

[imjustagirl]

I wasn't trying to shut it down, in any way. I was merely offering my take on it.

 

[playthrough]

Yeah, I was left doubting the sick kid existed -- and that would really **** me off. The fact he made the running geeks go crazy made me laugh.

Bizarre, fun read. I emailed it to my uncle in Clarkston, Mich., and said "hope this isn't your dentist!"

 

[Versatile]

Pressed via e-mail by Hubbard and others, he denied that he had cheated or had intended to deceive—and offered justifications that left one in awe of his gift for just making **** up.

I know cursing is an easy out sometimes for a writer. I've used it. Here even. But that "****" is so ****ing perfect.

Anyway ...

What stood out to me about this piece were the pacing and clarity, which was tremendous. I was being fed entirely fresh information — I didn't even know that chips were used to time marathons — and never once felt lost. The story moved on and developed before me wonderfully, as so many New Yorker pieces do. It was a New Yorker feature, for sure.

But I was a bit let down by the conclusion, half agreeing with Double Down's criticism. I don't think the issue was that we didn't get an answer to how or why as much as that Mark Singer drew attention to us not getting an answer to how or why at the end. I would have preferred the ending had he laid out how confounding those photos were without pointing out that the mystery remains unsolved. It drew attention to the feature's lack of resolution, which struck me both as odd and as unlike typical New Yorker features.

With a little rewriting of that final section and perhaps the removal entirely of the last graf, I think the work stands up better to scrutiny. Sometimes, you don't have the answers, but why point that out?

 

[Versatile]

Yeah, I was left doubting the sick kid existed -- and that would really **** me off. The fact he made the running geeks go crazy made me laugh.

Bizarre, fun read. I emailed it to my uncle in Clarkston, Mich., and said "hope this isn't your dentist!"

Mark Singer mentioned multiple times that he had interviewed several of Litton's friends, acquaintances and patients. I was confident the sick son existed. The line about the $20 donation to the cystic fibrosis foundation was a terrific detail, though I would have liked to have known more about how fundraising efforts went. Obviously, he received quite a bit of media attention for a small-town runner even before his scam was known.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I liked the story a great deal. Very entertaining read.

But let me play Devil's Advocate here and make a point I will very likely be attacked for making. Just try to think about it in a mature, workshop-y way before you answer:

This story essentially asks two questions about Kip Litton, and it does not answer either: How? Why?

Obviously Singer is one of the greats, and who am I to question his choices, but -- entertaining as interesting as the story may be -- it's still a narrative mystery that has no conclusion other than its obvious he made it up. Why did do it? How did he do it?

Not every story needs resolution, but I still have some questions that leave me unsatisfied. Does he really have a sick kid? Is he sick himself?

Again, it's a really good story, and it contains some excellent writing and thinking and reporting, but I think it does not rise to the level of one of Singer's "great" stories for the reasons I stated.

How? Why?

Someone raised the same question to me in a PM shortly after I posted the story. A magazine writer, in fact. It's definitely an interesting point to ponder. I floated the comparison to the famous/infamous early Wright Thompson piece about Elvis Grbac, although this isn't exactly the same, because the confrontation does occur here.

I can't tell whether the writer thought the ambiguity was the right ending for this story. Or whether it was just an attempt to make chicken salad after he was in this deep, and had an otherwise tremendous piece put together. One that he had put a ton of effort and resources into.

Love the comment about the profanity. I had also singled it out as the perfect break from tone, which has to be so hard to pull off. It's a serious piece, it's a serious piece, it's a serious piece, then, suddenly, the writer lets you know that he's as flabbergasted as you. "He's making **** up!" Perfect.