Kudos to Patrick Hruby, ESPN.com...

[OnTheRiver]

I soaked up every word. I love when that site not only does these, but does them well.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=JoeCook

 

[DanOregon]

Not my cup of tea. He made it "his" story with the first sentence and turned me off. I've always preferred writers who write in a way that brings the reader into the story like Scott Price instead of those constantly reminding the reader that "they" are there.

 

[henryhenry]

are you saying that this writer is so egocentric he gets in the way of his story?

 

[DanOregon]

It's not a criticism of the story - just a personal preference. I had a sports editor early in my career who always talked of his distaste for columns written in the first person. He figured the column has your name on it, maybe a picture - if the reader hasn't figured out its your perspective, even putting an "I" in every paragraph won't help them. And he always said our job as writers was not to get in the way of the story. Show don't tell.

 

[BillyT]

That was just amazing.

That's what reporting is all about.

Dan: I understand your point, and it would have been interesting to see it done in a less personal style.

But, in the end, I thought he pulled it off well.

 

[amraeder]

Definitely a good read.

 

[spnited]

When I see "I" 12 times before I find the name of the person he's writing about...I'm done reading.

 

[Double J]

Holy ****. I thought you were exaggerating. But no.....12 references to "I," two to "me" and one more to "my," all in the first four paragraphs. Wow.

 

[zebracoy]

Not to mention a drop-cap.

 

[silent_h]

Thanks for the kind words. As for the "I" issue, I'm quite sympathetic to those who dislike it. However, I also felt it was the best way to tell this particular story, for narrative and practical reasons.

Darn it, that's two uses of "I" in one sentence. Somebody stop me. (Does "me" also count?)

 

[VJ]

Great, great story. Not real sure how else it could have been written with the same level of detail without including some first person. Instead of "Back in Dothan, Cook had told me Chroch was dead." was he supposed to write "Back in Dothan, Cook had told the reporter that Chroch was dead." Ugh.

 

[daemon]

Generally I share an aversion to the first person. But in this case, I could have seen myself going the same route. This is the type of story I picture myself sitting in front of my laptop rubbing my temples wondering what the hell I have and how the hell I am going to portray it. The writer didn't have much in the way of concrete, damning evidence, making it difficult to write it hard. But he had enough people telling him enough things about Cook that his once feel-good story had clearly shifted. In the end, I thought it worked, particularly because the writer's wife was the interpreter. It is such a convoluted story that it is really best told through the writer's eyes.

There is probably a way it could have been done that avoided some of the problems that have been raised with the beginning of the story. But all in all, a tremendous piece.

 

[FuturaBold]

this was very, very well-written. What hurts is a very poorly written column full of first person ...

 

[WaylonJennings]

First-person is fine. It can be a tremendously effective device in long-form feature writing. Usage has nothing to do with the writer's ego. Nothing.

 

[bob]

I generally don't like too much first person--it was always a knock on Mitch Albom--but in this case I thought it was uniquely effective.

 

[amraeder]

Great, great story. Not real sure how else it could have been written with the same level of detail without including some first person. Instead of "Back in Dothan, Cook had told me Chroch was dead." was he supposed to write "Back in Dothan, Cook had told the reporter that Chroch was dead." Ugh.

Instead of "told the report" you could just say "said".

Not that I'm taking a stance on the I issue one way or another. Generally, I don't like it. But this was such a fantastic story, I don't really care.

The first two graphs didn't do a lot to hook me, but for some reason, this line was enough to get me to keep reading (and, again, boy am I damn glad I did).

I guess I should start with the headless chicken.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Great, great story. Not real sure how else it could have been written with the same level of detail without including some first person. Instead of "Back in Dothan, Cook had told me Chroch was dead." was he supposed to write "Back in Dothan, Cook had told the reporter that Chroch was dead." Ugh.

Instead of "told the report" you could just say "said".

Nope. Then it's not a narrative any more with the writer bringing the reader into the thick of it. It's just another formulaic newspaper-style feature - quote-lead in-quote-lead in, rinse, repeat, in finitum.

 

[DanOregon]

It's just a narration issue. Change the "I" to "you" and the reader becomes part of the story. The reader sees the story through the reporter's eyes, instead of hearing it through his mouth.

 

[amraeder]

Great, great story. Not real sure how else it could have been written with the same level of detail without including some first person. Instead of "Back in Dothan, Cook had told me Chroch was dead." was he supposed to write "Back in Dothan, Cook had told the reporter that Chroch was dead." Ugh.

Instead of "told the report" you could just say "said".

Nope. Then it's not a narrative any more with the writer bringing the reader into the thick of it. It's just another formulaic newspaper-style feature - quote-lead in-quote-lead in, rinse, repeat, in finitum.

In that line, I don't see the problem changing it to said (not saying I see a problem with how it was, either. Just don't think it was a good line to demonstrait the point). Doesn't make it seem any more formulaic to me. Now, if you want an example where I wouldn't want to take the I out at all, you only have to look a paragraph up

Cook joins the game as a pitcher. He wraps a baserunner in a bear hug; the infielders form a giggling, smiling dogpile. An older Cambodian man introduces himself. He has graying hair and wide-rimmed glasses. Speaks English. Calls himself Chroch. Says he used to live in the States. Claims he's Joe's older brother. He extends his hand. I shake it and feel cold.

Back in Dothan, Cook had told me Chroch was dead.

The "I shake it and feel cold." THAT'S much more of a keeper. (And changing told me to said in the line below doesn't make it lose any of it's impact, IMO, but it would also be a change just for the sake of changing things).

 

[amraeder]

It's just a narration issue. Change the "I" to "you" and the reader becomes part of the story. The reader sees the story through the reporter's eyes, instead of hearing it through his mouth.

Interesting point. Should have thought about "you" and didn't even consider it, I'm embarrassed to admit.

This is a really edifying workshop discussion. Thanks, guys. (And, again, thanks for a great read, Patrick)