Wright Thompson!

[Billy Pritchard]

Ha! I'm guessing those of you thinking Wright wrote too long on this one didn't partake in his effort last month: 15,000 words.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=mississippi62

Also, Waylon, great point about using first person.

 

[pseudo]

If it's good, I don't give a damn about the word count.

 

[Billy Pritchard]

Agree with you 100 percent, pseudo. I just thought it was rather funny Wright was getting some criticism for story length when last month he'd written one twice as long without hearing a peep from around here.

 

[dooley_womack1]

But longer doesn't necessarily mean better. It can mean not as focused as it could be. This solid story could have been a better, tighter read without the truly irrelevant aspect of how the reporter felt. Dammit, just tell us the wacky stuff you found. I don't wanna know how the sausage gets made. Just make it, already.

 

[oscaroscaroscar]

I think I might agree this could have been tighter in spots, but I don't know that I agree it was irrelevant how he felt. Wright's feelings on this actually help explain aspects of the story.
The guy's about to blow up a 73-year-old who's been a great, feel-good story. I think it's pretty darn interesting how that comes about and some of the conflict involved. This is a magazine piece and there's room for it in there.
I think it's a more interesting story that way to a degree, though I understand the concern about too much insertion of the writer on his subject. Maybe he didn't need to put himself in as much as he did and maybe there was another way, but I think this way worked for the most part and I think it was a strong, complex read.
Especially at the end, the fact he kept getting ready to end it and then found out more ... that was interesting stuff. It added to the story. Maybe there's a little self-indulgence there, but maybe great writers -- and I think Thompson is one -- get to do that once in a while.
Do it too much, of course, and they'll lose their status ... but I liked this one.

 

[DanOregon]

Count me as one of those who have a hang-up about "I's" in stories. Scott Price and Gary Smith can write in a way that anchors a story in a point of view, but makes them invisible.
I read SI's back page take on Mink and got the same impression I was left with by Wright but it only took 3 minutes to read.

 

[broadway joe]

Very good story, but too much of this kind of stuff:

Only, on the day I plan to start writing, I'm still uneasy. I need to keep chasing corroboration. So I make more phone calls, to people in Jackson, Ky., where Lees College is located, though it's now called Hazard Community and Technical College. One person leads to another until I'm on the phone with Buford Williams, a Lees fan and former student -- and unofficial historian of the school's basketball program.

Just tell us what Buford Williams said, OK? We don't need to know the thought process behind every phone call you made. That's the kind of thing that makes the piece unnecessarily long.

 

[pseudo]

Most of y'all have made your share of sausage, to borrow dools' analogy. You don't need the play-by-play details, don't need to know what Thompson was thinking. You've been there. But out here in readerland, I'm enjoying the narrative. I liked finding out how, and why, he started digging to find the story below the surface.

Now, I already know I'm not ESPN's average consumer, so I'll be curious to see if any complaints about the story's length show up in the comments section there.

 

[Singapore Slim]

7,800 words? Do you people work as air traffic controllers?

So you had to take 12 minutes to read it instead of four? Who cares? I'll take a two-minute Ramones song over a 20-minute Dead jam any day, but this is a piece we're supposed to glean information off of. The buildup to that information is important and appreciated.

 

[dooley_womack1]

Why is it important to know what Wright Thompson was thinking at any particular second of the day. Could have easily built things up without making too many swaths of the story about himself. You bonded? Goody goody. Let that come through in the writing. Continuing doubts? Tell us the developments as far as who you talked to, not as far as your conversation with yourself. Pure narcissism in places. And it's a shame, cos his reporting was good enough not to have to add the false drama. He needs to take a hint from a Gare Joyce piece or two.

 

[JackReacher]

Why is it important to know what Wright Thompson was thinking at any particular second of the day. Could have easily built things up without making too many swaths of the story about himself. You bonded? Goody goody. Let that come through in the writing. Continuing doubts? Tell us the developments as far as who you talked to, not as far as your conversation with yourself. Pure narcissism in places. And it's a shame, cos his reporting was good enough not to have to add the false drama. He needs to take a hint from a Gare Joyce piece or two.

I disagree. I thought it was a well put together piece, and I enjoyed reading about his thought process. Maybe it doesn't work every time, but it worked this time, at least for me.

 

[WaylonJennings]

You guys would have rewritten "Resurrecting the Champ," I swear.

"Cut it in half and lose the first person!"

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Why is it important to know what Wright Thompson was thinking at any particular second of the day. Could have easily built things up without making too many swaths of the story about himself. You bonded? Goody goody. Let that come through in the writing. Continuing doubts? Tell us the developments as far as who you talked to, not as far as your conversation with yourself. Pure narcissism in places. And it's a shame, cos his reporting was good enough not to have to add the false drama. He needs to take a hint from a Gare Joyce piece or two.

I disagree. I thought it was a well put together piece, and I enjoyed reading about his thought process. Maybe it doesn't work every time, but it worked this time, at least for me.

Ditto.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It's well-established I'm a fan of Wright's work.

I thought it was a great read, if a bit self-indulgent. I didn't mind some of the stuff about "the process" but I think that might go over the head of someone who reads it who isn't in the business and doesn't know that Wright covered Saban and so on...

I can't help but feel like it was written for other writers and not the intended audience.

I still think the guy is one of the best writers working.

 

[Jersey_Guy]

You guys would have rewritten "Resurrecting the Champ," I swear.

"Cut it in half and lose the first person!"

Great stuff and completely true.

And, hey, what do we need all those different gospels for? How about just "War", leave the "Peace" part out? Oh, and do we really need TEN commandments? I mean, I'm busy, I can't possibly read all that stuff.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I can honestly say I didn't read the whole article. The first 15 or 20 inches set up the story well.

I've known Wright since his days at the Times-Picayune.

Great writer. Good dude.

That's all I've got.

I consider Wright a friend, although we don't see each other much these days. We shared a press box during his Times-Picayune days, and we ate dinner together just before he left Baton Rouge for KC. My "I knew Wright Thompson when" story is what he said during a moment of silence before a football game: "Dear Lord, please don't let Johnny write a better gamer than me."

The reason I'm chuckling right now is I just remembered his response to a mass e-mail I sent to friends and colleagues last year before the launch of my blog. He wrote -- and I think he hit Reply to All -- something about whether or not there was enough bandwidth on the Internet, seeing as how he remembered me as someone who wrote long.

:

He said you wrote long? Wow. That's ballsy.

The actual comment, which I have in front of me now, was "Can the internet run out of ink?"

We've exchanged chuckles about it even since my first post on the subject last night.