Joe Posnanski: Lord of Lists

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I think that most of you know who Jeff Pearlman is. If you don't he's a former SI writer (he wrote THE John Rocker story) that now writes books ("The Bad Guys Won", "The Rocket that Fell to Earth", etc.) Any how, he has a take on the Posnanski/Paterno thing.

I read Pearlman's blog daily and often comment on it, so I like the guy. I'm also on his side regarding the Pos/Pa thing, so I'm a bit biased, but you should check it out.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I think that was a pretty fair accounting of the situation. I wonder how much Posnanski's speaking at that class had to do with him leaving SI just a few months later.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Not Joe Pos per se, but Bill James defends Paterno on this interview with ESPN radio (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8164789). His key points (to be clear, these are James' arguments, not mine):
  • Mike McQueary, as the person who actually saw the rape, is the one who should have gone to the police
  • Joe Paterno was "not nearly as powerful as people imagine" at the time of the 2001 incident
  • Sandusky was cleared of wrongdoing in the 1998 incident by a police investigation
  • Paterno's saying, "What's going on with this?" in 1998 is ambiguous and doesn't mean he knew about the details of that investigation
  • There's no reason to think Paterno knew about Sandusky bringing boys on campus after he was barred from doing so in 2001
  • "It is uncharitable and inaccuarate to say the Paternos are lying" by claiming in 2011 not to know details of the 1998 incident, given Paterno's age and the amount of time elapsed
  • The "inexperienced" police botched the 1998 investigation and should have recognized some of Sandusky's behavior as that of a pedophile
  • In response to the idea that Sandusky was cleared in 1998 as part of a "massive cover-up" (including the police): "I don't think that the prosecutors involved were at all afraid of Joe Paterno."
  • Sandusky was "celebrated for his charitable works with children" by the media, and "the media created this smoke screen" which legitimized Sandusky's contact with the victims
  • Paterno "didn't buy into" Sandusky's charity
  • "There is no account under which [McQuery] told Paterno that [Sandusky] was raping a child."
  • The idea that Paterno talked the administrators out of going to the cops is just "1 out of 1742 possible interpretations of that sequence of events"
Given the friendship between James and Posnanski, I think there's a good chance we see some of these arguments in the book.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Given the friendship between James and Posnanski, I think there's a good chance we see some of these arguments in the book.
For more on that, here's Rob Neyer trying to defend James (his good friend, which Neyer acknowledges), and he mentions that James has likely read Pos's manuscript:

Joe Posnanski and Bill James know each other. I can't say they're friends, because that word means different things to different people. But I've been to lunch with Joe and Bill, and they're certainly friendly. They're both friendly to me, too. So please consider all of these friendly relationships while you're reading this. I cannot claim to be an objective observer. I'm giving it my best shot, though.
I mentioned that because I'm supposed to. But also because Bill, as an accomplished author who is friendly with Joe Posnanski, might have read the manuscript of Joe's book, and thus have a different take on some things.*
* Okay, the truth is that I'm pretty sure that Bill, during the lunch I mentioned, did say something about having read Joe's manuscript. But that's about as far as it went. Who could know this would turn into a thing?
Does it sound like I'm defending Bill? I know, it does. But what I'm really doing is raising the possibility that we will, when Posnanski's book is published, perhaps look at some of these events in a somewhat different way than what we've read so far. And that Bill, having perhaps read the book already, is already there.
If Pos tries to defend Paterno, not even in a "let's look at his entire life and place this bad incident in context" but rather in a "let's defend Paterno's inaction" that is going to be an unbelievably terrible decision.

Why does the Penn State scandal coverup have to ruin baseball writers for me.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
Not Joe Pos per se, but Bill James defends Paterno on this interview with ESPN radio (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8164789). His key points (to be clear, these are James' arguments, not mine):
Wow. I mean, almost all can be dispatched with about three responses--seems like a classic case of trying to get too... cute? with looking at details. I mean, none of this disputes the basic notion that someone in Paterno's position could have done things differently that would have prevented all this.

More to the point, the man people thought Paterno was would have been that guy.

  • Mike McQueary, as the person who actually saw the rape, is the one who should have gone to the police This is true; doesn't absolve Paterno.
  • Joe Paterno was "not nearly as powerful as people imagine" at the time of the 2001 incident If I grant this is true, that doesn't absolve him, ergo it is irrelevant.
  • Sandusky was cleared of wrongdoing in the 1998 incident by a police investigation What does this have to do with Paterno, what he knew, and what he might have done? Heck, maybe Sandusky doesn't cleared if Paterno behaves differently...
  • Paterno's saying, "What's going on with this?" in 1998 is ambiguous and doesn't mean he knew about the details of that investigation If I grant he didn't know the details, it still doesn't absolve Paterno. Also, at what point is there an affirmative responsibility to find out what's going on?
  • There's no reason to think Paterno knew about Sandusky bringing boys on campus after he was barred from doing so in 2001 This still doesn't absolve Paterno. Also, at what point is there an affirmative responsibility to find out what's going on?
  • "It is uncharitable and inaccuarate to say the Paternos are lying" by claiming in 2011 not to know details of the 1998 incident, given Paterno's age and the amount of time elapsed Uncharitable? Holy crap. Anyway: If I grant this, it still doesn't absolve Paterno.
  • The "inexperienced" police botched the 1998 investigation and should have recognized some of Sandusky's behavior as that of a pedophile True. This does not absolve Paterno.
  • In response to the idea that Sandusky was cleared in 1998 as part of a "massive cover-up" (including the police): "I don't think that the prosecutors involved were at all afraid of Joe Paterno." This does not absolve Paterno. Also, Paterno could have been loved as much as feared.
  • Sandusky was "celebrated for his charitable works with children" by the media, and "the media created this smoke screen" which legitimized Sandusky's contact with the victims This does not absolve Paterno. If we want to start indicting more people for moral culpability, though, sign me up.
  • Paterno "didn't buy into" Sandusky's charity This does not absolve Paterno.
  • "There is no account under which [McQuery] told Paterno that [Sandusky] was raping a child." This does not absolve Paterno. Also, at what point is there an affirmative responsibility to find out what's going on?
  • The idea that Paterno talked the administrators out of going to the cops is just "1 out of 1742 possible interpretations of that sequence of events" This does not absolve Paterno. Also, at what point is there an affirmative responsibility to find out what's going on?
Given the friendship between James and Posnanski, I think there's a good chance we see some of these arguments in the book.
I think it is clear that there are points where Paterno could have been indicted for criminal behavior. I think it is unequivocally true that there are serious moral failings. I don't get what Bill James is getting at besides the whole, hey, reality is really complicated, man, kind of thing. And sure, it is. But if anything, that means we ought to double down on how we think about responsibility.
 

page 2 protege

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
235
NYC
Not Joe Pos per se, but Bill James defends Paterno on this interview with ESPN radio (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8164789). His key points (to be clear, these are James' arguments, not mine):
  • Mike McQueary, as the person who actually saw the rape, is the one who should have gone to the police
  • Joe Paterno was "not nearly as powerful as people imagine" at the time of the 2001 incident
  • Sandusky was cleared of wrongdoing in the 1998 incident by a police investigation
  • Paterno's saying, "What's going on with this?" in 1998 is ambiguous and doesn't mean he knew about the details of that investigation
  • There's no reason to think Paterno knew about Sandusky bringing boys on campus after he was barred from doing so in 2001
  • "It is uncharitable and inaccuarate to say the Paternos are lying" by claiming in 2011 not to know details of the 1998 incident, given Paterno's age and the amount of time elapsed
  • The "inexperienced" police botched the 1998 investigation and should have recognized some of Sandusky's behavior as that of a pedophile
  • In response to the idea that Sandusky was cleared in 1998 as part of a "massive cover-up" (including the police): "I don't think that the prosecutors involved were at all afraid of Joe Paterno."
  • Sandusky was "celebrated for his charitable works with children" by the media, and "the media created this smoke screen" which legitimized Sandusky's contact with the victims
  • Paterno "didn't buy into" Sandusky's charity
  • "There is no account under which [McQuery] told Paterno that [Sandusky] was raping a child."
  • The idea that Paterno talked the administrators out of going to the cops is just "1 out of 1742 possible interpretations of that sequence of events"
Given the friendship between James and Posnanski, I think there's a good chance we see some of these arguments in the book.
Per the Red Sox Facebook Page:
For Immediate Release

July 16, 2012
STATEMENT FROM THE BOSTON RED SOX

BOSTON, MA -- This afternoon, Red Sox Principal Owner John Henry and Executive Vice President/General Manager Ben Cherington spoke to Bill James regarding him making public his personal opinions on Joe Paterno.

In that call, Mr. James was informed that his comments in no way reflect the opinions or positions of the Red Sox; and, because he is perceived as a representative of the Red Sox, he was asked to refrain from any further public comments on this matter.

---RED SOX---
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Wow. I mean, almost all can be dispatched with about three responses--seems like a classic case of trying to get too... cute? with looking at details. I mean, none of this disputes the basic notion that someone in Paterno's position could have done things differently that would have prevented all this.

More to the point, the man people thought Paterno was would have been that guy.

I think it is clear that there are points where Paterno could have been indicted for criminal behavior. I think it is unequivocally true that there are serious moral failings. I don't get what Bill James is getting at besides the whole, hey, reality is really complicated, man, kind of thing. And sure, it is. But if anything, that means we ought to double down on how we think about responsibility.
I don't think it's about "absolving" Paterno. It's clear he did wrong by not reporting the matter to the police. What isn't known is whether Paterno was just one of dozens of people who could have done something and didn't - which is what James seems to be saying - or whether he was the one leading the cover-up to protect his own reputation and that of PSU.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
I don't think it's about "absolving" Paterno. It's clear he did wrong by not reporting the matter to the police. What isn't known is whether Paterno was just one of dozens of people who could have done something and didn't - which is what James seems to be saying - or whether he was the one leading the cover-up to protect his own reputation and that of PSU.
I agree. I just don't think that's an interesting point at all--"Other people suck too" has never had much resonance with me as a defense of any specific person.

And trying to argue that Joe Paterno was not a leader is kinda stupid, yeah? Arguing that he couldn't have been a leader borders on the unspeakable.

By which I mean a leader that could have made it such that the right things were done, or at least fewer of the wrong.

I mean, the bar is so fucking low here. As long as anyone in his position has a goddamned phone, then that person could have done better.

I am, of course, basing this on the assumption that he had a telephone.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Ya, I feel like James and (probably) Pos are basing their defense of Paterno on this idea that there are facts that suggest that Paterno didn't deliberately cover up the abuse.

The problem with that is, that's only a defense against the most egregious of failings that Paterno may have been guilty of. It really doesn't do anything to dispel the piles of evidence that Paterno was negligent, willfully negligent, and/or even reckless in regard to what was going on under his watch.

I mean, even assuming everything that James says is true and all facts are construed in Paterno's favor, I think he was still negligent. He SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that there was a possibility of terrible shit going on, and he ignored it. At BEST.

Personally, I think he was reckless in that he disregarded a high probability that Sandusky was a pedophile using Penn State facilities, and his association with Penn State, to molest kids.

So, yea, Bill James: he may not be guilty of the worst of what people are saying, but he was still culpable.
 

mandro ramtinez

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2006
1,612
Boston, MA
I agree. I just don't think that's an interesting point at all--"Other people suck too" has never had much resonance with me as a defense of any specific person.

And trying to argue that Joe Paterno was not a leader is kinda stupid, yeah? Arguing that he couldn't have been a leader borders on the unspeakable.

By which I mean a leader that could have made it such that the right things were done, or at least fewer of the wrong.
A leader would certainly not limit his action to reporting this kind of allegation up the chain of command. A leader is willing to sacrifice his or her position to stand up for what they believe to be essential and worth defending.

It's as if Bill Clinton said look at how mysognistic and lecherous JFK was during his time in the white house. What Sandusky did is worse than what Paterno did, but what Paterno did violates any reasonable moral code and shows very poor judgment.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA

The first review of Joe Posnanksi's Joe Paterno biography is in and it isn't good: Offered first serial rights to a book written by a formerSports Illustrated senior writer, the magazine said no. Assistant managing editor Chris Hunt confirmed to Deadspin that SI passed on running an excerpt. Posnanski, who left SI earlier this year for a USA Today-MLB Advanced Media joint venture called Sports on Earth, did find another taker, however. We hear that GQ will publish an excerpt from Paterno in an upcoming issue.

Hunt couldn't elaborate because of a confidentially agreement between SI and publisher Simon & Schuster (which doesn't expire until the book is published, on August 21). But sources at the magazine who read Paterno in galleys say the biography is short on fresh details about the Jerry Sandusky scandal. And Posnanski apparently didn't wring much out of Paterno that wasn't already on the record, our sources say.
http://deadspin.com/5926592/?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,775
Hartford, CT
I guess this is a new lesson they'll teach in J-Schools. Brings to mind a former history prof., who told us - his thesis all but finished - he stumbled across an ironclad primary source that definitively disproved his entire argument; in his case, though, he went back and rewrote it. So, it does happen, and it seems Pos completely failed the test.
 
Sep 27, 2004
5,576
Your worst nightmare
On a much smaller level, I did a 2-semester, 6-credit senior thesis in college on Toni Morrison and I basically had to scrap the entire thing in the final 2 weeks before I graduated and start over. I killed myself for those 2 weeks but ultimately turned in a good paper and got an A. One thing you learn as a writer is to never fall in love with your own work -- you have to be the toughest and relentless editor of your own work because if you're not, someone else will be.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I wonder what the financial/contractual ramifications of spiking the book are. He probably got an advance and was contractually obligated to produce a book. How much was the advance? Was he practically able to return it (i.e., did he have the money to do it?). Could the publisher say, "we dont care what you think, the book is coming out"?
To be sure, none of Posnanski's comments suggests he is against publishing what he's got now.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I would think that this is a special circumstance, Joe. I mean if Posnanski went into his editors and said, "Look, this is a Joe Paterno blow job there is no way in hell that we can release it, but I can totally rewrite it, I just need a bit more time." I would think--I would hope--that they would say, "Ok, make it fast and make it good." But, like you said, it doesn't sound like Pos is feeling this way.

What is also interesting is that the publisher bumped up the release date from June 2013 to August 2012.

And according to Deadspin editor Tommy Craggs, there is something in the book about the Freeh Report. I'm not sure what to make of that.
 

JBill

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
2,028
Deadspin updated the post in the comments:

Update for the curious: We're told that the Freeh report, which came out when Paterno was already in galleys, will indeed be covered in the final version of the book.
 

RingoOSU

okie misanthrope
SoSH Member
Jun 2, 2005
16,168
Jerry Adair's home state
The problem with the paterno book is no matter how much of the bad stuff is in there, there'll be a temptation to weigh the bad vs the good. And I'm with Rick O'Reilly on this one. If you play a huge part of a coverup of a rape, throwing money at a school and mentoring kids in passing their classes is not going to come anywhere near making up for it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
As I said upthread, if Pos knew (or assumed) that Paterno knew of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, then I don't think the other facts in the Freeh report are all that important to his book.

Of course, that one fact changes how a lot of other, previously known facts are understood. For instance, Paterno's explanations cannot be taken at face value, because he lied repeatedly about this point. (Even if you think his age is a mitigating factor, that still cuts against trusting any of his other recollections.) Also, I have to think any tortured rationale one might construct to defend Paterno's inaction in 2001 is blown to bits by the fact that Paterno knew that police had investigated a previous, similar incident.

So, if Pos was writing his book on the assumption that Paterno lied to him when he said he didn't know about the 1998 investigation, then all he has to do is revise a few sentences to reflect that his assumption is now historical fact. (A lot of other details have to be fact-checked too, but I assume he has editors for that.) On the other hand, if Pos wrote his book believing that Paterno's lie was true, or at least plausible, then he will have to rewrite parts of the book completely, and may even have to reconsider the entire tone of the book -- which is too large a task to complete between now and the publication date.

With no suggestion that the Freeh report will delay the publication of Pos's work, there's little to do except hope that his book strikes the right tone.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The problem with the paterno book is no matter how much of the bad stuff is in there, there'll be a temptation to weigh the bad vs the good. And I'm with Rick O'Reilly on this one. If you play a huge part of a coverup of a rape, throwing money at a school and mentoring kids in passing their classes is not going to come anywhere near making up for it.
But isn't that what makes this story so compelling? Would we be paying such rapt attention to the details if this happened at the University of Miami?

The story of Paterno is the story of one of the most epic falls from grace in modern times. That story requires the telling of the good as well as the bad, because without the former, the latter is just another story of unscrupulous people doing unscrupulous things. Pos was in a position to write a great book. Like you, though, I question whether he had the gumption to write it.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
But isn't that what makes this story so compelling? Would we be paying such rapt attention to the details if this happened at the University of Miami?
Of course we would. An old man fucking little boys using Penn State as his ice cream truck makes the Seventh Floor Crew look like an episode of the L'il Rascals.

Come on.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
Is anybody really expecting a lot of fresh details about a scandal that has already been the subject of a grand jury investigation, an extremely high-profile trial, a separate independent investigation conducted by a former head of the FBI, and eight months of reportage by every major newspaper in the country?

What's going to be interesting about Poz's book isn't new factual revelations or lack thereof, it's going to be Poz's tone and interpretation of facts that are already in the public record.

As far as SI passing on the excerpts....I don't know, is that really all that surprising? Why would they want to help a guy that just left the magazine promote his book? Editorially, doing the excerpts in GQ rather than SI is a sizable upgrade, IMO.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Where did you see that?

I think this is the report: http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/REPORT_FINAL_071212.pdf

I searched for Posnanski, writer, book and biography and didn't find anything regarding Posnanski's book.
There's something in Posnanski's book about the Freeh report, not something in the Freeh report about Posnanski's book. You have it backwards.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
As a related tangent, I friend of mine at a publisher said they turned down a book pitch from Jay Paterno--said they "couldn't have done it well," whatever that means. I dunno where else he shopped it, but let's just say that this place isn't exactly Simon & Schuster.

There are going to be books about this, obviously. Plural. Where Pos's fits into that scheme will be quite fascinating both in terms of his own legacy, and the legacies of Paterno, PSU and the battle for history that is going to be waged.

As far as the book being axed, does anyone think there is less than a 98% of a galley being leaked if it does? That has to affect the decision.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,946
Silver Spring, MD
As a related tangent, I friend of mine at a publisher said they turned down a book pitch from Jay Paterno--said they "couldn't have done it well," whatever that means. I dunno where else he shopped it, but let's just say that this place isn't exactly Simon & Schuster.

There are going to be books about this, obviously. Plural. Where Pos's fits into that scheme will be quite fascinating both in terms of his own legacy, and the legacies of Paterno, PSU and the battle for history that is going to be waged.

As far as the book being axed, does anyone think there is less than a 98% of a galley being leaked if it does? That has to affect the decision.
We're a bunch of rabid baseball fans who (generally) love Pos's baseball writings and other writings. But he's not a nationally well-known writer and it's not like his account is going to be the definitive one. A very small subset of the reading public cares about Pos's legacy. This story will get the high profile Dominick Dunne-like treatment at some point, and that will go much farther in defining the legacies of Paterno and PSU. Maybe Krakauer or somebody like that will take it on.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
We're a bunch of rabid baseball fans who (generally) love Pos's baseball writings and other writings. But he's not a nationally well-known writer and it's not like his account is going to be the definitive one. A very small subset of the reading public cares about Pos's legacy. This story will get the high profile Dominick Dunne-like treatment at some point, and that will go much farther in defining the legacies of Paterno and PSU. Maybe Krakauer or somebody like that will take it on.
Sara Ganim of the Harrisburg Patriot-News has been penning the definitive account in installments, and it's all freely available on the Internet.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
So, if Pos was writing his book on the assumption that Paterno lied to him when he said he didn't know about the 1998 investigation, then all he has to do is revise a few sentences to reflect that his assumption is now historical fact. (A lot of other details have to be fact-checked too, but I assume he has editors for that.) On the other hand, if Pos wrote his book believing that Paterno's lie was true, or at least plausible, then he will have to rewrite parts of the book completely, and may even have to reconsider the entire tone of the book -- which is too large a task to complete between now and the publication date.
I find it highly unlikely that Posnanski thought Paterno was lying to him. I mean the things he had said (that I've read in this thread) indicate to me that he had an incredible amount of respect for Paterno until the end.

But I also agree that he could not have re-written his book.

Which means that Posnanski is left with the unenviable task of salvaging Paterno. I suspect that the chapter on the Freeh report is going to look tremendously like the interview James just gave.

Here is the problem with that argument - and, while I hate to say this, why Bill James is just wrong. Posnanski and James are looking for something definitive to link Paterno to Sandusky. That evidence (unless Sandusky has something) isn't going to be forthcoming. Unfortunately, when you couple the evidence that suggests Paterno was being kept informed and knew of everything that was happening behind the scenes both during 1998 and 2001 with the fact that he has baldly lied to various people about his knowledge, then it's pretty hard not to conclude that Paterno knew at least enough to make him criminally liable and probably knew even more than that.

Unless, of course, you have (or a friend of yours has) books to sell.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
We're a bunch of rabid baseball fans who (generally) love Pos's baseball writings and other writings. But he's not a nationally well-known writer and it's not like his account is going to be the definitive one. A very small subset of the reading public cares about Pos's legacy. This story will get the high profile Dominick Dunne-like treatment at some point, and that will go much farther in defining the legacies of Paterno and PSU. Maybe Krakauer or somebody like that will take it on.
I agree--this, and subsequent posts, is sort of where I was going, or trying to anyway,

Any one account will and can (should?) only be looked at in the context of many, regardless of the massing of foot soldiers on each side (some of whom are getting kind of creepy...).
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
NYT talks about the situation with Pos and his book, pretty interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/business/media/in-posnanskis-paterno-a-biography-with-bad-timing.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Thanks for the link - it's a good read.

I understand why the original decision was made, but I really think that moving up the release date will go down as one of the most unfortunate decisions in the history of publishing. And I think this book (and tour) has a real chance of ruining Posnanski.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
I hope not, but am becoming increasingly worried that it will. Every indication says that, while the book has been adapted to include much of the bad, he still believes there are decades of good that deserve pages and provide some measure of balance. Even a "'full 360-degree view' is going to be met with serious backlash, and if he's not rewriting the 'good' chapters, it means he feels strongly enough to go down swinging. If he subscribes to the Pearlman view, he's hiding it well.

If he still has the same mindset of the guy who penned the line "single, hazy event", or anything close to it, it could be disastrous.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I hope not, but am becoming increasingly worried that it will. Every indication says that, while the book has been adapted to include much of the bad, he still believes there are decades of good that deserve pages and provide some measure of balance. Even a "'full 360-degree view' is going to be met with serious backlash, and if he's not rewriting the 'good' chapters, it means he feels strongly enough to go down swinging. If he subscribes to the Pearlman view, he's hiding it well.

If he still has the same mindset of the guy who penned the line "single, hazy event", or anything close to it, it could be disastrous.
How many pages do the "decades of good" deserve? Assume it's 400 pages.
 

Merkle's Boner

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2011
3,760
I realize this topic is about things WAY more important than book sales, but does anyone believe this book will not be a major bestseller? It will be the first major book written abut Paterno since he died and, like it or not, there is a huge population of people (read: PSU Alumni) who will eat up anything written about him. Plus, I have no doubt it will be well written in typical Joe Pos fashion. I am holding out little hope that it will be as balanced as I'd like it to be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Joe comes out of this episode as a much more well known entity than he is now.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
[quote name='Merkle's Boner' timestamp='1343155606' post='4251622']
I realize this topic is about things WAY more important than book sales, but does anyone believe this book will not be a major bestseller? It will be the first major book written abut Paterno since he died and, like it or not, there is a huge population of people (read: PSU Alumni) who will eat up anything written about him. Plus, I have no doubt it will be well written in typical Joe Pos fashion. I am holding out little hope that it will be as balanced as I'd like it to be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Joe comes out of this episode as a much more well known entity than he is now.
[/quote]

Eh...I dunno, I think once it gets out that this book doesn't have any "juicy" inside stuff, it will be eclipsed by other rush-jobs that do.

I have a feeling it's going to be in the clearance rack pretty quickly.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
0. The man only did "decades of good" to win games. He needed his players eligible.
Without the previous stuff that developed the reputation stuff, there's not nearly the epicness of what came later.

A fall without the pre-existing pride, hubris which brings the moral failing into high relief isn't quite the story.

Pos might still be the guy for the job precisely because he wouldn't boot the stuff that makes the later stuff all the more fucked... as long as he uses it to, as I said above, to bring the fuckedosity of things into high relief, to highlight the tensions and the utter... shit.

Did he do that? I'm concerned about the timeline. I think he has the ability in terms of talent. I don't know if he had the ability in a more hands on sense... the will, if you will...

Here's to hoping.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Without the previous stuff that developed the reputation stuff, there's not nearly the epicness of what came later.

A fall without the pre-existing pride, hubris which brings the moral failing into high relief isn't quite the story.

Pos might still be the guy for the job precisely because he wouldn't boot the stuff that makes the later stuff all the more fucked... as long as he uses it to, as I said above, to bring the fuckedosity of things into high relief, to highlight the tensions and the utter... shit.

Did he do that? I'm concerned about the timeline. I think he has the ability in terms of talent. I don't know if he had the ability in a more hands on sense... the will, if you will...

Here's to hoping.
I believe in Pos. I don't think you can be such a doting dad and then give a bunch of pedophile protectors a break.

But we'll see.
 

Senator Donut

post-Domer
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2010
5,502
The impression I got from the New York Times article is that Simon & Schuster want to release this book as quietly as possible to avoid the negative press that comes with publishing a positive biography on Joe Paterno. They would rather take a hit to their bottom line than their reputations. Paterno probably will not make the best-seller list because there will be very little publicity attached to this release.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
How many pages do the "decades of good" deserve? Assume it's 400 pages.
If it's me, I think they deserve a ton of pages (200-250), but analyzed with the hindsight of the later revelations. I think it's absolutely fascinating that a man who engineered the Grand Experiment, inspired such cultlike loyalty and devotion, and garnered such a reputation as a leader of men, could also prove to be such a coward when the chips were really on the table. I want to know, was he just full of shit from the beginning but covered with a fine layer of polish and PR, as so many of our leaders are, or is he someone who truly was exceptional at teaching boys how to be men at the same time that he was enabling child rape. In the hands of a talented guy like Pos, that's an exceptional book that I'd likely read.

Given what little I know about what Pos is thinking, and the speed with which the book is heading to publication post-Freeh, that's not the book I think we're getting. Instead of getting "let's delve into the psyche of how Paterno could do ABCDEFG good at the same time as he was doing H bad", I think we're getting "Joe Paterno was a good, flawed man, who did ABCDEFG good and H bad". I think the Sandusky stuff may feel more like an epilogue, with a few mentions dropped in earlier, than the unifying thread of the narrative. That's the book I suspect we're getting, and if that's the case, if the "good" is isolated from the "bad", then I don't think the good deserves very many pages at all (50-100 including childhood). For almost everyone except those who(m?) Paterno has touched (phrasing!) in a personal, positive way, those facts have become irrelevant to who he was.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I think that speculation on Paterno "coming clean on his death bed" to Posnanski has been seriously underplayed. I think Paterno spoke with Posnanski and that those comments, placed into the context of the larger story (both the hagiography and the scandal) will be fascinating.

I think if you expect 400 pages of vilification, you're not going to get it and you'll be "ripping" Posnanski for not writing what you desire.

I think if you expect a book that tries to tie together "decades of good" with a monumental moral failure in the end...I think it'll be worth the purchase price. I have faith that Posnanski is going to tell the truth - and that maybe he got Paterno to tell some of it, too.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
I think that speculation on Paterno "coming clean on his death bed" to Posnanski has been seriously underplayed. I think Paterno spoke with Posnanski and that those comments, placed into the context of the larger story (both the hagiography and the scandal) will be fascinating.
You know what? Fuck this. If Paterno did give Posnanski a death-bed confession, then I hope that he's roasting in hell right now. That means he knew, he fucking knew, that what he did for the last 13 years was reprehensible and he didn't give a fuck until he was caught. And if Posnanski buys that load of crap, then he's just dumb.

I'd hate Joe Paterno more if that was the big reveal.
 

Spud

New Member
Nov 15, 2006
99
Joe's blog has been one of my daily reading stops for a number of years. His recent week or so silence had me hoping that he was feverishly re-writing his Paterno book to take into account the Freeh report and to deal with his earlier less than intelligent comments regarding the whole Sandusky mess.

It appears, however, that while Joe might have been writing feverishly, it wasn't about Paterno or Penn State: http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/07/live-from-olymipcs.html

I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but it appears that Joe is past chasing his dreams and has moved on to chasing the big bucks. If I'm correct, I hope this latest project crashes and burns in spectacular fashion.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but it appears that Joe is past chasing his dreams and has moved on to chasing the big bucks.
These two things are far from mutually exclusive.

Also, the guy is in London, about to write about the Olympics, for a major U.S. national publication. Not only does this sound like an incredible experience in its own right, it is also basically the same thing he did four years ago in Beijing (puncturing your hypothesis that his career sights have somehow changed in the past few years).

So, in sum, you're a dumb-dumb.
 

Spud

New Member
Nov 15, 2006
99
Thanks for settling on "dumb-dumb" as opposed to something else. I obviously did a poor job of making my points. First, SJH, I have no problem with Joe profiting from his talents. And given the reported advance on the Paterno book, he seems to be doing fine in that department. I really am a fan of Joe's writing and have been for a number of years. If he gets filthy rich doing it, that's fine with me.

I was trying to make a couple points. First, given the silence on his blog over the last week or so my assumption was that he was "fixing" whatever needed to be fixed on the book. There have been a number of debates here and elsewhere about comments Joe made in the past and about whether the book should be rewritten/pulled/delayed based on the contents of the Freeh report. I just assumed that Joe was trying to fix that because I would really like to see him succeed. He may have pulled the book back together in the last week or so or he may not have. We'll all just have to wait and see.

The second point, related to the first, is that it appears that a good deal of his time in the recent past has been devoted to putting together his new venture. I certainly don't know the business obligations Joe had in regard to that, but I was surprised that the Paterno book seemed to get a back-of-the-hand treatment in his latest blog entry while the new gig replaced it on center stage.

And yes going to London to write about the Olympics is a wonderful opportunity and I really do hope that the quality of Joe's work does not change. My fear, however, right or wrong, is that we are starting to see the beginning of a transformation from Joe the successful writer to Joe the celebrity. I fully support the former, would hate to see the latter and would be perfectly happy if I was out to lunch with the whole idea.