Stefan,Thanks for the comment and the compliment. ...

2008-12-14T18:21:49.392-05:00

Stefan,

Thanks for the comment and the compliment. First of all, in case you might have been worried, I'm nobody you know.

Second of all, I'm a compulsive editor. I often sleep on a piece, wake, and find I've worked out something I'd rather have been there all along. Until recently, the slower traffic of this blog has prevented something going out "on the record" to more than a few people before I've had the chance to amend it. With instant Google Alerts, I should start sleeping on things before publishing them, rather than trusting I'll have a large enough window to edit before somebody concerned can read it.

Which brings me round to this review. I always feel as if I've missed something when I mash the PUBLISH button, and I went to sleep hoping that whatever it was would come to me by morning. "It" was two things, actually:

1. I wanted to point out two scenes from the book that had appealed to me, namely your experience hearing fans yelling both feedback and encouragement, and your attempt to send the players home early from practice by making a kick under pressure.

2. The NFL's refusal to allow you to be in for a snap in a preseason game, which I thought was a unique presentation of a familiar and valid argument about the farcical seriousness with which the league tries to invest these games.

Basically, I was already determined to edit the review and bump the book up a mark when I saw your reply, which only reinforced my feeling that I'd left something out.

I understand why print journalists are reluctant to admit oversight: it can stain their records and attach doubts to future work that lacks for nothing. The internet's innate difference as a medium poses a bit of a conundrum, though. On the one hand, the immediacy of feedback presents an opportunity for instant editing that can address subjects more responsibly. On the other, since serious internet writers (I am not one) struggle for mainstream legitimacy, there is, I think, a strong reluctance to print changes for fear of impugning the authenticity of what's written. Simply put: if a "name" subject of any piece can offer a comment and have the author amend an article, what does it say about the author's work and credibility as a whole?

I don't think that latter is what's happening here, though. Bottom line: I noticed an oversight on my own, and you alerted me to another, as regards your ability to get close to the players. I missed the boat, and I'm not so stubborn as to pretend I didn't.

(This mistake especially irritates me because I recently read Bissinger's Three Nights in August and bristled at his opining from afar and relying on the almost oracular pronouncements from LaRussa about what was going on. Whether he literally did this or merely presents it this way, it seems like he abandons other dimensions and voices in the story. Given that you did the opposite of what irked me, I should have been more attentive to that)

I suppose I include the preceding paragraphs to show that I am aware how easily someone with a critical eye could view my editing my review as rolling over in the face of disagreement, and how I think that's a bunch of bullshit. Anyone who's paid close enough attention knows that I've edited reviews and ratings in the past and will worry over those still-too-arbitrary numbers that get tacked on the end in the future.

Finally, let me say that I'm not usually scatterbrained. I read your book nearly two months ago and jotted down some notes about it, expecting to write a review shortly. Since then, many houseguests and a very rewarding but even more time consuming paid writing gig have intervened. Worst of all, some reprobate friend still has my copy of your book, and without having it to flip through, my notes were almost useless. I did the best that I could from memory, but even then I knew I was... well, maybe not half-, but definitely three-quarter-assing it. I hope this goes some way to appeasing any critic who thinks I'm playing the obedient lapdog by editing myself. It needed editing, regardless of the name of the person pointing out that fact.

Thank you again for the kind words and for the book.

Your Friendly Former Notorious African Dictator

P.S. - My wife is a loyal NPR listener and a fan of yours, and she was very excited on the phone when I told her you'd commented on this blog. She said to say hi.

MobutuI have no idea who you are, but that was a s...

2008-12-12T10:59:00.000-05:00

Mobutu

I have no idea who you are, but that was a smart, fair, perceptive and well-written review of my book.

My only quibble: I'd argue that my Broncos were far more open and honest than professional athletes ever are with the media, and that's the surprise of the book. I think that, because of the endless stream of blather and coverage of sports, we're numbed to athletes' stories, so we assume more than that we actually know. These guys were incredibly candid with me, because I managed to get inside -- I may have sucked, but they respected me for showing up every day -- and because over time they came to trust me.

In any event, many thanks for taking the time to read, and to write. (Though I would have given me a 4, at least.)

Stefan

P.S. LOVE the Gramatica photo.

Comments on Et tu, Mr. Destructo?: Plimpton, Fatsis and 'A Few Seconds of Panic'

Stefan,Thanks for the comment and the compliment. ...

MobutuI have no idea who you are, but that was a s...