Re: New Walter Payton book has some shocking revelations

[Guest]

For my part, I'm just commenting that Pearlman is netting a paycheck on the back of negative details for a guy who can no longer defend himself. That's all.

 

And now we're back to the line of thinking that makes no damn sense to me.

 

You're trying to phrase it so it sounds like he's potentially doing something wrong...for getting money from writing a biography. It's not a slam job or an attempt to slander Payton. It's a documentation of his life and some of the things that happened in his life are "negative." The caveat of it being about a "a guy who can no longer defend himself" is clearly an effort to paint the writing and publishing of this book in a negative light and is a completely redundant and ridiculous thing to say. Again, most biographies are about dead people. Pointing out that this one is also about someone who is dead isn't a negative mark against Pearlman or the publishers, and if you think it is, well, quite frankly, you're wrong, and it's a wholly unrealistic expectation.

 

Yes, I get that you don't want to read the book, and that's great. But stop trying to make it sound like the author did something wrong.

 

Your line of thinking appears to be that because others do it, it's OK for Pearlman to as well. I disagree. There are levels of "wrong." I'm not saying Pearlman should be brought up on charges or anything. I am saying that I personally would never do something like this, and it definitely feels wrong/bad/not good -- whatever -- to me.

 

I don't think that's right, either. I don't see anything wrong with painting the entire picture of the man through a biography rather than only including the good stuff. I just don't personally care for them using the infidelity and pain reliever abuse as the highlight of his life to sell books through articles like the one in SI.

 

But, I suppose it's more of a "here's something you didn't know about "His Greatness" until you read my book" type of thing than exposing him as not really being the person we all thought he was. It's clearly an attempt to inspire people to buy the book that might not otherwise.

[erik316wttn]

For my part, I'm just commenting that Pearlman is netting a paycheck on the back of negative details for a guy who can no longer defend himself. That's all.

 

And now we're back to the line of thinking that makes no damn sense to me.

 

You're trying to phrase it so it sounds like he's potentially doing something wrong...for getting money from writing a biography. It's not a slam job or an attempt to slander Payton. It's a documentation of his life and some of the things that happened in his life are "negative." The caveat of it being about a "a guy who can no longer defend himself" is clearly an effort to paint the writing and publishing of this book in a negative light and is a completely redundant and ridiculous thing to say. Again, most biographies are about dead people. Pointing out that this one is also about someone who is dead isn't a negative mark against Pearlman or the publishers, and if you think it is, well, quite frankly, you're wrong, and it's a wholly unrealistic expectation.

 

Yes, I get that you don't want to read the book, and that's great. But stop trying to make it sound like the author did something wrong.

 

Your line of thinking appears to be that because others do it, it's OK for Pearlman to as well. I disagree. There are levels of "wrong." I'm not saying Pearlman should be brought up on charges or anything. I am saying that I personally would never do something like this, and it definitely feels wrong/bad/not good -- whatever -- to me.

 

So is it wrong because the author is revealing flaws in a person you admire? What if a biography comes out that would reveal something disparaging about a historical figure, like Abe Lincoln or Ben Franklin? Would that person be wrong for doing so? What about the person years ago who discovered Thomas Jefferson fathered children with a slave? Was that guy wrong for doing so?

[Sammy Sofa]

For my part, I'm just commenting that Pearlman is netting a paycheck on the back of negative details for a guy who can no longer defend himself. That's all.

 

And now we're back to the line of thinking that makes no damn sense to me.

 

You're trying to phrase it so it sounds like he's potentially doing something wrong...for getting money from writing a biography. It's not a slam job or an attempt to slander Payton. It's a documentation of his life and some of the things that happened in his life are "negative." The caveat of it being about a "a guy who can no longer defend himself" is clearly an effort to paint the writing and publishing of this book in a negative light and is a completely redundant and ridiculous thing to say. Again, most biographies are about dead people. Pointing out that this one is also about someone who is dead isn't a negative mark against Pearlman or the publishers, and if you think it is, well, quite frankly, you're wrong, and it's a wholly unrealistic expectation.

 

Yes, I get that you don't want to read the book, and that's great. But stop trying to make it sound like the author did something wrong.

 

Your line of thinking appears to be that because others do it, it's OK for Pearlman to as well. I disagree. There are levels of "wrong." I'm not saying Pearlman should be brought up on charges or anything. I am saying that I personally would never do something like this, and it definitely feels wrong/bad/not good -- whatever -- to me.

 

This is absurd. I'm not saying the bold part at all, because that's a wholly unrealistic expectation. You can keep playing this off by saying "it's just my opinion," but it's an unreasonable opinion. When you say "you wouldn't do this" what you're saying is "I WOULDN'T WRITE A BIOGRAPHY." He didn't do anything exceptional or bad or unusual or however you want to spin this within the realm of an accepted and respected genre writing. He did exactly what is expected and hoped for when someone writes a biography.

 

If you don't want to know these things about Payton and you don't want to read the book, fine, that's a realistic opinion. But trying in any way, shape or form to paint it like the author did something wrong is ridiculous. One of the main selling points of a new biography is convincing potential readers that the biography has something new to reveal that we didn't already know about the person it's written about (or, if it's a person most people are not familiar with, why we'd be interested in reading about them in the first place). The revelations about Payton would be unavoidable to mention in that context.

 

The underlying mentality here that's really pet peeving me are the ideas that from a biographical or a journalistic standpoint that something "wrong" was done here, either within the context of writing a biography about a public figure or writing an article about a public figure. Compound that with the inexplicable expectation that such things should only be done when the subject is alive so they can "defend" themselves and it's clearly just people pissed that something negative is being said about someone they're a fan of, but it's being dressed up to make it sound like something wrong was done instead of just saying "I don't want to know these things."

[Soul]

Alright, I understand that N&G.

 

How about if I just say that I personally would feel bad revealing such details, and then just leave it at that? I just think about family members who have to read something like that. I couldn't do it to them. That's why I'm not a journalist, and would make a horrible one if I tried.

 

 

I definitely admit bias in this matter. I can't help it, when it comes to Payton. After looking around a bit, I see that Pearlman, for his part, doesn't feel it's a negative book at all.

[Sammy Sofa]

Alright, I understand that N&G.

 

How about if I just say that I personally would feel bad revealing such details, and then just leave it at that? I just think about family members who have to read something like that. I couldn't do it to them. That's why I'm not a journalist, and would make a horrible one if I tried.

 

Now that I get. There's a very key difference between acknowledging something you yourself would not want to do and looking at it like it's "wrong." because you wouldn't want to do it.

 

I definitely admit bias in this matter. I can't help it, when it comes to Payton. After looking around a bit, I see that Pearlman, for his part, doesn't feel it's a negative book at all.

 

And he shouldn't. I'm only about halfway through it, but both what I've read so far isn't hinged around anything negative; it's just exploring the life of Payton from beginning to end. The positive parts of his life aren't ignored or shoved aside. It reads like an effort to to tell the full story of an interesting life as opposed to tearing it down.