Re: New Walter Payton book has some shocking revelations

[Soul]

To me, what they said wasn't stupid. I understand you have a different opinion.

[SpongeWorthy]

NDE is an autobiography. There's always room for a biography to contrast what a famous figure has to say about themselves.

 

Eh, it's just not that interesting to me to rehash everything we already know and then add that he was doing drugs and diddling other ladies. He's a football player who died young. I could see if he went from playing into a coaching career and has a legacy that reached into whole lot of other venues. He's not that interesting. Jim Brown is an interesting character to get to know. Paul Robeson is worthy of multiple stories. There is no market for a Walter Payton biography outside of talking about sex and drugs. It's completely disingenuous of Perlman to talk about wanting to go from the bad guys he wrote about to an in depth biography of a good guy and that he only stumbled across the sex and drugs along the way. You don't write that book unless you have the hook of sex and drugs to sell it.

 

If it's done well, I still love that inside baseball, grind-of-season kinda stuff. Maybe that's why bottled sports books seem to work better when one guy follows a particular subject for a season (e.g. John Feinstein's stuff) but it can work in biographies too.

[jersey cubs fan]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died? It's not an issue of "oh boy, NOW I can get that damn Walter Payton." The better biographies take a long time to write because of the research is involved. If you're writing a bio about someone who is still alive that information is going to be continually changing. That's why biographies about living people tend to suck (that and because they tend to run to the extremes of either trying to tear someone down or suck up to them). Yes, there are exceptions, but the vast majority are written after the subject has died. It's not like Pearlman is pulling some dirty trick here.

 

I'm sure you are correct, but I think the emotional reaction is completely understandable. They knew and really cared about him.

 

Emotional and rational thinking aren't mutually exclusive. Granted, yes, we're talking about football players here, but still, I'd figure even they could be mad about something without saying stupid things.

 

They are saying they are mad somebody wrote a biography about their friend that revealed drug use and infidelity. Why is that stupid?

[Sammy Sofa]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died?

 

At this point I have to think you are playing dumb. They are talking about a person who they felt very strongly about who died. In depth biographies are generally written about much bigger personas than Walter Payton. And most of his friends are all alive, so they are going to defend him.

 

Defending him is great. I never said anywhere they shouldn't. I was getting a kick out of them seemingly having no clue how biographies typically "work."

 

And your idea of who biographies "should" be written about is incredibly narrowminded and subjective. Some of the best bios are written about people that most of us had no clue even existed until the book showed up.

[Sammy Sofa]

They are saying they are mad somebody wrote a biography about their friend that revealed drug use and infidelity. Why is that stupid?

 

Defending him is great. I never said anywhere they shouldn't. I was getting a kick out of them seemingly having no clue how biographies typically "work."

 

I wasn't criticizing them for being mad. They can be as mad as they want and trash this all they want. I just think it's funny that they seem to think that biographies should be written when the subject is still alive, or like there's some kind of timeframe as to when a biography should be written. Ditka seems to think there's something "cowardly" about writing a biography about someone after they've died, and I find that amusing.

[SpongeWorthy]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died?

 

At this point I have to think you are playing dumb. They are talking about a person who they felt very strongly about who died. In depth biographies are generally written about much bigger personas than Walter Payton. And most of his friends are all alive, so they are going to defend him.

 

Payton was easily big enough to warrant a doorstop biography being written about him. It's not like he's Churchill or Kissinger where you could fill a bookstore with books written about him but he's certainly merits at least one.

[Sammy Sofa]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died?

 

At this point I have to think you are playing dumb. They are talking about a person who they felt very strongly about who died. In depth biographies are generally written about much bigger personas than Walter Payton. And most of his friends are all alive, so they are going to defend him.

 

Payton was easily big enough to warrant a doorstop biography being written about him. It's not like he's Churchill or Kissinger where you could fill a bookstore with books written about him but he's certainly merits at least one.

 

Practically anyone "merits" a biography if it's well researched and written. That's kind of the beauty of the genre when it's well done.

[jersey cubs fan]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died?

 

At this point I have to think you are playing dumb. They are talking about a person who they felt very strongly about who died. In depth biographies are generally written about much bigger personas than Walter Payton. And most of his friends are all alive, so they are going to defend him.

 

Defending him is great. I never said anywhere they shouldn't. I was getting a kick out of them seemingly having no clue how biographies typically "work."

 

And your idea of who biographies "should" be written about is incredibly narrowminded and subjective. Some of the best bios are written about people that most of us had no clue even existed until the book showed up.

 

Much more meaningful people who we didn't know. But that's the point of a biography, to inform. We already know most everything about Payton, and the fact that he was a professional athlete pretty much confirmed he was probably a bit of philanderer. The only thing this would serve at this point is to confirm that he did do drugs and have a marriage collapse.

 

I would be shocked if less than 95% of pro athletes didn't cheat and do drugs. I don't see the point in biographies about them unless there's more interesting stuff to discuss and/or reveal.

[Sammy Sofa]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died?

 

At this point I have to think you are playing dumb. They are talking about a person who they felt very strongly about who died. In depth biographies are generally written about much bigger personas than Walter Payton. And most of his friends are all alive, so they are going to defend him.

 

Defending him is great. I never said anywhere they shouldn't. I was getting a kick out of them seemingly having no clue how biographies typically "work."

 

And your idea of who biographies "should" be written about is incredibly narrowminded and subjective. Some of the best bios are written about people that most of us had no clue even existed until the book showed up.

 

Much more meaningful people who we didn't know. But that's the point of a biography, to inform. We already know most everything about Payton, and the fact that he was a professional athlete pretty much confirmed he was probably a bit of philanderer. The only thing this would serve at this point is to confirm that he did do drugs and have a marriage collapse.

 

I would be shocked if less than 95% of pro athletes didn't cheat and do drugs. I don't see the point in biographies about them unless there's more interesting stuff to discuss and/or reveal.

 

The thing about Payton is you tend to have more disparity between those kinds of activities and the public persona he had (which, in the grand scheme of things, was still pretty aloof and made him an enigma, both with the public but even often with his own coaches and teammates. I don't know about you, but I really don't feel I know much about the guy even after having read NDE; most of it just felt like an expanded bio sheet). That disparity seems to imply that there's a pretty complex person at the heart of this, especially given the psychological turmoil seemingly behind much of that as opposed to the usual "WOOOOOOOOOH, I'M FAMOUS AND I'M GONNA GET HIGH AND I'M GONNA [expletive] EVERYTHING THAT MOVES!!!" motives. Compound that even further with his tragic death and it seems to have the making of a very interesting and tumultuous story.

 

Now, I could easily be wrong with those assumptions and it turns out Payton was just a typical boring jock who unfortunately got cancer and died young. I guess we'll have to see.

[jersey cubs fan]

My feelings about Payton are that while I loved him as a player, between the point in time that he retired and I found out he was dying, I might have thought about him twice. He just wasn't interesting or impactful outside of the times he was playing. I really don't see the point of a biography about such a person. The fact that he did drugs, banged other women and may have had suicidal thoughts doesn't interest me. It's not like he was out there actively selling himself as some saint. He wasn't a Reggie White type preaching the old do as I say not as I do mentality. Jordan is a completely different entity.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yes, different types of people have different biographies written about them.

[Tracer Bullet]

I understand the personal connection, but come on, they have to be playing dumb. Do they seriously not understand that comprehensive biographies are almost always written after someone has died?

 

At this point I have to think you are playing dumb. They are talking about a person who they felt very strongly about who died. In depth biographies are generally written about much bigger personas than Walter Payton. And most of his friends are all alive, so they are going to defend him.

 

Defending him is great. I never said anywhere they shouldn't. I was getting a kick out of them seemingly having no clue how biographies typically "work."

 

And your idea of who biographies "should" be written about is incredibly narrowminded and subjective. Some of the best bios are written about people that most of us had no clue even existed until the book showed up.

 

Jesus, what do you expect as a defense from Ditka? That testosterone-filled jock meathead personality isn't an act. These guys witnessed a close friend die fairly young and years later someone writes a book that adds nothing to the public's knowledge, except drug use and infidelity. They're hurt by this, I imagine.

 

As jersey pointed out, he's not a massive public figure. He wasn't an attention seeker. I don't think many people expected that a biography would be written about him. All it's going to do is hurt those that loved him and make the author some money. It's hard for me to believe that you're really surprised that people that loved him are upset even if irrational in their defense.

 

And those best bios about relative unknowns that you mention - are they so great bc they reveal drug use and infidelity or things that actually matter to more than just the people directly involved?

[SpongeWorthy]

And those best bios about relative unknowns that you mention - are they so great bc they reveal drug use and infidelity or things that actually matter to more than just the people directly involved?

 

Delving into the real life (loosely defined here considering the James Frey's of the world) drug and marital problems of unknown people is a cottage industry in the book world.

 

But yes, unless the person involved is mega influential, you typically need some kind of angle to write a bio about an unknown person. I'm reminded of the Lost City of Z which is about a guy most people had never heard of and became a mega best seller because the story was so unbelievable.

[Sammy Sofa]

Jesus, what do you expect as a defense from Ditka? That testosterone-filled jock meathead personality isn't an act.

 

Yes, which is why I found the quotes funny.

 

These guys witnessed a close friend die fairly young and years later someone writes a book that adds nothing to the public's knowledge, except drug use and infidelity.

 

Really? NOTHING? The entire book is only things we all already knew about Payton and just the drug use and affairs? Man, I wish you had loaned me that advance copy you got.

 

It's hard for me to believe that you're really surprised that people that loved him are upset even if irrational in their defense.

 

It's probably hard to believe because I never said the bold part.

 

And those best bios about relative unknowns that you mention - are they so great bc they reveal drug use and infidelity or things that actually matter to more than just the people directly involved?

 

Some are. ALL good and great biographies are warts and all towards their subjects. One niche where you tend to get some good ones is when writers take on a legend, good or bad, and turn that legend into a person. It tends to make their strengths and successes even more admirable when contrasted with their struggles and failings.

[Tracer Bullet]

It's hard for me to believe that you're really surprised that people that loved him are upset even if irrational in their defense.

 

It's probably hard to believe because I never said the bold part.

 

 

People that cared about him are upset and, in some cases, making irrational arguments. You say you find that funny and that they don't know how biographies "work." That's very different from my statement.

[Sammy Sofa]

Yup.

[erik316wttn]

My feelings about Payton are that while I loved him as a player, between the point in time that he retired and I found out he was dying, I might have thought about him twice. He just wasn't interesting or impactful outside of the times he was playing. I really don't see the point of a biography about such a person. The fact that he did drugs, banged other women and may have had suicidal thoughts doesn't interest me. It's not like he was out there actively selling himself as some saint. He wasn't a Reggie White type preaching the old do as I say not as I do mentality. Jordan is a completely different entity.

 

Well then you don't have to read the book. Obviously not everyone will, but there are enough people who want to know who Walter Payton truly was off of the football field to make this book a success. I speak for only myself here, but I love biographies because I love getting to know the person I'm reading about-- what made them tick, why they did the things they did, etc.

[Guest]

I'm curious which ad campaign sells more books. The one that advertises the drugs and infidelity or the one that advertises the accomplishments on and off the football field that made people worship the man?

 

I might have a bias as a Bears fan and idolizing him all of these years, but when I read the excerpts, I'm not inspired to read the rest of the book. Do non Bears fans want to run out and buy the book if there are startling revelations that drag down his legacy?

[Sammy Sofa]

They don't necessarily drag down his legacy.

[Soul]

And the revelations aren't necessarily startling.

 

 

But I get your overall question, BBB. I don't know the answer.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well then you don't have to read the book.

 

God this is just an incredibly stupid non-statement.

[erik316wttn]

Well then you don't have to read the book.

 

God this is just an incredibly stupid non-statement.

 

Well, is it factually incorrect? You DON'T have to. My point was that even though you may disagree with a lot of the things in the book or the motivation for writing it, there are enough people out there interested in the life of Walter Payton to make this book worth writing.

[Soul]

Well of course not. I don't think that's what is at issue here. I'll bet dollars to navy beans most of us here won't actually read the book, for various reasons. For me? I've got too many other things to do rather than pick up a book on Walter Payton at this point. It's ancient history for me -- his transgressions, I think, were largely assumed. At least from my perspective.

 

He was a sports star. Women were available.......pain relief in the face of debiliating illness? Very available.

 

Not terribly revealing, or startling, or really worth my time. 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. Regardless of whether it is accepted practice or not in the world of biographies. I reserve the right to be critical of it. And that's all. If someone doesn't like that? Suck eggs. I'll criticize what I want. Deal with it.

[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.

[Soul]

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.