Sammy Sofa

I'm dying to read this now.

Yes, which is why I found the quotes funny. 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 probably hard to believe because I never said the bold part. 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Exactly.

I'm not furious about this book, Ditka is. And how do you know it's decent? Have you read it? Because the reviews from the people who have read it make it sound very good and well-researched/written. Ditka hasn't read it. It's amazing how many quotes there are like this: 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.

No, I'm pointing out the tone they're going for. Tawdry tell-alls usually are hyped as such. Think Kitty Kelley.

Listen to the publishers', greedy, scummy description of their greedy scummy book: DO THESE MONSTERS KNOW NO SHAME?!?

http://www.gq.com/images/entertainment/2010/09/samsung-inspired-by-you/book-washington-a-life.jpg WRITTEN 212 YEARS AFTER HE DIED. CHERNOW, YOU GREEDY HACK.

Actually, it accomplishes having a decent biography about Walter Payton being written. Do you get furious when you walk past the biography section in a book store or library? Because I hate to tell you this, but most of those are written about people after they've died, too. And they're filled with plenty of unflattering things as well.

Yeah, I wouldn't be pretending my friend was someone he wasn't.

If my friend actually did those things, yeah. I am baffled by this mindset where people seemingly expect this guy to ignore anything he found in his research that didn't reflect well on Payton. So many seem to be looking like this is some kind of effort to smear Payton. It doesn't sound like a cheap, trashy hackjob looking just to smear Payton. It sounds like it's an examination of the man's life; both the good and the bad. That's what happens when someone researches and writes a thorough biography.

Well that's just wonderful.

What the what. Someone please link to that thread.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

Yes, when one writes a biography they should just try to be nice and ignore certain things.

The Dave Clark Five...home runs was all he could manage. God, that team was [expletive] brutal.

Ozzie Timmons

Steve Buechele's Nipple

It's like you're actually trying to be a cranky old woman.