« Pocket power | Main | I want to give you a good grade »

The missing story

Coach Squires told a story Wednesday night (ultimately inconsequential) which made me think about what’s missing from today’s coverage of the major marathons.

We tell the stories of the races now much the way they happen. That is, we start with a few days of press conferences and build up wherein nobody really knows what’s going to happen. Then we describe the races as they’re happening; then, on race day, we write a few wrap-up stories describing how the race went. There may also be some story-of-one-runner stories which go back and trace one athlete’s build-up and race; usually those cover someone who is otherwise out of the main story, such as the top Americans.

The story that’s missing is the one that’s written weeks after the race for a monthly deadline, the chapter in the long book of This Race which describes this installment of the annual showdown. That story has many of the same pieces, but with greater hindsight, the reporter is able to indulge their pseudo-omniscient viewpoint and change the focus. The pre-race build-up can ignore the runners who ultimately played only bit parts, and focus on the ones who turned out to be protagonists. The story of Coach Squires and Robert Cheruiyot is a curiosity before the race, when we would report it nowadays (if at all); after the race, it’s part of the great drama.

You could say this is false drama; after all, if Cheruiyot had lost, Coach Squires would not have behaved differently. (Maybe he wouldn’t have told us the story, I suppose.) Maybe it is. But it’s not inventing anything that wasn’t there; it’s simply selecting the most dramatic, most colorful way to tell the story of the race. And I can’t figure out why, if you’re reading a story about a marathon, you wouldn’t want to read the most entertaining one available, all other things being equal.

Consider, for another example, my colorful little tale about last week’s track meet. It’s probably the case that others at the meet—I can think of three, maybe four coaches, based on stories I heard later—who weren’t quite as swept up as I was, and would certainly tell the story of that last relay differently. I could tell it differently myself, but I deliberately chose the most dramatic possible framing for the story. Team scoring at a twenty-one event track meet is a bit more sophisticated than individual placing in a marathon, of course, but that’s what makes it a useful illustration of the same point. We can choose the way we look at things; we can choose the stories we find and remember.

But by a week after the marathon, the stories we’re telling have moved on to another event. By now, three weeks later, Boston is ancient history. Is anyone writing the history-book story?

Now Playing: Fortunate Son by Bruce Hornsby

Technorati Tags: , ,

Comments

Back in the day (1980s) it seemed the reporting was better. Roger Robinson wrote some great coverage of the great NYC and Chicago marathon races (1984 and 85 at Chicago etc.)

Runners’ World manifestly does not do this kind of thing anymore, and neither does Running Times really.

Who are the upcoming running writers who will replace people like Robinson, Burfoot and Moore who (no disrepect, they still write real well) have have been doing this for a long time?

The web has also changed the journalism of this sport. Having a bunch of stuff available immediately around the world (with pictures, as you know!) probably reduces the demand for retrospectives. People will probably still do retrospectives on great compelling races, a category in which I would not put this year’s Boston.

Good post. What you recommend in terms of storytelling is directly analogous to advice that I’ve received from multiple mentors on writing a scientific manuscript (another case where the “reporting” takes place weeks or months after the exciting results appear). You DON’T write the paper as a chronological summary of how your understanding progressed, e.g., “We did this experiment, and the data didn’t make sense to us, so then we did this other experiment, which led us to redo the first experiment at a lower pH….” Instead, you first decide what the exciting conclusion (or “spin”) is and then write the paper to build toward that conclusion, devoting minimal space to the tangential experiments and data that aren’t as interesting.

Post a comment