Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Harris's avatar

1:47.35 through my feed, check out this conversation between Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons about the difficulty of "getting it right," the difficulty of capturing the right facts and flavor of someone's life. Feed times can differ depending on what you have installed, so I'm starting from where Klosterman leads up to asking Simmons what percentage of stories about him he believes to have contained errors. I do understand that for "his year," any errors are probably going to be in the athlete's favor, but I still think it's important to be aware what a fraught business it is, even if it just comes down to the reader's education.

https://www.theringer.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/2024/11/27/24306988/holiday-check-in-on-anything-and-everything-with-chuck-klosterman

Expand full comment
David Harris's avatar

Some of this material is of a kind that it should be sourced, in my opinion. The bottom line is that you do it one way or another, but you don't even necessarily need footnotes or a bibliography. Just phrases like "According to....." might do, or a statement of your sources before you launch into the paraphrasing. To a reader like myself, that this is not in here is a nagging distraction. Sourcing is just a part of good writing, so the fact that this is a Substack doesn't make it unnecssary. I have no doubt of your integrity, but we want our Substacks to be well-written, and it's really an easier part of writing well than some of the more creative parts. The piece will come across stronger if you source.

In case the types of passages that I'm thinking of are not obvious, an example is the three consecutive paragraphs beginning "A three sport star in high school....", "Boomer will admit to you now....", Being a young man with a big ego...." I have no idea what you read to come to this information and these opinions, or if you interviewed him.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts