In the latter half of 2012 the communication discipline lost two pioneering scholars when H. L. Goodall, Jr., and Nick Trujillo died within months of each other. That comes across as blunt, but we want to honor both men, who tended toward existential truths, not obfuscation. They would appreciate the starkness. At the ages of fifty-nine and fifty-six, respectively, Bud and Nick died too soon, and we are still attempting to make sense of their lives, their work, their impact, and their deaths. It is an ongoing process. As new ethnographers, however, our impetus is to write stories about them, with them, for them, for each other, for ourselves, and for you.There are many ways to tell the stories of Bud and Nick. Whether called narrative ethnographers, new ethnographers, or autoethnographers, they were at heart storytellers, exemplars of Homo narrans. Neither one started out on this path. Rather, they began as critical and interpretive communication scholars, in- vestigating power and discourses and stories in and around various organizations. Goodall, using the tropes of hard-boiled writers like Dashiell Hammett, regarded himself as an organizational detective, Trujillo investigated the secrets of organizational cultures. Both men recognized the importance of stories and storytelling in, around, and for organizations. However, both men realized that though their work in organizational communication was important and highly valued, something was missing in their scholarship: their own lives. They moved to change that.The change was palpable, personal, and paradigmatic. Bud and Nick-along with Art Bochner, Norman Denzin, Bob Krizek, Carolyn Ellis, Ron Pelias, and many others-helped pioneer this new form of ethnography, cross-disciplinary communication project aimed at re-establishing the centrality of personal experi- ence and identity in the social construction of knowledge (Goodall, Narrative Ethnography 187). Goodall and Trujillo began to tell new stories: about their families, about their pasts, about the joys, sorrows, and secrets in their lives. For both men the personal story needs the individual teller, and the individual teller always stands in the midst of one's influences: familial history, gender, ethnicity, spirituality, occupation, economic status, and so on. As new ethnographers they always combined two storylines: theirs and ours.New ethnographies are intensely personal, saturated with self-reflexivity, emotion laden, evocative, often political, and concerned with social justice. They are often more existential than academic, incorporating the emotional, visceral, particular, and poignant qualities of the storyteller's life. More significantly, these efforts function as imperative links for connecting our lived experiences with the lives of others. Or, as Krizek noted, While I believe an ethnographer must go 'there' to understand 'them,' I recognize that part of going 'there' might include, in many research undertakings, staying 'here,' and part of understanding 'them' might include a reflexive examination of 'me' (Ethnography 143).The point for new ethnographers is not to break stories down into their component parts but, rather, to think with stories and through stories (Bochner Narrative's Virtues). Stories are a unified whole, and rather than dismantling and deconstructing them for the purposes of research or treating them as another set of data, we want to experience the stories as stories and the effect they have on the storyteller, the audience, and our own lives. Personal storytelling became Goodall's and Trujillo's modus operandi, a way of looking inward at their own lives and through that lens, connecting with the lives of others while interrogating our cultural narratives. Two examples will suffice.One of Goodall's projects started simply. His son began to ask questions about his grandparents. This little question started Bud's quest into his childhood and his family, particularly his father's job for the government. …