3 ms·

If your aim is 'the lead' why would you want a long form article? Personally, the elements you feel aren't substantive I like. They set the scene. If your goal

If your aim is 'the lead' why would you want a long form article? Personally, the elements you feel aren't substantive I like. They set the scene. If your goal is information that is obviously not very useful but if your goal is an enjoyable read that's entertaining and informative those elements are important.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Not the GP but I recognize the format he's posted. I have problems with articles that follow that sort of format because usually the author is taking an interesting story and bulking it up by talking about themselves instead of the subject. I want to get lost in the subject and my feelings about it. I can't really get lost in the author narrating their own feelings about the subject, it pulls me out of the story.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Yeah, they're imitating Hunter S. Thompson without really getting what he was doing. The point of "Gonzo Journalism", as I understand it, was that the narrative around certain subjects (politics, drugs, America, etc) had become so toxically self-referential that there was simply no way to approach them objectively. Even if you could apply some strict journalistic standard, the reader would read it through such a noxious filter of propaganda that nothing would get through. The only sane response in that case, from his perspective, was to simply throw one's entire self into the fray, indulging your neuroses, compulsions, and desires in and amongst the people you were reporting on, then to pour your whole self onto the page and simply allow the reader and you, through the sacred bond of reading and writing, to commune in some kind of spirit plane above the propaganda and doublespeak. This leads to an (at the time) shocking blend of personal experiences and "on-topic" reporting. Of course decades later this kind of intermingling has become common and no longer shocks people. I think the essayists you are complaining about are adopting the "Gonzo" form, blending the personal with the topical, but without actually throwing their full selves into the world they are reporting. Thus the personal bits don't really bear any connection to the topical, and don't aid the reader in seeing through the subjectivity to the subject, the way Fear and Loathing did.
probably_wrong 9y ago
I usually want a long form article when I want as much information as possible, and the subject is rich enough to warrant it. Let's take, for instance, The Guardian's article about what will happen when the Queen of England dies[1]. The article is quite long, but that's because there are so many things that need to happen. The lack of personal anecdotes doesn't make the article any less entertaining. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...
scrooched_moose 9y ago
A simple indication of the article's topic up front is is all I want. The title may hint it has something to do with "cheese", but when I can't figure out the topic is "a dairy strike over wages in Wisconsin is causing a cheese shortage" (completely made up example) until paragraph 20 I get annoyed. The promise of modern long form journalism was deeper, more detailed reporting on complex subjects. Instead it's typically the same depth of reporting with a whole pile of details about the reporter's life and how the researched the story. I know people like that style or it wouldn't be as common, but when I hear "long form" I want to leave far more informed than the typical newspaper article. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of that style out there.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Not the GP but I recognize the format he's posted. I have problems with articles that follow that sort of format because usually the author is taking an interesting story and bulking it up by talking about themselves instead of the subject. I want to get lost in the subject and my feelings about it. I can't really get lost in the author narrating their own feelings about the subject, it pulls me out of the story.

erikpukinskis 9y ago
Yeah, they're imitating Hunter S. Thompson without really getting what he was doing. The point of "Gonzo Journalism", as I understand it, was that the narrative around certain subjects (politics, drugs, America, etc) had become so toxically self-referential that there was simply no way to approach them objectively. Even if you could apply some strict journalistic standard, the reader would read it through such a noxious filter of propaganda that nothing would get through. The only sane response in that case, from his perspective, was to simply throw one's entire self into the fray, indulging your neuroses, compulsions, and desires in and amongst the people you were reporting on, then to pour your whole self onto the page and simply allow the reader and you, through the sacred bond of reading and writing, to commune in some kind of spirit plane above the propaganda and doublespeak. This leads to an (at the time) shocking blend of personal experiences and "on-topic" reporting. Of course decades later this kind of intermingling has become common and no longer shocks people. I think the essayists you are complaining about are adopting the "Gonzo" form, blending the personal with the topical, but without actually throwing their full selves into the world they are reporting. Thus the personal bits don't really bear any connection to the topical, and don't aid the reader in seeing through the subjectivity to the subject, the way Fear and Loathing did.

probably_wrong 9y ago

I usually want a long form article when I want as much information as possible, and the subject is rich enough to warrant it. Let's take, for instance, The Guardian's article about what will happen when the Queen of England dies[1]. The article is quite long, but that's because there are so many things that need to happen. The lack of personal anecdotes doesn't make the article any less entertaining. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens...

scrooched_moose 9y ago

A simple indication of the article's topic up front is is all I want. The title may hint it has something to do with "cheese", but when I can't figure out the topic is "a dairy strike over wages in Wisconsin is causing a cheese shortage" (completely made up example) until paragraph 20 I get annoyed. The promise of modern long form journalism was deeper, more detailed reporting on complex subjects. Instead it's typically the same depth of reporting with a whole pile of details about the reporter's life and how the researched the story. I know people like that style or it wouldn't be as common, but when I hear "long form" I want to leave far more informed than the typical newspaper article. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of that style out there.