3 ms·
> These journalists, Wolfe wrote, used four devices: scene-by-scene construction, realistic dialogue, a third-person point of view (where the reader feels as if
by freetime2 4y ago
> These journalists, Wolfe wrote, used four devices: scene-by-scene construction, realistic dialogue, a third-person point of view (where the reader feels as if he or she is inside a character’s mind), and then, in contrast to traditional newspaper journalism, a descriptive eye, in which a subject’s clothing, manners, eating, and living room are as important for the writer to document as the subject’s words.
This style of nonfiction drives me absolutely bonkers. Often it is more about the author and their experiences than the thing they are puporting to write about, as if the author's subjective experiences are somehow the thing that others will find most interesting. Sometimes they are, if the author is particularly talented and has been somewhere particularly interesting, but usually they aren't. To use the phrase that Tom Wolfe coined, it is "the Me generation" in writing form.
I see this style today in a lot of the "long form" journalism, and usually comes across as the author trying to say in 5,000 words what could probably said in 500.
Just the relevant facts, please.
- brutusborn 4y agoI get the same frustration when I start an article and it tells me something like “The sunlight was kissing the ripening crop”. The only time I’ve found it useful is good gonzo journalism where the mental scene is important context. E.g. Hunter S. Thompson drug stories or stories of mystical experiences. In these articles a focus on subjective experience is necessary. For articles about things, it’s just a waste of words.
- matthewowen 4y agoPersonally, my primary reason to read longer articles in the New Yorker is not because I get utility out of the facts that they contain. Sure I get some, but a lot of it is the same appeal as I get in reading fiction - it is simply fun to read things and to be transported. I think the fact that the New Yorker deals in both fiction and non-fiction is a sign that I am not alone in this. It’s ok if you don’t enjoy this, but I think your comment has a note of suggesting inferiority rather than just preference, and I think that’s off the mark.