3 ms·

> Nathan Keane is an early riser. On most mornings, he’d let the dogs out to run around the yard at around 7:30. Then he’d make a pot of coffee and enjoy a few

> Nathan Keane is an early riser. On most mornings, he’d let the dogs out to run around the yard at around 7:30. Then he’d make a pot of coffee and enjoy a few quiet minutes to himself before the kids woke up...On the day I met him, he wore a plaid shirt that pulled tightly across his chest and a camouflaged ball cap with his TV show’s logo on it...Bradley went south to Casper, Wyoming, for college, where she studied agribusiness. At 22, a car accident forced her to return home to Montana, where, while recuperating, she met her husband.. Why are articles so often filled with a bunch of totally irrelevant details. Is it supposed to be for our benefit as readers or is it just fun for the writer, like the literary equivalent of a wanky guitar solo?

tony_cannistra 3y ago
I like these details. Not all stories have need to have people in them. But good stories do.
- autoexec 3y ago
  I can understand wanting to tell a story about people and how something impacts them. It was perfectly fine to include those people's stories in the piece. I clicked on the article expecting to read about people's encounters with bears. That doesn't mean I needed to know about their dog's bathroom routine, or how many daughters they have. What is that even telling me? How can I make use of that information? What conclusions am I supposed to draw from it? Since you liked it, how was it helpful or entertaining for you? I genuinely don't understand it. I can understand providing useful context, even setting a scene or providing a little color, but when it's totally off-topic and entirely irrelevant why include it? It feels like pointless filler, like something someone does to disguise a lack of actual content, but this article is already full of good information and was otherwise well written. It's not a problem with this one author or their editor either. Since I see it so often I figure there must be a reason behind it.
  - tony_cannistra 3y ago
    Perhaps you ought to reframe your understanding of "article" in this context for the long form variety, of which this piece is an example. Just like visual artists, good writers deliver experiences. Some don't have the luxury of doing this, or the interest. But in order to even attempt to give a reader access to the feelings of surprise, fear, change that Nathan Keane, the opening character of the story, might have had on that morning when he first discovered a grizzly on his ranch, one needs these details. I'd offer that perhaps you might take them in aggregate, holistically - as you might a work of art. "Show, don't tell" is a common axiom among writers for a reason.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > But in order to even attempt to give a reader access to the feelings of surprise, fear, change that Nathan Keane, the opening character of the story, might have had on that morning when he first discovered a grizzly on his ranch, one needs these details. I re-read the first paragraph, and I disagree that all of it was critical for conveying his surprise. I'd do just as well with something like: > "Nathan Keane is an early riser. One early June day in 2020, as he waited for the coffee to brew, he glanced out the kitchen window and did a double take. There — no more than 30 feet from the house — was a grizzly bear." Maybe it's just because I have a good imagination, but also I think most people seeing a grizzly bear while making their morning coffee would be surprised. Knowing what time their kids get out of bed doesn't help with that. What I hadn't considered, is that this article should be looked at as art instead of as information. Art is allowed to get in the way of information. Art is also subjective, so some people might prefer this artistic style of writing that meanders in and out of the topic to take time for irrelevant minutia. Maybe it's because enough people do enjoy it that I keep seeing it. I was mostly looking for information, and so it annoyed me. I was just looking to learn something cool about bears, and not looking for an experience. I don't think information needs to be delivered in the most dry and boring way possible, but I don't like to waste my time either. Taken as information, the art got in the way. As art, well, this type of non-fiction storytelling might just not be for me.
      - 3y ago

tony_cannistra 3y ago

I like these details. Not all stories have need to have people in them. But good stories do.

autoexec 3y ago
I can understand wanting to tell a story about people and how something impacts them. It was perfectly fine to include those people's stories in the piece. I clicked on the article expecting to read about people's encounters with bears. That doesn't mean I needed to know about their dog's bathroom routine, or how many daughters they have. What is that even telling me? How can I make use of that information? What conclusions am I supposed to draw from it? Since you liked it, how was it helpful or entertaining for you? I genuinely don't understand it. I can understand providing useful context, even setting a scene or providing a little color, but when it's totally off-topic and entirely irrelevant why include it? It feels like pointless filler, like something someone does to disguise a lack of actual content, but this article is already full of good information and was otherwise well written. It's not a problem with this one author or their editor either. Since I see it so often I figure there must be a reason behind it.
- tony_cannistra 3y ago
  Perhaps you ought to reframe your understanding of "article" in this context for the long form variety, of which this piece is an example. Just like visual artists, good writers deliver experiences. Some don't have the luxury of doing this, or the interest. But in order to even attempt to give a reader access to the feelings of surprise, fear, change that Nathan Keane, the opening character of the story, might have had on that morning when he first discovered a grizzly on his ranch, one needs these details. I'd offer that perhaps you might take them in aggregate, holistically - as you might a work of art. "Show, don't tell" is a common axiom among writers for a reason.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > But in order to even attempt to give a reader access to the feelings of surprise, fear, change that Nathan Keane, the opening character of the story, might have had on that morning when he first discovered a grizzly on his ranch, one needs these details. I re-read the first paragraph, and I disagree that all of it was critical for conveying his surprise. I'd do just as well with something like: > "Nathan Keane is an early riser. One early June day in 2020, as he waited for the coffee to brew, he glanced out the kitchen window and did a double take. There — no more than 30 feet from the house — was a grizzly bear." Maybe it's just because I have a good imagination, but also I think most people seeing a grizzly bear while making their morning coffee would be surprised. Knowing what time their kids get out of bed doesn't help with that. What I hadn't considered, is that this article should be looked at as art instead of as information. Art is allowed to get in the way of information. Art is also subjective, so some people might prefer this artistic style of writing that meanders in and out of the topic to take time for irrelevant minutia. Maybe it's because enough people do enjoy it that I keep seeing it. I was mostly looking for information, and so it annoyed me. I was just looking to learn something cool about bears, and not looking for an experience. I don't think information needs to be delivered in the most dry and boring way possible, but I don't like to waste my time either. Taken as information, the art got in the way. As art, well, this type of non-fiction storytelling might just not be for me.
    - 3y ago