6 ms·

Does anyone else have difficulties reading articles written this way - structured as Hollywood movies, with artificially built-up suspense and all? I feel patro

by jablan 14y ago

Does anyone else have difficulties reading articles written this way - structured as Hollywood movies, with artificially built-up suspense and all? I feel patronized all the time, trying to get to the "meat" of the article, just finding "next page" link instead.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
AYBABTME 14y ago
I feel the same. I don't care about the biography of the person being investigated, I just want to know the stuff related to the meat of the article. For instance, I don't want to know about this man's passion for Andy Warhol. Or that previous article about a woman who stood up against Citibank: I really didn't care about her love for horses and that she's a cowgirl or whatever. But that's just a pointless rant, and I only share it because you raised the question. The appropriate way to deal with this would be to identify authors who tend to write in this style, and avoid reading them. I don't pretend they're bad, it's just their style doesn't fit my tastes.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  Eh. I think there's value in making people cognizant of this style by discussing the way it works. It certainly took my a few years before I could pinpoint exactly why I disliked this stuff. Also, there's so many magazine authors out there that keeping track of their individual styles it pretty hopeless for me. The best I can do is remember that Wired is written like this.
stevejalim 14y ago
I think a great part of that frustration is down to long-form magazine features being ported to wired.com, where brevity is better suited to the web-page form. Personally, I think almost all of the writing in Wired is excellent - well crafted and edited and laid out within interesting designs. Yes, while there are pretty common 'paint a picture' set-ups and more detail about the actual people involved than you'd get in news (for sure) and non-US feature writing (my view), that's part of the reason I keep buying the US print copy of Wired (even in the UK), and enjoy settling down to read it.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  I have the exact same revulsion to this style writing when I see it in print. The only upside is that, in print, it's easier for me to skip through the article and get to the actual content.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    See the think you are doing here is being completely and utterly disingenuous. What you are talking about as content is a list of facts of the event. What you are pissed about is a list of facts about the person involved. I like the facts about the person involved, the circumstance and some speculation about their mindset. I like that, if you want facts about the sequence of events, read a crime report. Or even better, don't read the article, you don't have to just because it is there. If you have revulsion, find a medium that works for you, they exist, don't complain.
SilasX 14y ago
Agree 100%. I'm saying this all the time. Please, writer, just get to the point! I don't want to learn a zillion details about everything you saw.
- vacri 14y ago
  Do you complain that movies take too long with the plot when you haven't seen the villain vanquished by the 5-minute mark?
  - SilasX 14y ago
    No. Movies are there primarily to entertain. News stories are there to inform. If I wanted the dramatic, drawn-out version, I'd see the "based on a true story!" version. There are lots of events I could be learning about in a day, and I'd like to be able to get the important stuff out of a new story and go on to the other stuff. In contrast, you can't similarly shorten a movie while sticking to its purpose (usually).
    - apendleton 14y ago
      Who said it was a news story? It's not about an especially current event, and Wired is not a news magazine (for that, see Newsweek, Time, or any number of others); they're a tech/nerd culture periodical. They've has always had a major focus on long-form journalism.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      Then don't read stories from sources that are known to contextualize rather than report the facts. It's like you keep touching a hot stove, and complain how it keeps burning you.
      - SilasX 14y ago
        Who said I did? Of course I ignore such stories, or skim past the first 15 paragraphs to get to the meat. If I want a page turner, I'll get a novel. For news stories, I just want the information. Time spent learning about the color of the subjects coat is time I could spend reading another story, learning something useful, or entertaining myself through a medium actually optimized for that.
yock 14y ago
No. Long-form journalism is about keeping the reader engaged in a story they didn't know they wanted to hear. You wouldn't write fiction with a strict focus on the sequence of events, why should this be any different? While you're feeling patronized I find that I enjoy the engagement. Frankly, your way sounds boring.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  I'm glad to know that at least someone enjoys this style, because I am with jablan; I hate it. To me, it suggests that the author doesn't expect me to find the content interesting, and that instead this content has to be packaged with (predictable) human-interest intrigue just to get me to read it. To me, it's very analogous to trying to teach students math with colorful, picture-laden textbooks: it might be necessary for students who will never learn much math in order to just get them to pass the grade, but insofar as it works such students are not getting deep appreciation for the concepts.
  - yock 14y ago
    But, this isn't math! It's a story, with characters and a plot. The intrigue is baked-in because it makes for an enjoyable read. Sure, the details are interesting, but there's nothing wrong with telling an interesting story with interesting details in an interesting way. "First this happened and then this happened and then this happened..." is not how you tell a story, regardless of whether or not the story happens to be factual.
    - jessriedel 14y ago
      If I want an artistic short story in magazine form, I'll read the New Yorker. But this is Wired, and the material facts of this story are the only interesting part. I guess it's possible that a gifted author could wrap these fact with a human-interest element in a way that is worthwhile while still communicating an essential idea ("The Last Question" by Asimov comes to mind). But, by experience, this just isn't within the abilities of most magazine writers. And it doesn't need to be, because the material facts are plenty interesting on their own. Edit: I can't reply to vacri, so I'll follow up to his comment here. Vacri: human interest pieces have been around for decades. Furthermore, the newspaper format of most journalism (one sentence paragraphs, most important facts at the top regardless of sensible narrative order, negligible artistic flourishes) were set a century ago. I'm pretty young (26), but I've read newspapers from before the internet and they did plenty of bad human-interest stories. I'm pretty skeptical that the internet had much of an impact in this respect. Maybe you have a more specific source, or I misunderstand your claim? Edit 2, reply to fiatpandas: I think the distinction between an AP-style newspaper article and a human-interest short story is a false dichotomy. Instead, there is a middle option of a fact-focused piece designed to clearly communicate the essential ideas without relying on artistic/narrative devices to keep the reader's attention. (See my reply to jablan http://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=4203567 http://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=4203567) Wired can choose whatever style it wants, (and I certainly have no doubt they've done this plenty in the past) but my claim is that the human-interest style is almost always poorly executed. If the facts are interesting enough, then it's unnecessary, and if they aren't, then it's a waste.

by jablan 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

AYBABTME 14y ago

I feel the same. I don't care about the biography of the person being investigated, I just want to know the stuff related to the meat of the article. For instance, I don't want to know about this man's passion for Andy Warhol. Or that previous article about a woman who stood up against Citibank: I really didn't care about her love for horses and that she's a cowgirl or whatever. But that's just a pointless rant, and I only share it because you raised the question. The appropriate way to deal with this would be to identify authors who tend to write in this style, and avoid reading them. I don't pretend they're bad, it's just their style doesn't fit my tastes.

jessriedel 14y ago
Eh. I think there's value in making people cognizant of this style by discussing the way it works. It certainly took my a few years before I could pinpoint exactly why I disliked this stuff. Also, there's so many magazine authors out there that keeping track of their individual styles it pretty hopeless for me. The best I can do is remember that Wired is written like this.

stevejalim 14y ago

I think a great part of that frustration is down to long-form magazine features being ported to wired.com, where brevity is better suited to the web-page form. Personally, I think almost all of the writing in Wired is excellent - well crafted and edited and laid out within interesting designs. Yes, while there are pretty common 'paint a picture' set-ups and more detail about the actual people involved than you'd get in news (for sure) and non-US feature writing (my view), that's part of the reason I keep buying the US print copy of Wired (even in the UK), and enjoy settling down to read it.

jessriedel 14y ago
I have the exact same revulsion to this style writing when I see it in print. The only upside is that, in print, it's easier for me to skip through the article and get to the actual content.
- sophacles 14y ago
  See the think you are doing here is being completely and utterly disingenuous. What you are talking about as content is a list of facts of the event. What you are pissed about is a list of facts about the person involved. I like the facts about the person involved, the circumstance and some speculation about their mindset. I like that, if you want facts about the sequence of events, read a crime report. Or even better, don't read the article, you don't have to just because it is there. If you have revulsion, find a medium that works for you, they exist, don't complain.

SilasX 14y ago

Agree 100%. I'm saying this all the time. Please, writer, just get to the point! I don't want to learn a zillion details about everything you saw.

vacri 14y ago
Do you complain that movies take too long with the plot when you haven't seen the villain vanquished by the 5-minute mark?
- SilasX 14y ago
  No. Movies are there primarily to entertain. News stories are there to inform. If I wanted the dramatic, drawn-out version, I'd see the "based on a true story!" version. There are lots of events I could be learning about in a day, and I'd like to be able to get the important stuff out of a new story and go on to the other stuff. In contrast, you can't similarly shorten a movie while sticking to its purpose (usually).
  - apendleton 14y ago
    Who said it was a news story? It's not about an especially current event, and Wired is not a news magazine (for that, see Newsweek, Time, or any number of others); they're a tech/nerd culture periodical. They've has always had a major focus on long-form journalism.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    Then don't read stories from sources that are known to contextualize rather than report the facts. It's like you keep touching a hot stove, and complain how it keeps burning you.
    - SilasX 14y ago
      Who said I did? Of course I ignore such stories, or skim past the first 15 paragraphs to get to the meat. If I want a page turner, I'll get a novel. For news stories, I just want the information. Time spent learning about the color of the subjects coat is time I could spend reading another story, learning something useful, or entertaining myself through a medium actually optimized for that.

yock 14y ago

No. Long-form journalism is about keeping the reader engaged in a story they didn't know they wanted to hear. You wouldn't write fiction with a strict focus on the sequence of events, why should this be any different? While you're feeling patronized I find that I enjoy the engagement. Frankly, your way sounds boring.

jessriedel 14y ago
I'm glad to know that at least someone enjoys this style, because I am with jablan; I hate it. To me, it suggests that the author doesn't expect me to find the content interesting, and that instead this content has to be packaged with (predictable) human-interest intrigue just to get me to read it. To me, it's very analogous to trying to teach students math with colorful, picture-laden textbooks: it might be necessary for students who will never learn much math in order to just get them to pass the grade, but insofar as it works such students are not getting deep appreciation for the concepts.
- yock 14y ago
  But, this isn't math! It's a story, with characters and a plot. The intrigue is baked-in because it makes for an enjoyable read. Sure, the details are interesting, but there's nothing wrong with telling an interesting story with interesting details in an interesting way. "First this happened and then this happened and then this happened..." is not how you tell a story, regardless of whether or not the story happens to be factual.
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    If I want an artistic short story in magazine form, I'll read the New Yorker. But this is Wired, and the material facts of this story are the only interesting part. I guess it's possible that a gifted author could wrap these fact with a human-interest element in a way that is worthwhile while still communicating an essential idea ("The Last Question" by Asimov comes to mind). But, by experience, this just isn't within the abilities of most magazine writers. And it doesn't need to be, because the material facts are plenty interesting on their own. Edit: I can't reply to vacri, so I'll follow up to his comment here. Vacri: human interest pieces have been around for decades. Furthermore, the newspaper format of most journalism (one sentence paragraphs, most important facts at the top regardless of sensible narrative order, negligible artistic flourishes) were set a century ago. I'm pretty young (26), but I've read newspapers from before the internet and they did plenty of bad human-interest stories. I'm pretty skeptical that the internet had much of an impact in this respect. Maybe you have a more specific source, or I misunderstand your claim? Edit 2, reply to fiatpandas: I think the distinction between an AP-style newspaper article and a human-interest short story is a false dichotomy. Instead, there is a middle option of a fact-focused piece designed to clearly communicate the essential ideas without relying on artistic/narrative devices to keep the reader's attention. (See my reply to jablan http://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=4203567 http://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=4203567) Wired can choose whatever style it wants, (and I certainly have no doubt they've done this plenty in the past) but my claim is that the human-interest style is almost always poorly executed. If the facts are interesting enough, then it's unnecessary, and if they aren't, then it's a waste.