Lede in Esquire: Pushing the bounds of "nonfiction"?

If they would have put that label on there, yep, satisfied. Hacky writing, but satisfied.

But as others have written, you can't write 11,500 words that are meticulously researched, then tack 900 words of fiction at the beginning.

And, no, most readers don't give it a thought. They just read along, assuming it must be true. Which is the whole problem here.

 

Not to go down a completely different road here -- I am torn on this subject -- but it can't be fiction if it's true, and while the author doesn't know for sure whether it's true, neither does anybody here. It might very well be.

 

Maybe we should email it to one of the Poynter narrative people and see if they want to give a take on it at the site? I'd be interested to hear what the experts have to say?

 

Let's just write shit that nobody can disprove and call it good then.

 

Not what I said or what I meant.

 

I agree. This debate seems to be just going round and round with the same few posters. It would be helpful to get a fresh opinion, at least for me.

 

Esquire has the story up now:

http://www.esquire.com/features/steven-kazmierczak-0808?click=main_sr

 

This is an absolutely fascinating thread.

I love narrative--love reading it, love writing it when the opportunity presents itself. Personally, I think newspapers (and their accompanying Web sites) ought to do more of it, because it certainly seems that readers enjoy it, too. (So long as it's thorough and accurate, of course.)

That said, I'm in the midst of writing a narrative book about two former high school/college football players who fought in Iraq, and since the book begins with their senior seasons in high school (1998) and ends with their experiences in Iraq over the last few years, I'm encountering questions and concerns similar to those posed on this board as I outline, research and write the manuscript. In the football part of the narrative, I feel I'm on much firmer ground, because I covered the two players in '98--watched them play, interviewed them, etc.--and have videotapes of their games to refer to for accuracy's sake. Telling the stories of their Iraq experiences will be far more difficult because I wasn't there, and as Chris Jones (I'm assuming) dealt with in writing his story for Esquire, I'm relying on people's memories, military documents, and other resources to provide facts, texture and detail. It's a harder slog, and when appropriate, I remind myself to write what people saw as they saw it, not as it was. There's a difference.

To that end, and to further the discussion here, David Maraniss' book "They Marched into Sunlight" is worth perusing. Maraniss recreates an ambush of the Black Lions Regiment in Vietnam and anti-war protests at the University of Wisconsin, and he does it marvelously--by interviewing just about everyone who was within a five-mile radius of each event. (Tom Wolfe called it "saturation reporting," I think.) But he makes in clear in the narrative that he's providing each individual's perspective on the events, and the totality of the detail puts the reader in the jungle or on UW's campus. And Maraniss, as far as I can tell, didn't have to jump to any conclusions, make any false conjectures, or flat-out make anything up.

Anyway, thanks for the thread, folks. Good stuff.

Mike

 

I contacted Tom French. Hopefully he or someone else at Poynter will take this on.

 

why is poynter all of a sudden the go-to source?

 

Because Pulitzer decided it was.

 

wow. even the poynter institute has lost respect.

ok, Songbird. where would you suggest turning to for an answer on this subject.