1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Pulitzer Wannabe, Jul 14, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    i think we're having a fine discussion here.
     
  2. Um, because there are people there who have won Pulitzer Prizes for narrative feature writing, have written books and essays on the form, etc., etc., etc.

    I'm somewhat dumbfounded by the objections.
     
  3. Andy _ Kent

    Andy _ Kent Member

    I've seen a few references to Chris Jones' piece in Esquire that ran in the last issue. For those who aren't familiar with it, I suggest going down a few threads here and clicking on it because I see it as a perfect example of how to stay true to form with a narrative that was longer than Vann's piece.

    http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/54851/
     
  4. In Exile

    In Exile Member

    I've been thinking about this a great deal and it seems to me the objections here focus on four elements in the lead - the three obsession, checking himself out in the mirror, looking at the tattoo, and going back in the room to check things out - everything else appears either to be based on facts that one can assume (i.e. he emptied the gun in the shooting so therefore he must have loaded it) or were in police reports/physical evidence or photos or interviews (the played out cd in truck cd player, brand of cigarettes, butts in ash tray, smoking habits).

    But what if, in the course of interviews, the people who were interviewed about the subjects' final days spoke about his three obsession, that he was always doing things in threes as he broke down, always, and that he couldn't ever pass a mirror without checking himself out, and that anytime he went out he always went back in, out and back in, and that because the tattoo was brand new, and the guy was getting obsessive, that he kept checking out the tattoo over an over again, and that some of these interviewees witnessed such behavior in close proximity to event described?

    I'm just asking here, but does this kind of background info justify its use here, in this way? At what point can reasonable assumptions be made? In another example, if I were to die of a heart attack in thirty seconds while sitting at my desk, and someone wrote about it and saw in a police report that there was a half empty cup of coffee sitting next to me, and my wife told them I always drank coffee in the morning, and there was caffeine in my blood system, would it be reasonable for someone to to write that I died while sitting at my desk drinking coffee? Because the truth is that I haven't made coffee today, the cup is from yesterday, and the caffeine is from a glass of iced tea I had earlier today because we had a thunderstom that knocked out the power for a few minutes so I didn't make coffee. I'm reminded of reading about the death of Jack Kerouac, who died, so I've read, of a stomach hemorrhage while eating a can of tuna. But no one was in the room with him when he died. What if he set the can of tuna down five minutes before? Did he die while eating a can of tuna? Can you write that with any certainty? Should you?

    I think in all narrative stories we make reasonable assumptions, and throughout the story in question, as in every piece of narrative writing, there are facts and reasonable assumptions. I remember from Jones' commentary bout his story, writing about the square shovel used while digging the grave, and that he watched the guy dig a grave so he knows that is the shovel he used. But did he ask if he used that precise shovel, that day, to dig that grave (maybe so)? If he didn't ask that question, can he still use that fact about the shovel?

    What is a reasonable assumption and what is not?
     
  5. Jersey_Guy

    Jersey_Guy Active Member

    There are no reasonable assumptions in non-fiction writing.

    Here's another way to describe "reasonable assumption": Guessing. Even if you guess correctly, it's still guessing.

    Here's another way to describe it: Making shit up. And making shit up based on past patterns, even shit that might have very well occurred, is still making shit up.

    Now, I'm not saying for a fact that's what happened here. There's a possibility - slim, but real - that the shooter webcamed his final morning, or there was a security camera, or there was a hooker there who, for some personal reasons, can't be identified, but gave the author all these facts.

    But if there's not an explanation like that, then he made shit up.
     
  6. The assumptions in this lede go far beyond the things you're talking about. He smoked a cigarette. Fine. He loaded his gun? How do we know he didn't do that in the car? He sat on the end of the bed with the gun on his lap? Preposterous leap.

    I just think that some people are doing some awful trick mental gymnastics to try to rationalize this lede.

    From Mark Kramer's essay "Breakable Rules for Literary Journalists":

    "A few distinguished essayists we retrospectively link to literary journalism did indeed commit acts that, if done by writers today, would be considered downright sinful: They combined or improved upon scenes, aggregated characters, refurbished quotations, and otherwise altered what they knew to be the nature of their material. ...

    "... Pioneers, including George Orwell (in "Shooting an Elephant") and Truman Capote (in In Cold Blood (1966)) apparently also recast some events, and my private verdict is to find them similarly exculpated by virtue of the earliness (and elegance) of their experimentation, and by the presumed lack of intention to deceive. None violated readers' expectations for the genre, because there weren't yet strong expectations -- or much of a genre, for that matter -- to violate. ... Still, if you reread those essays having learned they portray constructed events, you may find yourself second-guessing what was real. ... The ambiguity is distracting."

    "Chats with writer friends and panel discussions at writing conferences have me convinced that literary journalists have come to share a stodgier tacit understanding with readers, one so strong that it amounts to a contract: that the writers do what they appear to do, which is to get reality as straight as they can manage, and not make it up. Some, of course, admit in private to moments of temptation, moments when they've realized that tweaking reality could sharpen the maning or flow of a scene. If any writers have gone ahead and actually tweaked, however, they're no longer chatting about it to friends, nor talking about it on panels. In recent years, a few literary journalists have drawn heavy fire for breaking trust with readers. It is not a subject about which readers are neutral.

    "Conventions literary journalists nowadays talk about following to keep things square with readers include: no composite scenes, no misstated chronology, no falsification of the discernible drift or proportion of events, no invention of quotes, no attribution of thoughts to sources unless the sources have said they'd had those very thoughts, and no unacknowledged deals with subjects involving payment or editorial control.

    "... Getting a slice of life down authentically takes flexibility and hard labor. Readers appreciate writing that does the job. It is not accidental that the rise of literary journalism has been accompanied by authors' nearly universal adherence to these conventions, which produce trustworthy, in-the-know texts and reliable company for readers."
     
  7. Waylon, thanks for bringing that essay to our attention. I don't have time right now to read the whole thing, but I'm planning to this weekend. Here's the link to the entire essay if anybody else is interested:
    http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/narrative/digest/essays/breakablerules-kramer.html
     
  8. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    Lee Gutkind, considered by some the 'godfather' of Creative Nonfiction, weighs in here: Lee Gutkind, the 'godfather' of Creative Nonfiction, weighed in on the subject here: http://www.leegutkind.com/blogs/

    His final graf as a summary:

    In the end, I agree that parts of Vann’s lead is obviously speculation, and I believe that a lot of the controversy could have been avoided if he made this more explicit. But I also think, as a reader, considering the context, I know what he is saying is speculation. So if I already know, does he have to tell me?
     
  9. Yeah, see, I don't know if as a reader I know that what he is saying is speculation. He wrote it pretty straight-forward - I was wondering if there was accomplice or something for a while.

    Thanks for finding this, though.
     
  10. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    Thanks, Lee. :)
     
  11. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Yes, I think he does, if only to be fair to the reader. Assuming the reader can discern your intentions is generally a bad idea, because he very well might not.
     
  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    The lede is missing a Bowie reference. Jim, David, Kuhn. I feel confident of this.

    I mean, if you're gonna imagine, why not do it with some pizzazz? Or go into such mundane detail that it smacks of manufactured authencity:

    "He eats a muffin. He sees crumbs. Three crumbs. So light. So crumby. And crummy. He thinks of Bob Greene, the fallen Chicago Tribune columnist who often wrote of crumbs. He thinks of "Harry Crumb," the John Candy character. He checks the bullets. He checks the crumbs. A lot of not-yet-dead people don't know it yet but their still-not-over lives hinge on whether Scott is more enthralled with the bullets or the crumbs.

    And at that point, he begins to hum.

    <i> Ground control to Major Tom....Ground Control to Major Tom....take your protein pills and put your helmet on...</i>

    It was then that Scott lost all contact with the 'ground control' we call reality."

    Preferable. And sneaky clever.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page