ONE HELL OF A STORY

Awesome.

 

That quote didn't ring true for me. Even leaving aside the apparent fact that his female classmates were so hot for him that they bought unneeded watermelons just so he'd carry the melons to their cars, a 17-year-old boy has a pretty good understanding of the end result of how sex feels. Maybe not with someone, but it's a huge stretch to believe he'd never had an orgasm, at least a wet dream. Maybe it was a quote from the brother that the writer felt was too good not to use, but it strikes me as a quote that was too good to be believed.

I also have a problem with the recreation of scenes and conversations in which the only two parties present are currently dead. I mean, how can that be done credibly? I'm not a big fan of re-creations of old conversations in general, but in this case I thought it was a stretch by a huge amount.

I think it's great storytelling, a moving piece, and very well-written. Whether I'd call it journalism ... I'm not sure I would, at least not for non-fiction contest purposes when emotion has to be set aside and stories must be looked at critically. That's not to devalue it as a piece of writing. I can enjoy it the way I would a movie that's based on a true story but took some liberties. I doubt there's willful deceit, but some of it just seemed too perfect for me to buy it in whole. As a piece of writing, A-plus. As a work of journalism, it leaves me skeptical in places.

 

Frank, I think your overall skepticism is very fair. I disagree on that sex quote, though. Lots of teenagers who've had lots of orgasms still wonder how actual intercourse feels. In fact, almost all of them are obsessed with that wonder, right? I think it would be only natural for a lifelong virgin to keep wondering, especially one who explicitly says he feels like he was frozen as a teenager.

 

really, frank, just because a teen jerks off doesn't mean he has any idea what sex is like.

the rest of your cynicism says plenty more about you as a person than as a journalist. just my opinion, which i know has no value to you.

just wanted to share with the rest of the class.

 

I think it says a tremendous amount about you as a person that you can't disagree with someone's opinion of a story that you didn't write without making it personal.

 

What does that mean, Shockey? I think it's quite fair to be skeptical about elements of a story which, as Frank wrote, offers the "recreation of scenes and conversations in which the only two parties present are currently dead." The question here is the same question many people here have about many Gary Smith stories, even though almost all of us admire those stories as we admire this one: How does he KNOW that for sure?

Maybe Hollandsworth does know everything in his story for sure, somehow. It's fair to raise the point, though, without having problems as a human being or something.

 

I'm not saying you're a douchebag, but a douchebag would definitely say this.

 

i was set off primarily by the "what is sex like?" cynicism, since it was raised as being hard to believe 'cause the guy had to have experienced an orgasm. as if sex was only about ejaculating.

the rest of the cynicism? you either believe the reporter and his research or you don't. and yes, after reading the piece, the last thing on my mind was questioning the manner in which the facts were attained -- or if they were facts at all.

 

Thanks, PT ... I hadn't seen that link earlier. I'd recommend the video to everyone here, as well.

I'm not that concerned with writers recreating scenes as long as I can be certain the writer put in the time on the reporting end to get the scenes right. It's clear in this instance that Hollandsworth put in the time (especially if you look at the items he has in the video).

 

fair enough. i can take it.

i stand by this statement, at the risk of douchebaggery.

 

Really?

I want all of the purportedly non-fiction pieces I read to be 100%, assuredly non-fiction. Doubly so for the excellent pieces of non-fiction. Sure, this story was written great; sure, the story is tremendously compelling. But...you're saying you do not wonder in the least how the author managed to recreate long-ago private scenes involving dead characters, quote their long-ago private utterances?

Even if you have no doubt the story represents those accurately, it seems like something a journalist might naturally wonder about, just out of curiosity.

I have no idea what it says about you that you didn't - maybe nothing! I have no idea, truly - but it certainly doesn't speak badly of Frank that he did.