Story of the year so far?

Gary Smith is brilliant, but he has inspired more bad writing in young writers (some of it, sadly, was my own) than just about any other journalist outside of Hunter S. Thompson.

 

and Simmons

 

Sirs, Madames,

M Lewis on Tuna?

YHS, etc

 

Loved Foster Wallace on Federer, Lewis on Parcells, most of Jones' work in Esquire, the concussion piece in the recent ESPN mag, all for different reasons.

However, I think Jeff McGregor's piece on Don King in SI is simply in a different class. Sorry I can't provide a link.

 

In the running, certainly. And DFW/Federer.

 

good technique - made you hope for an upbeat ending - and delivered
the film 'friends with money' does the same thing - you're hoping something good happens to jennifer aniston - and it does

as a footnote - hixon was scrambled by another cheap-shotting cornerback - when is football going to reign them in? - enough with the blind and late hits

 

Double Down: Can you expand on the "bad habits" acquired from Gary Smith?

I am sure it's a valid point, I am just curious.

Anyone got a link for the high school football story. I want to hunt for it.

 

Found the article on the Post site by searching Eli's name.

I was equally impressed with a two-paragraph article on the kids next game that started like this:

*****
A week after setting a single-game rushing record with 658 yards, West Virginia high school running back Paul McCoy came back to reality with a thud. The senior at Matewan High ran for just 81 yards on 19 carries in an 8-7 loss to Tug Valley, a performance that starkly contrasted his 10-touchdown game in a 64-0 win on Sept. 29.
*****

Justice is served.

 

What about my gamer on last week's district cross country meet? Forget story of the year, I'm thinking Pulitzer.

 

Billy, absolutely. In fact, I've been wanting to start a thread that I can hopefully get the mods here to sticky where we specifically discuss pieces of narrative writing, and talk about why they did or did no work, but for now, let's talk about it here.

(Had to break this up into two posts, so read on if you're interested.)

I want to make it clear, up front, that I still make these kind of errors in judgement from time to time, and that I don't think this kind of writing is bad, just that I think it's a bit overdone, and a lot of it has to do with Gary's influence on the craft.

Here is an excerpt from Mike Wise's story about Gilbert Arenas this weekend that has Smith-ian undertones, and it's something you see a lot of when a writer is trying to get you to grasp a story with a lot of scope to it. I could probably dig up a feature on some high school kid that was written by someone fresh out of college, but I'd prefer to use Wise because he's a big boy, a decent guy, and he'll be able to handle it (I think) if he sees me using his stuff as an example of the kind of paragraphs that skirt the line between great writing and over-writing.

Now, I think the use of the second person here is fine. If I were Mike's editor, I might have asked him to think about it a little bit more, and decide if he thought the use of the second-person, the talking to the reader, was really the best way to get me into the story, and if he said yes, I would have been fine with it because Wise is a good, experienced writer who can control that kind of thing, and obviously the piece is a good one. But that's a Smith technique, without question, and when it goes bad, when it's over the top, it gets hokey and clunky real fast. You're hitting the reader over the head pretty hard, practically shouting THIS STORY HAS A DEEPER MEANING! IT'S IMPORTANT! That's fine. Stories should have deeper meaning and be important. But sometimes it's best to let the reader figure that out on their own instead of writing stuff like, "to understand (blank), you have to go back to the beginning." That's become a cliche'. I've written it myself too many times, and it's a little lazy. It's become the narrative equivalent of saying, "What a difference a season makes."

Now, show you where this kind of stuff comes from, here is Gary Smith writing about Mia Hamm:

CONT.

 

Even Smith sometimes bugs me when he does that. It's hard to criticize someone you respect and adore, especially when that person is so much more ridiculously talented than you, but the reason why Gary inspires a lot of bad writing is that people try to copy his style when the subject matter doesn't necessarily warrant it. Think about this story that Saslow wrote. He could have done something like this:

This is a story about hope. It's a story about disappointment, about friendship, about courage, and a man who had to find himself after he had nearly everything was snatched away from him in a cruel twist of fate. Are you ready? Are you listening? Because every paragraph from this point will take you deeper into a family's nightmares, so deep you're not certain you'll ever make it out alive. But at the end of the journey, you just might understand why the most important step you take, each day, is the first.

Blah. How much better was it that we just got to see all that unfold?

Even if Eli had done something like that -- and obviously he would have written it better than I just did -- he probaly could have gotten away with it because it is, after all, a story about a kid who nearly died and had his entire life torn to pieces. But every story can't have a community's soul at stake, or a mystery solved by the power of love, or a search for faith, or a man's journey to find himself before it's too late. Most Gary Smith stories do, and that's because he gravitates toward those subjects that deserve it. I just think that if you're not as talented as Gary Smith, which most of us aren't, you have to be careful when you try to ask the question, What Does It All Mean. I've seen people write those kind of stories about a high school football player who tears an ACL. There's not quite enough emotional captial invested to write like it's a metaphor for the triumph of the human spirit.

Anyway, there are a lot of people here could probably explain what I'm talking about better than I can, but that's the best I can offer. Hopefully I'll start that narrative writing thread, and we can get people more interested in talking about it, because this place could be a hell of a teaching tool if we worked a little bit at it.

 

Double Down, great stuff.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, especially when I write features and even sometimes when I write gamers.

There's a line to be found. I don't want my stories to be ordinary. I think I have a pretty decent voice and I've been told that by people in this business that I respect. So I want to use that voice, find a way to creatively tell what could very well be a hum-drum story. Isn't that our job sometimes? To make the ordinary interesting using a variety of literary devices at our disposal.

Then I'll read something by Gary Smith. Or the recent SI piece on Chad Johnson that is pretty well done and very well reported. Or the Mike Wise Arenas piece. Whatever. Then I'll try to do something that's completely ridiculous. I'll try to add a narrative voice that I'm not qualified to give to a story. I'll try to do too much and it comes off as an overwritten piece of junk. I'm assuming Mike Wise interviewed one hell of a lot of people for his Arenas piece. He visited Apartment nine. He went to Los Angeles. He's qualified to set a scene because of the depth of his reporting.

So where is that line. I wrote a piece today that I thought was a little better than ordinary, but I'm left wishing I had more time to do background, to conduct a few more interviews. But damn, the reality of daily deadlines, travel, notebooks, all of that stuff that goes along with doing a beat kind of puts a damper on expanding that story. Not to mention trying to write a magazine-style story in 25 inches is difficult at best and impossible at worst. Just not enough space to flesh out full ideas.

I want my stories to have voice, but I don't want to overwrite them to the point where readers are going, WTF? There is a balance, right?