First-person feature stories?

[Skylar]

So sincerely, share one. Let's discuss it.

I'll post one here soon, i kinda made this post just based off a lot of different ones I read over time. But I'll find one

 

[dirtybird]

Too many journos want to be, or are told they have to be, a "brand." So this is what you get, and 99 percent of the time it's unnecessary at best and obnoxious at worst.

So it comes down to this, it's a good guideline not to do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it never works, but it's often unadvisible, much like a range of other low-grade writing sins. And if you're good enough, you can make it work. For that reason, some folks who aren't good enough will try, and that's mostly OK.

 

[Double Down]

In general, I don't think using first person is really ever a conscious decision to elevate one's "brand." What it is, often, is a generation of writers who decided they'd rather be essayists than reporters. Interviewing people is hard. It's both a craft and an art. It's uncomfortable to interview a lot of people about a serious, difficult subject, and it's hard to know how to ask difficult questions in a way that evokes good answers. It takes practice and time and effort. I've spent nearly 20 years doing it (holy shirt) and you often feel unsettled when you do it. You're prying into people's incredibly personal moments, asking them questions their closest friends might not even ask, just because you're a journalist. Then you're shaping those nuggets of answers into anecdotes and narratives that might become the definitive way people feel about that person. It's hard to look someone in the eye, ask them to tell you something really personal, then write a piece that they might dislike a great deal.

The truth is, a lot of writers don't have the stomach for it, and one way to get around that is to slip into first person because you can write around the gaps in the story. It's easier to get in and out of the transitions when you don't have the reporting in your notebook, and it's easier to make yourself the character who is changed within the story that it is to rely on reporting that can reveal how the subject is changed.

Damn kids, trying to elevate their brands, frankly, is actually often just about people who don't have the time, resources or editing mentor to do the hard work. Now, in Rebert Browne's case, I do think he is just a cultural essayist. He's not interested in being a great interviewer, from what I can tell. Which is fine, but I think he could have been both if given better mentoring.

EDIT: Adding this...

There are also plenty of times when it's disingenuous to NOT put first person in the story, when your objectivity is so clearly compromised you're far better off putting your biases out there on the page and letting the reader decide for themselves what to think instead of pretending to be the neutral observer. The roof piece was actually a good example of that. A black woman goes to South Carolina to write about the murder of 9 black people by a noted racist, the piece was far more powerful and honest because she put herself in there, and was honest about what she was searching for. Every answer that someone who knew Roof gave her was shaded by the fact that she is a black woman, so let's get it out there and have it become part of the story. To be honest, I think the ending of her piece is borderline too much. Drawing the names of the murdered in the sand could have come across as forced or maudlin, but I actually think it works. I think that moment was real for her, and thus, it makes the story more powerful. GQ allowed her to take that story in a direction another magazine probably wouldn't have. And it was better for it. At some point, if the reporter's presence changes the story overtly (as opposed to just the act of being there observing) then I think it's somewhat dishonest not use first person. But there are different degrees of first person. When Clair Hoffman wrote about Joe Francis pinning her to the hood of her rental car and nearly breaking her arm and she having to punch him to get away, that pretty overtly changed that story. Trying to be "neutral observer" after that would be dishonest.

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

So sincerely, share one. Let's discuss it.

If Skylar needs help, I can loan him a recent BASW collecting dust here.

 

[Double Down]

Here is another example of a story with some first person in it that I think illuminates the story. It has just enough. Not a lot — we don't really get into Jay Kang's background — but he's also making it clear up front that because he's Korean he brings a perspective to this piece that's valuable to its overall purpose.

What a Fraternity Hazing Death Revealed About the Painful Search for an Asian-American Identity

 

[playthrough]

In general, I don't think using first person is really ever a conscious decision to elevate one's "brand." What it is, often, is a generation of writers who decided they'd rather be essayists than reporters. Interviewing people is hard. It's both a craft and an art. It's uncomfortable to interview a lot of people about a serious, difficult subject, and it's hard to know how to ask difficult questions in a way that evokes good answers. It takes practice and time and effort. I've spent nearly 20 years doing it (holy shirt) and you often feel unsettled when you do it. You're prying into people's incredibly personal moments, asking them questions their closest friends might not even ask, just because you're a journalist. Then you're shaping those nuggets of answers into anecdotes and narratives that might become the definitive way people feel about that person. It's hard to look someone in the eye, ask them to tell you something really personal, then write a piece that they might dislike a great deal.

The truth is, a lot of writers don't have the stomach for it, and one way to get around that is to slip into first person because you can write around the gaps in the story. It's easier to get in and out of the transitions when you don't have the reporting in your notebook, and it's easier to make yourself the character who is changed within the story that it is to rely on reporting that can reveal how the subject is changed.

Damn kids, trying to elevate their brands, frankly, is actually often just about people who don't have the time, resources or editing mentor to do the hard work. Now, in Rebert Browne's case, I do think he is just a cultural essayist. He's not interested in being a great interviewer, from what I can tell. Which is fine, but I think he could have been both if given better mentoring.

EDIT: Adding this...

There are also plenty of times when it's disingenuous to NOT put first person in the story, when your objectivity is so clearly compromised you're far better off putting your biases out there on the page and letting the reader decide for themselves what to think instead of pretending to be the neutral observer. The roof piece was actually a good example of that. A black woman goes to South Carolina to write about the murder of 9 black people by a noted racist, the piece was far more powerful and honest because she put herself in there, and was honest about what she was searching for. Every answer that someone who knew Roof gave her was shaded by the fact that she is a black woman, so let's get it out there and have it become part of the story. To be honest, I think the ending of her piece is borderline too much. Drawing the names of the murdered in the sand could have come across as forced or maudlin, but I actually think it works. I think that moment was real for her, and thus, it makes the story more powerful. GQ allowed her to take that story in a direction another magazine probably wouldn't have. And it was better for it. At some point, if the reporter's presence changes the story overtly (as opposed to just the act of being there observing) then I think it's somewhat dishonest not use first person. But there are different degrees of first person. When Clair Hoffman wrote about Joe Francis pinning her to the hood of her rental car and nearly breaking her arm and she having to punch him to get away, that pretty overtly changed that story. Trying to be "neutral observer" after that would be dishonest.

The lack of editing mentors is a great point. Newspapers have also blurred the line too much between news and commentary, and I'm not sure some are even bothered by that anymore. That's where I'm seeing more first-person creep in with sports, not necessarily in big features. I think that's also a function of staffing, where one guy has to wear more hats. He/she reports the news then has to have a take on it.

 

[JCT89]

In general, I don't think using first person is really ever a conscious decision to elevate one's "brand." What it is, often, is a generation of writers who decided they'd rather be essayists than reporters. Interviewing people is hard. It's both a craft and an art. It's uncomfortable to interview a lot of people about a serious, difficult subject, and it's hard to know how to ask difficult questions in a way that evokes good answers. It takes practice and time and effort. I've spent nearly 20 years doing it (holy shirt) and you often feel unsettled when you do it. You're prying into people's incredibly personal moments, asking them questions their closest friends might not even ask, just because you're a journalist. Then you're shaping those nuggets of answers into anecdotes and narratives that might become the definitive way people feel about that person. It's hard to look someone in the eye, ask them to tell you something really personal, then write a piece that they might dislike a great deal.

The truth is, a lot of writers don't have the stomach for it, and one way to get around that is to slip into first person because you can write around the gaps in the story. It's easier to get in and out of the transitions when you don't have the reporting in your notebook, and it's easier to make yourself the character who is changed within the story that it is to rely on reporting that can reveal how the subject is changed.

Damn kids, trying to elevate their brands, frankly, is actually often just about people who don't have the time, resources or editing mentor to do the hard work. Now, in Rebert Browne's case, I do think he is just a cultural essayist. He's not interested in being a great interviewer, from what I can tell. Which is fine, but I think he could have been both if given better mentoring.

EDIT: Adding this...

There are also plenty of times when it's disingenuous to NOT put first person in the story, when your objectivity is so clearly compromised you're far better off putting your biases out there on the page and letting the reader decide for themselves what to think instead of pretending to be the neutral observer. The roof piece was actually a good example of that. A black woman goes to South Carolina to write about the murder of 9 black people by a noted racist, the piece was far more powerful and honest because she put herself in there, and was honest about what she was searching for. Every answer that someone who knew Roof gave her was shaded by the fact that she is a black woman, so let's get it out there and have it become part of the story. To be honest, I think the ending of her piece is borderline too much. Drawing the names of the murdered in the sand could have come across as forced or maudlin, but I actually think it works. I think that moment was real for her, and thus, it makes the story more powerful. GQ allowed her to take that story in a direction another magazine probably wouldn't have. And it was better for it. At some point, if the reporter's presence changes the story overtly (as opposed to just the act of being there observing) then I think it's somewhat dishonest not use first person. But there are different degrees of first person. When Clair Hoffman wrote about Joe Francis pinning her to the hood of her rental car and nearly breaking her arm and she having to punch him to get away, that pretty overtly changed that story. Trying to be "neutral observer" after that would be dishonest.

A lot of great points in here. I enjoyed the Roof piece but felt the ending was heavy-handed and soured me a bit on it. I think when it comes to sports, Grantland/The Ringer has contributed to this problem by allowing really young writers too much freedom to be first-person essayists. When you can do that at 24-25, why bother to learn how to interview/report the way suggested above?

 

[Double Down]

Here is an example of what I think is way too much first person. I believe the editor of this piece called it "better than Frank DeFord's 'The Rabbit Hunter'" which might be the most ridiculous, and false, promotion of a story I've ever seen.

Requiem for Bobby Knight

 

[YankeeFan]

So, I guess the author isn't affiliated with ESPN.

 

[Double Down]

So, I guess the author isn't affiliated with ESPN.

If you'd like to argue the merits of what I posted about that SB Nation piece, I'll be happy to do so. If you'd like to continue to play a cutesy game of "we all know who you are and you have no credibility because you won't criticize ESPN stories and therefore you don't keep it as real as me, a person not in journalism" then I'll probably pass as we have done that dance many times.

You should feel free to post first-person ESPN pieces you did not like, though.

 

[YankeeFan]

If you'd like to argue the merits of what I posted about that SB Nation piece, I'll be happy to do so. If you'd like to continue to play a cutesy game of "we all know who you are and you have no credibility because you won't criticize ESPN stories and therefore you don't keep it as real as me, a person not in journalism" then I'll probably pass as we have done that dance many times.

You should feel free to post first-person ESPN pieces you did not like, though.

LOL. Between the two of us, who's playing a cutesy game in this regard?

(Who's being naive, Kay?)

 

[YankeeFan]

Something about this first person piece in ESPN still bugs me.

Janay Rice, in her own words