First-person feature stories?

[Skylar]

It just seems like every feature/longform type thing I read now is written in first-person and it's kind of like "I did this," "I saw this," instead of "This is what something looked/sounded like."

I don't necessarily have a problem with this or think it's bad but I'm wondering if there's some kind of rule on this among writers. Is it generally something to avoid or does it matter at all? Is there a reason why? Do people consider it bad or good or indifferent? Do you like reading a feature written in first person?

A couple examples of things I'm referring to: the recent Bleacher Report feature on Colin Kaepernick, the GQ story on Dylann Roof's hometown (not sports of course), but also many many many others.

I also ask because I want to keep some things in mind when I go out to do an in-depth piece soon.

 

[SnarkShark]

The "personal journey" trend in modern journalism is, in most cases, entirely unnecessary.

Can't stand the writing tactic, but it sure seems like plenty of editors are all about encouraging it.

This goes back to the advice thread. We're not the story.

 

[Skylar]

The "personal journey" trend in modern journalism is, in most cases, entirely unnecessary.

Can't stand the writing tactic, but it sure seems like plenty of editors are all about encouraging it.

This goes back to the advice thread. We're not the story.

That's my takeaway, kind of. I've read a few that I think could be way better if the writer didn't write about themself. And it seems easier to write, but tells the story poorly. Or at least more poorly than you could if you did it the normal way.

 

[stix]

I don't think it's so bad if the writer is using first-person to describe what he or she is seeing or sensing, so to speak.

But when it starts getting into "I did this," "I drove there," "I called him," etc., then it's just too much of the reporter being the story.

Like a lot of other topics on here, this is one where if it's done judiciously and with discretion, it's OK. If you go to the well on it too much, it's hackish.

 

[CD Boogie]

Hunter S Thompson could get away with it bc he was interesting or at least made his journey to get the story sound interesting and/or batshirt crazy. If getting the story becomes a story, then fine. But otherwise, keep a diary, keep that boring ass shirt to yourself, and tell the story

 

[typefitter]

This is a source of internal wrestling with me. I used to be hard against appearing in stories. I tried not to appear in a story about my dad, but at some point I had to acknowledge that he was my dad. I still dislike when reporters appear in stories for no reason. I find it lazy and self-absorbed. But some readers find it distracting, the hoops you sometimes have to jump through NOT to appear in the story. That's worse to them—and in some ways more "look at me"—than just saying "I" and getting in and out of the situation discreetly.

That realization came to me when I wrote about Robert Caro, and the New York Times Mag did a Caro profile at the same time. A critic complained that he didn't like my being all over my story, and gave credit to the Times writer for not appearing in his. Except that the word "I" never appeared in my story, and it appeared plenty often in the Times version. The critic just somehow felt I was more visible, more handsy. That got me thinking that a piece can be just as much of, or even more of, a first-person piece without the word "I" than with it.

I have a long feature coming out soon that I appear in a couple of times. I feel weird about it, like I'm a traitor to my former ideals, but I do think it's smoother and less cumbersome in some ways. It's less of a dance.

 

[AD]

hunter thompson and mailer are the ones always trotted out in this discussion, and guess what? mailer was only good at it half the time, at best, and once he got away from reporting on other people and started pontificating thompson became an unholy bore. once hemingway began including himself as a character he became insufferable.

we are journalists, not novelists. one reason why is that we aren't original or -- especially, interesting -- thinkers or imaginative and know it; we need other people's stories to write about. i've written in the first person when it was absolutely necessary, and it always scares the heck out of me. my animating principle is that if my experience doesn't somehow illuminate the subject at hand -- and not me -- then it's useless grandstanding. "joe blow told me..." is look-at-me bullshirt, unless it is breaking news or revealing new ground.

my theory these days is that LACK OF ACCESS -- not honesty or transparency or some other self-justifying bullshirt -- has driven the rise of first-person.

teams don't need us to sell tickets anymore. individual athletes are surrounded by agents and factoti who keep their jobs by saying no. but a story has to be written anyway; a writer HAS to push the story forward somehow and the internet needs another piece on Lebron or Bryce just, well....because. So more and more the writer's process, or past years as an athlete or fan, get shoveled in there to distract from the fact that you got 10 minutes in a scrum with bryce or lebron.

apply this next time you read a first-person, grantland-style riff job: do i learn more about the subject than the writer here? does this piece advance my understanding of his/her milieu, background, motivation, psychology? or was he/she actually just a blank slate (or elusive interview subject) that the humblebragging scribe is using to show how cool/smart/above-it-all he can be?

 

[GBNF]

It is a really bad trend and only getting worse.

 

[playthrough]

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.

 

[Double Down]

There are no rules to anything. Anyone who thinks there are doesn't get it. Writing is subjective. What works for one writer/reader isn't going to work for everyone. Thinking there is a cookie cutter way to write features, with rules and sign posts and thinks you can and cannot do, is a recipe for bad features.

I've read lots of bad features with first person in them. I've written a few.

However: If you don't understand why the Roof piece, and why the Kaepernick piece, had first person in them, then I'm at a loss.

 

[Skylar]

I totally understand why on those ones. They were more written as essays than features. Those were just the two most recent ones that came to my mind. I have read plenty that I thought could have been much better if they were written without first-person.

 

[Double Down]

I totally understand why on those ones. They were more written as essays than features. Those were just the two most recent ones that came to my mind. I have read plenty that I thought could have been much better if they were written without first-person.

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