First-person feature stories?

[Skylar]

I thought the Tucker Carlson thing worked well and I enjoyed reading that story. It was a different perspective on the guy. GQ always has first-person in its features, and all the stories are great. I guess I can't complain about first-person in features if I can't write as well as them. LOL

That Wright Thompson piece was excellent, too. What I think is great about not using first-person is that it can make anyone feel like they're in the clubhouse, not just the seasoned baseball writer. You know?

Anyway, the first person in pretty much every piece works in some way to tell the story so I don't know if it's actually all that bad. In the end most of them tell the story well no matter how they choose to do it. I do find the trend a little weird, though.

 

[lcjjdnh]

For discussion, here's a recent one I saw criticized elsewhere:

Cover Story: How S.N.L.'s Kate McKinnon Became Comedy's Brightest Star

 

[Alma]

For discussion, here's a recent one I saw criticized elsewhere:

Cover Story: How S.N.L.'s Kate McKinnon Became Comedy's Brightest Star

2 thoughts:

1. I'm one of those folks who doesn't get Kate McKinnon's "genius" and wonders, to some degree, if half the people who do get her actually do or just say they do because that's what you're supposed to say. Her SNL stuff is OK - she's not in the same orbit as Kristin Wiig, at least for me - but her credited role in movies might as well be "ham."

2. The writer (Jessica Diehl) sells something at the beginning - that there will be something about Kate McKinnon she can't forget and neither will you - before launching into something close to an "appreciation" or an essay that covers for what is, actually, a rather boring interview. It's all filler because the McKinnon brings virtually nothing to the table. Pick through the piece, and here's her longest quote:

"I love doing impressions of politicians because the task is always to imagine the private lives of these people whose job it is to project an image of staunch, unflinching leadership and grace, and that's just not how human beings, in their heart of hearts, work. In doing that for Hillary Clinton, who I admire so much, I started to feel very close to her, just trying to imagine her inner life."

Thrilling.

Profile writers need good material. There's no evidence (in this story) that McKinnon provided it, so the writer (who's also the clothing and hairstylist?) just put on a PR campaign.

It's kind of a phony slog.

 

[Azrael]

First person?

It's an easier way to write, certainly. At least I find it so. Solves a lot of structural questions before they're even asked.

I also think younger writers, or at least those in the generation following mine, are more comfortable with it. Writers forty and under grew up in a world of blogs(!), all of which depended upon first person narratives. So what seems like solipsism or personal memoir to writers my age is simply a truth to those under forty - the only trustworthy narrative is one's own.

Older writers are much more comfortable with the omniscient view from nowhere.

 

[Dick Whitman]

First person?

It's an easier way to write, certainly. At least I find it so. Solves a lot of structural questions before they're even asked.

I also think younger writers, or at least those in the generation following mine, are more comfortable with it. Writers forty and under grew up in a world of blogs(!), all of which depended upon first person narratives. So what seems like solipsism or personal memoir to writers my age is simply a truth to those under forty - the only trustworthy narrative is one's own.

Older writers are much more comfortable with the omniscient view from nowhere.

Along those lines (I'm 40), I think it can be disarming for people who grew up having it pounded into their head that media elites are not to be trusted. Perhaps readers distrust an omniscient voice. First-person is a little nod: Hey, this is just one person's perspective.

 

[Azrael]

I think that's true.

And it's an interesting example of mistaken credulity, or at least naivete, operating on the assumption that this distant third person will lie to you, but that somehow the intimate first person won't.

Social media have also conditioned readers to take first person as the default setting for every kind of writing.

I I I I I I I . . . .

 

[Alma]

Along those lines (I'm 40), I think it can be disarming for people who grew up having it pounded into their head that media elites are not to be trusted. Perhaps readers distrust an omniscient voice. First-person is a little nod: Hey, this is just one person's perspective.

A singular perspective has more power in postmodern society than institutional wisdom. It shouldn't but it does.

 

[Big Circus]

I think that's true.

And it's an interesting example of mistaken credulity, or at least naivete, operating on the assumption that this distant third person will lie to you, but that somehow the intimate first person won't.

Social media have also conditioned readers to take first person as the default setting for every kind of writing.

I I I I I I I . . . .

It wasn't always that way, though! Remember when Facebook statuses all started with "Big Circus is..."?

 

[Azrael]

A singular perspective has more power in postmodern society than institutional wisdom. It shouldn't but it does.

Whether or not that's a bad thing would depend entirely upon the nature of the individual or the institution. Plenty of rotten institutions over the centuries, many without wisdom or empathy or humanity.

Plenty of individuals across history with an abundance of intelligence and love and fellow-feeling.

 

[SnarkShark]

2 thoughts:

1. I'm one of those folks who doesn't get Kate McKinnon's "genius" and wonders, to some degree, if half the people who do get her actually do or just say they do because that's what you're supposed to say. Her SNL stuff is OK - she's not in the same orbit as Kristin Wiig, at least for me - but her credited role in movies might as well be "ham."

2. The writer (Jessica Diehl) sells something at the beginning - that there will be something about Kate McKinnon she can't forget and neither will you - before launching into something close to an "appreciation" or an essay that covers for what is, actually, a rather boring interview. It's all filler because the McKinnon brings virtually nothing to the table. Pick through the piece, and here's her longest quote:

"I love doing impressions of politicians because the task is always to imagine the private lives of these people whose job it is to project an image of staunch, unflinching leadership and grace, and that's just not how human beings, in their heart of hearts, work. In doing that for Hillary Clinton, who I admire so much, I started to feel very close to her, just trying to imagine her inner life."

Thrilling.

Profile writers need good material. There's no evidence (in this story) that McKinnon provided it, so the writer (who's also the clothing and hairstylist?) just put on a PR campaign.

It's kind of a phony slog.

That's my biggest issue with the long profile/ longform movement. The story needs to be worth it.

 

[typefitter]

2 thoughts:

1. I'm one of those folks who doesn't get Kate McKinnon's "genius" and wonders, to some degree, if half the people who do get her actually do or just say they do because that's what you're supposed to say. Her SNL stuff is OK - she's not in the same orbit as Kristin Wiig, at least for me - but her credited role in movies might as well be "ham."

2. The writer (Jessica Diehl) sells something at the beginning - that there will be something about Kate McKinnon she can't forget and neither will you - before launching into something close to an "appreciation" or an essay that covers for what is, actually, a rather boring interview. It's all filler because the McKinnon brings virtually nothing to the table. Pick through the piece, and here's her longest quote:

"I love doing impressions of politicians because the task is always to imagine the private lives of these people whose job it is to project an image of staunch, unflinching leadership and grace, and that's just not how human beings, in their heart of hearts, work. In doing that for Hillary Clinton, who I admire so much, I started to feel very close to her, just trying to imagine her inner life."

Thrilling.

Profile writers need good material. There's no evidence (in this story) that McKinnon provided it, so the writer (who's also the clothing and hairstylist?) just put on a PR campaign.

It's kind of a phony slog.

Just as a point of order, I believe the writer is Lili Anolik.

The reason celebrity stories are so tricky, and often suck, is because they are being written only because the subject is famous—not because they are necessarily interesting or insightful or whatever else a writer might like in a subject. You can tell when a writer just doesn't have the goods and still has to deliver a cover story. I agree with you that that's the case here. I've been there. It sucks. You do your best and hope people just look at the pictures.

 

[Alma]

Just as a point of order, I believe the writer is Lili Anolik.

The reason celebrity stories are so tricky, and often suck, is because they are being written only because the subject is famous—not because they are necessarily interesting or insightful or whatever else a writer might like in a subject. You can tell when a writer just doesn't have the goods and still has to deliver a cover story. I agree with you that that's the case here. I've been there. It sucks. You do your best and hope people just look at the pictures.

Yes, you're right. I saw Jessica Diehl's name twice before the story and didn't read it close enough. (Is it common for the stylist to be credited?)

This particular story worked rather hard to sell something that's not there. You tip your hat to the effort. I don't even blame the writer, really. McKinnon was clearly guarded. (It would be better if the writer didn't pretend it was unforgettable, when it really is.)

Mina Kimes' Aaron Rodgers profile - which used 1st person almost out of necessity when Rodgers came to her place for the interview - was very good in part because Rodgers was ready to be a little interesting.