I've always considered myself fairly informed on media issues, which is why I was surprised and embarrassed to have not known about Radio Lab before now. I guess that's one of the reasons this class will be so valuable for my journalism--not only will I improve my writing but I will be exposed to a myriad of new and exciting sources. I can't wait to meet the two fellows who invented this fascinating show.
Radio Lab appeals to me because of its talent in fusing stories which I would have never thought could go together. For example, they often have a segment about animal behavior followed by a traditional report on an event or trend...all under one unifying theme. I was especially impressed by the episode on deception, which began with a scientist talking about a snake's defense mechanisms and continued on to social science surveys and an in-depth piece on a con-woman. It involved a lot of science, but everything was put into terms that a lay-person could understand, reminding us all to think about our audience as carefully as Radio Lab does. The bulk of NPR listeners aren't scientists. Therefore, you have to be careful not to alienate that person driving home from work listening in. This is accomplished, I've noted, not only by using accessible vocabulary, but by setting up the hosts as ordinary guys instead of experts. Their exclamations at learning cool technical things--"Wow!" "It blows my mind!"--pulls the listener, who feels the same way, into the experience. The message: "We are just like you. We didn't know this stuff either."
I was just talking to an LA Times journalist today, who was explaining the crisis of newspapers (readership is down, no one can figure out how to make the Internet profitable) and he noted that everyone thought TV would kill off radio. As we can all see, this wasn't true. Radio adapted and has continued to thrive, and Radio Lab is the perfect example of the kind of innovation it takes to keep a threatened industry afloat.
Listening to several episodes has also inspired me to pitch my own idea for a show when I meet them. I hope they'll turn a receptive ear to a fellow Obie .
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Talk of the Town
What does a good "Talk of the Town" accomplish? In trying to construct my own, I thought of the few I'd read on the New Yorker's website, and wondered what exactly I was supposed to attempt. None of the piece were what I expected: a true scene set in New York City that revealed something about the place and the people involved. I wanted description. I wanted dialogue and drama. Although both of my favorite pieces--"Have Gun" about female taser-purchasing parties and Powder Room 101--gave an unusual setting and set of circumstances, I was in general underwhelmed with the form. It felt flat and overly academic, whereas I wanted something truly engaging. In my own piece I attempted to combat this by providing (I should say merely chronicling, as life provided the scene) all the things that I want out of a good short story: fleshed-out characters, conflict, humor and a bigger consciousness of the world presented. I don't know if I succeeded at including all this, but I sure did try. I wanted to present the novelty and tension inherent in Oberlin's art rental program, as well as a sketch as the varied students it attracts.
One problem I encountered is a personal one: I wrote about my friends. I did change the names, but I found myself in an ethical dilemma that many writers--fiction and otherwise--must face. Will people recognize who I'm writing about? Will word get back to them? Will they be angry at a less-than-flattering portrayal? Can I ever publish this?
I suppose one thing the pieces in the New Yorker have that mine does not is a good, informative background. Like a good journalist, these writers answer the who, what, when and where near the beginning. But the assignment called for an assumed Oberlin audience, so perhaps not explaining the particulars of art rental is a good thing.
Also, perhaps I wasn't lofty enough with a higher goal in writing this piece. In the piece on the "taser party," the author hints at a darker undertone: women feel so unsafe that they imagine they need violent protection against violence. Carrying a weapon has become mainstream. While this is a very New York idea--perfect for the New Yorker, obviously--it also touches on a national trend, and a worrysome one at that. What greater trend does mine reveal? Art snobbery? Rude teenagers? These aren't exactly ground-breaking concepts. All that I can hope is that my piece gives the reader some insight into Oberlin as it entertains.
One problem I encountered is a personal one: I wrote about my friends. I did change the names, but I found myself in an ethical dilemma that many writers--fiction and otherwise--must face. Will people recognize who I'm writing about? Will word get back to them? Will they be angry at a less-than-flattering portrayal? Can I ever publish this?
I suppose one thing the pieces in the New Yorker have that mine does not is a good, informative background. Like a good journalist, these writers answer the who, what, when and where near the beginning. But the assignment called for an assumed Oberlin audience, so perhaps not explaining the particulars of art rental is a good thing.
Also, perhaps I wasn't lofty enough with a higher goal in writing this piece. In the piece on the "taser party," the author hints at a darker undertone: women feel so unsafe that they imagine they need violent protection against violence. Carrying a weapon has become mainstream. While this is a very New York idea--perfect for the New Yorker, obviously--it also touches on a national trend, and a worrysome one at that. What greater trend does mine reveal? Art snobbery? Rude teenagers? These aren't exactly ground-breaking concepts. All that I can hope is that my piece gives the reader some insight into Oberlin as it entertains.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Analyzing the Dudes
This evening, while procrastinating doing my work for another class, I read the essay posted on the Rhet206 blog about Single Young Men and their new extended adolescence. I milled over the essay's many ideas for a few minutes, but then forgot all about it until I found my boyfriend playing video games in the dorm lounge. Then all the doomsday theories from the essay surfaced again in my mind: men wanting to stay children forever, fear of commitment, the celebration of underachievement, etc.
These thoughts haunted me so much that I brought it up with my boyfriend, showed him the article, and discussed it for over an hour. He helped me see a lot of the flaws of the article, and I helped him understand a lot of its strong points. I now understand that at least the fact that it prompted me to think and want to discuss shows how good a piece it is, but I think it falls into the trap of many "trend" pieces in that it makes sweeping assumptions about large groups of people. For example, in the eyes of the writer, every 20-something year old male is unambitious and immature while every female of the same age is driven and ready for a serious relationship--a gross generalization.
My boyfriend took offense to the term "man-child" that the writer of this article often utilizes. This prompted a discussion of what adulthood and childhood actually mean, both in the past and today--a discussion that the article doesn't ever exactly address. Is childhood not having people depending on you, or is it still depending on someone else? Does adulthood mean having either a career or a family or both? Another critique that I have of this piece is that it seems to have nostalgia for "the good old days" of manhood and condemns the societal changes taking place. Men used to seek success and stability right out of college. Now they live with their homies and play XBox and mac on babes. She sees this as automatically a negative change, but what if the lack of pressure to be the typical breadwinner super-man is an incredible relief to most males? Is it not like the pressure for women to be thin and beautiful? The way I see it, men have historically been pushed forward where women were held back, so now that both forces are weak or non-existent, women bound forward in academics and the workplace while men linger in boyhood activities. Why aren't both changes equally good? We all celebrate the fact that more women than men are applying to college. Why not celebrate men taking it easy?
What I do like about this piece is the range of media it analyzes--TV to websites to movies--and the multiple levels on which it attacks this lifestyle. The critique of different men's magazines and websites, and the citing of specific material, was informative and compelling. More such tangible evidence of her point would be welcome. What I would have REALLY appreciated is more interviews, and maybe an in-depth profile, of real people that age of both sexes. That would have made her message more convincing. The way it reads now, she's a grumpy older woman kvetching about boys wasting the best goddamn years of their lives while serious girls sigh and wait for Mr. Right. Writers should always establish their credentials, because if they don't, readers might wonder, "Who is she to talk about that?" Who is one older, academic woman to pass judgment on a whole demographic of young men? This presumption distracts from the solid research and writing skills that she brings to the piece, and ultimately undermines her point.
These thoughts haunted me so much that I brought it up with my boyfriend, showed him the article, and discussed it for over an hour. He helped me see a lot of the flaws of the article, and I helped him understand a lot of its strong points. I now understand that at least the fact that it prompted me to think and want to discuss shows how good a piece it is, but I think it falls into the trap of many "trend" pieces in that it makes sweeping assumptions about large groups of people. For example, in the eyes of the writer, every 20-something year old male is unambitious and immature while every female of the same age is driven and ready for a serious relationship--a gross generalization.
My boyfriend took offense to the term "man-child" that the writer of this article often utilizes. This prompted a discussion of what adulthood and childhood actually mean, both in the past and today--a discussion that the article doesn't ever exactly address. Is childhood not having people depending on you, or is it still depending on someone else? Does adulthood mean having either a career or a family or both? Another critique that I have of this piece is that it seems to have nostalgia for "the good old days" of manhood and condemns the societal changes taking place. Men used to seek success and stability right out of college. Now they live with their homies and play XBox and mac on babes. She sees this as automatically a negative change, but what if the lack of pressure to be the typical breadwinner super-man is an incredible relief to most males? Is it not like the pressure for women to be thin and beautiful? The way I see it, men have historically been pushed forward where women were held back, so now that both forces are weak or non-existent, women bound forward in academics and the workplace while men linger in boyhood activities. Why aren't both changes equally good? We all celebrate the fact that more women than men are applying to college. Why not celebrate men taking it easy?
What I do like about this piece is the range of media it analyzes--TV to websites to movies--and the multiple levels on which it attacks this lifestyle. The critique of different men's magazines and websites, and the citing of specific material, was informative and compelling. More such tangible evidence of her point would be welcome. What I would have REALLY appreciated is more interviews, and maybe an in-depth profile, of real people that age of both sexes. That would have made her message more convincing. The way it reads now, she's a grumpy older woman kvetching about boys wasting the best goddamn years of their lives while serious girls sigh and wait for Mr. Right. Writers should always establish their credentials, because if they don't, readers might wonder, "Who is she to talk about that?" Who is one older, academic woman to pass judgment on a whole demographic of young men? This presumption distracts from the solid research and writing skills that she brings to the piece, and ultimately undermines her point.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Adios, Fidel
In reading all the articles, short- and long-form, about Fidel Castro stepping down as leader of Cuba due to his advanced age and failing health, what struck me most wasn't whether the reporters revealed their leanings for or against him, but that every article about the event basically read like a eulogy. I've never seen so many eulogies for someone who's not dead! I suppose everyone has the "end of an era" spirit, which account for all the time lines and photo essays detailing his epoch in power from the Revolution until now. This tone didn't fit with the content of the articles themselves, which plainly speculated that Castro would continue to run things behind the scenes while his less charismatic but physically fit younger brother Raul assumed the post. I didn't enjoy that the press came to some sort of consensus to eulogize the still active Castro, but what I did appreciate in the coverage was an examination of the attitudes of the current presidential candidates on the issue of Cuba. It's not that I believe whatever they say--after all, the U.S. has been saying it will fight for regime change in Cuba for over 50 years and done basically nothing--but it shows their tact in recruiting voters in the Cuban exile communities of Miami. However, the articles I read weren't quite ballsy enough to state this possibility outright, and instead took the candidates' words at face value. What happened to the press as a critic of those in power?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Modern Love
I initially was not going to enter the New York Times' "Modern Love" essay contest. In my experience with their last one, I feel that they picked a pretentious, abstract, self-consciously philosophical and trite essay over the many other thoughtful and personal entries (including my own!). I figured that this would be no different...until I read some examples of the Modern Love column, which I had never heard of before, and found many touching, humorous and very personal pieces. A particular one I liked was written by someone exactly my age about being a gay man who goes to prom with female friends as a favor. He balanced sharing his own experiences in detail--my favorite moment was getting eyed oddly by the florist for buying so many corsages--with commenting on high school society in general, homophobia and the innate awkwardness involved in every pubescent social situation. I read parts of it out loud to my roommate, a gay man, and we had a long talk about his high school experiences at prom and elsewhere. I knew this piece was good because it made me want to discuss it and ask questions, and it also proved an opportunity to learn more about the man with whom I share a tiny dorm room.
The other essays came from equally unique perspectives. One horrifically detailed what it's like to date as a bipolar person. Another talked about a bipartisan marriage. My only worry in attempting to write my own is that, as a straight, white, upper-middle class college student, my perspective isn't unique enough to merit the gracious attention of the all-mighty Times.
The other essays came from equally unique perspectives. One horrifically detailed what it's like to date as a bipolar person. Another talked about a bipartisan marriage. My only worry in attempting to write my own is that, as a straight, white, upper-middle class college student, my perspective isn't unique enough to merit the gracious attention of the all-mighty Times.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Believer's Non-Book Reviews
Before this past class I had never even heard of the concept of the non-book review. I assumed it meant a concert review or something along those lines, and never conceived that anyone would be interested in reading a review of an object.
After reading many examples in The Believer, I am of two minds. One voice tells me that these are annoying, pretentious and self-consciously weird--a way for yuppie writers to show off their esoteric knowledge. But the other voice tells me that these reviews are an entertaining and creative invention of the ever-innovative McSweeney's crew. I also learned a great deal of random facts while reading these. I'm sure the anatomy of the star-nosed mole will make a great icebreaker at a party someday. In that way they tap the modern public's need for such factoids, the same need that drives bored internet surfers to wikipedia's open arms.
However, while the reviews of actual objects in The Believer--the antler chandelier and the poultry shears stand out--accomplish a close, stylized description paired with a splash of research and history, the "reviews" of people and places read more like classic profiles or interviews, which strays too far from the form (for me) to fit. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "reviewing" a person, especially a child, although I noticed that these pieces made sure not to use any judging language.
I plan on attempting to write one of these myself, and in looking around my room (mostly at my roommate's stuff so as not to pick something too familiar) I'm having a hard time choosing something that's not too boring and not too off-the-wall. I'm leaning towards the dinosaur shaped cookie cutter that I got my roommate for Christmas (his two passions in life are baking and archeology) or his talking C3PO Star Wars action figure. I guess such a piece would also be, in part, a review of my roommate and his funny habits. Here I go to experiment!
After reading many examples in The Believer, I am of two minds. One voice tells me that these are annoying, pretentious and self-consciously weird--a way for yuppie writers to show off their esoteric knowledge. But the other voice tells me that these reviews are an entertaining and creative invention of the ever-innovative McSweeney's crew. I also learned a great deal of random facts while reading these. I'm sure the anatomy of the star-nosed mole will make a great icebreaker at a party someday. In that way they tap the modern public's need for such factoids, the same need that drives bored internet surfers to wikipedia's open arms.
However, while the reviews of actual objects in The Believer--the antler chandelier and the poultry shears stand out--accomplish a close, stylized description paired with a splash of research and history, the "reviews" of people and places read more like classic profiles or interviews, which strays too far from the form (for me) to fit. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "reviewing" a person, especially a child, although I noticed that these pieces made sure not to use any judging language.
I plan on attempting to write one of these myself, and in looking around my room (mostly at my roommate's stuff so as not to pick something too familiar) I'm having a hard time choosing something that's not too boring and not too off-the-wall. I'm leaning towards the dinosaur shaped cookie cutter that I got my roommate for Christmas (his two passions in life are baking and archeology) or his talking C3PO Star Wars action figure. I guess such a piece would also be, in part, a review of my roommate and his funny habits. Here I go to experiment!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
This American Life
Though I've been listening to this amazing program for years, I only recently discovered that one can download entire episodes for free off the website and listen to her heart's content. Yesterday I spent more time than I should browsing through the archives and listening to ones that sparked my interest, and I was continually blown away by the range, depth and overall enjoyability of the longform pieces. I wonder if it's possible to achieve on the written page what they achieve with their tasteful mixture of voice, music and dramatic pauses. Writers talk all the time about developing a "voice"...and it seems so much easier when the real voice can come into play, illustrating sarcasm or poignancy with a slight shift in tone. Theoretically this can be done on the page, and many stories work equally well out loud and in print. David Sedaris comes to mind in this respect, although I think his weary, ironic tone makes all his pieces come to life.
I'm trying to work out what it is about This American Life, besides the voices and soundclips, that appeals to me (and millions of others) so much. For one, they always strive for the unusual--the voice that isn't normally heard, the topic so far unexplored. This has always been hard for me, because I have the sneaking suspicion that all my best ideas have already been done, but it is essential to successful journalism. This American Life stands as a weekly lesson that all material is ripe for storytelling, be it a shitty summer job or a chance encounter overseas. It also teaches that every story has a human narrative behind it, probably a rich one. I also like how they use a common thread to link completely disparate stories, which can be done even within one story. David Sedaris--sorry I keep coming back to him, but he's my "personal essay hero"--both on This American Life and in his books, can smoothly move between boils, fidelity and ghosts, as in his piece "Old Faithful," tying it all together into one gripping, hilarious tale. He also has a knack for bizarre first sentences that almost slap you in the face. "Out of nowhere I developed this lump." "I'm thinking of knitting a little jacket for my clock radio." In a format like This American Life, which celebrates the quirky, this type of opening is almost essential. And in narrative non-fiction in general could always benefit from a snappy, but not cheesy, introduction.
I'm trying to work out what it is about This American Life, besides the voices and soundclips, that appeals to me (and millions of others) so much. For one, they always strive for the unusual--the voice that isn't normally heard, the topic so far unexplored. This has always been hard for me, because I have the sneaking suspicion that all my best ideas have already been done, but it is essential to successful journalism. This American Life stands as a weekly lesson that all material is ripe for storytelling, be it a shitty summer job or a chance encounter overseas. It also teaches that every story has a human narrative behind it, probably a rich one. I also like how they use a common thread to link completely disparate stories, which can be done even within one story. David Sedaris--sorry I keep coming back to him, but he's my "personal essay hero"--both on This American Life and in his books, can smoothly move between boils, fidelity and ghosts, as in his piece "Old Faithful," tying it all together into one gripping, hilarious tale. He also has a knack for bizarre first sentences that almost slap you in the face. "Out of nowhere I developed this lump." "I'm thinking of knitting a little jacket for my clock radio." In a format like This American Life, which celebrates the quirky, this type of opening is almost essential. And in narrative non-fiction in general could always benefit from a snappy, but not cheesy, introduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
