That was really dumb.
I like Men's Health for some things. I use a workout that I found in there (The Spartacus Workout) on a semi-regular basis to mix things up at the gym. I think the Eat This, Not That column is interesting. But when it veers into sex and courtship it almost always gets annoying. This article said very little but put that very little in the mouths of experts to make it sound good and insulted me as a reader.
The intro that served as the lead was tame and clearly only there because they needed a lead and not because it contained anything inspired. The sections were neatly laid out and clearly subdivided, but their content was terrible, so the neat organization is basically moot.
I really, really hope my how-to comes out better than this.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Story 2 outline
Fanzine how-to/historical retrospective
-Intro
1. Assemble your team
2. Pick your focus
3. Set up interviews/contacts
4. Put the zine together
5. Print and distribute
-Intro
1. Assemble your team
2. Pick your focus
3. Set up interviews/contacts
4. Put the zine together
5. Print and distribute
Pearls Before Breakfast response
The Washington Post – the source of "The Peekaboo Paradox," my favorite story from the first part of the semester – continues to be nothing short of awe-inspiring. I absolutely LOVED "Pearls Before Breakfast," the sorta-profile, actually-study-of-all-human-beings piece on Joshua Bell's incognito violin performance in Washington. This article was thought-provoking and brilliant at every turn and I have practically no criticisms of it, and the ones I have are petty. Gene Weingarten knocked this one out of the park.
From the lead, I was gripped. It gives a little bit away without revealing the whole picture, but it manages to do so in a way that isn't just annoyingly cryptic, something some articles that try this method are guilty of doing. It kept me intrigued while it revealed pieces of the picture. It even got to the nut graf – paragraph three, by my estimation – before it revealed who the violinist was. And you know what? It didn't matter to me. I was so sold on the article that I was willing to let it take me wherever it wanted to, even considering its rather mammoth length, which, far from bothering me, left me wanting even more.
Structurally, I liked how it was broken into segments based on different people from the video and the ways they reacted to Bell's performance. It kept the sections brief and the reading interesting and varied, and I think the structure was a big contributor to how short the story felt even when it was actually quite long. Not much to say other than that the author used structure to his advantage in a big way.
If I have any complaint, it's that the ending is a little forced and even borderline promotional. There didn't need to be some tie-up to this story about Bell, because the story isn't about Bell. I don't care that he's coming back to the States to accept an award, because this story is more about the way people react to staggering works of genius (sorry, I know Bell wouldn't approve) when they're out of context, not about this particular violinist. Such a minor complaint, though. I absolutely loved this story.
From the lead, I was gripped. It gives a little bit away without revealing the whole picture, but it manages to do so in a way that isn't just annoyingly cryptic, something some articles that try this method are guilty of doing. It kept me intrigued while it revealed pieces of the picture. It even got to the nut graf – paragraph three, by my estimation – before it revealed who the violinist was. And you know what? It didn't matter to me. I was so sold on the article that I was willing to let it take me wherever it wanted to, even considering its rather mammoth length, which, far from bothering me, left me wanting even more.
Structurally, I liked how it was broken into segments based on different people from the video and the ways they reacted to Bell's performance. It kept the sections brief and the reading interesting and varied, and I think the structure was a big contributor to how short the story felt even when it was actually quite long. Not much to say other than that the author used structure to his advantage in a big way.
If I have any complaint, it's that the ending is a little forced and even borderline promotional. There didn't need to be some tie-up to this story about Bell, because the story isn't about Bell. I don't care that he's coming back to the States to accept an award, because this story is more about the way people react to staggering works of genius (sorry, I know Bell wouldn't approve) when they're out of context, not about this particular violinist. Such a minor complaint, though. I absolutely loved this story.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Courage of Detroit response
Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but I thought this article was basically a trainwreck. I like stories about tortured sports franchises and about standing fast in support of your hometown and all that jazz, but the writer inserted himself into the story so much that this was just a painful reading experience.
I thought the anecdote about getting Barry Sanders, Steve Yzerman, Cecil Fielder and Joe Dumars together was cool, but then it spiraled into a commentary about how players from other cities wouldn't be so humble together. Umm, really? Evidence? The chip on the writer's shoulder as a Detroit resident was so prevalent and annoying that the piece suffered under its own weight.
Structurally, I thought the lead was promising, and when the author started bringing in the "we" and "our" bits I thought he would keep it up for a couple paragraphs at most, and that it would be effective as a result. Instead, the entire thing was done in this kind of overdramatized, us-against-the-world love letter format. There was parallel structure throughout the piece, at the very least, but it wasn't particularly engaging and actually enraged me.
Interestingly, there was an article done by ESPN after LeBron left Cleveland that was similar in tone and subject but infinitely better. Here's the link if you haven't read it: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=101201/Cleveland
I thought the anecdote about getting Barry Sanders, Steve Yzerman, Cecil Fielder and Joe Dumars together was cool, but then it spiraled into a commentary about how players from other cities wouldn't be so humble together. Umm, really? Evidence? The chip on the writer's shoulder as a Detroit resident was so prevalent and annoying that the piece suffered under its own weight.
Structurally, I thought the lead was promising, and when the author started bringing in the "we" and "our" bits I thought he would keep it up for a couple paragraphs at most, and that it would be effective as a result. Instead, the entire thing was done in this kind of overdramatized, us-against-the-world love letter format. There was parallel structure throughout the piece, at the very least, but it wasn't particularly engaging and actually enraged me.
Interestingly, there was an article done by ESPN after LeBron left Cleveland that was similar in tone and subject but infinitely better. Here's the link if you haven't read it: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=101201/Cleveland
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Interview questions - Story 2
Since all of my sources are at some level involved in the production of extreme music fanzines, and since this is a how-to and I'd like to gather insights from all of my sources on similar topics, I can ask them basically the same across the board. Here are some that I'm thinking about using:
1) What was the height of fanzine relevance? Are we anywhere near that today?
2) Why do people continue to make print fanzines in the age of the Internet?
3) What are the technical and physical considerations that one must take when publishing a fanzine? Paper, printing press, distribution, writers, contact with bands, etc.
4) Fanzines are the most democratic form of music journalism, eliminating the idea that it has to be done by "real journalists." Who do you think that style appeals to, and why do you think it appeals to them?
5) How narrow of a focus does a fanzine need? Is it dictated solely by the personal tastes of the person publishing it?
6) Why has fanzine culture gravitated toward extreme and underground forms of music? Is it sheer necessity, or do you feel that those bands that fanzines cover share a certain ethic with the zines themselves?
7) The people at a magazine like Terrorizer or Decibel are obviously fans of the music that they cover. What makes your publication a fanzine and theirs not one?
8) What is the process of securing paper and a publisher/press? Does that come before or after the collection of content?
9) How do you get in touch with bands? For those who published zines before the Internet, how was reaching bands different then?
10) Are there legal or copyright issues in interviewing bands and publishing the material alongside photos without a company behind you?
11) How do bands react to being approached for fanzine interviews? Do they differentiate between doing press for a zine with a tiny circulation and an article that's going to show up on one of the major metal sites, for example?
12) (For the zine publishers whose works have been compiled through Bazillion Points) What was it like going through a for-profit publishing house when the ethos of fanzines was so fiercely DIY? How did you decide that granting them permission to publish your zines was the right choice?
More will undoubtedly come up as I start to build the backbone for the article but I think these are a good start.
1) What was the height of fanzine relevance? Are we anywhere near that today?
2) Why do people continue to make print fanzines in the age of the Internet?
3) What are the technical and physical considerations that one must take when publishing a fanzine? Paper, printing press, distribution, writers, contact with bands, etc.
4) Fanzines are the most democratic form of music journalism, eliminating the idea that it has to be done by "real journalists." Who do you think that style appeals to, and why do you think it appeals to them?
5) How narrow of a focus does a fanzine need? Is it dictated solely by the personal tastes of the person publishing it?
6) Why has fanzine culture gravitated toward extreme and underground forms of music? Is it sheer necessity, or do you feel that those bands that fanzines cover share a certain ethic with the zines themselves?
7) The people at a magazine like Terrorizer or Decibel are obviously fans of the music that they cover. What makes your publication a fanzine and theirs not one?
8) What is the process of securing paper and a publisher/press? Does that come before or after the collection of content?
9) How do you get in touch with bands? For those who published zines before the Internet, how was reaching bands different then?
10) Are there legal or copyright issues in interviewing bands and publishing the material alongside photos without a company behind you?
11) How do bands react to being approached for fanzine interviews? Do they differentiate between doing press for a zine with a tiny circulation and an article that's going to show up on one of the major metal sites, for example?
12) (For the zine publishers whose works have been compiled through Bazillion Points) What was it like going through a for-profit publishing house when the ethos of fanzines was so fiercely DIY? How did you decide that granting them permission to publish your zines was the right choice?
More will undoubtedly come up as I start to build the backbone for the article but I think these are a good start.
Drinking Games response
The Malcolm Gladwell article we read for today's class was a pretty significant departure from a lot of what we've been reading. While there are quotes that were gathered from reporting, the article reads a lot more like a simplification of an anthropology journal than a true magazine story. Indeed, the sources are all academics, and their work has been (presumably) dumbed down considerably so that average Joe readers of Malcolm Gladwell's website can understand their conclusions. It's a riveting story, but I wouldn't particularly say that that's Gladwell's doing.
The lead is a scene of Professor Dwight Heath, then a Yale graduate student, finding out that he'd be doing his anthropology research in Bolivia. This sets up the first conveniently numbered section of the article, which takes place entirely in Bolivia and back in New Haven while going over research specifically acquired in Bolivia.
The numbered sections make it every easy to pick apart the structure of the article. The second section deals with a reconsideration of the definition of "alcoholism" and the changing research on the effects of booze. The third section deals with different reactions people have to alcohol and how the standard assumptions are likely false. The fourth section draws out the contrast between different societies of drinkers – namely the Bolivian boozers who drink lab-grade alcohol every weekend and the Italian Americans who drink every day in moderation. The fifth section tries to make sense of all the anecdotes and research that have been presented and closes on a somewhat awkward kicker recapping a Coors Light commercial that saddens Gladwell in its simplicity.
While the article is easy to understand and dissect, and gracefully written, I wasn't terribly impressed by the reporting itself. It's one thing to interview experts, and it's another to paraphrase their findings. Gladwell is undoubtedly a genius, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a great journalist.
The lead is a scene of Professor Dwight Heath, then a Yale graduate student, finding out that he'd be doing his anthropology research in Bolivia. This sets up the first conveniently numbered section of the article, which takes place entirely in Bolivia and back in New Haven while going over research specifically acquired in Bolivia.
The numbered sections make it every easy to pick apart the structure of the article. The second section deals with a reconsideration of the definition of "alcoholism" and the changing research on the effects of booze. The third section deals with different reactions people have to alcohol and how the standard assumptions are likely false. The fourth section draws out the contrast between different societies of drinkers – namely the Bolivian boozers who drink lab-grade alcohol every weekend and the Italian Americans who drink every day in moderation. The fifth section tries to make sense of all the anecdotes and research that have been presented and closes on a somewhat awkward kicker recapping a Coors Light commercial that saddens Gladwell in its simplicity.
While the article is easy to understand and dissect, and gracefully written, I wasn't terribly impressed by the reporting itself. It's one thing to interview experts, and it's another to paraphrase their findings. Gladwell is undoubtedly a genius, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a great journalist.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The End of Men response
The Atlantic's "The End of Men" is one of the longest and most powerful pieces we've read. Not powerful in the same sense as "The Peekaboo Paradox" or "Can You Say Hero?", but merely staggering in its scope, its presentation of facts, and its workmanlike (workwomanlike?) style. It's clearly a trend piece, but it has a lot more oomph than the Gideon Bible piece we read for Tuesday, partly because of its length but more so because of its content.
The lead is both a scene-setting/anecdotal lead but also a historical one. It doesn't put us right there with the sperm racing each other in the present tense, but it provides enough color that the summary is fleshed out enough to be interesting and entertaining. It also lets us meet the cowboy biologist and we really get to know him through the descriptions and quotes we're offered.
The nut graf is a bit ambiguous to me but seems to come in the 8th paragraph, starting with "Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind." This paragraph gets at the broader heart of the matter than any of the anecdotal grafs before it. It explains the broader societal shifts toward a preference for females and, more importantly, why that shift has begun. If I can roll the 9th paragraph in with it, you have pretty much all of the information that the article will expand upon.
The rest of the article's incredible length expands on the trend and points to numerous examples and ways in which women are perhaps the better-off sex in today's world and the world of the future. It intersperses this by taking us into scenes -- the men's support group, the community college, the sorority house -- but it keeps hitting us with more facts and figures as well. It creates an almost exhausting feel, not because the material is boring but because there's just so much overwhelming evidence (at least in this reporter's estimation, we don't hear much from studies done to prove the opposite) that women are the gender of forever and that men need to pull their acts together.
The style remains consistent throughout, but it's worth noting the revisiting of the lead towards the end. At this point in the reporter's arguments, the cowboy rogue seems so radically out of step with the world that his reintroduction, and the reporter calls attention to that. The kicker is as humorous as it is harrowing -- or maybe that's my testosterone speaking.
The lead is both a scene-setting/anecdotal lead but also a historical one. It doesn't put us right there with the sperm racing each other in the present tense, but it provides enough color that the summary is fleshed out enough to be interesting and entertaining. It also lets us meet the cowboy biologist and we really get to know him through the descriptions and quotes we're offered.
The nut graf is a bit ambiguous to me but seems to come in the 8th paragraph, starting with "Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind." This paragraph gets at the broader heart of the matter than any of the anecdotal grafs before it. It explains the broader societal shifts toward a preference for females and, more importantly, why that shift has begun. If I can roll the 9th paragraph in with it, you have pretty much all of the information that the article will expand upon.
The rest of the article's incredible length expands on the trend and points to numerous examples and ways in which women are perhaps the better-off sex in today's world and the world of the future. It intersperses this by taking us into scenes -- the men's support group, the community college, the sorority house -- but it keeps hitting us with more facts and figures as well. It creates an almost exhausting feel, not because the material is boring but because there's just so much overwhelming evidence (at least in this reporter's estimation, we don't hear much from studies done to prove the opposite) that women are the gender of forever and that men need to pull their acts together.
The style remains consistent throughout, but it's worth noting the revisiting of the lead towards the end. At this point in the reporter's arguments, the cowboy rogue seems so radically out of step with the world that his reintroduction, and the reporter calls attention to that. The kicker is as humorous as it is harrowing -- or maybe that's my testosterone speaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)