RollingStone.com: The Girl Who Tried to Save the World : Politics
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 6/10/2005
5 comments
Liberal Malcontents
We're liberal, and we're malcontent.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Daily News Coverage of Neighborhood Networks
- Meta strikes again
- It's probably too late, but...
- Bush on the ropes?
- Liberal Malcontents
- Reservation about Neighborhood Networks
- Wellstone Action
- Eeeek!!! Katherine Harris to Run for Senate in 2006
- The Bush Economy
- The Mobility Myth - New York Times
5 Comments:
One point leaps out to me, she wasn't trying to save the world, she was trying to help individuals. That about sums up the issue, doesn' it.
I think the mantra, tell the story, works well here as in most of the other posts. Just tell the story. It might not be tight or complete, but it very rarely is. But in telling the story well, you allow other people to pass it along. if you were to abstract the article, it might sound like an anorexic, manic depressive young woman traveled the world helping people less fortunate than herself until she was killed by a random act of violence. But if you tell the story, the descriptors change significantly into a complex if damaged woman who committed to making a difference in many countries purely on the basis of her drive, commitment, and love of life, but you need the examples, the mini stories to really get the sense of her. I am biased, but that is why I like talking to writers; i know the author must have edited out even more that would make us think Marla was special.
Yes I noticed that part about individuals vs. the world in general.
Who are you speaking to when you say, "just tell the story." Are you addressing the writer of the article or the blogger or are you giving advice to unnamed writers in general?
As you point out, though, "just telling the story" gets complicated. It's not just the story, it's the telling of the story that is the writers art. What to leave in, what to leave out--dificult decisions. I found this piece gripping. Like all good writing, I found that I forgot that I was reading and just got propelled forward.
Here's a writer's blog:
http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/
Impy, I couldn't quite understand your comment also.
I was also sucked into the narrative, but felt somehow voyeristic doing so: thinking about this little perky blonde hanging out with middle-aged professional journalists and government hacks. What happened when they got her drunk? How many times does the article mention her physical appearance?
Does mean that the message was muddied, that I'm a pervert, or that the article was enhanced by the details?
my point was that it was a good article and a not so good article. If the point was to portray a complicated person who died for what she might have believed in, then I think the other details were a little gratuitous. They made a big point of the backrubs, etc. but then shift into some really wonderful detail about her tackling a really big issue, civilian casualties. My point about just tell the story is that you need to really figure out what story you want to tell and then stick to it. When you read the article several times, you get the impression that as good as it is, it needed editing and direction. So many times, I wind up saying about the author, "Do you know the story you wanted to tell?" or are you like most college authors, who start one place, get led another and never go back and tighten it up? That was my point. It is about discipline. Poe said every word should contribute to the overall purpose of the piece. So, with all due respect to the wonderful article and its impact, don't you think it could have been much better?
Sometimes there's more than one story and life is more ambiguity than clarity.
Post a Comment
<< Home