Final Learning Synthesis

I Have Read: Travels In Georgia, Pieces of the Frame, Coming Into The Country II, 1839/2003, Reporter at Large: The Atlantic Generating Station, A Reporter at Large: Survival of the Birch Bark Canoe, Letting Subjects Grow

Sitting down to do this learning synthesis, I realized that the biggest impact this course has had on me was getting me to think about being a writer. In doing readings for this class, I’ve become obsessed with the order in which information is presented, the details John McPhee chooses to educate us on, and the language and flow used to keep readers engaged and relaxed. I find myself carrying this over to other classes and other authors as well. I’ve thought a great deal about how to obtain information (particularly through interviewing) and the ethics of how you present that information. I have also spent a lot of time considering genres and the audience you reach according to where you’re published.

It’s hard to pin exactly where the roots are to the things I’ve learned, as my time at STU has had a tendency to join entire semesters under one or two common themes. This last semester, for me, can be summarized as: mediums and both the intentional and unintentional messages communicated to your audience. This course has allowed me to develop my ideas on this more than any other.

John McPhee seems to be a very deliberate writer. Russ has even mentioned in class how painfully slow he works. Because of this knowledge, it is safe to assume that no word or punctuation is ever accidental. This semester I also heard Gordon Downie say on “The Q” that the best thing you could do for him is give his albums “careful consideration.” I had never thought of it before, but a very crucial thing to do when reading is to give the author the benefit of the doubt. Don’t explain something away as accidental. Perhaps you’ll ultimately find too many inconsistencies for a writer to keep that trust, but that should be the criteria for whether or not they’re any good. I have been rewarded by giving McPhee the benefit of the doubt, and I’m now conscious of those times when I become dismissive of an artist and unfairly assume that the impacts on me (the audience) wasn’t carefully weighed. It was through the things said in class and ‘Pieces of The Frame’ that this idea was developed the most.

I am certain McPhee thinks a lot about the way biases arise from the way information is presented and the tone in which it is written. We have wondered why McPhee would be reluctant to be called an “activist” or if he is trying to get any particular message across at all. I have come to believe that his message is that things aren’t as clear cut as we often like to immediately assume they are, and that we should always “seek first to understand.” Nothing made this clearer for me than “The Atlantic Generating Station.” I immediately decided I was against this idea, and I would bet that John McPhee could have predicted this. After reading the article, I’m not so sure. He did a great job explaining the approval, testing, and planning processes. The idea alone brought a lot of funding to some Biological departments as they explored the impacts a floating nuclear plant would have on the marine life. Afterward I felt almost silly for being so quick to judge. From what has been said in class, a lot of other people have experienced this. We read “Travels in Georgia” because the idea of eating road kill seemed disgusting, but now we’ve all questioned how much better growth hormone injected beef really is. Aside from these kind of hooks being an effective technique to engage your readers, it is also a great lesson that our society could use more of.

We have discussed the term “literary journalism” quite often in class but Russ’ chart and the statement that “art is something we do for the sake of art” (or something to that effect) really placed it for me. Journalism is reporting on an event, generally to keep people up to date on what’s happening in the world. Literary Journalism, while possibly still reporting on issues of the time, is self contained. It provides character development for those who may not be familiar with who the person is, and it provides the reader with something that is independent of everything else. It might just be entertainment, it might be a new way of looking at things, or it might be a person with traits we should reflect on; you don’t need to be a geologist, or political buff, or cultural historian to get something out of McPhee’s work, even if it was written 30 years ago.

The existence of "The New Yorker" has also been given a lot of thought. McPhee having a place to publish his work has to be one of (if not the biggest) factor in his career. Every time I look through the big collections at the library I wonder how much longer these mediums are going to last. The internet and the democratization of media is great but where would you go to get funding to write about the strange topics that McPhee chooses? I know I can't bring myself to buy magazines anymore.

Where my personal interest is at the moment, I’ve found myself more interested with the qualities of McPhees writing that would be considered “journalistic.” The technique of going from the “little picture” to the “big picture” is used quite often. It coincided with my intro to Journalism that I took this semester, but the examples found in McPhee were more concrete and useful than I’ve seen anywhere else, particularly in “Coming Into The Country.” McPhee introduces us to Brad Snow and Lilly Allen, he hooks us with their unconventional lifestyle, and then presents us with their battle to keep their camp that is built on crown land. I was involved in the narrative and attached to the characters much like a novel, and by the time their problem comes in, I’m emotionally attached. This is why he is a “literary journalist.” It’s a far more effective way to get me thinking about land ownership and state control over remote areas then reporting on a court case, or some activist’s campaign. This method is extremely effective, and it turns what would have now been an article in some newspapers archive into a piece of art with value in itself, many years after it was written.

The only other thing that has had a big lasting impact has been McPhee’s continuous demonstrations of how important research is. He knows what he’s talking about and always takes the time to get the facts. I have said many times how he must be an amazing interviewer. He gets the information that he needs to develop an in depth character. “Coming into the Country II” really had me thinking about this as he went from people with cabins along the river, to tracking down plane crash victims, to politicians. He must make people feel comfortable and open, another great investigative journalistic technique that I hadn’t given much thought to before. I kind of think McPhee would have liked being a teacher, because he seems to take a joy in sharing interesting bits of information with his readers. It seems risky at times but he is a master at constructing the flow of a piece and interjecting bits of history, or background information, right when the reader is susceptible to it. “Survival of the Birch Bark Canoe” loaded me up with a lot of information that I was very excited to be receiving. “1839/2003” as well. I now have a pretty long summer reading list from both of these books.

The last lesson I took from this class was to trust your gut. We threw around the quote from McPhee that says everything he wrote about came from interests before he was 20. He has a very eclectic taste, but whenever he’s interested, we usually can be as well. I believe his genuine interests in what he wrote about came across to his readers and that a writer should never have to look beyond himself to find something that his audience would appreciate.

-Adam

Attempt at Making Up for Missed Time

So I missed class on March 24 when we were suppose to come to class with a writing that we spent 15-20 minutes on. So as an attempt to minimize the damage I figured I'd post something extra here.

The order of the story made a lot more sense with the additional parts. I'm sure everyone agrees. It makes a lot more sense, and is a much more enjoyable story. I posted on what I thought about after reading it without the parts. While I still think my idea is kind of interesting and maybe worth exploring for a writer, rereading the article in it's entirety reminds me of the value good writing can have.

An appropriate flow and personal touch just makes the whole experience more enjoyable. Being jerked around (whether purposely or not)just becomes a distraction and an inconvenience. It's like driving on an extremely bumpy road, at first the novelty is kind of funny and exciting but to travel any long distance just gets annoying. And I trust McPhee has something to tell us.

We've been mentioning lately whether he considers himself an "activist" or not. I can completely believe that he would resent the name or the groups and tactics associated with self proclaimed "activists," but I don't know if I can believe that he isn't writing articles with a purpose in mind. In fact, I don't believe that any writer just writes for the hell of it. Something is written to be read and everything read has an influence. It would be terribly irresponsible to write to a large audience and ignore the inevitability of an impact on them.

That being said, I don't think he subscribes to any ideology or belief blindly, which is an important lesson on its own. Sort of like the article I just read on the floating nuclear power plant. I have no idea if McPhee is in favor of it or not, I don't think that was the point. He detailed an extremely complex procedures that most people never consider, in an easy to understand way. Something you should definitely be aware of before condoning or condemning anything. Failure to do so, I think, is why "environmentalists" and other "activists" have attracted the negative, fanatical stigma that I can see McPhee taking trouble to disassociate himself with.

I good, well structured, leisurely read can have a more lasting impact than something that screams for your whole attention. You can just feel drained and almost invaded by an article that demands the utmost attention to every part. An article that you just read and sort of just submit to, almost forgetting that you're actually reading, is by far the most powerful. I guess it's kind of dangerous too.

I feel like there's pretentious art out there that prides itself on being cryptic and mysterious, but I don't think it lends itself to literature very well (if to anything at all really). While I'm in love with the idea of jolting readers by manipulating their seemingly innate expectations, I by no means think an article can justify itself on those tactics alone. It seems to me that it should just be used as a kind of hook, which I may still think McPhee is doing by fragmenting the article with the story of the captured bear or the vicious natives.

The way you direct your reader is definitely interesting and I'm glad Russ forgot some of the parts when he gave us this exercise.

-Adam

March 22, 10 (Order of a Story)

I've been thinking about the progression of McPhee's articles more than anything else. The exercise we did had me thinking of the different motives a writer could have for deviating from a standard chronological narrative of a story.

The first thing that came to my mind was the way seemingly unrelated stories can still create similar atmospheres. You can create a feeling without following a logical story or argument, or even making any sense at all, that's the danger of language. The sound of a word alone can almost create a relatively predictable effect on someone, and there certainly is value to trying to cultivate certain moods in readers before presenting certain things to them. It's really in line with creating propaganda, but you can set people up so that they fall in a certain direction. Like, some sort of sad story about some cute sea creature suffocating in ocean trash just before laying out the plan for a recycling program that you need funding for. All those NGO's like Greenpeace and Amnesty are masters at this. As well as pretty well all salesmen. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just effective, and kind of scary.

I had thought that McPhee was presenting us with stories that progressed in the intensity of human harshness. The detachment of each section would have people sort of off centered and a little confused/curious about the little sections, and therefore just taking in the atmosphere more than anything else. All while telling a chopped up story of people trying to hunt down a "monster." So he doesn't have to draw the conclusions explicitly, but he still consciously puts you in moods that will likely have you drawing the conclusions that he wanted.

It was a pretty sneaky idea, but I'm certain that it's done quite often, because I do think it would be effective. I really do like the playfulness of interrupting the expectations of readers. I'm sure there's a bunch of different ways that it can be useful. I've only thought of this one so far.

-Adam

Midterm Synthesis

While reading John McPhee, I feel as though I'm learning more about what it takes to be a good writer. The biggest points for me so far have been: well researched, speech like writing, small picture to big picture, and trust in your own interests.

McPhee is fantastic at approaching a subject with an ability to explain it simply. A skill that is only possible if you have a solid grasp on what you're writing about. He accomplishes this by conducting a variety of interviews. It's been through this class that I realized how interviewing is almost like fact creation. In the same way that we constantly have to be citing our sources in academic writing, journalists have to cite other people. The person you choose, and your ability to explain why they're a qualified source that you should trust, is almost more important than the quote you choose to use from them. McPhee knows, not only how to ask good questions but also, who and where to find the right people.

The flow and sound of the words carry a huge impact as well. Like our classic example from "In Virgin Forest" of the use of ",yes," McPhee can write like you would imagine he speaks. I guess this creates a sort of informal, casual atmosphere that allows readers to be receptive. A pretentious tone with any hint of elitism will quickly alienate a large percentage of casual readers, and somehow McPhee is able to avoid doing this, even when talking subjects as seemingly esoteric as geological rock formations.

I've heard that a key point to "Journalistic" writing is the movement from a small picture story to a big picture concept. I'm thinking this is one of the techniques that qualifies McPhee's work as "literary journalism." I'm thinking of the stories in "Coming into the Country." He'll take a specific person and explain his situation, what brought him to Alaska, and what obstacles he's encountering. By doing this he creates a single character that is easier to for us to relate to while actually introducing sweeping ideas and issues that are a concern for a whole community, or as in "Coming into the Country," fundamental tendencies in the collective American consciousness.

I have a hunch that John McPhee is a very confident and self reliant human being. It's the only way that I can understand his willingness to write on such a variety of nontraditional topics. He must just trust his own instincts and interests, and know that if he can find something interesting in some topic that it's just a matter of sharpening your tools as a writer before other people will take interest too. I think it's a good lesson for just about everyone. There are far too many people living in far too enclosed of a culture for us to ever believe that we can be alone in anything we think or feel.

From what I've been learning, this may be my favorite part. Trusting that someone can relate to something you honestly find interesting gives you the confidence to write about the topics that you find rewarding and it pretty well guarantees that you'll never run out of stuff to say. McPhee's prolific career is pretty solid proof of this.

-Adam

Post 3 - Feb 14, 10

This week the class has really helped to get me thinking about interviewing. It's a skill that I don't feel very comfortable with yet, but it's something that I think may be very important.

John McPhee seems to be a master interviewer. He gets such great details and, what feels like, a very thorough understanding of all his characters.

I'm reading "Coming Into The Country" at the moment and I'm wondering how he ever came to meet Brad Snow and Lilly Allen, two people trying to live as naturally as possible in Alaska. The investigative research in this article is great. He comes to understand a local point of a view and the problems they're facing. He then goes on to find his own proof for their argument, which leads him to more interesting people, and they all seem very comfortable to talk to him.

I'm also reading "All The President's Men" for another class, which is partly helping to spike my interest in interviewing. It seems like the act of fact creation. If one person says something, then you can quote it, which can be used to further an argument or opinion. I guess that makes journalism seem pretty shaky, but I think that's the point of cross referencing. One opinion doesn't really mean anything, but if you find that same opinion amongst a bunch of different people, then your argument starts to appear pretty true, or at least worth considering.

You can also use credible sources, but the whole credentials thing seems pretty flawed to me. I don't trust the opinion of someone working in whatever department handles land claims in governments when considering the morality of unused land ownership, even though you would think they'd have the "right" answer. This is the point of the critical liberal arts students, we need our writers to question the source and everything about their position that would influence their opinions, because I don't believe its a very common trait. This is why a PhD or bureaucratic title alone doesn't cut it for me. And so far McPhee has been great at expressing why I should trust, or respect, the sources giving him a lot of his information.

-Adam

Post 2

This week I read "1839/2003" in the December 2003 edition of The New Yorker, and I really liked it.

I found it to be a little long, probably just because of the amount of work I have to catch up on, but McPhee succeeded again to write about things that interest me personally. I'm sure that has something to do with Katelyn Mokler's intro to the article as well.

I think they biggest thing I learned this week (in relation to this class) was a bit about Henry Thoreau. I have always wanted to know more about him but was never able to get very far into "Walden." McPhee has made him out to be a spontaneous, thoughtful writer with a good sense of humor. I've added "Walden" to my reading list again.

It doesn't surprise that Thoreau is probably a bit of a hero to McPhee. They both seem to have a similar blend of scholar and adventurer that easily captivates my attention. I'm looking forward to reading similar stories, but I think for the next reading I'm going to try and deliberately pick something different.

Post 1

I think I’m beginning to get an idea for who John McPhee is and his style of writing. So far, I’m a fan.
I like his well-researched, descriptive style. Whether or not I’m reading it the way McPhee would like, I’m not sure, but I don’t get hung up on the references I’m not familiar with. I like the room to research later if the article interests me.
Aside from the article on geology, everything I’ve read so far appeals to my personal interest, and I still even enjoyed the way the geology article was written.
I’ve also never given “The New Yorker” any thought before this class, but now I’ve subscribed to the website’s RSS feed. Just in time to get a few articles on J.D Salinger actually.

35. "Annals of the Former World: Assembling California -- II." The New Yorker 68:30 (14 September 1992), 44ff.

From the first page of this article, it seems McPhee has taken an interest in geology and befriended a man by the name of Eldridge Moores, from the University of California. It seems to be relatively close to the time when the theory of the tectonic plates was beginning to form. An attempt is made to relate the excitement of finding the same kind of rock in the desert as is found on the ocean floor. In what, I’m beginning to consider, characteristic of McPhee’s writing, he attempts to educate us in what has been going on in the world of geology and some of their discoveries.

This one doesn’t do it for me though. I guess knowing things like the discovery of whale like fossils in the desert and the fact that all the worlds’ continents were united in one massive continent called Pangaea, left these ideas feeling a little stale. It’s a pretty bold task to attempt to make geology interesting to the mass public, and I’m sure McPhee succeeds further on, but for me, tonight, it doesn’t really grab me.

-Adam Hodnett

35. "A Reporter at Large: Survival of the Bark Canoe - I." The New Yorker 51 (24 February 1975), 49-50ff.

In the first page of this article we are introduced to Henri Vaillancourt.A young man of 24 who has already made over 30 birch bark canoes in an obsession that began when he was fifteen.

The first paragraph sets us up with a rough idea of who Henri is.An extremely confident, determined, self reliant man.He makes loose plans to uncertain locations with equipment made on his own, and would be upset if it were any other way.

We then get an idea of attracted Henri to the art of canoe building and are reminded how few people are left who practice the skill.
McPhee effectively expresses Henri's dedication and, without being directly told,we sense that he is probably the master of this art.

John McPhee then goes on to educate us.He is clearly a good interviewer and researcher.We're told of Edwin Tappan Adney, the man who wrote the book that Henri learned from, and we get a few key details of Edwin's biography.Enough to get us interested but still satisfying enough to keep us receptive to the what follows.

We then learn about the different kinds of canoes and a bit about the natives who used them.Unfortunately,I can't really tell how well written this is because I have recently been extremely interested in canoes.For me, it was fascinating.That's part of what I'm liking about John McPhee though.He seems to write in a way that gets at my personal interests in some way or other.Perhaps it's his intuitive understanding of what people find interesting that makes him a good writer.Although, I would have never thought that a story on a man building canoes would be so immediately interesting.He's also very good at finding, and describing, interesting characters.