Who is your favorite feature writer and why? I want you to write a 500-word blog that addresses this. Tell me about your favorite writer, his or her writing style. Why is this person your favorite? What is unique about his or her writing style? The types of stories he or she tells? Give an example or two from his or her writing and explain.Due: January 11 @ 5 p.m.
I'll be honest; I don't do a lot of newspaper or magazine reading. I keep up on the current events of the world through the internet. That's about it. But I put in effort for this assignment—it’s probably about time I looked into what I could potentially be doing out in the real world. And I found a fantastic feature writer. I found Charlie LeDuff.
ReplyDeleteI won’t say he is the greatest writer out there, because I researched into more than one writer, and they are all spectacular in their own way. But what Charlie LeDuff brings to the table that others didn’t (for me, at least) is an element of excitement. Reading his stuff makes me want to be done with school right now so that I can get out there, discover people’s stories, and replicate their world on paper.
LeDuff is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. He has worked for The New York Times and The Detroit News, and currently works on Fox TV’s The Americans with Charlie LeDuff. A lot of his works come from Detroit, where he’s lived most of his life. I think a great writer is someone who finds ways to tell the stories of his or her own home. That’s what LeDuff did when he wrote many of his articles such as A Beating in Detroit and Come See Detroit, America’s Future.
He also travelled, picking up stories as he went. One article in particular captured my attention and held it all the way through the unfolding of the subject’s story. It’s called Dreams in the Dark at the Drive-Through Window, and it’s about a woman named Gloria Castillo. LeDuff paints a picture with his words in the first paragraph, using short, concise sentences and action verbs such as ‘sprawl’ and ‘sizzles’ to describe the setting of a Burger King late at night outside Dallas.
LeDuff is not soft in his account of Mrs. Castillo and her life. He is straight-forward and rather blunt, which adds a bit of a shock factor to his works: “Off a bleak and empty interchange midway through the Dallas sprawl stands a Burger King. It’s past midnight, the rain sizzles on the parking lot blacktop like frying bacon. A young woman is working the lobster shift at the drive-through window. She is overweight and wears pink lipstick.” He makes this woman and her story matter in the way he talks about the struggle she’s gone through to raise two boys she had when she was a teenager and how she’s only ever worked at fast-food joints.
LeDuff tells stories that leave the reader with a sense of melancholy perspective. There is no pretense in his writing, and he doesn’t force his opinion on you. He simply tells it how he sees it. As a reader, it is obvious that he does his research. He asks the right questions, talks to the right people, and compiles the information beautifully into a story that can leave you inspired, disturbed, or thoughtful.
I come from where it’s wet, wild and wonderful: Washington. Despite the constant drizzle or rain, the impenetrable cover of pine trees, or the salty smell of the sea, its home. Naturally, I enjoy reading the Seattle Times, which is how I discovered Ron Judd.
ReplyDeleteRon Judd is a Seattle Times staff columnist and each week he provides the “punch line to the week’s news headlines.” One of the headlines he wrote in November of 2013 read: “Warning: This headline very possibly could be fake.” Who would write something like that? The story told readers about the FBI’s decision to create a fake AP news story to ensnare a Seattle-area bomb-threat. Who writes something like that? A genius, that’s who.
As journalists, we get to open people’s eyes to the world. Judd does just this, but he does more; he enlightens their minds. I love that he has no fears– at least when it comes to his writing. He has no limits, no rules. And whatever rules might exist, he has crafted himself around them. ¬
His lead to a favorite article of mine about being a native Northwesterner reads “Chances are pretty good that everybody is going to hate this.” The article quickly follows saying, “The problem with this risky venture is that Northwesterners, for all their fleece-vested, Subaru-wagon blandness, are actually somewhat complicated. That makes discussing the collective Northwesterner’s soul a lose-lose proposition, bound to offend, befuddle and provoke general unpleasantness.” Judd takes chances. But one of his greatest attributes is that he is real. Being relatable, fresh and bold are some of the few things that makes him stand-out. Judd writes about what people actually do, both pleasant and painful. Judd ends the article without restraint saying, “Remember: Just because we don’t care what you think about us doesn’t mean we won’t listen – if not for serious constructive dialogue, at least for sheer amusement. Our local icons tend to be people who never took life too seriously.”
Like I said, he’s fearless.
He has mastered the art of description by only including details that will enrich his story. In the previously mentioned article, he uses his descriptive powers to do just that. He writes: “A regular diet of trouncing through the snow at Mount Baker, catching surf perch at Kalaloch and dozing in wildflowers at Sunrise – or just knowing that we could – brings perspective, and serves as a powerful common denominator.” His word choice isn’t overly eccentric, nor is it cold. Every one of the Judd’s choices allow the reader to further understand what he wants to portray. His pungent statements help the reader to use all six of their senses. He makes me see the mountains, taste the ocean and hear the patter of the rain on the pavement. Judd is also capable of anticipating the readers’ questions, and desires. I admire such talent, and I
think that it makes for exceptional writing.
Judd’s work makes me reflect about how I see and describe the world compared to how I would like to see and describe it. He makes me a better writer, and in essence, he is just phenomenal.
Choosing a favorite writer was actually really tough for me. Many of my favorite fiction writers inspired me to love storytelling, but I'd say my favorite writer at the moment is Brian Stelter because he epitomized, for me, great storytelling in journalism. He covered media subjects for the New York Times until 2013. He now works for CNN. I like him because he was the first writer who captivated me as I started following the news closely. I was just considering the idea of being a journalist, and his writing inspired me to follow through with it. I felt intimidated with journalistic writing, but the way he wrote sounded—and really was—so simple, yet descriptive. Every time I read his articles I felt sufficiently informed on a subject. I didn’t feel like I had to dissect every other sentence he wrote because each sentence was clear and to the point.
ReplyDeleteFor example, his lead in a story on rising television fees was short (21 words), catchy, intriguing, but still informative. It was a perfect roadmap for the rest of his story. “For a glimpse of how out of control sports bidding wars have become, look no further than your cable television bill.”
Learning about journalism, my professors and other editors have taught me never to use introductory phrases or address the audience with “you,” but for some reason this case, and probably other stories, just rang of his voice.
I think I also admire him because he came to BYU, and I saw and heard in person his journalistic and conversational voice. It sounded consistent to me, even though I didn’t have an actual article he wrote in front of me to compare. All of this taught me how possible, beautiful and understandable it is to write the way you talk. Even more, it taught me that speech and writing can be intelligent yet also conversational and easy to read.
I also like when writers use interesting, strong words like “granddaddy,” “eye-popping,” “shudder” and “mightily expensive.” They show the mood of the people and things Stelter reported on without being pretentious. In fact, they actually make it more personable and enjoyable to read. Every time I write, I struggle to describe without fluffing up a story. I admire writers who can weave in adjectives skillfully enough to make it sound and feel like an actual journalistically well-written story.
I often read stories in the news that are informative and well written, but that aren’t necessarily easy or fun for me to read. It’s easy for me to lose track, with these types of stories, of why I care about whatever subject I’m reading. This definitely isn’t true for all news stories—I’m majoring in journalism because I really like newswriting—but sometimes I feel weary and just want to feel passionate about every story.
Stelter had a way with handling the facts of his stories and presenting them in a logical way in which I could make the connections enough to feel like I was actively reading and learning. This method for discovery made me feel like I was an active consumer of the news, instead of just a passive skimmer. This brought a personal empowerment, which helps me enjoy all of his works.
I’m sure I could find more writers who make me excited about journalism, but Stelters’ subject matter, his precise handling of the facts and conversational tone always enlightened me. His consistency brought me security and drive to be so constantly smart with my writing.
Who is my favorite writer? Now that’s a question I have never thought about. Quite honestly I have had to think about this for quite some time until I had an answer. At first I thought of any writers that I currently follow and there isn’t one. So I began to think of any writers that have had a significant impact on my life. And when I asked myself that the answer was clear. My favorite writer, perhaps a little typical though, is William Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteIt may be odd for a journalism major to say that Shakespeare is his favorite writer (something to be expected of an English major), but I can’t deny what influence he had on me early in my life. I always knew “about” Shakespeare since I can remember, but when I first began performing it was in a production of A Midsummer’s Night Dream. “What the heck does any of this mean?” I asked myself the first time I began reading the script. I may not have fallen in love with his writing at this time, but I did fall in love with acting. So I kept performing throughout the years and Shakespeare plays happened to be heavily involved.
I soon learned in depth about the way he wrote. Perhaps the first thing that intrigued me was the iambic pentameter and how all of his scripts are written in verse. Sometime I have a hard enough time writing a haiku, but Shakespeare wrote his entire plays in poetic form. Of course sometimes he “cheated” by combining two syllables into one such as changing the word “taken” to “ta’en”. But even those are few and far between and still amounted a mass amount of poetic dialogue to be performed and studied for centuries to come.
Another aspect of his writing that admire is his use of paronomasia, a literary play on words. One example is in Hamlet where King Claudius (uncle and now father of Hamlet) sees Hamlet’s depressed condition and says “How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” in which Hamlet responds “Not so, my lord. I am too much in the sun.” At face value Hamlet’s response seems to indicate that he’s simply refuting the King’s statement. But when considering the fact that his father has just died and his Uncle Claudius married his mother; making Hamlet not his nephew but his son. The dialogue can therefore also be read as “I am too much in the son” bringing attention to the idea that Hamlet is less than pleased to have his uncle as his new father. This is just one of many examples of Shakespearean writing that makes you appreciate the cleverness that he put into his plays.
But what makes his writing my favorite is the three-dimensional nature he infuses into his characters. The ability to take fictional characters and give them a living conscience. Take King Lear for example, an King with wealth and power who ends up losing everything including his sanity. In normal storytelling the reader would be taken on a logical road from point to point in understanding exactly how and why he is driven insane. But Shakespeare takes the mind of Lear and shapes the story to give you only an idea of what causes his mental breakdown. Because the audience doesn’t see the exact points of Lear’s insanity they are led to feel just as he does. That is the three dimensional side of Shakespearean characters, once they become completely understandable and exact they become fake. Shakespeare keeps his characters real by making them complicated.
I could go on and on about what makes his writing great, but there is simply too much. Suffice it to say that William Shakespeare is the greatest and writer I know.