Reading John McPhee\u2019s piece on structure then Cece\u2019s response affirmed my initial reaction to McPhee\u2019s piece. As someone who writes frequently and and in great volume, structure has always been my best friend. But I think that journalistic writing specifically often benefits from a lack of structure, or at the very least, the lack of an anticipation for structure. A story should build itself based on the evidence provided \u2014 one shouldn\u2019t \u2018decide\u2019 on a story before seeking out the sources to support it. This is difficult, because by the time I’m interviewing my subjects, I usually have a vague idea on what my final story will look like, and therefore seek out subjects knowing that they would play a certain role in my story. Which isn\u2019t to say that many of the interviews I conduct go exactly as anticipated \u2014 it\u2019s often quite the opposite. But I wonder if McPhee\u2019s understanding of effective structure, like Cece outlined, is only achievable when structure is already presumed before the reporting process begins and merely becomes more visible after the writing process starts. I also disagree with McPhee in that \u2018good structure\u2019 is something that you can learn by reading about structure. I think it\u2019s a muscle you train that gets better at recognizing more effective structures over others \u2014 the best way to learn good structure, I think, is to read pieces with good structure, not read about good structure itself. Also, while I was not a huge fan of McPhee\u2019s prose (which consisted mostly of random, abrupt anecdotes in his time as a writer,) I did appreciate how much emphasis he placed on the importance of the visual. While the bigger question of whether structure is anticipated\/planned afterwards remains unanswered for me, I do believe that organizing your story visually is significantly more helpful than, say, organizing it through text. Flashcards, doodles, and drawings have served me very well in organizing some of my longer works. I enjoyed Rosenthal\u2019s piece for this reason: it visually summarizes some common formats that great writers have used to format their stories. I especially liked the radiolab drawing, which I think is how a lot of great investigative podcasts are structured: starting small then expanding into something much bigger than itself. I thought the New York Times piece we read on Skalnik embodied this structure well \u2014 starting off with a smaller case that initially did not seem related to the key character of the piece, we eventually expand into the subject himself, and the different cases he influenced the rulings for. Of course, knowing these drawings to heart alone will not produce a good story \u2014 the core needs to support the flesh. But once you\u2019ve developed a moderately strong writerly muscle, I think they can be more than helpful.<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Reading John McPhee\u2019s piece on structure then Cece\u2019s response affirmed my initial reaction to McPhee\u2019s piece. As someone who writes frequently and and in great volume, structure has always been my best friend. But I think that journalistic writing specifically often benefits from a lack of structure, or at the very least, the lack of<\/p>\n