Tripping on meth while watching planes fall into the sea in front of the Hotel del Coronado

(Just kidding…a blog about the reading of The Long Fall of One-Eleven Heavy, The Jumping-Off Place, and Methland)

                 The Long Fall of One-Eleven Heavy

The writer, Michael Paterniti, of The
Long Fall of One-Eleven Heavy.
Pic from the internet.

The story starts off extremely descriptive. Sometimes I don’t like introductions that are full of details, but in this story it works for me. In class we talked about how the writer would get such explicit detail on the man and the woman making love. I just re-read the part and I really want to know the answer! Unless he talked directly to them, I don’t know who could’ve told him that “the hair [was] standing on their arms” or how they “clasped tightly—their bodies turning as frigid as the ocean.” It makes the story really interesting and its great detail. But as a student of literary journalism and writing literary pieces, I wonder how he gets the information!

As the story starts I couldn’t tell what was happening but for what I found out what it was about, it’s a great intro! I really feel like I had to read the story slowly, because I was confused at points. Like how he lists random things like, “plans for time together and saving the world, for corralling AIDS and feeding the famine-stricken and family reunions.” What he’s trying to list is the backgrounds of all these different people. They’re all on the same plane heading to the same destination, but for different reasons.

I really liked the paragraph of page 27 about how these people are marked with an invisible X. “There were 229 people who owned cars and houses, slept in beds, had bought clothes and gifts for this trip, some with price tags still on them—and then they were gone.” It’s a powerful sentence that reminds us that in any accident where hundreds or thousands of people die, it’s not only a group of people who die, but it’s each individual who had a life and each individual family was affected and hurt by their death.

This must be a reason, too, why the writer described each person as a feature they had or by their occupation and not their names. That way, it doesn’t get too specific by having characters in the story, but more as each person is looked at as having their own life.

                    The Jumping Off Place

                Before the story started, the background information was really interesting. I found it incredible for people not wanting to report (or maybe not knowing how?) about the depression until years into it. The reporters who were doing coverage on the depression before actually reporting it stood out to me. “Their reporting tended to be about the impoverished, the unemployed, and the underprivileged—exactly the groups that the newspapers wanted to avoid.” I like this sentence because usually if there is ANY story that is worth reporting, if it’s ethical, reporters and journalists will jump all over it. It’s interesting and I wonder why exactly. They didn’t want to admit it was a huge problem? They didn’t want to cover the poor? I do not know.



My cousin and I standing in front of Coronado Beach Hotel
in 2010.

As the story started, it was talking about the Coronado Beach Hotel. I was just there last year and he did a great job explaining the appearance. But why was he talking about it? I thought the story was going to be about people jumping off a bridge because of the hard times. I was having a hard time wondering what was going to happen. Over half way through the story, it takes a turn and finally starts talking about the troubles and how people committed suicide from it. Rather than going to the poorhouse, people had been killing themselves.

What I like about the story is that it unexpectedly takes that turn and readers are surprised at the change of context. Was the writer doing this to signify the unexpected depression? I don’t know why the Coronado Beach Hotel was used. It’s on the west coast, but it didn’t seem to make sense to me.

Readings like these have made me slow down and pay more attention. I enjoy stories that are easy to understand and have a smooth path from start to finish. These readings have challenged my ability to take in stories. I like discussing readings in class because then I can hear stuff about the story that I didn’t pick up while I was reading it the first time.

                   Methland



Reding, left, sits next to a man named Jeffrey Rohrick who
has the same description and story as Rolan Jarvis.
Wondering if he used a different name in his story?
Pic from this article.



                I was really looking forward to reading this book about meth, because I don’t know much about it. It’s something I don’t hear about and I don’t do research to answer questions about it. I’ve seen a few key pictures that stick out to me because I saw them when I was younger in school. As I type, I’m watching a documentary on meth that’s on the tv called American Meth. We’re reading about meth and there’s something very mysterious about it! I really enjoy the style of writing that Nick Reding uses. I think the story moves very nicely and it’s interesting how he talks about his perspective on starting the research. Background information also made it helpful for me.

Someone had mentioned in class that they almost felt sympathetic for these meth users in the town when it first started—I agree. I assumed that the users were just run-down drug addicts, when in reality the change in the economy and their jobs affected them. There was money in producing and selling meth.

The description of people who are introduced in the story is very good. It helps put an image in my head, then when they are mentioned again in the story, I can picture who they are. Some of the facts shared in the book have stuck with me. “Like dioxin, meth residue possesses a unique ability to bind to food, countertops, microwave walls, sink basins, and human lung tissue for days after being synthesized.” When it talks about the high can last for up to 12 hours, it is astonishing.

The story Roland Jarvis stuck with everyone in our class. The imagery was so good. I could see the place, hear the sounds, felt the emotion, etc. He went through a near death experience, and he STILL uses. So far I feel like the book has only scratched the surface of the effects of meth. I can’t wait to read more!



                                           

This is a video for the Montana Meth Project



I looked up more information on the Montana Meth Project and is "a large-scale prevention program aimed at significantly reducing first-time meth use through public service messagin, public policy, and community outreach." It was founded in 2005.



Interviews of Krakauer and Cramer Blog #5

                     Jon Krakauer

                The interview with Jon Krakauer was different than what I expected. He seems extremely intelligent in his interview and it makes me wonder what kind of guy he is. An interesting fact he brought up was that he had never taken any courses on writing or journalism. He read a couple books about it, but other than that, he considers himself a self-taught writer.

A picture of Jon Krakauer from the Internet.

To get story ideas, he says he is always alert in case a story idea pops up. He likes to ask people simple questions and maybe have it lead to a story idea. For example, he asked a cop outside of Colorado City about the place and it was a start to his piece Under the Banner of Heaven. 

I found it really interesting how he describes the main character in his pieces. After reading other writers’ interviews, I would expect his main character to be really interesting and nice. However, he doesn’t look for the nice type of person. He is looking for someone who really sticks out—whether they’re extremely ignorant, have a great sense of humor, etc. He says that a single fascinating personality can make a book.

I always assume that writing comes easily for journalists but as I read interviews, I have found a pattern. They all think that writing is either hard, boring, tedious, etc. Krakauer mentioned that writing a book is so hard and painful. He also says that it demands a huge commitment of time and energy. To be able to write a good book, he says a writer must have talent, be stubborn, and have luck. Even I agree when he says this. Not anyone can be a successful writer that easily. Obviously you need talent, you need to be stubborn and persistent with research and interviewing, and you need to be in the right place at the right time sometimes!

A video of Jon Krakauer on the Oprah Winfrey show.

I learned a lot by this writer. He is wise and he knows what he is talking about. I really enjoyed how he talked about how he’s wanted to pay his subjects for allowing their time and all the information. That is unethical in the journalism world, so a lot of other journalists have gotten angry and have strongly disagreed. I like his point though. Everything he says makes me intimidated, but I still have this desire to read more about him and read his stories.

Other facts about him I found in the interview: He hates interviews in restaurants, would rather go on a long car ride or be at their home with the person. He sends a letter and a piece of his work to people he wants to interview. People have called him an asshole for his piece on the climb on Mt. Everest. He uses a blue fine-point Pilot Precise Rolling Ball pen when taking notes (why on earth did they ask him what kind of writing utensil he uses during interviews?). He believes that even removing 5% of unnecessary material from a book can make it twice as better.

                  Richard Ben Cramer

           I’m starting to read the interview on Cramer and I really enjoy it. He seems like a great writer. In the introduction, it stuck out to me that he takes so long to get a story done. It’s almost comical the way it sounds, because he ends up writing amazing pieces. I love how he describes himself as being hooked to a story. He is able to do these so-called “impossible” stories because of how interested he is in them.

It’s really interesting with his point of view on interviewing candidates in presidential elections. He is able to manipulate them by not interviewing them right away, but rather just “hang out” and wait for the candidate to come to him. He is then on their side of the desk. He doesn’t want to be just another reporter interviewing him with the same questions.

Richard Bem Cramer. Pic from
the Internet.

He uses great techniques when it comes to interviewing. He doesn’t prepare questions, doesn’t use a notebook, and doesn’t ask questions that they’re expecting. He only takes out his notebook when there are important quotes or facts he wants to remember. He doesn’t like using a notebook throughout an interview because he thinks you can’t connect with a person when you rarely look at them and they’re concentrating with their head down in their notebooks. His goal is to be personable and really make them feel comfortable with his presence, allowing them to give a lot of good information.

A sentence stuck out to me in his interview. He says, “The thing is that people want to tell their stories.” I’ve learned this in my class reporting and writing. I’d get so nervous that people wouldn’t want to be interviewed when, in fact, people naturally like it. Something that is different about him compared to the other writers in this book is that he allows the people who he interviewed to read the piece before it is published. If something is wrong about how he said something, he wants to know. I find this to be very respectful and a smart way to avoid backlash.

Other random facts that were interesting: He prefers kitchens over living rooms when interviewing. He likes to take the person he’s interviewing out for dinner, but not ask any questions until the sixth or seventh dinner date. His goal is to write a thousand words a day. He never puts himself in a piece unless he’s involved. He likes to use the “f” word during his interviews.

Interviewing the Interviewers --Blog #4

                Alex Kotlowitz



Let me just first say that The New New Journalism is AWESOME. I really enjoyed how the writer of this book gives a literary journalism piece and background information for each writer. After reading two interviews, it was a great way to see what their point of view is. Our first interview to read was for Mr. Kotlowitz. I really enjoyed reading about him.



Alex Kotlowitz. Photo from Internet.



Something that stuck out to me is how he prepares for the interviews. If he knows he can stay in contact with somebody and see them more than once, he doesn’t prepare any questions. He’d rather see where the interview process goes and not expect where it will take him. If he visits a public figure or a prisoner, he makes sure to have questions prepared, assuming he won’t be able to talk to them again.

I really liked how he said that reporting can be hard for him, especially if he really has to push for an interview, because he is more of a shy person and more reserved. He says it can be difficult to “put himself out there and meet people.” I can relate, because I feel like I’m not shy, but I don’t want it to be an inconvenience for anyone to interview, especially if I have to go back to them for more answers. When people reject you, it’s hard to get back up and keep finding people to interview. It was hard in reporting and writing for me, because a couple occasions I would ask to interview a person and they would say, “Well, what are you interviewing for? Where is this information going to be shown?” Already I felt like I was wasting their time. Kotlowitz does a great job with saying that it’s okay to think that reporting is hard sometimes.



I like what he said about not taping. Even though I have always used a recorder during interviews, he makes a great point. He says that taking notes instead of relying on a tape recorder really forces you to listen, which actually helps and makes it easier to think of the next question.

                   Leon Dash



This was a great interview to pick. After reading it, I checked out one of his pieces of work called When Children Want Children. I really enjoyed his style of writing and how he places himself in his work.  While reading his interview, I felt like he was extremely professional and very independent. He seems genuine and he enjoys his work.



Leon Dash. Photo from Internet.



He starts off by explaining what kind of stories he likes and I like how he says it’s important for him to live among the people he is reporting. When choosing a character to write about, he says he’s looking for somebody who allow Dash to pose a lot of “why?” questions.

He talks about how he usually doesn’t know how much time he’ll need with a person, but he has found that no one really shows their true self until you’ve known them for at least four months. I respect him for the way he says the basic rule to his reporting is to keep a professional distance. He’s very strict about not crossing ethical lines during the interviewing. Another interesting fact was that during his one piece, Rosa Lee, under no circumstance would he give the family money. He knew where the money would probably end up, so no matter what he needed to stick to that.



I noticed something in his interview that I thought wasn’t right. When asked if he shares information about the people he interviews, he said yes. He said that it helped in one situation, when he told a woman he was interviewing about another woman who had told him she was raped, the woman being interviewed gave him information about her rape incident. He thinks sharing information about other people he has interviewed is a strategy to opening up people. I think it’d be more appropriate to start fresh with each individual, instead of saying, “Yeah the last girl I interviewed told me about being raped,” hoping that maybe they’ll talk about their raping (if they even had one).



Similarities between the two writers:

·         They both appreciate the help from their editor.

·         They both know that people don’t let their guard down, or show their true self, until after a few months.

·         They both know the importance of interviews in person versus on the phone and email. It’s more comfortable and a better way to get good responses.



·         They both have had incidences where they would have became too involved with the subject (telling a person what’s right from wrong) and they both knew that wasn’t the responsibility of the reporter to intervene, unless it was a life or death situation.

·         The writers both want to be in the spot of where their reporting from for long-term. They both have moved temporarily to be closer to the subject to really submerse themselves.

Differences:



·         When it comes to “off the record,” Dash still records it, just doesn’t write it. Kotlowitz doesn’t want to know at all, he’ll find another way to find out.

·         While writing the story, Dash gets opinions from friends and his editor. Kotlowitz doesn’t discuss it with anybody until it’s done.

·         When it comes to not using somebody’s name, Dash would rather leave the person out all together. Kotlowitz thinks it’s a good idea to change a name if it protects their privacy.

·         Dash uses a tape recorder, Kotlowitz doesn’t.

·         Dash likes to interview in restaurants, Kotlowitz can’t stand interviews in eating areas.

 

    New York Times Article - Behind the Wheel, Moving Up

                In the Friday New York Times, I found an article that I thought portrayed literary journalism quite well. It starts off with the sentence, "The man whom I shall call J showed up at my friend's apartment one evening. Already, it is starting off with a narrative style. Along with the introduction, he puts dialogue from the character "J." For the next section of the article, he gives background information and history on cars in India.



Siddhartha Deb, writer of Behind
the Wheel, Moving Up.
Photo from Internet.



       The writer then tells the reader about what the conditions are now in India. What I thought made it a good literary piece was how he puts himself in the story and uses "I." As he talks about India and their culture with cars, he is a credible writer because he has gone to India himself. In fact, I researched him and he is from India. He is a novelist, journalist, and associate professor from the New School in New York City.

      Anyway, he ends the article by going back to the apartment, where it started, and ends with a quote from J. What I've learned from reading New York Times articles is that it's hard for me to be interested in articles that I don't know too much about. I honestly had no interest in cars in India (I'm sorry!). It is a really well written article and it allowed me to picture scenes he was describing. I feel like if a person is writing about a different culture, but is part of that culture, I find them more credible. For example, Deb is from India and visits there. I'd rather read an article about India from him then a person born in the United States and has never been there.