What do you think?
Rate this book
The New New Journalism: Conversations with America's Best Nonfiction Writers on Their Craft
Forty years after Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson, and Gay Talese launched the New Journalism movement, Robert S. Boynton sits down with nineteen practitioners of what he calls the New New Journalism to discuss their methods, writings and careers.
The New New Journalists are first and foremost brilliant reporters who immerse themselves completely in their subjects. Jon Krakauer accompanies a mountaineering expedition to Everest. Ted Conover works for nearly a year as a prison guard. Susan Orlean follows orchid fanciers to reveal an obsessive subculture few knew existed. Adrian Nicole LeBlanc spends nearly a decade reporting on a family in the South Bronx. And like their muckraking early twentieth-century precursors, they are drawn to the most pressing issues of the Alex Kotlowitz, Leon Dash, and William Finnegan to race and class; Ron Rosenbaum to the problem of evil; Michael Lewis to boom-and-bust economies; Richard Ben Cramer to the nitty gritty of politics. How do they do it? In these interviews, they reveal the techniques and inspirations behind their acclaimed works, from their felt-tip pens, tape recorders, long car rides, and assumed identities; to their intimate understanding of the way a truly great story unfolds.
Interviews
Gay Talese
Jane Kramer
Calvin Trillin
Richard Ben Cramer
Ted Conover
Alex Kotlowitz
Richard Preston
William Langewiesche
Eric Schlosser
Leon Dash
William Finnegan
Jonathan Harr
Jon Krakauer
Adrian Nicole LeBlanc
Michael Lewis
Susan Orlean
Ron Rosenbaum
Lawrence Weschler
Lawrence Wright
The New New Journalists are first and foremost brilliant reporters who immerse themselves completely in their subjects. Jon Krakauer accompanies a mountaineering expedition to Everest. Ted Conover works for nearly a year as a prison guard. Susan Orlean follows orchid fanciers to reveal an obsessive subculture few knew existed. Adrian Nicole LeBlanc spends nearly a decade reporting on a family in the South Bronx. And like their muckraking early twentieth-century precursors, they are drawn to the most pressing issues of the Alex Kotlowitz, Leon Dash, and William Finnegan to race and class; Ron Rosenbaum to the problem of evil; Michael Lewis to boom-and-bust economies; Richard Ben Cramer to the nitty gritty of politics. How do they do it? In these interviews, they reveal the techniques and inspirations behind their acclaimed works, from their felt-tip pens, tape recorders, long car rides, and assumed identities; to their intimate understanding of the way a truly great story unfolds.
Interviews
Gay Talese
Jane Kramer
Calvin Trillin
Richard Ben Cramer
Ted Conover
Alex Kotlowitz
Richard Preston
William Langewiesche
Eric Schlosser
Leon Dash
William Finnegan
Jonathan Harr
Jon Krakauer
Adrian Nicole LeBlanc
Michael Lewis
Susan Orlean
Ron Rosenbaum
Lawrence Weschler
Lawrence Wright
496 pages, Paperback
First published March 8, 2005
106 people are currently reading
1,827 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
February 3, 2012
Before purchasing this book on the Kindle, I read through several reviews which were very critical of the setup of the book: Q&A with an author, and in many cases, the book editor (R. Boyton) asking the same exact questions to each author. Apparently, many reviewers found it boring.
I, as a writer, however found the content fascinating as each of the featured writers provided honest answers about those same questions: organizing reams of handwritten notes, when and how they each write best, whether to write a book or magazine article, taking out the reporter's notebook or letting an interview be a conversation, their approach to subjects and how they got access to characters and sources -- all the practical nuances of the writing profession.
For example, Ted Conover gives details of how he gained employment as a NYState prison guard, took copious notes each night, and a year later used the material from his double life for a book.
I like Michael Lewis' approach, when asked how to pace himself while immersing so deeply in a subject and a source's life: "I'm careful to under-stay my welcome. I'll sometimes leave, even when I have a chance to be with someone I'm writing about. I've found that it alleviates a subject's anxiety if I show him that I have a life, too."
Jon Krakauer gives the down and dirty explaining, "essentially, I grab a shovel and start digging hard, for a long time," referring to his painstaking homework for "Under the Banner of Heaven." He says he spent three years researching before he even began to write. Additionally, his digging included trial transcripts, which he purchased, to refer to authentic and accurate information. He goes on to defend his decisions to pay sources for material: "I grow impatient with smug, self-righteous reporters who refuse to consider the subjects' side of the argument simply because these reporters were taught in J-school that subjects should never, ever be paid."
Krakauer continues about the writing profession: "The journalist never has any intention of telling the story your subject wants told. Your job is to tell the story as you see it."
My one critique is that the book features only four women writers (out of 19) and should include a chapter with Barbara Ehrenrich, who totally immersed herself in her topic to write "Nickel and Dimed."
I, as a writer, however found the content fascinating as each of the featured writers provided honest answers about those same questions: organizing reams of handwritten notes, when and how they each write best, whether to write a book or magazine article, taking out the reporter's notebook or letting an interview be a conversation, their approach to subjects and how they got access to characters and sources -- all the practical nuances of the writing profession.
For example, Ted Conover gives details of how he gained employment as a NYState prison guard, took copious notes each night, and a year later used the material from his double life for a book.
I like Michael Lewis' approach, when asked how to pace himself while immersing so deeply in a subject and a source's life: "I'm careful to under-stay my welcome. I'll sometimes leave, even when I have a chance to be with someone I'm writing about. I've found that it alleviates a subject's anxiety if I show him that I have a life, too."
Jon Krakauer gives the down and dirty explaining, "essentially, I grab a shovel and start digging hard, for a long time," referring to his painstaking homework for "Under the Banner of Heaven." He says he spent three years researching before he even began to write. Additionally, his digging included trial transcripts, which he purchased, to refer to authentic and accurate information. He goes on to defend his decisions to pay sources for material: "I grow impatient with smug, self-righteous reporters who refuse to consider the subjects' side of the argument simply because these reporters were taught in J-school that subjects should never, ever be paid."
Krakauer continues about the writing profession: "The journalist never has any intention of telling the story your subject wants told. Your job is to tell the story as you see it."
My one critique is that the book features only four women writers (out of 19) and should include a chapter with Barbara Ehrenrich, who totally immersed herself in her topic to write "Nickel and Dimed."
June 1, 2015
This was a little dated (2005!) and so of course all the interviews dealt with these writers' older works. So craft and influence questions were the most valuable. There were only 3 women included (Susan Orlean, Jane Kramer, and Adrian Leblanc) and the alphabetical ordering of the interviews meant I'd read almost 200 pages before hearing a female voice. [I'm used to the alphabetical ordering of the annual Best American Essays, which sometimes leads to serendipitiously provocative juxtapositions. But here I thought some editorial choices regarding order would have better illuminated the contradictions and common/disparate themes of the writers' work.]
I hadn't realized I was starting a 500-page book when I began the Kindle version. I grew a little bored by the same questions asked of each writer, in the same order ("Are you interested in writing about a celebrity?" No- duh!). Some interviews were great, but mainly due to the writer's individuality showing forth, not because of Boynton's questions. Especially fine: Conover, Kotlowitz, Krakauer, Rosenbaum, Schlosser, and the inimitable Lawrence Weschler. Also to-read: Telling True Stories and The Gang That Wouldn't Write Straight.
I hadn't realized I was starting a 500-page book when I began the Kindle version. I grew a little bored by the same questions asked of each writer, in the same order ("Are you interested in writing about a celebrity?" No- duh!). Some interviews were great, but mainly due to the writer's individuality showing forth, not because of Boynton's questions. Especially fine: Conover, Kotlowitz, Krakauer, Rosenbaum, Schlosser, and the inimitable Lawrence Weschler. Also to-read: Telling True Stories and The Gang That Wouldn't Write Straight.
August 21, 2013
Flawed, I think, for not having examples of the actual work of each journalist interviewed. Reading this reminds me of those awful shows and documentaries where comedians sit around and talk about what-is-comedy and what-makes-comedy-work. Which gets old really fast. On the other hand, I'm sure someone looking for pro tips will find more than a few in here.
December 20, 2018
My main impression from this book was “everyone’s process is different, and that’s ok.” Wish there was more variety in the questions, and more women authors included. In any case, it helped me add some new things to my reading list.
September 18, 2019
On the one hand, this is a dated collection of interviews with long-form journalists and nonfiction authors who refer extensively to their fax machines, aversion to email, index cards, and life in the middle-to-late 20th century.
But for a writer seeking to learn from the greats who've come before, regardless of genre or outlet, the interviews are a gold mine of inspiration, affirmation, and technique. It was wonderful to see many of my own tendencies, challenges, and beliefs mirrored in those of the talented authors interviewed here. The amount of highlighting I did in this book alone was what pushed it into the realm of the four stars. And had it been shorter, included more female authors, or been updated, it would have been nearly perfect. As it is, several of the interviews, especially in the first half of the book, make it worth reading. I'm glad I did.
But for a writer seeking to learn from the greats who've come before, regardless of genre or outlet, the interviews are a gold mine of inspiration, affirmation, and technique. It was wonderful to see many of my own tendencies, challenges, and beliefs mirrored in those of the talented authors interviewed here. The amount of highlighting I did in this book alone was what pushed it into the realm of the four stars. And had it been shorter, included more female authors, or been updated, it would have been nearly perfect. As it is, several of the interviews, especially in the first half of the book, make it worth reading. I'm glad I did.
March 2, 2017
I loved this collection of interviews with journalists, which I read across several months. Each question-and-answer transcript is prefaced by an informative, well-written summary of the writer and their most remarkable works. I already knew many of the writers quoted here, and their works, but I think I got something out of every conversation.
None was more satisfying, though, than the Q+A with Richard Ben Cramer, an author who is notable for spending an astounding six years working on 'What It Takes: The Way To The White House'. This is a thousand-page book about the presidential candidates for the 1988 election that was published in 1992, after he had conducted more than one thousand interviews: for instance, he spent a year reporting on the candidates' lives before the campaign, interviewing their friends and family, before he ever stepped onto a campaign bus.
The entire Cramer Q+A is worth the price of admission alone, because his sense of humour really shines through. And I loved this quote of his in its entirety: "A book ought to alter the reader's life, add to the reader's life, in some fundamental way. You have a compact with the reader that if he gives you the time then something will be better for him. His understanding will increase, an emotional satisfaction will ensure, a cathartic experience will take place. A book has to make something happen. A newspaper story informs, a magazine article entertains, and a book has to move you."
There are many other great interviews, including with writers such as Jon Krakauer, Lawrence Wright, Susan Orlean, Gay Talese and Michael Lewis. Ted Conover is here, too, and I think by coupling this book with Conover's 2016 title 'Immersion: A Writer's Guide To Going Deep', any writer will be well-equipped with the wisdom and inspiration required to do the sort of in-depth, long-form writing that I find so appealing. When done well, I think it is among the most pleasurable forms of storytelling known to human expression, and this book showcases the creative process of some of its best practitioners.
None was more satisfying, though, than the Q+A with Richard Ben Cramer, an author who is notable for spending an astounding six years working on 'What It Takes: The Way To The White House'. This is a thousand-page book about the presidential candidates for the 1988 election that was published in 1992, after he had conducted more than one thousand interviews: for instance, he spent a year reporting on the candidates' lives before the campaign, interviewing their friends and family, before he ever stepped onto a campaign bus.
The entire Cramer Q+A is worth the price of admission alone, because his sense of humour really shines through. And I loved this quote of his in its entirety: "A book ought to alter the reader's life, add to the reader's life, in some fundamental way. You have a compact with the reader that if he gives you the time then something will be better for him. His understanding will increase, an emotional satisfaction will ensure, a cathartic experience will take place. A book has to make something happen. A newspaper story informs, a magazine article entertains, and a book has to move you."
There are many other great interviews, including with writers such as Jon Krakauer, Lawrence Wright, Susan Orlean, Gay Talese and Michael Lewis. Ted Conover is here, too, and I think by coupling this book with Conover's 2016 title 'Immersion: A Writer's Guide To Going Deep', any writer will be well-equipped with the wisdom and inspiration required to do the sort of in-depth, long-form writing that I find so appealing. When done well, I think it is among the most pleasurable forms of storytelling known to human expression, and this book showcases the creative process of some of its best practitioners.
March 11, 2014
"New New Journalism" is the practice of spending months or even years hanging around a group of people to come to understand them, then writing it down in a long-form (book or long magazine article) narrative that reads like fiction.
Examples include:
- Ted Conover's "Newjack," where the author works as a prison guard for a year, including experiencing a prison riot, then writes a book about it.
- Richard Ben Cramer's "What It Takes" where he spends years interviewing the friends and family members of presidential candidates.
- Jonathan Harr's "A Civil Action," where he spends four years closely observing an attorney in a toxic contamination case.
Contrasted to other approaches to journalism, new new journalism has much greater depth and intensity. The subjects are usually groups of people not well-understood by the educated middle class: prison guards, politicians, urban poor, migrant workers.
The format was a (dense and somewhat hard-to-follow) introduction, followed by twenty very readable interviews with these authors on their methods and motivations. I enjoyed it, but after about five interviews (~100 pages, a quarter of the book) it started to feel repetitious so I stopped.
Examples include:
- Ted Conover's "Newjack," where the author works as a prison guard for a year, including experiencing a prison riot, then writes a book about it.
- Richard Ben Cramer's "What It Takes" where he spends years interviewing the friends and family members of presidential candidates.
- Jonathan Harr's "A Civil Action," where he spends four years closely observing an attorney in a toxic contamination case.
Contrasted to other approaches to journalism, new new journalism has much greater depth and intensity. The subjects are usually groups of people not well-understood by the educated middle class: prison guards, politicians, urban poor, migrant workers.
The format was a (dense and somewhat hard-to-follow) introduction, followed by twenty very readable interviews with these authors on their methods and motivations. I enjoyed it, but after about five interviews (~100 pages, a quarter of the book) it started to feel repetitious so I stopped.
October 27, 2011
This collection begins as an interesting look into the process of prominent narrative journalists, but it grows old quickly. Each conversation is very similar, with the same questions being answered over and over by different writers (almost as if the editor had sent out a mass email to his Awesome Writers I Know Outlook distribution list). I’d rather know more about the stories themselves—more of an examination of the work with less emphasis on the nitty-gritty process. I don’t really care to know twenty writer’s opinions on using a tape recorder during interviews. They all end up contradicting one another anyway. Everyone has a different writing process, and there’s only so much you can learn from someone else’s. I’d have preferred more anecdotes on the projects they’ve worked on, which would bring the profession to life.
August 1, 2018
This is one of the few books I picked up purely out of curiosity about the "new" new journalism. It turned out to be an excellent book any aspiring writer should read. After presenting a short biography on each author, he asks the same questions of each writer, which allows readers to compare all the writers. It is comforting to know that even these successful writers often struggle with the writing process. By explaining their own writing process, each writer divulges important information to consider when tackling a writing project. Also interesting were their comments on their favorite places to write and their favorite places to interview people. All-in-all this is an inspiring read, filled with good advice. The end result is the feeling that every writer shares certain problems in the creative process. At the same time, every writer is different.
January 28, 2010
Fantastic. An insight into the genius of this genre of journalism.
June 29, 2011
Cheaper than journalism school, with excellent insights about writing and reporting and organizing and dealing with the blues that so often come from devoting oneself to a craft.
May 10, 2023
My favorite writing about writing involves a peek behind the curtain, into an author's process and mindset. Therefore this collection of 19 interviews with journalists and writers who have at any one time been performing at the absolute top of their difficult craft is a gold mine.
This book takes a long time to read well, because each interview is so dense and valuable I'm spending half the time highlighting quotes and the other half adding books to my to-read list.
Many of these writers I'm pleased to say I had read (some of) before, but I'm very pleased to have gotten to know and want to read the rest. There's no misses here.
Some of their habits, approaches, and processes match up with others and some are wholly original and unique to each. It's a veritable masterclass and practical primer for someone considering nonfiction writing and journalism, to understand the vast diversity of formats, outlets, goals, and strategies for writing this way.
In the end, it's all to inform, educate, entertain, and enlighten the reader. That's the experience I felt simply being close to these writers. This book has given me a lifetime of recommendations to read, you can cut to the chase by going here: https://newnewjournalism.com/about.html
But even this meta-writing about writing book is precisely my jam. I love this stuff and suspect you may too.
This book takes a long time to read well, because each interview is so dense and valuable I'm spending half the time highlighting quotes and the other half adding books to my to-read list.
Many of these writers I'm pleased to say I had read (some of) before, but I'm very pleased to have gotten to know and want to read the rest. There's no misses here.
Some of their habits, approaches, and processes match up with others and some are wholly original and unique to each. It's a veritable masterclass and practical primer for someone considering nonfiction writing and journalism, to understand the vast diversity of formats, outlets, goals, and strategies for writing this way.
In the end, it's all to inform, educate, entertain, and enlighten the reader. That's the experience I felt simply being close to these writers. This book has given me a lifetime of recommendations to read, you can cut to the chase by going here: https://newnewjournalism.com/about.html
But even this meta-writing about writing book is precisely my jam. I love this stuff and suspect you may too.
October 23, 2017
This book is a great compilation of interviews with some of the more recent leading literary journalists today. While the book shows a little post-Internet age (originally published in 2005), it tries to weave these writers and reporters into the grand tradition of New Journalism, the term coined in the 60s for the literary style reporting / non-fiction writing of John McPhee, Gay Talese, Tom Wolfe and others.
The book contains some great reporting and writing insights from masters of the craft, like Susan Orlean (The Orchid Thief), Michael Lewis (Moneyball) and Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), and at times feels like a masterclass of literary journalism technique. It drags on a bit towards the end, clocking in at 450+ pages, and I question why the amazing Gay Talese is included, since he clearly belongs as part of the original New Journalism, and that seems odd, considering the title of the book.
Recommended for aspiring literary journalists or writers trying to get into the heads of other great writers.
The book contains some great reporting and writing insights from masters of the craft, like Susan Orlean (The Orchid Thief), Michael Lewis (Moneyball) and Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), and at times feels like a masterclass of literary journalism technique. It drags on a bit towards the end, clocking in at 450+ pages, and I question why the amazing Gay Talese is included, since he clearly belongs as part of the original New Journalism, and that seems odd, considering the title of the book.
Recommended for aspiring literary journalists or writers trying to get into the heads of other great writers.
February 20, 2023
It’s hard to really know how to digest this book as a modern reader teaching a high school journalism class when it was published in 2005. I recognize that my annoyances with the text are rooted in its age. At the same time, I’m not sure if there is really an excuse for there being only two women represented in the entire text. Also, so many of the journalists featured go about journalism in a problematic enough way that it was hard for my high school students to not scoff and judge. I also feel like the setup and organization became repetitive and boring after awhile. I think that journalism was really moving and dynamic when I was studying it back then — why not add pictures? Why not have some multimedia going on? On top of that, the writing before the interview really felt like reading a resume half the time.
It’s not a one star because I do understand that a lot of what I am levying against the book has to do with the time period.
It’s not a one star because I do understand that a lot of what I am levying against the book has to do with the time period.
February 26, 2023
While the grammar was technically all near perfect, the book itself had much to be desired. The sections for each journalist tended to be boring, and even though some of the journalists mentioned were interesting, there were no actual excerpts of the articles that made them rise to fame- not to mention the fact that there were only 3 women in the entire book. The whole thing is about new journalism, but it only talked about the printing aspect of it, and nothing about reporters, reporting, or more live kinds of journalism. All of this, however, could have been semi-dismissed, if it weren't for the fact that the book was just that: a book, with no ode to the journalist aspect it talked about. No pictures, excerpts of articles, or even any kinds of headlines. While this book does introduce the reader to many different journalists that they may not have known of before, it was not nearly as "new, new" as it was advertised.
May 27, 2021
An excellent discussion of the craft of nonfiction storytelling based on interviews with some of America’s best writers / reporters / storytellers.
What is this type of creative nonfiction storytelling?
It is “writing as if reading mattered and reading as if writing mattered,” says Lawrence Weschler. “It is individual, personal, provisional grappling with the sort of themes that start out looking little and become big. That start out seeming inconsequential and end up being about the most important thing in the world. And are carried along by voice, love of language, and love of structure.”
What is this type of creative nonfiction storytelling?
It is “writing as if reading mattered and reading as if writing mattered,” says Lawrence Weschler. “It is individual, personal, provisional grappling with the sort of themes that start out looking little and become big. That start out seeming inconsequential and end up being about the most important thing in the world. And are carried along by voice, love of language, and love of structure.”
October 29, 2024
I’m a sucker for writers interviewing writers about writing. This 21-year-old book from NYU journalism professor Robert Boynton labels that fun, jumpy, immersive style of Tom Wolfe journalism “new journalism” and then calls the 19 writers interviewed here “new new journalists.” But no matter! It’s just a great batch of dense interviews with folks like Michael Lewis, Susan Orlean, and Jon Krakauer. Where do they get their ideas? How do they make connections in interviews? What does an ideal writing day look like? The book’s a bit longwinded (pot, kettle, I know) but it’s perfect for dipping and slipping in and out.
November 19, 2024
Good answer to Wolfe’s The New Journalism from the 70s with a look at how today’s leading literary journalists work, view their work, and view their place in or out of the school of New Journalism.
While Wolfe’s used samples of work to paint a picture of the school, Boynton focuses on reporting, giving a brief recap of the writer’s career and then an in depth interview with common questions asked of each writer.
This paints a great collage of the different ways “it” can be done.
It also leads to an extensive list of new books and writers to read.
While Wolfe’s used samples of work to paint a picture of the school, Boynton focuses on reporting, giving a brief recap of the writer’s career and then an in depth interview with common questions asked of each writer.
This paints a great collage of the different ways “it” can be done.
It also leads to an extensive list of new books and writers to read.
August 27, 2018
Last of the journalism course summer reading. Glad I saved it because by now I'd read work by several of the writers and read about some of the others. At this point, an updated reading list is necessary (last entries from early 2000's) and agree with another Goodreads reviewer who stated that excerpts of the writers' work would be really helpful to see their styles, not just their interview styles...
March 18, 2023
This was really useful for how I'm framing my own research, and I liked how simple and straightforward the questions were. But by the end, I was tired not of the questions repeating but of the people repeating. I get it: they really love John McPhee and Tom Wolfe. It's a white guy's "new new journalism" for sure.
November 29, 2018
I agree with another review that this needed more female journalists, however, as outdated as this book has become, there are lots of great tips that modern journalists can use. I’d love to see this done as the “new new new journalism”.
February 21, 2022
This guy is the head of Literary Reporting at NYU and talking to some of the best contemporary journalists and yet sucks so bad at interviewing.
Worth it though to hear Gay Talese talk about how he takes notes on cut up cardboard shirt-boards he gets from the dry cleaners.
Worth it though to hear Gay Talese talk about how he takes notes on cut up cardboard shirt-boards he gets from the dry cleaners.
December 12, 2023
some great interviews in here. but how can it be the new new journalists when you have 15 cis white men, two white women, and one man of color?
absolutely absurd considering the title and purpose of this book.
absolutely absurd considering the title and purpose of this book.
July 2, 2017
Some interesting tidbits but gets a little repetitive (and even tedious) by the end. That is to say, ironically, it could have used a better editor.
March 15, 2018
3.75 stars
This book is really interesting in many ways, however many things have change in journalism since 2005, so perhaps a new volume would be better.
This book is really interesting in many ways, however many things have change in journalism since 2005, so perhaps a new volume would be better.
April 21, 2020
Insightful and illuminating insights into the thought processes and techniques used by a brand of long-form journalists.
February 24, 2023
more like the POO POO JOURNALISM this book STINKS it SMELLS BAD 0/10 needed more pictures i cant read
Want to read
March 5, 2013Just started this but I'm looking forward to it. Dabbling in freelance writing, I have found it's not so hard to get gigs doing "service pieces," like a cute little 300 word piece on how to help your kid overcome his fear of eating frogs (the kind with added high fructose corn syrup, of course.) But basically, that stuff isn't new work, isn't very interesting to work on (other than to hone one's skills), and it's really just commercial writing (for a corporation, who sells advertising as its real business, and who hires "filler writers" to help entice the boobs to buy the magazines to sell the ads). In short, one gets to feel like a whore, but without the nice outfits. Now real freelancing, to me, would be the stuff this author is writing about -- the intrepid feature writers in New Yorker or Salon or whatever, who get to delve into stuff with meat and style and enlighten people and piss some of them off. Wanting to learn more about that direction, and as such this is a swell place to start. More anon...
August 12, 2009
Posing the same questions to a diverse group of writers and reporters, Robert Boynton captures the devil of the details. Who knew a reporter could come up with so many creative things to do with a tape recorder, from leaving it in your lap to remind talkative teenagers they're on tape, to sending it home with sources for the night for their own "private" confessions. This is a neat way to get the story behind the story. For example, Jon Krakauer says he's happy just to sit around with people for hours because he grew up in a house of women and loved listening to them talk. Also, it lets you get the nut of the story without reading the massive books these writers produce. I get jealous reading about some, who obviously had some legs up in life. Their passion and interest took them where they are, though, and not without plenty of illuminating mistakes.
September 11, 2011
The New New Journalism is an invaluable resource for those who aspire to write narrative nonfiction. It not only serves as an introduction to some of the best voices currently working in the genre, but it also offers a wealth of ideas on how to take a story from its initial idea form to a finished narrative.
There is, perhaps, one important question Boynton’s book does not answer: In today’s changing media environment, how does a young writer who aspires to do this kind of journalism find a viable outlet for his or her work?
You can read my full review at http://danpetrella.wordpress.com
There is, perhaps, one important question Boynton’s book does not answer: In today’s changing media environment, how does a young writer who aspires to do this kind of journalism find a viable outlet for his or her work?
You can read my full review at http://danpetrella.wordpress.com
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews