Hunting+-+II+AN

Alex Nowicki

“What they were hunting for – II”

Eureka! I finally figured out how John Mcphee constructs his articles. First of all, he finds a subject, often an obscure one, that in one way or another interests him. He takes that subject matter and begins his research, talking to people with knowledge of the subject or anyone remotely involved in the particular situation. This kind of research is typical for news journalists, but McPhee takes it one step further by thoroughly searching into the far reaches of the subject’s history. With this sea of information he crafts his article.

In many cases, McPhee begins with a historical background of the subject. Often times, the subject is unclear till much later in the article. The stories, people and facts McPhee writes about help the readers understand the context from which the subject derives.

Although the gut reaction most readers would have when reading a bunch of historical mumbo jumbo would be confusion, annoyance, and a desire to get to the crux of the article, the context that is describes is necessary for someone to actually understand the issue. Without it, yes you would comprehend what’s happening but not why it’s happening.

“What we were hunting for”, for example, is an article examining the proposed relocation of Alaskan capital during the seventies. The first few pages of the article are dedicated to the founding of Alaska’s current capital, Juneau. The way McPhee presents this is through the stories of the two bumbling prospectors, Richard Harris and Joe Juneau (who the capital was named after) who ‘discovered’ gold (were lead to it by Native American guides) in the area of modern day Juneau.

Throughout the article, McPhee reuses this device, by bringing to life varied characters that all play a part in Alaska’s history of the proposed relocation of the capital. From Willie Hensley, chairman of the Capital Site Selection Committee, to John Leifer, an ex-air taxi pilot turned real estate salesman, we get a wide view of the interested parties and what the change could mean to all of them.

McPhee seems to have no opinion to whether the capital should be moved or not. I think he is more interested in the process than the end result. He does, however, let us know what he thinks of some of the people in the article. For example, Juneau’s senator, who vehemently opposes the move to the more densely populated area of Anchorage, is telling McPhee how Juneau’s climate is not as bad as it is perceived.

“‘... There are some tourists. But frankly, what are you going to do for tourists in the winter time when the God-damned Taku wind is blowing fifty miles an hour and the wind chill factor is sixty below?’

‘Not to mention the rain.’

‘People make too much of the God-damned rain. There’s more than average, but you kind of like it. It keeps you alert.’

The Senator stood shook hands warmly, said he was sorry he had to go but he had a plane to catch, put on his coat, went to the airport, and flew to an apartment he maintains in Torremolinos, on the Costa del Sol, of Spain.” (McPhee p.56)

Mcphee also spends quite a bit of time describing the geology of Alaska. He discusses things like the arability of the soil, the unique qualities the climate transmits to agriculture, such as very sweet potatoes. Glaciers and the Ice age also have a few paragraphs to explain them.

Overall this is a very large article, numbering 32 pages with advertisements. It is also the second part of a two part article, so I missed the first instalment. I am not sure how consequential having read the first one is to the overall understanding of the piece, but I think I understood everything that was meant to be understood.