Questions

​English 2773 10 April 2010

Here are the questions people wrote on the cards on Wednesday morning. They're in the order in which groups ranked them -- that is, the first five questions were ranked as most immediate, the second five as second, etc. We've discussed the first five; the rest we didn't get to. Respond to at least one (see [|Prompt #25] for more).

How did McPhee become interested in journalism? Has he ever written stories for children? ​ McPhee became interested in journalism at a young age. His teacher encouraged him to continue to write and to start writing at a young age. He always had a love for writing and knew that he was going to always write even if he did have to write celebrity profiles for a while. He started out writing celebrity profiles and eventually he started writing stories. McPhee has never written stories for children and most of his stories appeal to just adults. -- Shannon Billings

In some cases should McPhee be considered a non-fiction writer instead of a journalist? This question is intriguing because it was always my belief that non-fiction and journalism were essentially the same thing (perhaps slightly stylistically different) because both are dealing with topics that the writer has not made up, but is in fact true. Perhaps a better dictinction would be whether or not McPhee is a journalist or a writer of creative non-fiction. The difference between these two lies in the fact that both are using real life facts or events, but one is using a decidedly more creative way to tell the story.--Allyson Gorham

I am a journalism student, and I know one of the biggest style qualities we must follow is an easy flow between paragraphs. Sometimes McPhee follows this rule, sometimes he doesn’t. How does he get away with this? (Going from one topic to another, sometimes confusing his readers). I'd like to answer this one. From my personal experiences with his readings, he in fact does have a flow between paragraphs. We just don't see it. Every (seemingly) random paragraph that he includes in his articles has something to do with the rest of the article, there's a reason he included it in the piece. But unless you know how he thinks/writes, it's difficult to follow the 'flow' of his articles. Maybe starting with his very first piece and reading to the recent ones would help better understand this issue. -- Devika Dadhe

When you’re reading a McPhee article and you know (or think you know) that he has embellished something, does that cause you to question the trustworthiness of the rest of the article?

I don't really know what the asker of this question could be refering to-I can't think of an instance where I've ever thought that McPhee was embellishing something. On the contrary, his pieces seem to be meticulously well-researched. He takes great pains to perform in-depth interviews, by spending several days with his subjects and getting to know them in their "natural habitats." Furthermore, he seems to do extra-curricular research of his own as he becomes engrossed in his topic. I suppose whoever asked the question could be thinking of the detailed, creative way in which McPhee often describes his subjects. However, I do not think he embellishes-I think he is writing his honest impressions. If he uses figurative comparisons (as in Sunken City, with the pavement-carport image) I think that, similarly, he is just trying to make a point. I also agree with the point that Russ made in class-the New Yorker has rigourous fact-checkers to keep their writers honest, anyway. -Katrin MacPhee


 * Okay, I should probably now try to redeem myself. I wasn't going to say anything because I was embarrassed that my question had gone horribly wrong, and I really should have spoken up after it was asked in front of the entire class. So, I'll explain myself now. The class totally misunderstood the question and was definitely interpreted wrong. I don't doubt any of McPhee's facts, and I know about the New Yorker fact-checker. I guess when I wrote the question I was thinking more specifically about "Pieces of the Frame." It just seemed convenient that he would have an example of an experience with a bear and a snake that related so well to the moral of the story. It sounded great when he personalized those experiences, and they're perfect examples (whether they happened or not) to relate to the story, but do you really think they happened? It just seems a little too convenient. That's all I was getting at. His hard facts should not be doubted, but what about his personalized examples? And even if he does make them up, it doesn't make reading McPhee any less enjoyable. It's more like: "That little bugger! He's so full of shit!" - then you smile, and continue reading because you're enjoying it. -- Jody McIntyre **

On the topic of the anecdote about the bear being "convenient," I think the general consensus is that it was anything but. If we all agree that when reading //Pieces of the Frame// the topic changes can be jarring, I don't think we can also call the topic changes convenient. If convenience was McPhee's concern, he could simply have made up any other story, but more closely relate it to Loch Ness. When he puts in a story like the one of the bear, he's making the decision that placing that there is inconvenient, but the meaning is worth it. I guess my question is, if the bear story is fabricated, then why make it a bear, and why set it in a different location? These are very different experiences that have happened in McPhee's life, and finding that common thread and connecting them in his stories is not only harder on the reader, but harder on McPhee while writing it. Also, in the type of writing McPhee is doing, I think that if McPhee made up parts of the story it would not make it less enjoyable, but certainly less valuable. It's fine for a writer of fiction to make up anecdotes to illustrate a point because since every event is purely hypothetical, they can be fairly compared to each other in that manner. In reading fiction the audience enters an agreement that the events haven't actually happened, and they absorb the information accordingly. It would be dishonest of McPhee to tell us of real live people and their search for the Monster, and ask us to judge them in comparison to a "what-if" scenario. The weight of the story of the bear is that he has witnessed this kind of behavior in the past, and sees it operating in the people of Loch Ness. Had the "bear event," or a similar one not happened to McPhee, I don't think as readers we could trust that he has cast Skelton in an accurate light.-- Evan Bower

If McPhee is considered a "literary journalist" then I don't see why it's so hard to believe that he might take a little artistic license if it suits his piece. The little story at the end of Pieces of the Frame, for example, that happened "some months earlier." His kids just happened to witness a snake being killed for no reason in a way which fits perfectly with the point he's trying to make about the Loch Ness monster? Yeah right. Sure they did. And even if I don't believe that actually happened, I don't think it makes the article any less valuable. Hunter S. Thompson wrote these kinds of literary journalism pieces too, and he made stuff up all the time. I don't think that makes it any less valuable. If we should expect everything to be totally truthful and accurate, why not just call it "journalism" instead of "literary journalism?" ... when Evan says "In reading fiction the audience enters an agreement that the events haven't actually happened, and they absorb the information accordingly" .... don't we enter into a similar agreement when reading Hunter S. Thompson, or Tom Wolfe, or Truman Capote, or yes, even John McPhee. I know I do. -- Darcy Cameron.

How has McPhee’s writing evolved and changed through his career? Are there distinct shifts, or periods in his work?

How has McPhee’s life shaped his writing? We know his general interests, but knowing more specifics about the guy could be helpful.

When we read a piece of journalism, how much of our opinion is influenced (either positively or negatively) by our pre-existing opinion of the person who wrote it?

I think the reputation of a writer or anyone communicating a particular idea is one of, if not the major, deciding factor in how our opinion is influenced. If someone with a bad reputation tells you that something is bad or good, you're less likely to form an opinion on that person's word, but if the person is a trusted friend, then it would not take much for the listener to be convinced. In McPhee's case, he comes across as an expert in all he writes about, so at face value his reputation is a good and respected one, making it easier for us to believe what he says, and how he feels. He also has the added reputation attributed to the New Yorker, a magazine held in very high esteem. I think if McPhee wrote for a tabloid news paper his ability to convince would be severely hindered. - - Alex Nowicki

I think this is a good question to ask, especially when thinking about McPhee. McPhee is a well known and respected journalist, and I think his career has shaped the way many people read his articles. Russ mentioned in class once that McPhee is one of the few literary journalists that actually has collections published. Readers recognize McPhee's name. But I don't think this kind of trust is easy to get from an audience. After reading quite a bit of articles by McPhee I've come to understand and trust his style of writing. I may not always know what he's trying to get at, like in "Assembling California II", but I trust that he's leading me somewhere that's worth going.--Emma Smith

McPhee writes these environmental articles, having his voice heard and giving information, but is he actually doing anything about them physically?

This question definitely sparked an interest for me, because I think McPhee is doing something about these issues physically, and this is writing about them. Someone might not think that writing about an issue accomplishes anything, but coming from a journalist, based on my own experience and studies, it does. Writing about issues or subjects no matter what they are, makes people aware of things they would otherwise know nothing about. For example, before this class, I had no idea who McPhee was. I did not know what a "virgin forest" was, I knew nothing about the "Pine Barrens," I knew nothing about "coal trains," I never knew about firewood being sold in New York, and I knew nothing about Templex Fielding, or Arthur Ashe. Thanks to McPhee, I now know what a virgin forest is and how important they are. I now understand how the Mississippi River works, and about the people who have depended on it for survival for centuries. I am not sure if McPhee has been involved in any environmental friendly groups or activities, but I do know that he adresses environmental issues in his own physical way, and this is through writing. Writing is his medium and sometmies it has proven to be the most effective one. Jon Krakauer is a good example of this, and for anyone who has not checked out his writing, his famous story called Into the Wild might ring a bell.--- Brittany Douthwright I absolutely agree with Brittany. Writing about an environment-related topic and making it known to the public can have just as big of an impact. Brittany makes a good point when she lists the things she otherwise would not have known about if not for McPhee. I think we can all agree that McPhee has taught us a few things while reading his articles. It can also be quite empowering reading about the environment and have it affect you a particular way when the writer knows what she or he is doing. I read Carla Gunn's "Amphibian" (she teaches psychology here at STU) and it was absolutely amazing. It made me think about things I hadn't thought of before, and actually made me feel bad that I wasn't doing anything about it. Words are powerful. But, anyway, whoever asked this question probably wasn't implying that McPhee's articles are useless unless he's actually "practicing what he preaches." I'm curious, too; other than writing about the environment, is he //also// helping in other ways? -- Jody McIntyre **

What sets McPhee’s writing as a literary journalist different from that of any other writer in the “Salon” section of the newspaper (for example).

What makes McPhee stand out from any other journalist?

Personally I feel as though John McPhee stand out for he has a novelist way of writing. He keeps things intriguing throughout his articles by mentioning random facts such as in the article "Pieces of the Frame". Through other articles I have read from other journalist, McPhee is the only one that makes me want to keep reading, it as though its a piece of a novel, and I feel that is why his writing style is questioned often. Another thing is, I find McPhee goes much more in-depth when describing an object within his article. My opinion, this question can be asked over and over again, and every person will have there own personal feelings towards it.-Kayla Lawrence

It was mention in an article about McPhee that he doesn’t like to actually write out his articles. So what makes him a writer, why do we think he does what he does, and is still writing at his age now?

Considering the way McPhee broadened my outlook on certain issues, do you think – with the current state of print media – that we have any new space for new writers to reach an audience like the New Yorker provided. I think that the way that print media is staring to decline and internet blogs for example are starting to become the main read information that people do in their daily lives that any type of writing now has become accepted. It used to be that only journalist style that was written for newspapers was consider the only way information was to be passed on, but with the opening of the world wide web people have been given the opportunity to express their views in what ever form the wish. When it comes to the New Yorker I feel that this magazine is not in danger of falling out of print because f the array of styles and information that is present in it. It allows all types of readers the opportunity to find what they like and explore others types of literature that may not be custom to them. This being said I do feel that McPhee has opened up opportunities for other new literary journalists and other out of the box writers the chance to get writing jobs in the form of journalism they like because they have seen though McPhee that there is an audience for this style and that people take it serious. –Andrew Bartlett

What inspired John McPhee to pursue a career in writing? McPhee became interested in journalism and writing stories at a young age. His teacher encouraged him to become a writer. He never gave up on writing even though it took him a while to be able to write stories and write what he wanted to write. He started out writing celebrity profiles. -- Shannon Billings

What sparks McPhee’s ideas for what he writes? --This is a question that came to my mind as well while reading articles by McPhee. He seems to cover every single topic out there, from rivers, rocks and wildlife, to legendary monsters, roadkill and basketball players. I remember Professor Hunt explaining to us in class why it is McPhee has such an array of article topics. He mentioned that McPhee more or less made a list of topics that really interested him when he was young, and now he is tackling that list. I think it is quite an interesting way of writing; imagine sitting down and thinking about everything in the world that sparks your interest at the age of 18 or so, then devoting the rest of your life to writing about every one of those topics! -- Katelyn Mokler --

In the grand scheme of things, what is it that McPhee most wants his readers to learn or “take away” from his writing? I can not speak for all of his articles, but for his ecological articles, maybe he is trying to convey a message about the environment, giving awareness to his large audience base, about what is going on in the world. Some readers/subscribers could also reccommend an article by McPhee to one of their friends and could be like" you have got read this", "Look what he is saying here".. and other such comments could arise, and this approach is also spreading the word about John McPhee's articles and the environment. Again I could be wrong here, but this is just my take on he wants people to get out of his articles.-- Jessica Marr--

Why is McPhee so interested in writing on environmental problems, when he never tells his readers his own point of view on the topic? This is very different than most environmentalist writers because they want people to understand the impact and damage the actions we are making is doing on the planet. I don't know for you, but I really hate being "told" things, and being expected to take them as "truths" without being encouraged by the person who is talking to me to wonder about the other side of the coin. Does anyone have flashbacks of those : "You can't do that, it's wrong!!" "Says who, and why?" " Because I'm your mother, and that's just how things work!"

sort of conversations?

I do.Most of the time, in fact, I prefer racking my brains indefinitely to find a way to challenge those one-sided conversations or texts, rather than saying/thinking "sure. yes. okay." I don't only do this to piss people off (though it seems that is also typical side-effect of active questioning), but to let who's talking to me know that they are not offering information that is sufficiently diversified for me to trust them to tell me these things without further thinking.

I think McPhee finds presenting both sides of an issue without imposing his own opinion on his readers more effective. In a way, I find it's more respectful, and much more of a confident thing to do than to stand and shout on a roof stop, trying to discredit the opponent's views or simply ignoring that they exist.

If I were stuck in a room where awful music was played and I was forced to listen to it without being given a chance to say "well what other kinds of music are out there, this isn't my cup of tea", I don't think it would be more persuasive in making me like it. However, that's sometimes how I feel when I read texts where the writers are very explicit or pushy about what they think is "right". But if I _could_ turn it off and listen to something else, but preferred hearing it for a little bit to be able to form an opinion and compare it to other things... Now we're talking, aren't we?

So overall, I don't think readers need to have an author's opinion or perspective shoved down their throats, to really grasp the impact or damage of something. And since we as readers have to trust that the author is being truthful about things they're telling us, a writer has to trust her readers to be willing to do some thinking for themselves, if showing their views clearly isn't how they want to get their message across to their audience.

You know what? I think this is why McPhee is so interested in writing about environmental issues, even if he does so without revealing his position. Could he be trusting that we're not reading his work to just latch on his opinions (or the opinions of whomever he's profiling) and claiming it as our own position too-- and this, before having spent some serious time thinking about the issue at hand, and after being presented with more than one perspective on the mat ter? -- Andréa (sorry I got a bit lengthy).

While reading some of McPhee’s works I’ve found some that really have no major impact on me. Why does McPhee bother writing some articles that leave the reader feeling indifferent to the topic?

This is an interesting question, and one I've thought a lot about. Ever noticed how when people talk, they sometimes say "Look, (fill in with statement)" -- when what they really are saying is "Listen to me"? I think this is sort of what every writer is saying through their written work, when they write. But the great thing about writing is that what is being said is never abruptly interrupted in itself, even if the reader becomes distracted in reading it. The idea isn't lost like when something is spoken and people move on to other subjects, without ever returning to the thought that was interrupted. It's printed black on white, for all to see.

I've come to think about a piece of writing as a form of stored energy. Reading is the action of transferring that energy to someone else, in a way that can sometimes completely blow your mind. Maybe only every 10th reader really connects with what McPhee has to say about an issue or experience …After all, I think language is a part of the wild. It’s an organic process just like the Virgin Forest's life cycles.

So in a way, I think McPhee bothers to write articles that don't always touch everyone because he thinks he still might reach _someone_ out there. Even if only just one. And because as a writer, he's ready to take the risk of leaving someone indifferent. Additionally, what thrills someone doesn't always thrill others..It's all a very subjective thing, really. I might be very wrong, though. --Andréa.

Why do you think McPhee chooses to write within the context of literary journalism? Is it easiest for him or do you think there is a deeper reason?

Exploitation? McPhee finds people or nature that have been exploited and then explains why? The reasons behind.

Why is Literary Journalism so absent from television? Considering that literature has found its way onto television through TV SHOWS and Movies. Even extended journalistic pieces lack the style and art at this kind of journalism. I welcome opposing arguments on this one but I believe literary journalism does in fact exist. I would consider Discovery channel, Animal Planet, etc. to be examples of literary journalism. I'm not quite sure why I believe the above mentioned channels count as journalism in my head, but that is my way of finding out about the environment. -Devika Dadhe

Like traditional journalism, does environmental journalism have to be unbiased too? Why? I would like to take a stab at this one because if you are directing this question towards Mcphee's writings, he takes pleasure in preserving a delicate balance when writing about the environment. One of the main reasons is to avoid the cliche of social protestor or activist. He goes out of his way to present the unbiased facts, all in an effort for people to take accountability on their own, for their own views based on what they have taken away from reading the various articles. Not everyone feels the same way about the environment and being a dictator on the subject will only attach a negative connotation associated with the name John Mcphee. Writing tends to precede the name the author when it comes to gaining a loyal audience and unfortunately being an activist could be considered a risk in Journalism. Amy Lawson

Is it really o.k. for writers to write about whatever interest them? Or do they (journalists, especially) have an obligation to educate their readers about important issues/events? I think this question is difficult to answer because a lot of people have different points of view of what should fit into each category: non-fiction or journalism. When looking at McPhee specifically, I would say it is safe to say that in most cases McPhee is a journalist, seeking out answers and facts to questions that interest him and the public. However, I was going to label McPhee JUST a journalist but I then started to think about the series he wrote and how many were composed into "novels". When you look at the Oranges series, or the Assembling California series, etc. these are REALLY long pieces but are not long enough- in my opinion- to be considered a novel but are definitely longer than your typical feature in a newspaper or even a magazine. I would consider these series "non-fiction collections" or something to that affect. A journalist who writes in description and a different style doesn't make them less of a journalist but one that looks at his information and subject quite differently. -Joanne Goodall

The only reason I am answering this question is because I am studying to be a journalist, so I think it would be appropriate for me to answer a question regarding the career. The answer is no. A Journalist often times can not write about whatever they want to. It takes years of writing, experience, and skill building to be able to write about what you want if you are working for someone that is. If you are a journalist and want to write a book, this is different. In this case you could probably write about any subject that interests you. If you are working for an editor's newspaper, or a broadcasting firm, they would normally give you a topic to write about, unless you have a story that deserves attention, or is considered to be "news worthy." I have been thinking about this question a lot, and I think McPhee's skills as a writer allows him to go a lot farther with his topics than most journalists. Of course this is if you consider McPhee to be a journalist at all.-- Brittany Douthwright

Is there a particular reason why McPhee chooses to write about the environment?

In the interview I read about McPhee it seems he has a deep fascination with geology and the earth as a whole. I feel like the environment is one of the components of his deeper interests of the earth. He likes to research and explain why certain things have happened in the earths environment and most of them seem to be what humans have been doing to the earth. It could be that he is trying to educate people about our selfish exploitation of the natural resources and how we have changed the earth itself. On the other hand he does talk about purely environmental things like geological surveys and natural diasters such as volcanic eruptions and hurricanes. He doesn't try to explain why these things happen but describe the impacts it has on the environment and the people within it.That is just my perspective! - Jessica Holt

I think that McPhee truly loves the environment and is truly passionate about getting his points across to his readers. In the articles that I have read where McPhee touches base on some type of environmental issue he doesn't always pick a side and try to force his perspectives on the readers, he instead develops both arguments and let's the reader decide for themselves what options are best for the environment. When dealing with the subject of dams McPhee allows plenty of time and option for the readers to decide what side to take. However, all along the way there are suttle hints and suggestions that McPhee does agree with whoever the environmentalist is in that particular article. I believe that if McPhee did not have a strong love and passion for the well being of the world and environment he wouldn't waste his time writing about it. Just my opinion though! - Courtney Fox Who is McPhee writing for? I could be wrong, but it is my impression that McPhee's audience he is writing for are the subscribers to the "New Yorker" magazine, therefore the people and citizens of New York City. But also too some of his articles are published in books and some are also available online, therefore his articles are accessible to pretty much everybody, hence he now has a much larger audience. I am assuming that his audience target is anybody from university students, to middle aged and older adults. Definitely not children or teenagers. Younger people would just not understand the vocabulary and langugage he is speaking in, in his articles, nor would they understand the whole concpet or idea of what they are about. On the other hand, adults may alos not understand some of the language (as some of us already discussed in class), but in one way or another we have the ability to read the article and still get around that and we do understand what he is writing about and the concept of it, even if it takes us a couple times to read it to grasp the concept. This is who he is writing for; the general public who enjoys reading" The New Yorker", journal articles and such articles of the topics McPhee writes about. Going back to the notion of "The New Yorker", magazine, maybe he does not intend to write for citizens of New York, maybe he puts is articles in the magazine because the subject matter which he writes about fits best in this magazine. There could be numerous reasons why he publishes is articles in "The New Yorker" and numerous ideas for who he writes for, this is just my interpretation of who I think he intends to write for. --Jessica Marr-- Two facts:

McPhee is a journalist McPhee often allows bias within his stories

So isn’t hypocritical to teach journalism students to be objective when the best of the best is not objective? I have thought about this many times while reading McPhee as well. I do not understand why he seems to get away with putting subtle biases within his articles. I thought I had the answer at one point. I thought maybe because he just encourages his readers to reach the same conclusion as he did and does not directly state his opinion that maybe that was just a technique of writing. The more I have learned about journalism however, the more I see that this is not the case. --Mackenzie Heckbert

Back to [|main English 2773 site]