This profile hits it. We see a public figure in private--tooling around his home, ferociously reading paperbacks, struggling with his genius. I appreciate the reportage because Gorney clearly spent lots of time with Geisel or at least asked the right questions. I found myself asking 'how did she find that out?' and yet also being surprised that I would ask that, because the piece flowed so seamlessly.
I think this piece, too, exhibited the power of narrative journalism in its use of fiction elements to create, scene, structure, place, etc. I LOVE the lede; it says so much about Geisel's process and about the inner workings of his mind, but we also get direct dialogue. We get action and we get humor. I think its incredibly engaging. That action continues as Gorney paints scenes for us. Structurally, the piece flows, but also mimicks the slowed down pace of Geisel's own life. As a reader, I never felt rushed or anxious. I simply saw Geisel in a number of montaged scenes, created very cinematically. I admired, too, the finesse of physical description in the piece and the use of eye sight to highlight the genius.
For this reason, I liked the return in the end. But I am not sure this was the most effective ending. I felt like the piece didn't have the emotional climax I wanted to. It seemed to be more of a 'throw-away' ending and I thought a stronger cadence would have been better.
Overall though, this profile truly represents the artistry of narrative journalism. It just makes me want to get to know people even more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I loved the lede because it grounds the reader, who may have presumptions about Seuss's frivolity, in the depth and seriousness of the man and what he's up to. Then she lets it go. It's not a heavy piece, but it's not frivolous, either.
What other ending would have been more satisfying?
This text is priceless. How can I find out more?
Here is my webpage: free sat from sky viewing card
Post a Comment