Is it just me, or does Ann Coulter have the skinniest legs ever??

Posted by at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Inspired by the current Marburg outbreak in Angola, and the fact that I have nothing better to do, I decided to refresh my knowledge on filoviruses by rereading Richard Preston's Hot Zone; a book that looks at how Ebola (a relative of Marburg) came to pay a visit to a Washington D.C. suburb. One of the first pages of this book is a "To the Reader" note. It starts with "This book is nonfiction." Now, I've always known that the book is nonfiction but until last night, it has never occurred to me that what Preston has written is essentially a really long magazine article (I think the last time I read this book I was 14 & I wasn't giving the topic of journalism a lot of thought at that age.) I then took a moment to imagine all the work he had to do to write this book. I own the paperback version & it clocks in at 411 pages (minus the glossary & the character guide). That's 411 pages of mainly reconstructed scenes. That's a lot of reporting; I am impressed.

So I continue reading the "To the Reader" note and while the first paragraph is fine, the second makes my eyebrows rise. Throughout the book, Preston writes from the point of view of various characters, and at times includes those characters' inner thoughts. This is fine. While I know there are people out there who have issues with this kind of writing, I'm perfectly fine with it. What I'm not fine with is being told, as Preston does in the second paragraph, that these thought re-creations are completely accurate and as non-fiction as the scientific facts he peppers the book with. Because they're not. I am firmly convinced that no matter how throughout the research, thought re-creation will always be partially fictionalized. Annoyed, I then read this line: "If you ask a person, 'What were you thinking?' you may get an answer that is richer and more revealing of the human condition than any stream of thoughts a novelist could invent. I try to see through people's faces into their minds and listen through their words into their lives, and what I find there is beyond imagining."

First, as a fiction writer who can create a character you would swear is someone you've met in real life, I feel like he's hitting below the belt with that first line.

And second, "...what I find there is beyond imagining" is just, well, bull. Because as much as Preston might want to deny it, his imagination did play a role in re-creating his subjects' thoughts.

I've never tried to re-create someone's thoughts in a non-fiction piece. I don't feel ready for that. But I have played extensively with the idea of thought in fiction. This interest started when I was 13, after I read Irvine Welsh's Trainspotting, a story that is told, usually in first person, from the perspective of several people. I decided to write my own book using the first-person perspective of several characters and soon came to a mind-blowing conclusion - not everyone thinks the same. I'm not just referring to beliefs, I am talking about the actual thought process, how one idea leads to another and that idea leads to a particular piece of dialog or action. While a big idea at the age of 13, it's now a pretty obvious concept and something any non-fiction writer who is attempting to re-create thoughts should take into account. But Preston never acknowledges this. While the characters in his book may have different thoughts, the process, the language, is always the same. This is what I mean when I say that Preston's imagination is getting involved. What he writes is how he imagines his characters think.

Of course, it is an educated imagine but just how educated? Re-creating anything is always a bit iffy but at least with scenes you can usually talk to several different people or check certain things out for yourself (the appearance of a building or the weather on the day in question). But with thoughts, you have to completely put your trust in one person and this is exactly what Preston does. He believes that between his interviewing and his factchecker's factchecking, he has the truth down. But guess what, people forget, they lie, they think "Wow, that sounds so much more elegant/intelligent/humorous then what I actually thought" and then say, "Yeah, that's exactly what was going through my mind." Preston isn't new to journalism and knows (or should know) that people will almost always jump on chance to make themselves look better.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with writers including a subject's thoughts in a piece; I believe that when done properly, it's a technique that can really add depth and interest. But I do have a problem with being told that it's the absolute truth. I find it rather insulting to my own intelligence and as well as insulting to the complexities of how people think. Had Preston's note focused not of his re-creation of thoughts but of scenes, I wouldn't have given it another thought. But because he is so adamant in his declaration that his re-creation of his subjects' thoughts is true I felt the need to sit down in front of my computer and write for the blog how I believe that a story that contains large amounts of re-created thoughts cannot be a 100 per cent accurate. Maybe 95 per cent, but not a 100.

The Hot Zone is an excellent book, well written and researched and extremely entertaining as well as educational (in Grade 7, I did a presentation on Ebola and it was my primary source of information). If it was not for that irritating note to the reader, I wouldn't have a single complaint about it.

Posted by at 05:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I first emailed Gavin McInnes of Vice fame a few months ago, I didn't really expect him to get back to me. A guy who founded a business with offices in four continents is understandably busy, and my first email reached him at his Costa Rica home. He actually emailed me back. Several times. I wrote this article about Gavin and his Dos and Don'ts.

I didn't think Gavin would let me off scott free, and he didn't. At this point, we're a new online mag and we don't have the impressive feedback system that's featured on the Vice site. It has message boards on which readers can immediately post their feedback to stories and read the feedback of others. So I asked Gavin if I should post his feedback to my story and he said, "Please do." Enjoy.

From Gavin McInnes <****@ ****.com>
Sent Monday, April 11, 2005 8:42 pm
To Nicolle Weeks <****@ryerson.ca>
Subject Re: Article for the Review's website

It's pretty good. The one thing I wish was there would be "I'm a Western Chauvinist. A white supremacist is someone that cares what race you are. I don't give a shit about race. I care about culture - Western culture."

It's so illogical to make the race case. As I pointed out in vDare some of the smartest Western Chauvinists are not white. Do we have to kick them out?

From Gavin McInnes <****@****.com>
Sent Monday, April 11, 2005 8:45 pm
To Nicolle Weeks <****@ryerson.ca>

Subject Re: Article for the Review's website

The inherent problem with your article is that you're talking about politics and social change via a collection of fashion critiques. That's the problem with academia today. They're letting kids like you do their PhDs on "The history of Star Wars as a Marxist dialectic."
I mean, you could discuss Vice the magazine's 10 years of articles and their relevance to culture but to focus on a fashion joke book is pretty absurd.

[See our Spring 2001 issue for a profile on Vice.]

From Gavin McInnes <****@****.com>
Sent Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:16 pm
To Nicolle Weeks <****@ryerson.ca>

Subject Re: Article for the Review's website

You realize you wrote an in depth article that comes to the conclusion: "rude language in fashion joke books does not contribute to social change."

Good. And Return of the Jedi did nothing for world hunger.

From Nicolle Weeks <****@ryerson.ca>
Sent Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:50 pm
To Gavin McInnes <****@****.com>

Subject Re: Article for the Review's website

Hi Gavin,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. We just launched the print magazine last night and we've been working on that for the past week. I'm pretty sure I saw your name on the list to get a free copy of the magazine, so your copies should arrive soon.

I'm glad you almost liked the article. I suppose I did write it about a fashion book, but

a) you do use a lot of risque terms and insights (like the one where you said "no wonder we're at war") in a fashion book, and

b) our magazine recently did a profile on Vice, so I couldn't do another one.

As for your rude book doesn't make social change comment, I think reading through back issues of Vice and watching The Daily Show (unavoidable if you're talking about today's journalism), as well as reading books like How To Lose Friends... (as recommended on the Vice site, actually), I started to really think about how much social commentary is thinly veiled under the guise of comedy these days.

It just seems that it's easier to get past all that PC bullshit if you stick a joke at the end of a comment. I don't think of it negatively, it's actually really smart and very interesting.

I once wrote an essay on the social ramifications of Joe Millionaire, if you'd like to read it. All joking aside, thanks a lot for accommodating me and getting back to me when I emailed. I thought it turned out to be an alright piece.

I will try to get that factual error changed in the next day or so. And would you mind if I posted your recent emails on the site's blog? I'm sure people would be interested in reading your feedback on the article.

And, hey, if you ever want to hire me for anything now that I'm done uni, I think I'm a decent writer/researcher and I'm good at picking up coffee on the way to the office.

Cheers,

Nicolle

From Gavin McInnes
Sent Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:35 pm
To Nicolle Weeks

Subject Re: Article for the Review's website

You want to know why we are constantly making fun of academia today
(http://viceland.com/issues_uk/v2n9/htdocs/trenchcoat.php)? I told you that you wrote a serious political piece about a fashion joke book and you came back with sources like:

-The Daily Show
-a comedy novel
-Joe Millionaire

Yikes.

All right, if I can get past the pathetic pop culture references that pass for a University Education today I'm left with your point: that people use flippant comments to battle PC and a lot of comedy conveys social commentary. Um, when did comedy not have social commentary? Before Lenny Bruce? Shit, I think Jackie Gleason's Honeymooners had a lot to say about the working class and the role of men and women in marriage. Nice try but your point is ancient news.

Why don't you kids discuss real journalistic trends. What about the way The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times blindly embrace immigration and globalization? There's something that requires more than watching TV and reading joke books.

From Nicolle Weeks <****@ryerson.ca>
Sent Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:57 pm
To Gavin McInnes <****@****.com>
Subject Re: Article for the Review's website

Well, if you were to read our print mag, you'd see some more serious articles (not about The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, because we're in Canada) about the state of journalism in Canada.

The online magazine has a wider scope (media, and not just in Canada).

And I get what you're saying about The Daily Show, but like I said, that's where young people get their news - isn't it? Are you going to seriously tell me that it isn't? Read the last print issue of Shift, or go on Maisonneuve's site - they want Jon Stewart to run for president, for God's sake.

There's obviously something there, wrong or not.

You should check out CanWest's newest foray, dose.ca. It's a free news pickup and there are no (or very, very few) articles in it. It's for 18-34 year olds who can't be bothered to read Metro.

(The Joe Millionaire thing was a joke and didn't have anything to do with journalism).

I know that jokes have always been a source of social change, which is why I wrote the article. The thing that is different than, say All In The Family, is that (now) you get away with saying a lot more in a joke then you ever could on the CBC. To quote you:

"If this was 1978 we would sound mundane. I kind of like that... 'There's so much funny and interesting shit out there people are scared to go near it's like our job has become too easy.'"

*Some emails have been edited for space and to protect personal infomation.

Posted by at 01:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you haven't already, check out the CBC.ca Arts online magazine. There's so much great content, a lot of that coming from Katrina Onstad, one of my favourites. She writes such wry, witty articles about JLo and Sex and the City - you'd think you were reading about high art or something. One of her latest endeavours is a story on chick lit and why it's evil. There's also an interesting article by Matt McKinnon on music "sharing". CBC's recruited some quality writers for this one.

Posted by at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it's been an insanity-inducing year: we redesigned our logo, we suffered the ebb and flow of creating a magazine, and we decided that The Ryerson Review of Journalism website (renamed RRJ.ca) would be reborn as a full-fledged online magazine.

With a schedule like that, a million things might have gone wrong -- and they did. But we managed to rise like phoenixes from the ashes of production with a great magazine and an equally impressive website.

Take a minute to click through our online features and read about some of the topics that have fascinated us budding journalists over the past few months: features about young mags like Seed, Vice, and Maisonneuve; the online world of journalism, from Flash to grassroots news sites to online papers. And, most importantly, if you happen to be dating a fellow wordsmith, check out this article for tips on keeping your love from going the way of the slush pile.

It's been a great year working with a wonderful team. Thanks, Review staff, for making this one of the best online editions yet.

- Ayah, Lindsay, Soraya, and Nicolle

Posted by at 07:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)