Blog 4-Validity and Literary Elements

Blog 4

In my opinion it’s say safe to say that no piece of journalism is completely true, and free of biases and embellishments. Even if a story based on proven factual accounts, it may lack some details and elements of the story that would have given the reader the whole story and not just the side the author wishes the reader to know. For example, Hersey claims that,

“literary journalism must be factually authentic and absolutely reliable,” (111).

            Although there is no way of us, the reader, knowing what is truth and what is factually accurate, unless we were to go on some long quest to prove the author wrong. There could be instances of Hersey’s embellishments, the interviewee’s misinterpretation or biases. In the book Hiroshima, Hersey moralized the 1945 bombing by taking the reader into the lives of 6 main characters. The characters all seemed to be respectable brave people who underwent a huge tragedy. Never in the book were any wrongdoings mentioned. Even the “Playboy” (129) doctor who took his son to a dance club/brothel to “show him how to be a man”(129) was made out to be a hero. Never did Hersey mention how none of the characters were willing to risk their lives to try and dig random people out from the burning rubble and instead decided to flee to the park, besides Mr. Fukai, the man that had to be dragged away from the scene. So although a book may be factually accurate the author still may shape the scope of the book by neglecting to include all of the details.

            The same principal applies to James Boswell’s biography of Samuel Johnson. Boswell staged certain scenarios that would indeed produce conflict or action that would be good for his story. Is this created conflict taking away from the truth of the story? Not every journalist has to be fly on the wall but personal presence in a piece takes away the element of reporting and reads more like a narrative. Boswell often includes his opinion in the article about what is going on instead of letting the reader figure it out on his or her own.

            The line of fact and fiction was not as unbiased in the earlier journalism articles we read this week. For example, in Daniel Defoe’s portrayal of Jonathan Wild, he adds moral character to the criminal by adding the dialogue with the lady. Even here the author has the power to moralize or de-moralize the character as he sees fit. In Charles Dickens’ writings we have ready his personal presence is noted multiple times and the story reads as he see’s it. He also adds personal opinions in Great Tasmania when he says,

“No punishment that our inefficient laws provide is worthy of the name when set against the guilt of this transaction. But, if the memory die out unavenged, and if it does not result in the inexorable dismissal and disgrace of those who are responsible for it, their escape will be infamous for the Government that so neglects it’s duty…”(45).

There is no doubt that early literary journalism reflect that author’s agenda where as in modern time, we may be more quick to pick out a story that one reflects one side of the story.

            Dramatic scenes, dialogue, third person, and details of environment indeed all go into making the difference from simply reporting to literary journalism. Another element I can think of is the writer’s ability to use their personal style as a path for understanding. This meaning that all of the strategic word placement, chronology, descriptive sentences, move the reader to get a sense of what is going on. And if done really well, this is what can engage the reader into the book. For example, Hersey description of the scene where all of the skin-shedding bodies laying on the river bank is pretty grotesque but so descriptive that it gives you an image of how badly people were actually injured. Hersey also uses his jumping from character to character to keep the reader engaged while still making clean the sequence of events. To cross the line to literacy an author has to used interviews, pictures, personal accounts, quotes, vivid scenes, and action to make the work read like a novel and not a newspaper.

To me, Hersey and Dickens seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, i.e. one is personally involved in the story and the other is writing on purely the accounts of others. What different strategies do they use for this and how does it change the perceived validity of the story?