Over at WriterL, a chat about personal essays has turned into a detailed discussion on the nomenclature of literary journalism, which Mr. Franklin says is very important. If we're going to talk seriously about journalism, we should all be using the same vocabulary. It's often a bit boring (important, no doubt), but I found a recent post by Walt Harrington interesting. I've always worried about not following the guidelines laid out in Franklin's book when working on a piece, because it seems like everyone who's anyone buys it.
Harrington's post made me feel better. He says he's prone to intuiting story structure. He doesn't make elaborate outlines with "complication this and that." He thinks for several days about his material after long reporting stints.
And after obsessing and relaxing and jotting notes and a rough outline, he sets it all aside, closes his eyes and writes what comes out of his fingers. (By the way, please join WriterL. It's cheap and good.) Harrington believes that writing is NOT mechanics, once you've mastered mechanics.
He paraphrases poet Rita Dove talking about her writing, "Where did that come from?" (He wrote about her.)
He says he has never written a lengthy story that was not a surprise when it was done. He says he's "baffled" by what has just happened.
Thinking about structure is good, but at some point you let go and just WRITE. He quotes Mike Sager of Esquire: Master technique, then forget about it and listen to your heart.
So are Walt and I alone on our own little island? Does anyone care to defend the use of a firm structure, like Franklin's?
Leave a comment