Most recent public comments by Safiya Sergeant https://nowcomment.com/users/18750 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=524447 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=524447 In general, when you put all your cards on the table, you cede if any leverage you held previously. But also you gain some level of trust. Fri, 20 May 2016 00:01:49 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=524446 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44649?scroll_to=524446 He is showing what he's got, which is moxie and a reputation for not allowing an editors influence? Thu, 19 May 2016 23:59:44 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=524445 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=524445 I don't think either draft does justice to the story the novel has to tell, because there is material withheld. When a writer is stripped of his tool, his creativity and forced to produce a facts only piece then the piece is reduced to something anyone who has working knowledge of english can produce. Like any art, the final piece is never complete. You always have to keep editing, keep revising, have fresh eyes scrutinize your work, for it to ever not be limited. But also, by separating literature and news and not keeping them as one thing you discount them both. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:55:30 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=524444 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=524444 The second draft is no longer reading like literature, but news according to the editors standards. It is closer to what the editor wants because it has removed literary elements. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:50:47 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524443 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524443 We learn that the journalist have to shift through crap information constantly, and distinguish between whats reportable and whats not. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:43:44 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524442 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524442 It is not news because either 1. everyone already knows so theres nothing new/groundbreaking to report. Or 2. its not news because there isn't any news value in the personal life a woman. When monogamy is rarely clung to in any species. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:38:53 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524441 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524441 I agree with Rand and I think the reporter isn't present in this moment, he could be watching leaves blow by. So he didn't get the joke. Also, the smoke represents the foggniess in the reporters mind. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:17 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524440 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524440 A spare match, card, or spare husband? Thu, 19 May 2016 23:31:42 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524439 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524439 The complex intertwining between the characters thats been fostered by the reporter. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:29:33 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524438 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524438 That line, "he aint our brother" is letting the reporter know he is to close to the story. He is acting as if is relationship is one of blood, therefore containing a conflict of interest. It's kind of a wake up call to distance himself. Thu, 19 May 2016 23:28:23 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524437 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524437 The buildup here means that the reporter isn't just letting out all the information, he keeps stalling with phrases like "let me explain" instead of just explaining. Or could mean buildup to the peak. Like the information that leads you the climax of the story. The path to the spot marked X. Fri, 20 May 2016 09:53:15 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=524435 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=524435 The editor was once a reporter, you are always first a reporter then a editor. It's how you make your way up. So, the editor is so patient with the reporter because as a writer himself he knows pride in your work stems from your creativity, and ability to display it. This makes it clear that its not the editors choice that there isn't room for literature, but that its just not how this news paper is run. Fri, 20 May 2016 05:58:22 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=524433 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=524433 Based on the passage the editors of the newspaper are interested in writing free of anything but news presented in a straightforward fashion. They aren't looking for art but daily usage english. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:54:14 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=524420 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=524420 I don't think that theres not room for literature on this paper, but more so they don't equate news to literature. Literature has artistic value and news doesn't. When you want to consume news you're not looking for symbols, metaphors (literary elements) you're looking for facts. Also, literature often is expected to be something of imagination. And even though the reporter questions whether or not the editor believes what he is reporting to be true him, he says he doesn't care. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:18:17 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521549 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521549 Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:43 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521437 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521437 I think reporters are often depicted as rumpled and untidy because they're seen as people in a dirty profession. Who cant hold themselves together because theyre trying to hold the story together. Sat, 14 May 2016 20:07:07 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521436 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521436 Journalism is a technique to clean up the dust, clear out the gloom. OR journalism presents us news that is accurate, clear and theres no ancillary information. Sat, 14 May 2016 20:06:30 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521435 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521435 The description of the reporter as a scarecrow = the reporter is constantly up and searching for a story, maybe he does his job so well he scares the rats off? And being described corpse-like makes me think hes without life, needing a new story to revitalize the reporter. Sat, 14 May 2016 20:05:29 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521430 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521430 Firstly, the "downfunnelled light" paints the image of what the room looks like. Dark, with only a cone of light shooting through. But also it gives us the idea of the dusty gloomy (gloom allegoring to hard to see through) city, and of all places that light (visibility & truth) can shine through it shines on the reporter so it shows his role. Also, I can see this transforming the scene into one that notes the concentration on the reporter above all else. Sun, 15 May 2016 19:59:43 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521401 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521401 Sat, 14 May 2016 02:58:45 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=521386 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=521386 Sat, 14 May 2016 02:46:15 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=520491 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=520491 What the editor means by the "living breath of the news" is that the living breath is the story, we can all read facts but the news is the story. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:58:24 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=520488 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=520488 The second sentence says to me that the reporter is willing to do anything to get the story. Even facilitating that there even is a story. His relationship isn't a detached one, but rather a merged one. Something I view as an issue. Fri, 20 May 2016 06:39:13 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520484 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520484 The world the reporter is face paced, with articles that are exciting enticing, everything is covered, and its competitive. He not only has to get the big picture story, but what happens on the dogs...watch. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:56:28 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520480 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520480 I think what is being said about journalism with the phrase "thick heavy typesplattered" is that is it exciting in your face reporting. Not only is the story exciting, but theres a lot of information behind it and the information itself is heavy. Sat, 14 May 2016 02:58:45 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520471 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520471 A style that utilizes ejaculations, is in your face and quick read style. Your attention is grabbed, and the information that the writer wants you to know is given easily. It could be used in short read articles, or as a tactic within longer pieces, to depict the moment it is covering. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:54:40 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520469 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=520469 A dogwatch is the news that wasn't reported on the regular channels, instead it was caught while the dog was watching. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:54:00 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520461 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520461 The tape recorder adds to tension because whatever is said is clearly on the record, and the writer doesn't have to recollect what thing was said, but its all there on tape. When theres no recorder present Foots guard falls and leads to him being more relaxed, more likely to let his real self be shown. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:53:15 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520458 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520458 What we fall in love with as readers is not the gist of the story, or the big pictures. But the tiny details that make it complete, that make it real. In the example given about Brutus, its not about what he said to the public, its about how he arrived there the night before. Its about what emotions he went through, what things he thought and said before it was cleaned up for public consumption. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:52:13 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520449 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520449 It is so hard for the biographer to avoid offense, because no matter what there is someone who holds a stake in the subjects image. In this case, the son of a subject. When someone isn't depicted holy as day, grander than grandiose, and better than the best then people with stakes have a problem. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:51:13 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520445 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46240?scroll_to=520445 Being in bed together is a reference to the idea of being to intimate. Who shares a bed? Lovers. A kinship to detached, and contradictory to the relationship between biographers and their subjects. They cannot share a bed because there are no boundaries, and would lead to a biography that is as bias as possible. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:50:04 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520439 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520439 Biography is like a non-abstract painting, or maybe even abstract. It takes some real thing, feeling, facts, and gives us a narrative about the target. It paints a picture of the targets life, personality with words. The biography belongs to the biographer, like a painting of an apple belongs to the painter not the apple he painted. This is so because, he has transformed the object to something tangible and given it a narrative for the reader to possess. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:49:28 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520435 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520435 Your view of biography is that more than one person can a write a biography on a target. And having more than one biography doesn't diminish one or another. However, Foot's view is that when he favors someone to write his biography, since he had been encouraging you, thats the only person who should be writing a biography. I think Michael wanted you to fight to be the only one writing about him, therefore "indebting" yourself further to him, if he granted that. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:48:36 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520428 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520428 With amour-propre meaning self love, journalist are prone to violate that because self love often holds ourselves in the most positive way, and journalist don't care about how you see yourself. All that matters is the truth(well all that should matter). Surprising that Foot turned on you as a journalist he should understand the position. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:47:41 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520405 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520405 The implications of treating people as "material" are that you lose your bonds, find yourself detached, and lose the trust of others. However, if you are able to to do exactly that treat people as "material" you are to become a first-rate journalist. It is a strength to remain objective in this field, unbiased, accurate. It would take either a very un-compassionate or dedicated to the nth degree journalist to treat people as material ALWAYS therefore theres no such thing as unbiased journalism. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:46:37 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520395 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46239?scroll_to=520395 Michael doesn't see the journalist as a invader because not only does he understand the journalists position, being a journalist himself. But also Foot has been hospitable to the journalist and views him as someone on the "in". Or maybe he's trying to give the perception the journalist is "in" so he writes about him positively. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:45:12 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=520388 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=520388 "Put in the shit" means putting all details in, giving the full story. Including the things that the target doesn't want to be shared. Authorized biographies would go down the path of leaving the "shit" out because the target approves the piece and therefore doesn't want their "shit" aired out. The negatives of their life, the struggles the details. Appearance is a very important thing to everyone, and when your "shit" is available to everyone to consume theres a vulnerability we don't want to deal with. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:41:12 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=520382 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=520382 I often come across the term salacious, when accompanied with gossip, for example: she loves salacious gossip. Gossip dealing with sex, or guilty pleasure. A salacious biography, attends to our guilty pleasures. Talks about the targets sex life, and deals solely with issues that grab the readers attention, not solely the truth. More than often the truth includes the targets sex life and issues that grabs the readers attention. A piece that focuses only on lewd topics is a salacious biography. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:39:53 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=520371 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=520371 Hero-worshipping the target of a biography contuses the biography, because instead of the target trying to assure they are depicted in a positive light, the writer cannot see the target in any other light. Fri, 13 May 2016 19:57:17 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=520361 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=520361 Friendship is not incompatible with journalism. Often friendship gains you access to relationships that cultivate stories. Gains you access to sources that you need to complete the story. Sometimes, journalist gain friendships in order to get to the bottom of a story, or even to decipher is there is one in the first place. However, valuing a friendship over the authenticity of a piece takes away the truth value. Furthermore, if you value a friendship more than the story then you shouldn't go ahead with the story. Fri, 13 May 2016 19:55:50 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=520350 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=520350 The intrinsic issues with gossip are the same when gossip is put into a biography. Gossip is often a twist on the truth, twice removed. Therefore not the truth, and biographies are supposed to be stories that recollect the truth of someones life. Gossip can be justified if the gossip greatly effects the targets life. For example, all their life they struggled fighting the stigma from the gossip surrounding them. Fri, 13 May 2016 19:54:39 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=520331 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=520331 The issue with authorized biographies, is the same issue with an autobiography. The target only wants to be depicted in a positive light. So if they approve the biography the reader has to assume there's been "smoothing" and censoring. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:13:46 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=520329 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=520329 To be a journalist first means, to be an interdependent observer, who doesn't allow threats to compromise the authenticity of their work. Mainly, Foot is saying he doesn't believe in "authorized biographies" and Buford's threats to his publishers should be condemned. Sat, 14 May 2016 02:46:15 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=520322 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=520322 Autobiographers can't tell the truth, because we always see ourselves in the best light. Remember situations with our own perspective whose memory is corrupted with "how I remember it". In any situation there is his story, her story and the truth. Autobiographers are frauds? I can agree with this somewhat, because in order to be writing a book about yourself, you must be held in high esteem in your field. You must have self confidence, and you must also want people to see you better than you actually are. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:03:23 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=520314 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=520314 A biography suffers when the first loyalty is to friends. Because if you're writing about someone who's alive, you have to get to know them. You must interview them, actually get an understanding of them. Which turns your target into a friend. The biography starts to suffer, when your loyalty shifts from the story, to keeping the target happy. Making sure only what they want out in the world is written. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:02:14 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=520308 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=520308 Michael Foot was expecting the biography to come from someone who holds compassion for him. Because of the hospitality he is lending to the writer, he has one view of how the biography will come out. Whilst, the biographer/writer despite the hospitality still plans to give the full story. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:01:13 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=520251 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=520251 What's meant by "buffering the biography" is Foot was getting the biography ready, but getting it ready to be all around something he grants. Typically, buffering happens when you're waiting for a video to play on the internet. Foot is ensuring the biography plays out on his terms, with the writer smoothing over anything negative, or could be turned negative by the media. Fri, 13 May 2016 20:00:14 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=520245 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=520245 There's going to be a confrontation because the writer is gaining access to secrets that he couldn't write about. But by censoring the information he wouldn't be telling the full story, but also an issue is topics Foot probably wouldn't want shared related to his sex life, even though things like Jill's rape were already public knowledge. Fri, 13 May 2016 19:59:24 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=520244 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=520244 I think the phrase "a book about process," is meant to let the reader know we aren't going to be reading the normal formula biography, that simply lays out the facts and removes how the facts were attained. Normally, biography's are meant to be stories of X's life and as such the fact must be cleaned up, altered out in order to flow with the story. Fri, 13 May 2016 19:58:14 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487490 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487490 The editor implies from his last statement, that he holds the reporter to the ethics(moral standards) of a good journalist. Specifically, by asking for "an accurate account." whilst, it is principle of a journalist to lift the veil for the public, at the same time he must be transparent. I feel like the editor wants the story but not the story behind the scenes, to him that is a whole other story, seperate to the one the reporter is delivering. Fri, 04 Mar 2016 21:20:11 +0800 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487456 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=487456 Anyone can give an account of a event, simply writing what they saw. It is expected of him to go over the event with a fine tooth comb. Giving readers more than what our own eyes see. However, the editor doesn't want anything partial,he wants a story that has observable backing. Fri, 20 May 2016 08:06:01 +0800