Most recent public comments by Michael Andersen https://nowcomment.com/users/18762 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525703 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525703 I think a biography can have a sense of romance due to the closeness needed between the author and the subject. It relates to the literary imagination in that the author has to create a complete narrative out of the various aspects of the subject’s life and find unique and interesting ways to connect the subject’s life experiences. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:56:45 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525702 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525702 It means putting in the bad parts of a person or their life as well as the good. It is important because it creates a more objective viewpoint of the subject. Authorized sometimes leave these parts out because they may paint the subject in a light they don’t want to be seen in. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:56:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525701 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46238?scroll_to=525701 A salacious biography would be one that focused on the crewed or vulgar. Fri, 20 May 2016 22:56:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=525609 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=525609 With hero worship there is an inherent bias towards writing someone’s biography. Even if the writer intends to remain unbiased and objective, it’s likely that their worship will affect their ability to be objective. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:29:12 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=525608 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=525608 Friendship doesn’t necessarily have to be incompatible with journalism, but it does raise some issues involving ethics. Friends tend to have allegiance towards one another, so as a journalist this can be a conflict of interest when needing to remain objective. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:28:52 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=525607 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46237?scroll_to=525607 Gossip is usually based mostly on rumors and hearsay. However, a biographer could use gossip as a possible lead to investigate, and substantiate, something and add it into a biography. Fri, 20 May 2016 18:28:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525410 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525410 An apostate is someone who abandons a religious or political belief or principle. In this case, it’s referring to Foot initially condemning authorized biographies and later changing his mind on that notion. Fri, 20 May 2016 14:50:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525409 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525409 An authorized biography is given approval by the person its written about. In getting that approval, the person being written about likely has a say in what is or is not included in the book’s contents. Fri, 20 May 2016 14:50:03 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525407 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46236?scroll_to=525407 To be a journalist first means to be dedicated to being a journalist and getting the story. Fri, 20 May 2016 14:49:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525357 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525357 Biography can serve as an antidote to autobiography because the journalist, in theory, has a more objective viewpoint. The journalist can take multiple accounts of someone’s life and try to mesh together the “realist” version of that person and their story. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:38:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525356 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525356 Autobiographers can't tell the truth because of their own viewpoint. I think people tend to look back on mostly the positives aspects or mostly the negative aspects of their lives. As such, they lose the ability to be objective about what was going on in that time in their lives. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:37:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525355 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46235?scroll_to=525355 It suffers because Foot would instinctively want to protect those close to him. This would likely make him censor parts of his own life in an attempt to not show those he cares about in a negative light. Fri, 20 May 2016 12:37:20 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525027 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525027 Foot appears to want an overview of his life and career in the positive light he sees himself in. This will likely clash with a biographer’s expectations because the biographer would want to provide a more objective viewpoint to his story. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:40 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525026 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46232?scroll_to=525026 I think it means that Foot was trying to shield certain aspects of his life he may not have wanted made public. Whether positive or negative things were brought up, it seems like he still would only want some of those things displayed in a certain way. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524930 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524930 There’s going to be a confrontation based on what does or does not get published. Generally, those prominent enough to be written about only want certain sides of themselves made public. But, as a biographer, you would want to tell the entire story, scars and all. That clash of ideals about what should be published will likely cause confrontation. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:37:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524928 https://nowcomment.com/documents/46229?scroll_to=524928 By “a book about process” I think it’s more about how the biography was constructed rather than just the narrative story of someone’s life. In a biography, a lot gets smoothed over. Small details, gaps in the narrative, or inconsequential asides can all get smoothed over to better tell the story at large. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:36:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524918 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=524918 The report's personal attachment the story. The reporter's closeness prevents him from adequately telling the story the editor wants. It may not be inappropriate in a general sense, but it would be in the editor's eyes. Fri, 20 May 2016 02:04:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522508 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522508 Unethical may be the wrong word choice, but definitely inappropriate for what the editor wants out of the reporter's stories. Fri, 20 May 2016 02:04:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522507 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522507 Yes, I meant heart, not hear. Wed, 18 May 2016 22:50:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=522506 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=522506 So it's still metaphorical, I just read the metaphor the wrong way? Thu, 19 May 2016 07:37:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=522505 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=522505 Yes, confined, not confided. Wed, 18 May 2016 22:47:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522504 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522504 I hadn't really considered that. I'd say that it's more a matter of ethics, because the reporter's closeness to the subject is affecting his ability to write the story his editor needs him to. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:05:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=522490 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=522490 I suppose I should rephrase that. I meant something more along the lines of the light being used to expose a new side to a story, to shine light on something in a different way than was seen by others. Like how the editor wants something on a story that everyone has covered, but in a unique way that people couldn't get from any other newspaper. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:36:36 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522486 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522486 Neither really does justice to the story the novel has to tell. I think it’s trying to say that sometimes the nature of journalism doesn't allow for the entire story to be told. Between stating facts and constant editing to meet guidelines, by the end – at publication – a good amount of that personal connection within gets lost. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:35:22 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522485 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522485 The reporter thinks he’s a bastard because the reporter had to water down his own writing to meet the editor’s demands. As a result, the reporter is pissed off and wants to get drunk to alleviate his anger and frustration. He believes his editor should pay for his drinks as the editor is the cause of his problems, and therefore should be responsible for paying for the solution – a drink. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:34:19 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522483 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522483 The reporter takes out most of the narrative “fluff” and puts more emphasis on the news story involved. It’s closer to what the editor wants because now it’s more news-oriented than story-oriented. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:33:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522482 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44121?scroll_to=522482 The copyboy thinks this because the reporter wrote the piece almost as a narrative rather than a news story. The reporter discards it because he knows that the editor will just end up telling him the same thing and make the reporter rewrite it. Fri, 20 May 2016 17:24:34 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522157 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522157 I think we learn about how gathering information is used and sort of sifted through by journalists in order to get to the main point of a story. However it also shows how even professionals can get caught up on the gossip, even if only done so with one another and not in their writings. Wed, 18 May 2016 01:33:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522156 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522156 Based on the context surrounding it, it must be that everyone already knew she was sleeping around, or that she at least already had a reputation for it. So even if it was technically new information, no one was particularly surprised. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:41:00 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522155 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522155 He was too involved in his own thoughts to be really paying attention. The smoke and the voices can be seen as a metaphor for where his mind was at the time – everything was in a bit of a haze and he could hear the voices, but he wasn’t really listening to them. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:39:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522154 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522154 She’s carrying a spare husband/man. They’re making a joke about his wife’s supposed promiscuity. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:36:29 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522153 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522153 He needs to understand the relationships between these people, but without becoming involved in their lives. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:38:49 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522152 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522152 The reporter is being told that he needs to stop being so connected to the subject he’s writing on and that he’s gone into unethical territory by doing so. Fri, 20 May 2016 02:04:27 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522151 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44058?scroll_to=522151 The buildup is the accumulation of all the facts and information for the story. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:37:21 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522040 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522040 The reporter has become invested in these people and the story. He’s spent too much time caring about it all on a personal level that he can’t simply let it go just because his editor wants him to. The editor doesn’t understand because he hasn’t actually been interacting with these people and becoming part of it all. The reporter has made this story a part of himself and the editor will never be able to fully understand that connection. Wed, 18 May 2016 06:53:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522039 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522039 The editor is saying that the journalist is too close to what he’s writing about, that there are boundaries to what the journalist can and cannot do and the journalist needs to see and respect those boundaries. Thu, 19 May 2016 07:05:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522038 https://nowcomment.com/documents/44057?scroll_to=522038 The reporter really wants to get involved and dig deep to get to the real hear of the story, but the editor is saying that the reporter can’t be so directly involved – that he needs to get the headline and get out. Wed, 18 May 2016 22:50:10 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=521916 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=521916 The editor appears to understand that the reporter has a knack for journalism, even if it’s not exactly what the paper needs. It’s likely the editor has been in the reporter’s shoes at some point in his life and can relate to that. Thu, 19 May 2016 18:03:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=521915 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=521915 The editors are interested in getting stories that grab the attention of readers. They want something out of this world, not just a regular story that can be covered by anybody. Tue, 17 May 2016 07:00:38 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=521914 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43909?scroll_to=521914 There’s no room for literature because a newspaper is about the news. Adding anything else to that takes away from what a newspaper’s core essence is. Tue, 17 May 2016 06:59:58 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521877 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521877 I think it’s done to show how much reporters really live for the job. They’re always chasing a new story, so much so that they don’t have time to pay attention to their appearance or their personal surroundings. They only pay attention to that of those they report on. Tue, 17 May 2016 06:59:28 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521876 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521876 They’re both physically confided in a small space, but it’s in that small space that they thrive and survive in the world, just an aquarium does for fish. Wed, 18 May 2016 22:47:08 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521875 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521875 Words like ‘dusty’ and ‘gloomy’ bring to mind the word ‘dirty.’ I think it’s trying to get at how unethical journalists acted during these times and how they were willing to go as far they needed to in order to get a story, ethics be damned. Tue, 17 May 2016 06:58:07 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521874 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521874 Is it supposed to be an allusion to his writing? In that the foundation is there, but the ‘meat’ or ‘heart’ of what the editor wants out of that story isn’t? Thu, 19 May 2016 07:37:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521873 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43908?scroll_to=521873 The downfunnelled light is in a way showing only one point of view – showing how journalism can be used to show only one viewpoint of a story. Fri, 20 May 2016 00:09:46 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=521786 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=521786 I see the reporter as someone who as a lot of natural skill in his ability to find interesting and compelling stories, but as someone who isn’t used to writing in the way the editor wants. The way the editor interacts with him makes it seem like the reporter has enough raw talent to perform better than he currently is. Mon, 16 May 2016 01:24:43 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=521785 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=521785 I think he’s talking about how the reporter is going more in depth with the lives of those that’s he’s reporting on than is necessary, and that the reporter’s time would be better spent trying to find a new angle or viewpoint for the story different from that of other reporters. The editor want’s something unique that people can only get from that particular paper. Mon, 16 May 2016 01:24:09 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=521784 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43907?scroll_to=521784 It’s talking about doing whatever you need to in order to get a good story. Even if that mean’s the reporter needs to be the one that initiates it or pushes it along. Fri, 20 May 2016 23:43:24 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521781 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521781 There’s this first impression where everything is lively and exciting, but the reality of it is a much less sensationalized version of what’s going on. The reporter’s aware of his place in that sensationalism though, knowing that there are other forms of journalism that are less dramatic than his own. Thu, 19 May 2016 22:53:55 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521780 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521780 Mon, 16 May 2016 00:29:32 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521779 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521779 I think it’s as a sense of control. The driver is in control of where he’s headed in the future, and the paper has similar control of where the future is headed, that is to say what is or is not covered by the media can directly or indirectly affect what’s going on in the world. Mon, 16 May 2016 00:29:16 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521778 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521778 Mon, 16 May 2016 00:28:33 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521777 https://nowcomment.com/documents/43903?scroll_to=521777 Mon, 16 May 2016 00:28:06 -0400