How to insert yourself into a story

http://www.latimes.com/features/magazine/west/la-tm-gonewild32aug06,0,2664370.story

An utterly fascinating piece on the guy behind "Girls Gone Wild." Very well-written. I put this title on the thread because there is a feeling among some that you never insert yourself in a story. But if the subject is doing things to you that are reflective of his personality, and making you a part of the story, and you can handle it like this reporter did, then it's time to break the rule.

Admittedly, something this extraordinary comes up rarely. Even if you don't want to debate the use of "I," then read this story because it's great.

 

Mods, please delete, for I have db'ed.

 

That's some fine repenting, Damien.

Say six shut the fuck ups, four delete this goddamn thread nows and two my cat's breath smells like cat foods and you will be absolved.

 

What Damien meant to post:

http://dir.salon.com/story/sex/feature/2003/02/05/vsm/index.html

 

Isn't a first person quote-unquote narrative form, while not common, acceptable? It seems like I've read more and more that newspapers need to broaden a bit how some stories are told. Granted, Scumbag could still make himself look bad in a straight story, but a writer still has to maintain the same basic standards in a first person story as a straight story.

It's still a 'holy shit' read.

 

Correct.

 

Wow! Holy Shit!

She didn't insert herself into they story, he did. Award-winning type story.

 

Enjoyed the piece immensely. It was not predictable. The reporter did a great job.

 

All rules were meant to be broken (very rarely), and in such cases, it can bring about some powerful writing.

 

Inserting oneself into the story has become a cliche at Sports Illustrated, just another gimmick to hoodwink (many) readers into thinking they are not only the auythority on telling stories, but that they are a PART of those stories---always Johnny on the Spot to record history and be a part of it. Next thing you know, one of SI's finest will out himself as one of the gunmen and the grassy knoll and turn it into a sports story.

Rick Reilly is a terrific writer---which you already know---but more and more his own experience creeps into his stuff, and it's getting old. It's a nice device about once every two years, but when he writes about the time he's a ballboy at Forest Hills or Wimbledon or wherever it was, you know you're overcooked and overexposed.when more fans know who he is than they do the two guys playing, Enough already.

Don't get me started on Steve Rushin. Yes, he's very creative, but he's always very self-centered, too.

Then there's the time in 2005 when John Garrity wrote about Jack Nicklaus's last go at the British Open and St. Andrews, spinning his whole story around the fact that he was among the masses lining the 18th hole and seeing the action, as if he were some sort of supporting player in a Hollywood production. It's the most canned piece of "spontaneity" I"ve ever read. To those of us in the know, this story was several days in the planning and was probably half written before it even occurred, even though his tone was something along the lines of just happening to be there. How touching.

Then there was the Bamberger guy giving us a forensic study of that time when Michelle Wie took some sort of illegal drop in the rough in her first pro tournament, as if he were the only fly in the proverbial wall who truly understood the latter of the Rules of Golf, and how he boldly inserted himself into the story by turning Wie in to officials. Again, I believe SI's attitude is that they will leap at any opportunity to build stories around themselves while putting on a public face along the lines "we are just there to be the eyes and ears of the people." Translated: shameless self-promotion that gets more transparent every day.

Anybody else want to hurl?

 

So, you don't like SI's writing?

 

Masterful.