When approaching a feature story, says Paul Benedetti in his chapter on structure, the key is to "strike a balance between narrative and exposition." He goes on to say that "too much narrative and you won't fully explain the issues; too much exposition and your article will read like a government report." In the "Sixty-Storey Crisis," a narrative on engineers trying to repair a hole in the Bennett Dam, do you believe the writer, Anne Mullens, achieved that balance? If so, what pointers can you gain from her story that might help you achieve a similar balance in your own writing? If not, in what specific ways do you believe she could have improved her story's structure to achieve a better balance between the two?
When approaching a feature story, says Paul Benedetti in his chapter on structure, the key is to "strike a balance between narrative and exposition." He goes on to say that "too much narrative and you won't fully explain the issues; too much exposition and your article will read like a government report." In the "Sixty-Storey Crisis," a narrative on engineers trying to repair a hole in the Bennett Dam, do you believe the writer, Anne Mullens, achieved that balance? If so, what pointers can you gain from her story that might help you achieve a similar balance in your own writing? If not, in what specific ways do you believe she could have improved her story's structure to achieve a better balance between the two?
Anne Mullens struck a good balance between the narrative and scientific data in her story; she was seemless in her blending of the two.
ReplyDeleteWhen she described the initial "pothole" in the damn, she used common language to ease in the scientific stuff. For example, her description of the first sighting of the "hole" using a large pizza really put everything into perspective for the reader, without boring us with technical data. Mullens picked her moments to include the exposition, but did so in a cleaver way so it blended into her narrative.
As she told her story in a chronological manner, she included technical data and still kept me reading with interest. For example, when she slipped the description "plunge pool" into her narrative, she showed us what this scientific term was in layman terms and didn't just give us a stiff definition.
I liked the tone in Mullens' writing. There is a sense of urgency in it that really correlates with the story. I also felt that she did a good job of combining the narrative and the exposition. Like Anna Liisa said, Mullens uses everyday examples to describe things we might not understand otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the way she descibed the "worst case scenario." By letting us know what could potentially happen if the dam failed, Mullens really makes readers care.
I think this story is like the "Golden Bough," in that we need to know the background. We need to know the mechanics or else it's just a story about a tree, or in this case, a story about a dam.
I think she did a good job.
ReplyDeleteWhen she explained technical engineer language, she either used quotes or comparison, making it accessible to all kinds of readers.
She plays very well with the order she gradually introduces elements/characters to the story. It kind of gives rhythm and incites curiosity to a story that could be technical and very boring. Reading the story I'd think "and than what" when I jumped to the next paragraph.
The chronology helped the structure of the story very well in this case, giving comfort to the reader to understand the story not having to travel back and forth.
This specific story was written for a Business Magazine, reason why she focused more in the BC Hydro's side of the story. The only critique I'd have, if for a more social oriented magazine, is to include more the population's side.
I wouldn't say that this is one of the stories I have enjoyed most. But, it definitely could have been a lot worse if it were not for how Mullen wrote the story.
ReplyDeleteShe did a great job in structuring the story. I wouldn't say it had any major potholes because she was able to fill in the narrative with information that gave the narrative purpose. I think judging how an author uses information can be fairly simple. If the reader doesn't have to re-read sentences because they don't understand the "jargon" or don't get the point of the story because they don't know the reason why the event/character/etc is important, then the author is successful in including the right amount of information in the right places.
Mullen was able to keep the story flowing and interesting while still explaining the severity of the situation.
My two biggest issues with this story is that, even though she shows the reader the "worst case scenario" I sensed early on that the story wasn't going to end in any tragedy. I think if she would have been able to keep the reader wondering the outcome of the dam it would have been more enjoyable. There were some areas of suspense but I wasn't gripping the book anxious to turn the page to learn the fate of the dam. I was just waiting to see how it was fixed. That was the second issue I had with the story. Ten pages of writing about the "what-ifs" and then in THREE paragraphs it's all of the sudden–Boom, they pour some mixture and it's fixed.
I think Mullens did a decent job of marrying the right amount of narration with exposition. Initially I felt a little alienated with some of the details about engineering, but the story became more relatable as it progressed. I liked the anecdotes she employed about the parents picking up their children early from school in case of a disaster. This demonstrated the magnitude of the potential catastrophe in a way readers can easily understand. Like “scroccet” mentioned, there is a suspenseful feeling to the story that makes you want to keep reading it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I learned from reading this story is that in order to make any story work well, you have to blend background information with narration throughout it. Having too much of one or the other in certain parts of a story will slow it down. I think Mullens blended the two well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirefox is awful. Evidently it decided to make its own grammatical corrections instead of where I copy/pasted.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I thought Mullens did a pretty good job. She contextualizes the situation with historical information. She explains the magnitude of the event by comparing it to universals that people can understand. Her short sentences, fairly chronological order and dialogue make the narrative flow. Overall, I thought it was pretty decent.
I think she reached a good balance. Actually her expositions were the first thing I noticed as very well done in the story. The actual story kind of bored me in the beginning but then her exposition put things in contrast and gave me an idea of how big the damage could be, pulling me back in this one specific case.
ReplyDeleteOne tip I could take from her is to pin point one extraordinary similar case. She could have just said dam issues happen all the time and have cost millions and killed thousands but instead she goes on to tell what happened in 1889 as the greatest example of the damage it could cause. The transition from story to exposition and then back to the story was very seamless, which I really liked as well.
Anne Mullens created a great balance between narrative and exposition. Without exhausting technical jargon about the dam that would've made the story into a 'government report,' she used analogies that leave the reader easily visualizing each detail.
ReplyDeleteEven when I finished reading, the phrases "titanic fist" and "a giant fury obliterating buildings,... tossing cars and trucks like Dinky toys..." are still engraved in my mind.
What I learned from Mullens' writing technique was to be creative with explanations and give little bits of information to set the pace of the story. The order she also introduced the characters gave enough information and time for readers to familiarize (the characters). In other words, she didn't have the reader overwhelmed with random names and their positions, like "Die Hard," for example.
The story was great and left me fulfilled as a reader.
There's a sentence in this story describing the dam's policy of openness for the media that I think sums up the story pretty well. "The communiques were rather technical and devoid of any emotion or drama, but they were accurate and correct."
ReplyDeleteAt the surface, this seems like it'd be a pretty dramatic story, but I never really got that feeling of being sucked in, feeling like I was right there, like many other good, dramatic stories do. She struck a good balance between the narrative and the expository, but I think her approach to the narrative was lacking. We hear all about how the dam is corroding and breaking down, but never how the guys who are actually responsible are (most likely) mentally corroding and breaking down themselves. I think more of this humanistic aspect blended with the technicalities of the expository would've made for a slightly better story.
I think Anne Mullens succeeded in creating a balance between exposition style story telling and narrative story telling.
ReplyDeleteShe put her description in laymen's terms thus creating an easier read on her audience. By avoiding such civil engineering jargon she was able to capture and hold the attention of the reader.
For example, she did this by comparing the size of the hole to a really large pizza, rather than putting in the exact measurements, which would include number that would more than likely bore her readers.
I think she included just enough of the technical details and data that would provide inform readers of the subject at hand, however she did so in a manner that they could relate to.