In "Living on Lobster Time," Philip Preville explores the subject of lobster fishing on a small island in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. He immerses himself in the culture of the people who live there, not an easy thing, given that so many of them are suspicious of outsiders. We've talked about gaining access as one of the major challenges to immersion storytelling. In this specific instance, the writer really had to penetrate the local community in order to get at the "truth" of what drives them to "call this place home."Do you think he was successful? If so, what specific elements of the story suggest that he focussed his efforts on answering why these people stay in a place with few ameneties and a steadily decreasing population? Was immersion the best way to get this story or the only way?
I do think that Preville was successful in his immersion reporting. It's the little details that he captures that really show us how these people live their lives, the little anecdotes from the residents. Preville walked around town. He talked with multiple people. Getting people to trust him was difficult. And despite threats from residents, he continued his reporting. He even went out on the boats and helped some fishermen.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is the only way to do this story, but it definitely is the best. Preville could have come to town, talked to a few people, do some basic research and then leave. The facts might be there, but not that human element. When I first started reading the story, I admit I was a little uninterested. But as the story progressed, as the human element emerged, I became interested. I think becoming a member of a particular community is the best way to write about that community.
I think he succeeded in his effort. The story is well written and even though he uses first person, which I'm not a fan of, I still think the story was good. The anecdotes, specially the one with the restaurant owner, were very insightful and the fact that he goes out on the boat with them really made a difference.
ReplyDeleteI think that he was successful in his immersion and that for this particular story, it may have been the best AND only way. Simply going to the island as a reporter to ask questions, Preville would not have been able to get anywhere near the information he did. The insight into these people's lives and why they call it home are aspects of the story he wouldn't have been able to capture any other way.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be possible to write this story in a different way than immersion.
ReplyDeleteAs the author said, "leave who doesn't fish to speak the truth about fishing." Than he talks about Brian Josey, the restaurant owner and one of the only residents of the island who is not a fisherman. It's interesting how the author gains access with the fishermen by first getting involved with someone who is not. Than, by observing the restauranteur's relationship with the fishermen, he gains access too.
Somehow he shows why people call the place home. That sounds like a good deal to really work for only 5 weeks of the year... If they have that life style he shows in the story.
To me, the story was slow and didn’t move much at all. I had a hard time sticking with it. I think it lacked quotes and was too explanatory, which just made it less compelling. I agree with Natalia about not liking stories with “I” in them. This story seems to exemplify that for me. Preville actually quotes himself in this story, such as when he is talking to the 75-year-old fisherman. I think he makes himself part of the story more than he should.
ReplyDelete•
I will give Preville some credit for other elements that worked well. The quotes from Brian Josey, the restaurant owner, seem to give an impression of the residents from the perspective of a “normal” person and not a “crazy” fisherman. Ironically Josey might be one of a kind on Entry Island. I also like when how he emphasizes that the fishermen go to bed early and get up in the middle of the night. This demonstrates their passion for catching lobsters and the importance of that one day out of the year.
I think immersion was the only way to get a good sense of what this place and its residents are like. I don’t think Preville would have gained the trust to talk openly with the Josey and the fishermen if he had not immersed himself in the community.
Preville's story would have been a lot better if he had not written it in first person. This detracted from the story. I don't think he would have been able to gain the needed detail about the locals without immersion into their dailey life.
ReplyDeletePreville was able to show the true spirit of the people. His overall story gave a feeling of "community" for the local people. Even though their life was hard, it appeared that they had no other place to go to earn a living.
The character, Spencer Chenell summed it up when he said, "We eat together, sleep together, fish together, drink together. Fight together, too."
With such a difficult task as writing a story about a little-known community such as this one, immersion is the only tool Preville has to truly depict Entry Island and it's townspeople.
ReplyDeleteThere is simply not enough information floating around about Entry Island that would give Preville any sort of lead as to where to start and whom to interview.
I believe Preville was successful with his immersion method, in the sense that he was able to not only give readers a visualization of the town, but more importantly the culture of the very few people that live there.
This is proven most with his description of Brian Josey, the lone anti-fishing and sea wave-fearing Entry Island tourist money deposit.
Preville's information of Josey not only gives insight on one of the residents, but also as to why he remains a resident of such a struggling town. Josey owns a store, a, and THE, restaurant, and rents out two homes. He also owns much of the land on the island.
However many of the other residents have ill feelings toward Josey, and Preville does a good job at depicting how these residents feel towards each other as well as Josey.
When reading this I imagine a time such as the 50's or 60's when men sat in barber shops that reeked of old spice with the quintessential red and white pole adjacent the front door, talking about other men, sports and women. That's how I picture this town, and it's people. Everybody knows everybody. With only 18 students, how could you not?
I not only think immersion was the best tactic in this situation, but I do feel it was Preville's only option to discover and reveal the core of the "place where salty sailors tell tall tales"
I think Preville is sucessful in portraying the people of Entry Island. The best things that show this are his use of quotes and narrative. I think he got most of his information from observation and not through interviews. I wouldn't be surprised if Preville didn't do a single "interview" and everything came through living as though he was part of the community. I think immersion was both the best way, and the only way to get this story because the people of Entry are so weary of outsiders, journalists especially.
ReplyDeleteHis style of writing is in the same manner in which the people of Entry Island act: abrupt, short, to the point, no fuss, almost rude. He uses a lot of short sentences which I imagine is how most of the residences act toward outsiders.
I think in this story, it helps that he was first an "outsider" because it shows how close-knit the residents are and that outsiders are generally not welcomed and for the most part, not eager to become part of their society.
"...he's the only one that doesn't take orders from the lobster." I think this sentence perfectly describes the way of life in Entry Island and I don't think Preville would have discovered this had he not "immersed" himself in their lifestyle. Most people could have just taken the townspeople as bitter or outcasts, but he gets to the essence of them...lobster is the center of their life.
Immersion was the best and the only way, like Sybil's vacuum store owner. People whose personal roots and community are so deeply interwoven with their history, and are fully invested in keeping it that way, tend to test outsiders. Sometimes it's because their social norm is incongruent with the larger society's; sometimes it's because they've been burned by outsiders before, or misjudged based on poor reporting, judgmental people, or differing priorities. But no matter what the organization is, the inclination is to make sure whomever is reporting on them has a full understanding of who they are, instead of what they see on the surface. Immersion, especially in this case, is the only way to accomplish that.
ReplyDeleteIn doing so, he was able to paint a very graphic picture of the personalities that make up the town. Like Spencer Chenell says (albeit in the context of English and French), “We eat together, sleep together, fish together, drink together. Fight together, too.” Part of why these people stay is to preserve their heritage together; the other part is preserving it in the face of tourist industry criticism. They refuse to become something they are not, and like Preville concludes, they will fight any attempts at changing who they are.
This was such a funny story. I giggled aloud a few times in the beginning, especially about Spencer Chenell with his dentures.
ReplyDeleteHis immersion in this small community was successful and can easily be seen in the story he wrote. The details of his first day where the bull was following him was hilarious, and he wouldn't have had that detail to include if he had just called people for interviews or only spent an afternoon on the island interviewing, getting only the surface of the actual story.
His mentioning how much the fisherman make off lobster season, and the detail that their island is closest to the best bottoms successfully convey why these 130 people would ever consider living in such an enviornment, and it also says something that there are only 130 of them. Only that many that will brave the seclusion, or even seek out the seclusion. Or in Spencer Chenell's case the lack of police and the opportunity to settle the scores with fights.
I don't think his efforts were successful. The people were weary of him, yes, but I couldn't help but think the information they shared was really stuff they'd tell anyone. It's still a good, well thought-out story. I just think the amount of immersion is disproportionate to the amount of exclusive, juicy, if you will, information. Then again, it'd be crazy to think you're going to glean this kind of stuff from every assignment you go on. To be obnoxiously cliche, in the end it's the effort that really counts.
ReplyDeleteWas he successful? I would say so. The smallest details wouldn't have brought the story to life if he wasn't part of the journey. He couldn't have understood why these people would stay in a small community without interacting and living as one of the them. I liked how Preville includes some "out of story" quotes from many people to set some sort of intimacy or friendly atmosphere between him and the citizens -- whether it may be about lobster fishing, the weather, or him being threatened as a journalist. It makes me believe that the people are slowly accepting him there. He's showing progress and building the trust among them.
ReplyDeleteImmersion wasn't the only way, but I consider it the best way. Preville, a foreigner to the community, captured the heart of the people and their culture without tainting their values or changing their daily lives for his story. So, to me, immersion was the best way to tell this story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete