|
Post by karlsie on Mar 29, 2009 23:19:16 GMT -5
Many of our new members have difficulty understanding why we like to minimize the subjective view in documentary style writing. The immediate answer that comes to mind is, "it isn't professional." This answer, though truthful, doesn't explain why it isn't a professional way to write. There are a number of reasons. The first is that documentary style articles are dependent on facts that are presented impersonally because they can't be changed. Cotton is a fiber. The chemical composition for water is H2O. Period. A hypothesis is strengthened when its basis is presented on facts. There were dog prints in the snow, a scene that showed blood and feathers, a missing chicken. It's safe to assume the dog killed the chicken without the writer presenting the view as a personal opinion.
The removal of the subjective allows the reader to feel s/he is a part of the message. The writer is expressing those deep down suspicions, those views the reader has wished to articulate but failed. The impersonal detailing gives the reader more freedom to adjust to the viewpoint when presented as an accumulation of evidence. This way, the impassioned conclusive statement becomes more understandable.
The writer, in exercising the objective delivery of documentary styled statements, discovers a change in his or her approach to the subject matter. By backing his or her statements with documented evidence, the writer is forced to present the trail that led to his or her conclusions. S/he assumes a sense of responsibility for the direction of the piece and its effects on others. The more objective an analysis is used, the more impact the piece will have on its target readership.
Personal stories have their place but are most effective as case studies. They make good commentaries when placed with articles of same topic interest, but are generally weak when they stand alone. This is the reason i encourage full length, in depth articles. We want to solidly hammer home our points. We want our statements to stand up and be heard. When we write, we want to represent the voices of others who have had the same common experience or understanding. To represent more than one, you need to take away the subjective and appeal to the information gathering third person party.
|
|
|
Post by Savvy on Mar 30, 2009 8:17:53 GMT -5
Uh.....but doesn't subversity beg for subjectivity?
|
|
|
Post by neonorth on Mar 30, 2009 10:55:59 GMT -5
Subversity is often objectivity, the subjectiveness comes with the ideology, manner or conviction that the general masses accepts as the 'one'. Take state of matrimony, it did not begin in historical terms as two lovers but as a business deal between two tribes for the mutal benefit of their existence. Marriage was also used as a weapon force; you steal the warlord's daughter, get hitched to her and through bloodlines what hers is yours. This through out the centuries became twisted through religious interference for the power over the masses to include the idea of love. Then you have further fractioning of the religious orders into distinct sects with their own views on what the term marriage entails. North America martial laws, for example, take marriage as one man one woman - where any other kind of union is immortal be it same sex, polygamy or with one within the same extended family unit. These differences are all subjective in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Those who dispute these terms are considered subversive to the idealology of marriage. Most accepted norms are that way; its not objective, its someone convincing a bunch of other people that they know something.
|
|
|
Post by grainnerhuad on Mar 30, 2009 13:14:02 GMT -5
I agree Neonorth. Subversity is most often much more objective in nature. Subjectiveness may come into play at the beginning of a question. I think it may be valuable to point out that this place, although it is called subversify is not just about subversion. We have had articles about family values, community, commining of age, devient behavior, and looking at social issues from a different angle. There is a place here for both types of writing and I feel we accomodate both types of writers quite well. It is a challenge to write objetively in a documentary style. I personally dislike it. However, I am always up for a challenge. I use it to strengthen my personal arguments as I really have to think them through. For me it's a good exercise and if you look at it that way it may help. But it's not for everyone, and as I said we find a way to accomodate most writers although it may take a month or so for us to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by Savy on Mar 30, 2009 14:09:08 GMT -5
We have had articles about family values, community, commining of age, devient behavior, and looking at social issues from a different angle. Exactly. These are subjective areas. But as you said, I think the magazine accomodates both types of writers. I just think it's funny to try to encourage people who come to a "nihilist" website--and whatever you guys want to say, its name IS Subversify, which implies it's trying to be subversive--to write in a New York Times journalist kind of way. That seems totally hypocritical, and counter-productive. Maybe that's not what Karla meant in her original post--I can't imagine she meant to be restrictive, cuz I know she's a very open and accepting person, but that's just how it sounded to me. But I don't see this as a High School term paper kind of place.
|
|
|
Post by Savvy on Mar 30, 2009 14:11:22 GMT -5
P.S. neonorth, you're talking about postmodernism, which is ENTIRELY subjective. Not accepting the "objectivity" of what we are told by modernist culture.
|
|
|
Post by karlsie on Mar 30, 2009 15:16:53 GMT -5
Neonorth, some day i've gotta completely pick your brains apart. You completely amaze me. That was an excellent analogy. We do have enough flexibility in our mag for the subjective viewpoint, although i can't help but see presenting the all personal views as commentaries instead of power hitting articles. The practice of delivering views as a first person opinion creates in the reader an impression that this is a personal problem. They may be willing to respond, but not from the aspect of this is a social problem that needs addressing. If i was to write an article on the suicide rate among Native Alaskan villagers and only wrote it from the perspective of one who has personally lost members of my community through suicide, it would not have as much impact as writing the piece as a voice of the Native Community, giving the statistics, the cultural problems and the struggles the leaders of these communities have had to cope with in trying to solve them. I might, near the end of the piece, give an account of my personal experiences, thus carrying the reader from a general view into the effects on the individual. However, without the background, the piece would lose much of its potency as an article that wishes to illustrate that the problem lies not only in a lack of understanding toward Native culture, but the unspoken assumption that there is only one real solution; adaptation to the media enhanced opinion of how homogenous communities should live. Ah, but they don't simply wish to live; they wish to thrive as a people who have their own worth, their own contributions to make to society based on their own distinctions. The problem then becomes one whose common base lies within all minority populations that have struggled for the right to be recognized as a viable culture with its own distinctions. The reader is then given the choice of either being a part of the problem, or of being among those who have crossed the bridge into ethnic understanding and are hard at work trying to think of real solutions.
Writing from that omniscient view of general address might be a little difficult at first, but with practice, it becomes as natural as stroking a cat. The first thing to keep in mind is you're not letter writing. You're not addressing just one person, but many. You are seeking to inform the many, persuade them to your opinion. This is where subversive comes in. You have a far greater chance of drawing in large numbers if they can see that your response is not just personal, but the characteristic view of a definable group. You have a far greater chance of persuading the general public as to the truthfulness of your view when you take it out of the realm of self and into that dry hard world of facts and statistics. This doesn't mean that dry, hard world can't be lively. Mitch's satire is replete with facts, as is Neonorth's. Both Grainne and Maya have given case studies that abounded in human interest. Historical accounts are riveting when they are painted with the dynamics of personal character. Each one of you who was invited here, was asked because of your craftsmanship, a marked ability to deliver good stories. Because you are talented, because you have excellent minds, i'd truly like to see each one of you write articles that the magazine will enthusiastically promote as a headline or featured article. I love the arts, but most of all i love to see artists creating at their best. I look at it like music. The musician craves the guitar player. The guitar player craves a bass guitar. The bass guitar craves the drummer. Together, they form a band, each one challenging the other to break into harmonious melody.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Subversify on Mar 30, 2009 15:57:15 GMT -5
Speaking frankly (Imagine some guy name frank with a deep voice and a porn star mustache), I have no desire to see Subversify turn into some blog extension where everyone's thoughts are posted and published to satisfy some ego driven whore mongering. I don't ever want to see this shit:
LOL, U aRe So Cute LOL, I WRitE ThinGs and PeoPlE ThINk I'm cLevEr
I want to see people work at writing, if you are going to take the time to write something than it better be worth reading. Apply some craft. I've made accommodations to first person writing and I'm trying really hard to relax my own sense of standards now that I'm not heavily vested in the project. If the piece is written objectively, fine. If its a persuasive piece, fine. Just make it well written. No one comes hear to read a bunch of half assed musings. And if they are half assed musings, it better be dripping with sarcasm - a craft fully appreciated here at Subversify. We'll call that the LMW rule.
|
|
Maya
Regular Contributor
Queen of the Damned
Posts: 542
|
Post by Maya on Mar 30, 2009 16:06:08 GMT -5
I am for the third person writing. I am sorry, we can have an occasional me, me, me, but the only way you're going to persuade someone into agreeing with your thoughts is if you present the article professionally. Whereas third person opinion writes seem more matter of fact than jargon. You can be free with your write, there is no prejudice as far as what topic you choose, just make a plausible argument. It's all in the voice, and third person offers that tone.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Subversify on Mar 30, 2009 16:19:23 GMT -5
In my opinion, first person = lazy writing and lazy mentality. Its the writing you do because you don't have the craft/skillset to convey emotion in the 3rd person. What we are typing right now is no better than publishing an article in the first person. Any idiot with a 3rd grade education can do this shit. There , said it. I'll go find some 3rd graders now and get a good writing staff in place.
|
|
|
Post by grainnerhuad on Mar 30, 2009 16:26:57 GMT -5
"In my opinon" LOL!! Stacy.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Subversify on Mar 30, 2009 16:36:06 GMT -5
Fuck it, I'l write something in the first person and publish it tonight. If this is going to be first-person publishing from here on out than I can be every bit as lazy and half-assed as the next person. My post will be up soon.
|
|
|
Post by grainnerhuad on Mar 30, 2009 16:53:21 GMT -5
Christ Wept. I have a feeling tht you will not be "every bit as lazy and half-assed as the next person" You will be twice that because of your extreme excellence.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Subversify on Mar 30, 2009 17:10:02 GMT -5
I have another thought, I'm going to write it twice, once in first and the other in 3rd to prove the point. I'll post them both to this thread as an example.
|
|
|
Post by karlsie on Mar 30, 2009 17:39:24 GMT -5
Let's take this back to the realistic level a minute. When you read magazines and newspapers, there is a single section for personal opinions. These opinions are often called commentaries, letters to the editor, editorials (if written by a staff member) or input. This group of opinions usually reflect one of the topics currently being discussed in the magazine or newspaper. Most articles are written in third person; the omniscient view that takes in account not only the personal perspective, but the encumbering force of evidence. Sometimes, it presents the opposing view as a comparison. Occasionally, in an eye witness account, you might include your own experiences. But as a writer, giving an eye witness account of an accident, you wouldn't include just your own perception of what just happened, but interview the other witnesses, giving a balanced account. That is the professionalism of writing articles. It's as professional writers we hope to establish ourselves as an online magazine.
|
|