That said, I didn't actually find his remarks all that helpful. To say that a "good story" is a story that is "interesting," or that "a good story is a good story" doesn't really say much at all. "I know it when I see it" just isn't a very useful piece of wisdom to pass on to eager young sportswriters. As it turns out, that's exactly the same criterion the Supreme Court has used regarding pornography. So, really, maybe I shouldn't be complaining. I don't believe that his lack of a real response to "what makes a good story" is a result of his being inarticulate (whatever else one can say about his columns, they do, at least, express coherent trains of thought-- although I do appreciate that writing and speaking are two very different things), so I have to assume that either he didn't really want to speak directly to this (doubtful, he was there to do exactly that), or he's someone who can do, but isn't exactly sure how to tell others how he does it. There are plenty of people like that.
For the record, I doubt I could articulate exactly what makes a good story, and the answer may be as simple as "I know it when I see it." Still, not what one wants to hear in a classroom.
And I don't need to hear about how he can't conceive of a reasonable business model for online journalism. Again, that isn't really helpful. And it was a little difficult to get him to answer questions directly, he seemed to prefer to wander around with his answers, or to answer a part of a question and not the entire question. I was hesitant to repeat questions so as not to come off as badgering, but, still, there it is.
I don't regret having Bob Lutz come to class, but I don't really feel that he expanded my knowledge of the craft.
Unless it really is as simple as he made it out to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment