LeBlanc
immersed herself in an overwhelming sense in this reportage, and
immediately the questions of bias, safety, and closeness to Trina were
brought to my mind. Her complete immersion in the life of Trina reminded
me of the novel I read by Sudhir Venkatesh, “Gang Leader for a Day”,
which was an anthropological look into the life of a gang leader in
Chicago. The author Sudhir becomes friends with JT (said gang leader)
during his research, and eventually explores the power struggles of a
gang through his connection with JT, gaining access to previously hidden
aspects of gang life. The similarity between the anthropological
research Sudhir does and the journalistic research of LeBlanc was
visible in the immersion into a dangerous or questionable situation:
both involving drugs/ prostitution/ otherwise sketchy situations.
Additionally, both authors allow their personal opinions and experiences
to seep into the text, also LeBlanc used “I” significantly less than
Sudhir. The comparison between these types of research would be
interesting, due to the apparent similarities in immersion research in
two different fields.
At
certain points it seems that LeBlanc is connecting herself to Trina,
and I wondered why that connection was initially made: “Our shared
attributes would blind me, delude me into the sort of sturdy plan of
action that seems possible when you are the person you are trying to
help share common ground.” Throughout the essay LeBlanc makes continued
connections between herself and Trina, however the idea of trying to
help her is not explained. Why is she helping her? I am curious about
this connection and if it influenced LeBlanc’s writing about Trina. This
also opens the questions of what sort of relationship is appropriate
between narrator and subject, and I would like to talk about this in
class during story proposals.
In
a similar fashion as in LeBlanc’s story, Orlean is barely present at
all in the story about Colin. In LeBlanc’s, as previously mentioned, I
craved slightly more attention to the narrator. Because of the
references to actions, conversations, and experiences the subject and
the narrator were having together, the LeBlanc story felt more open
regarding the role of the narrator. In contrast, Orlean is barely
present in the life of Colin, although prompting statements are made at
several points.
One
of the major differences I felt between the two stories was the urgency
at which I read the piece. In LeBlanc’s, I felt that the dangerous
story of Trina, a drug addict, drove me to feel the need to read the
piece in one sitting. Reading Orlean’s story about Colin, I put the book
down several times, not out of boredom, rather out of a desire to
prolong and relax during the reading. Additionally, I was struck by how
two very different stories captured me in a similar way. In both pieces,
the authors painted a realistic picture of Colin and Trina, and for the
time that it took me to read the pieces, I felt invested and involved
in their lives.
Laurel,
ReplyDeleteThe connection you made between LeBlanc's reporting style and anthropological research is very interesting. When I read the piece, I too was struck by LeBlanc's complete immersion in to Trina's life and the situations and environments she exposed herself to. I never would have thought to compare this journalistic approach to anthropological research, but I think it's a good connection. I'm also curious as to the boundary between a reporter and his/her subject. LeBlanc herself in the piece states that she probably overstepped the boundary, but I think it almost made the piece more interesting to me.
The lower emotional valence a story has, the harder the writer has to work.
ReplyDeleteThere's a huge connection between ethnography and narrative journalism. Glad you made the connection.