8. Best way to understand New Journalism is that it was always branch of fiction & a revolt against constraints of bourgeois literary novel
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
1. Disagree! Its techniques had no influence on fiction of that time, lots on journalism.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @LeoJCarey @HeerJeet
2. It was journalism reaching for literariness, more than it was fiction reaching for gritty reality
4 replies 3 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @LeoJCarey @HeerJeet
3. I think your argument assumes/propounds non-fiction as far more stable category than it is. But current standards are recent
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @LeoJCarey @HeerJeet
4. And I'll wager that stretching things here and there long predated New Journos. Not just Joe Mitchell et al but newspapers too
2 replies 4 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @LeoJCarey
Oh yeah, there's a long history of this. Even Orwell's Shooting the Elephant is heavily fictionalized.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
-
Replying to @briantedjones @LeoJCarey
Sure, our notions of "factual accuracy" very recent. I sometimes think they were invented by The New Yorker!
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @LeoJCarey
"Journalism" as a literary genre governed by codes of ethics and standards is a 20th century development, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @briantedjones @HeerJeet
Sure is. And incredibly valuable one. But other little things get lost in the general improvement
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Right. In some ways New Journalism was also attempt to recover older freedom that, say, Hazlitt had.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.