On Reading Fame and Obscurity
A recent reading of Fame and Obscurity, a collection of Gay Talese’s magazine profiles has caused some serious reflection about my writing about the homeless.
Talese was one of the early practitioners of the uniquely American non fiction writing style called New Journalism. Basically, the style was defined by its liberal use of fictional techniques to tell real stories.
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the book that made the style famous (billed as a non fiction novel) and it was also used by Joan Didion, Lillian Ross, Norman Mailer, Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson and many more writers.
Fame and Obscurity was published in 1970 and among its profiles were Frank Sinatra turning 50, Peter O’Toole at 30, Joe DiMaggio at 60. Talese was also masterful at capturing the odd jobs performed by New Yorkers during that era.
Talese would spend significant time with his subjects, sometimes a month or so, and was strictly observational (unlike Thompson) and never inserted himself into the narrative, let alone drive it (unlike Mailer). He was the fly on the wall who heard it all.
My point in writing this reflection is that lately (even before reading this book) I have been pondering my style when it comes to writing about homeless. Has it gone stale? Are the vignettes I post superficial in the treatment of people in extreme distress?
Some thoughts:
Talese’s subjects knew he was writing about them, whether they were celebrities or not. My subjects almost never know I’m writing about them. None are celebrities.
Talese had the luxury of observing his subjects interact with others over an extended period of time. With the exception of the members of the Old Crow Book Club, whom I interacted with on almost a daily basis for well over a year, all my meetings and observations last, minutes, seconds. Is that enough time? I guess you could what I’m doing is writing sketches, a popular 18th and 19th genre that appeared in magazines and newspapers. Is it a frivolous approach?
I will say my form of New Journalism, if that’s the word for it, has helped two people get into housing.
What we need, I think, to improve the journalism about the homeless is more follow-up to the initial reporting. You never see that in Street Roots, the weekly newspaper advocating for the homeless. In fact, they have no deep feature writing about the homeless (although they do about the dense and confusing policies addressing the crisis). It’s damn hard work to follow up on any story and takes weeks and endless legwork. Also remember, Talese and the New Journalism crowd were the highest paid non fiction writers from that era. They could make a living from it, get book contracts, and sell movie rights.
I don’t know where I am going with all this. It is important to me to occasionally check in with myself about my approaches to writing on a subject.
What I would like to do with my future writing on the subject is something similar I did with the book club: regular interactions with a group of homeless people where I can observe and participate and try and find some deeper meaning than just these ephemeral moments of extraordinary agony, pathos or the plain old bizarre.
This is what reading Fame and Obscurity did for me. And I found it for 99 cents in a Presbyterian church thrift store.