How is it that no one's mentioned Saki or Wodehouse yet?
These two authors (especially the latter) embody the epitome of English humour and wit, before it went off onto that more surreal and absurdist bent embodied by Monty Python. Not that I dislike the Pythons - far from it - but if I had to say what takes more skill: making comedy with bizarre visual gags and non sequiturs or getting on without and dealing with only the real world and still pulling it off, I'd have to give the prize to Wodehouse.
Just finished reading Kill Your Friends by John Niven --- it's about this A/R dude in the music industry, circa 1996 London England.
Quote from a reviewer on Amazon :: *Imagine a character so completely depraved, degenerated and perverted that he makes Hannibal Lecter seem like a Sunday school teacher. Now imagine that character fueled by a mountain of cocaine and an ocean of vodka. Now take away any sensitivity he may have learned for others of a different race, gender, physical capability, social class, postal code or sexual preference. Make him believe that there is nothing so important as the pursuit of money, put him in a nice suit, give him an expense account and turn him loose on the world without a modicum of care about the consequences of his actions to himself or others.
I will caution you here: if you don't think humor can possibly mix with buckets of blood, vomit, urine, feces and semen, or if you couldn't possibly laugh where there is blatant bigotry, or if wretched excess offends you to the point where you lose your sense of humor, this might not be the book for you. *
Thank goodness it takes a lot to shock and offend me. Though my mouth was literally agape reading this novel. The whole damn time.
If it's a human interest piece, humans besides the author should be front and center. In good human interest features, the author may be a narrator up front, but after a certain point they must fade into the background so the other people who are central to the story can have their chance to speak. Nobody in this story has the chance to tell their own story: the writer is filling everything in for them.
There's a reason that journalists use tape recorders: supposedly, the article is going to be full of quotes. There are entire books on the interview process for a very good reason: http://www.amazon.com/Art-Interview-Lessons-Master-Craft/dp/1400050715
There are barely any quotes in this article. The meat of the article's journey into Tea Party territory is in a separate linked article that's more of a collage than an article. The idea that a good human interest story is a surface skimmer doesn't sit right with me at all. Why can't she quote her dad instead of just telling anecdotes about him? There's no rule that says he can't weigh in on the article.
The sparse quotes and attached collage were the only thing that separated this article from an eloquent blog entry.
Tietam Brown by Mick Foley. Maybe it's because I'm not American but nobody I know has heard of this novel, and few have even heard of Foley himself.