What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Journalism
Comments on the evolution of the New Journalism and presents representative writings by Gay Talese, Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, and others
394 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
About the author
Tom Wolfe
168 books2,804 followersWolfe was educated at Washington and Lee Universities and also at Yale, where he received a PhD in American studies.
Tom Wolfe spent his early days as a Washington Post beat reporter, where his free-association, onomatopoetic style would later become the trademark of New Journalism. In books such as The Electric Koolaid Acid Test, The Right Stuff, and The Bonfire of the Vanities, Wolfe delves into the inner workings of the mind, writing about the unconscious decisions people make in their lives. His attention to eccentricities of human behavior and language and to questions of social status are considered unparalleled in the American literary canon.
He is one of the founders of the New Journalism movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
Tom Wolfe is also famous for coining and defining the term fiction-absolute .
http://us.macmillan.com/author/tomwolfe
Tom Wolfe spent his early days as a Washington Post beat reporter, where his free-association, onomatopoetic style would later become the trademark of New Journalism. In books such as The Electric Koolaid Acid Test, The Right Stuff, and The Bonfire of the Vanities, Wolfe delves into the inner workings of the mind, writing about the unconscious decisions people make in their lives. His attention to eccentricities of human behavior and language and to questions of social status are considered unparalleled in the American literary canon.
He is one of the founders of the New Journalism movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
Tom Wolfe is also famous for coining and defining the term fiction-absolute .
http://us.macmillan.com/author/tomwolfe
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
June 16, 2018
…don't just describe an emotion, arouse it, make them experience it, by manipulating the symbol of the emotion…
― Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test
The New Journalism is a 1973 book that explains the concept behind the “new” kind of journalism presented by Tom Wolfe – and I say “new” because even Wolfe says there’s no novelty. The book is also an anthology. It includes several articles to exemplify the principles of this style: scene‐by‐scene construction, dialogue, third‐person point of view and recording of status‐life symbols. Norman Mailer, Rex Reed and John Dunne are some of the journalists whose work has been added to this wonderful collection.
One of my favorite articles was Beth Ann and Macrobioticism, by Robert Christgau. It was published in The New Herald Tribune in 1965. Wolfe points out the lack of dialogue but I don’t see it as a shortcoming at all: it’s a powerful story told using a clear, straightforward language that still conveys an emotion that never seems to burst.
Another shocking article is The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong, published in 1966 by Nicholas Tomalin. Repulsive and yet enthralling.
There are a couple of things I found a tad annoying. Tom Wolfe’s writing is something that leaves no one indifferent, especially to a punctuation purist. An excessive use of exclamation marks, onomatopoeia, dashes and dots everywhere? I don’t mean to retroactively (hailed as a milestone back then but a defunct movement for years now) disrupt your revolution but slow down, mate. Some things are sacred, there’s no need to arouse emotion through sheer vandalism.
Nevertheless, this is nothing but a detail when discussing accuracy and verifiability, which by no means should be sacrificed to give creativity a more important role.
Either way, this was a very enjoyable read. And an incredible source of inspiration, not only regarding themes but also due to some of the stylistic devices used by these journalists. I can also relate to the importance they give to the expression of emotions and its relationship with the reader. The raison d'être of the quote that opens this review.
Something about that reminds me of an interview with physician writer Daniel López Rosetti that I watched today in which he referred to humans as emotional beings that reason, distancing himself from the notion of rational beings that feel.
We don’t need to carry out any prolonged research to know which one is true, do we?
June 1, 18
* Also on my blog.
October 23, 2023
Highlights: pre Gonzo Hunter S. Thompson (on the Hells Angels), post-Gonzo Hunter S. Thompson (on the Kentucky Derby); Nicholas Tomalin and Michael Herr (the Vietnam war); Truman Capote (on murder in Kansas).
Middling pieces: Joan Didion (on the 60s), Terry Southern (on baton twirling), the normally impressive Gay Talese (on broadway).
Tedium: Tom Wolfe's own pieces.
Why on earth wasn't John McPhee's work included?
Middling pieces: Joan Didion (on the 60s), Terry Southern (on baton twirling), the normally impressive Gay Talese (on broadway).
Tedium: Tom Wolfe's own pieces.
Why on earth wasn't John McPhee's work included?
May 31, 2008
For the most part, what you find in this book is probably not Literature but I would say that it's great selection of feature articles from its era and it's a great resource as a whole, as far as giving someone insight into the world that existed a decade before his (my) birth. So, even if it never materialized as the literary phenomenon Wolfe thought it was, this collection serves to provide insight into the attitudes of Americans in the late sixties and early seventies vis-a-vis a wide spectrum of topics and the very style being celebrated gives one the impression of real insight into this other era.
From Wikipedia:
"New Journalism was a style of 1960s and 1970s news writing and journalism which used literary techniques deemed unconventional at the time. The term was codified with its current meaning by Tom Wolfe in a 1973 collection of journalism articles he published as The New Journalism, which included works by himself, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, Norman Mailer, Robert Christgau and others.
Articles in the New Journalism style tended not to be found in newspapers, but rather in magazines such as The New Yorker, New York Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, Rolling Stone, Esquire Magazine, CoEvolution Quarterly and for a short while Scanlan's Monthly."
A short while back a friend, while discussing the merits of Joan Didion linked me to this wikipedia entry and a week later I came across the book in the Essays section of a used bookstore and picked it up.
What I can say is that while some of the prose is a little tedious or dated, the stories themselves are generally quite interesting. There is an introductory essay by Tom Wolfe, which although in need of editing is worthwhile. Also the brief intros to each story are helpful though by the end your distaste for Wolfe is only sharpened.
Rex Reed's story of an unconventional interview with Ava Gardner was engaging enough that it made me want to read the book from which the story was excerpted.
The Gay Talese story about Broadway director Joshua Logan was similarly engaging and similarly piqued my curiosity about the book from which the story was excerpted.
Then comes a snooze of a sketch about an adolescent boy.
And then you have the first of several essays about the Vietnam War that are mostly of value because they give you a peephole into the Vietnam era. How people felt and so on and it's fascinating from a historical perspective. Also, I feel like reading the stories in this book has put the war experience into a slightly different, and sharper, light.
The excerpt from Truman Capote's IN COLD BLOOD was surprisingly flat, given all the hype. Perhaps it works better in context but considering how eloquent Capote was, I was struck by the flatness of the prose.
I WAS SHOCKED TO DISCOVER THAT ONE OF MY FAVORITE ARTICLES IN THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN FOR ROLLING STONE BY NONE OTHER THAN JOE ESZTERHAS. Seriously, imagine my surprise. It's about this hippie who kills some people in his podunk Kansas town and blows his brains out in the town square.
Terry Southern's story about a baton twirling institute in Mississippi was another high point. He's another author I'd be interested in learning more about.
Hunter S Thompson's "The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved" starts off engaging enough--and with such a catchy title!-- but by the end I was just irritated.
Norman Mailer shows how you can make tedious prose somewhat readable by telling a somewhat interesting story.
Another Vietnam combat story. Also illuminating.
Excerpt from Tom Wolfe's THE ELECTRIC KOOL-AID ACID TEST, which I found so obnoxious and dull I couldn't finish it. Tom Wolfe clearly felt hip when he was writing this. His hipness hasn't aged very well.
Then comes an entertaining feature on Warhol Superstar Viva.
The first chapter of THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT 1968, which seems to be about Nixon's presidential election campaign and which also made me curious about the rest of the book.
An excerpt from the venerable George Plimpton's book where he trained with the Detroit Lions for three weeks or something. Engaging enough, considering that the subject of football generally turns me right off. I thought I might read the whole book but, realistically, I doubt I ever will.
An interesting, if unsurprising profile of a New York detective. Filled with a few nuggets of new and interesting information as well as a fair amount of historical perspective.
An excerpt of John Gregory Dunne's book about Fox Studios, the excerpt being about a Minneapolis preview of Dr. Dolittle. It seemed to be a book I'd enjoy reading.
Another Vietnam War story. Part of me thinks I've been desensitized to Vietnam stories because of all the movies I've seen but there is something rather immediate about these articles.
Joan Didion's "Some Dreamers of the Golden Dream." Within the context of an anthology, I think that Didion's skill as a writer becomes even more apparent. I think the writing in this article is probably in a higher league than most of the other stuff in this book, which isn't surprising because this is generally regarded as what she did best and most of the other things in this book were written by journalists and other second-rate authors. So the other articles tend to have more of a journalistic merit, despite Wolfe's contention that this was the next great literary movement. I understand that Didion's early work is not to everyone's taste but earnestly believe it to be of real value.
A somewhat delightful bit about trading cocoa futures.
A fine story of a girl who died from an extreme macrobiotic diet.
An excerpt from Hunter S. Thompson's book on the Hell's Angels is substantially better than the bit about the derby. He seems more coherent here and it's pleasanter so.
An uneven but thought-provoking article that takes as its subject the Memphis garbage workers' trip to Atlanta for Martin Luther King's funeral and explores race relations in the South and negro culture, including the speaking style of black ministers.
And it ends with a medley of two excerpts from Tom Wolfe pieces, substantially better than the Ken Kesey electric Kool Aid bit. They have their weak points but I confess I'd be interested in reading the books from which the bits were excerpted...
From Wikipedia:
"New Journalism was a style of 1960s and 1970s news writing and journalism which used literary techniques deemed unconventional at the time. The term was codified with its current meaning by Tom Wolfe in a 1973 collection of journalism articles he published as The New Journalism, which included works by himself, Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, Norman Mailer, Robert Christgau and others.
Articles in the New Journalism style tended not to be found in newspapers, but rather in magazines such as The New Yorker, New York Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, Rolling Stone, Esquire Magazine, CoEvolution Quarterly and for a short while Scanlan's Monthly."
A short while back a friend, while discussing the merits of Joan Didion linked me to this wikipedia entry and a week later I came across the book in the Essays section of a used bookstore and picked it up.
What I can say is that while some of the prose is a little tedious or dated, the stories themselves are generally quite interesting. There is an introductory essay by Tom Wolfe, which although in need of editing is worthwhile. Also the brief intros to each story are helpful though by the end your distaste for Wolfe is only sharpened.
Rex Reed's story of an unconventional interview with Ava Gardner was engaging enough that it made me want to read the book from which the story was excerpted.
The Gay Talese story about Broadway director Joshua Logan was similarly engaging and similarly piqued my curiosity about the book from which the story was excerpted.
Then comes a snooze of a sketch about an adolescent boy.
And then you have the first of several essays about the Vietnam War that are mostly of value because they give you a peephole into the Vietnam era. How people felt and so on and it's fascinating from a historical perspective. Also, I feel like reading the stories in this book has put the war experience into a slightly different, and sharper, light.
The excerpt from Truman Capote's IN COLD BLOOD was surprisingly flat, given all the hype. Perhaps it works better in context but considering how eloquent Capote was, I was struck by the flatness of the prose.
I WAS SHOCKED TO DISCOVER THAT ONE OF MY FAVORITE ARTICLES IN THIS BOOK WAS WRITTEN FOR ROLLING STONE BY NONE OTHER THAN JOE ESZTERHAS. Seriously, imagine my surprise. It's about this hippie who kills some people in his podunk Kansas town and blows his brains out in the town square.
Terry Southern's story about a baton twirling institute in Mississippi was another high point. He's another author I'd be interested in learning more about.
Hunter S Thompson's "The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent and Depraved" starts off engaging enough--and with such a catchy title!-- but by the end I was just irritated.
Norman Mailer shows how you can make tedious prose somewhat readable by telling a somewhat interesting story.
Another Vietnam combat story. Also illuminating.
Excerpt from Tom Wolfe's THE ELECTRIC KOOL-AID ACID TEST, which I found so obnoxious and dull I couldn't finish it. Tom Wolfe clearly felt hip when he was writing this. His hipness hasn't aged very well.
Then comes an entertaining feature on Warhol Superstar Viva.
The first chapter of THE SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT 1968, which seems to be about Nixon's presidential election campaign and which also made me curious about the rest of the book.
An excerpt from the venerable George Plimpton's book where he trained with the Detroit Lions for three weeks or something. Engaging enough, considering that the subject of football generally turns me right off. I thought I might read the whole book but, realistically, I doubt I ever will.
An interesting, if unsurprising profile of a New York detective. Filled with a few nuggets of new and interesting information as well as a fair amount of historical perspective.
An excerpt of John Gregory Dunne's book about Fox Studios, the excerpt being about a Minneapolis preview of Dr. Dolittle. It seemed to be a book I'd enjoy reading.
Another Vietnam War story. Part of me thinks I've been desensitized to Vietnam stories because of all the movies I've seen but there is something rather immediate about these articles.
Joan Didion's "Some Dreamers of the Golden Dream." Within the context of an anthology, I think that Didion's skill as a writer becomes even more apparent. I think the writing in this article is probably in a higher league than most of the other stuff in this book, which isn't surprising because this is generally regarded as what she did best and most of the other things in this book were written by journalists and other second-rate authors. So the other articles tend to have more of a journalistic merit, despite Wolfe's contention that this was the next great literary movement. I understand that Didion's early work is not to everyone's taste but earnestly believe it to be of real value.
A somewhat delightful bit about trading cocoa futures.
A fine story of a girl who died from an extreme macrobiotic diet.
An excerpt from Hunter S. Thompson's book on the Hell's Angels is substantially better than the bit about the derby. He seems more coherent here and it's pleasanter so.
An uneven but thought-provoking article that takes as its subject the Memphis garbage workers' trip to Atlanta for Martin Luther King's funeral and explores race relations in the South and negro culture, including the speaking style of black ministers.
And it ends with a medley of two excerpts from Tom Wolfe pieces, substantially better than the Ken Kesey electric Kool Aid bit. They have their weak points but I confess I'd be interested in reading the books from which the bits were excerpted...
July 23, 2008
Na verdade gostei mais do ensaio de Tom Wolfe sobre o Novo Jornalismo do que as matérias que fazem parte do livro Radical Chique e o Novo Jornalismo. Minha birra com Tom Wolfe é justamente a linguagem: a idéia é legal, mas me parece que ele exagera. E de certa forma, vemos que isso fica mais claro no ensaio sobre o tão comentado novo jornalismo.
Wolfe argumenta que à época que surge o novo jornalismo, falta um romance que explique a sociedade americana da época (é preciso conferir e não tenho o livro, mas parece que estamos falando da década de 1960). Com o "grande romance" em crise, o jornalismo passa a tomar para si técnicas, antes exclusivas da literatura, e começa a preencher esse espaço deixado pela ficção. Não sei/lembro se ele chega a falar que os jornalistas explicam a sociedade melhor, mas não me espantaria uma opinião dessas dele. E ainda há aquela sensação de que aquilo que estamos lendo "é de verdade, realmente aconteceu". Creio que a reportagem acabe ganhando alguns pontos com isso. Mas eu tenho cá minhas dúvidas a respeito dessa grande crise do romance americano. É só uma desconfiança sem base, mas é que Tom Wolfe enaltece tanto o novo jornalismo em detrimento da ficção da época, que fiquei com um pé atrás.
Diálogos, metáforas, descrição, e outras técnicas passam a enriquecer a escrita jornalística. E isso realmente é fantástico, mas corre-se o risco de exagerar. Sou da opinião que às vezes Tom Wolfe não consegue dosar isso muito bem, apesar das boas intenções. Sua ambição é fazer com que a linguagem também tenha algo a dizer, que se molde à pauta, ao personagem, à intenção do texto. Nota-se esse esforço em suas reportagens no livro e há ainda um outro livro em que isso fica ainda mais claro: O teste do ácido do refresco elétrico. Na tentativa de reproduzir as experiências e a sensação por que passavam os "Festivos Gozadores" (voluntários nas pesquisas com LSD nos EUA), ele tenta fazer da linguagem algo um pouco psicodélico também. No início parece sensacional, mas ao longo do livro me irritou, tornou a leitura mais cansativa e menos prazerosa.
Wolfe argumenta que à época que surge o novo jornalismo, falta um romance que explique a sociedade americana da época (é preciso conferir e não tenho o livro, mas parece que estamos falando da década de 1960). Com o "grande romance" em crise, o jornalismo passa a tomar para si técnicas, antes exclusivas da literatura, e começa a preencher esse espaço deixado pela ficção. Não sei/lembro se ele chega a falar que os jornalistas explicam a sociedade melhor, mas não me espantaria uma opinião dessas dele. E ainda há aquela sensação de que aquilo que estamos lendo "é de verdade, realmente aconteceu". Creio que a reportagem acabe ganhando alguns pontos com isso. Mas eu tenho cá minhas dúvidas a respeito dessa grande crise do romance americano. É só uma desconfiança sem base, mas é que Tom Wolfe enaltece tanto o novo jornalismo em detrimento da ficção da época, que fiquei com um pé atrás.
Diálogos, metáforas, descrição, e outras técnicas passam a enriquecer a escrita jornalística. E isso realmente é fantástico, mas corre-se o risco de exagerar. Sou da opinião que às vezes Tom Wolfe não consegue dosar isso muito bem, apesar das boas intenções. Sua ambição é fazer com que a linguagem também tenha algo a dizer, que se molde à pauta, ao personagem, à intenção do texto. Nota-se esse esforço em suas reportagens no livro e há ainda um outro livro em que isso fica ainda mais claro: O teste do ácido do refresco elétrico. Na tentativa de reproduzir as experiências e a sensação por que passavam os "Festivos Gozadores" (voluntários nas pesquisas com LSD nos EUA), ele tenta fazer da linguagem algo um pouco psicodélico também. No início parece sensacional, mas ao longo do livro me irritou, tornou a leitura mais cansativa e menos prazerosa.
February 16, 2017
I will spend the rest of my life re-reading this book. (I know I said that I would take Truman Capote's ANSWERED PRAYERS with me to a desert island, but were I allotted two books, this would be the second...)
In TNJ, journalists hysterically, bizarrely, fearlessly write themselves into their own stories. It's a commonly used magazine article device now, but going back to the form's origins is where all the fun waits. (After all, if it's Hunter S. Thompson writing himself into a story, no one's safe.)
My copy is worn to dust, and yours will be, too. These are the masters of the modern narrative form at work.
In TNJ, journalists hysterically, bizarrely, fearlessly write themselves into their own stories. It's a commonly used magazine article device now, but going back to the form's origins is where all the fun waits. (After all, if it's Hunter S. Thompson writing himself into a story, no one's safe.)
My copy is worn to dust, and yours will be, too. These are the masters of the modern narrative form at work.
January 6, 2016
Great authors writing short stories from the 60's & 70's. This is a wide slice of the mid-century New Journalism epoch. It features charged work from every major player (including Terry Southern and others curiously ignored in Weingarten's overview). The predictions in Wolfe's manifesto haven't panned out as pervasively as he expected - if anything, today's writerly writers, by and large, are more gimmicky, narcissistic and insulated than ever - but that's capital-L Literature's loss, and the night is young. Humorous and intriguing. Very pleased.
January 27, 2019
First Year At University: This Beautiful Bullshit.
June 7, 2014
Tom Wolfe introduces this anthology of writing with a discussion of the [ostensibly] universal ambition among writers to gain the respect of their colleagues and readers. He argues that, in his day, novelists still had the top position in the hierarchy of writers, journalists the lowest rung on the social ladder, and he sets out to challenge this [unsatisfactory] situation radically. "A writer needs at least enough ego to believe that what he is doing as a writer is as important as what anyone he is writing about is doing and that therefore he shouldn't compromise his own work. If he doesn't believe that his own writing is one of the most important activities going on in contemporary civilisation, then he ought to move on to something he thinks is..." This is a level of belief that Tom Wolfe displays here in abundance.
Truman Capote, when he published In Cold Blood, protested that it was not mere journalism, but a new style of novel that he had invented - "the non-fiction novel." Wolfe observes this is because novels had far greater social status than mere journalism. This was not always the case. When Henry Fielding published Joseph Andrews in 1742, he denied that it was an example of the novel, which was had very low status then, but was indeed a "comic epic poem in prose" comparable to a lost comic epic of ancient Greece called The Margites. In fact, especially with Tom Jones, Fielding and other writers of realistic novels transformed the status of the novel for the next two centuries. Tom Wolfe suggests that the New Journalism was about to have the same effect on modern journalism.
Wolfe argues that epic poetry belonged to an age before mass literacy. It inevitably gave way to the novel, because the novel is a far more effective vehicle by which to engage its audience - to draw the reader in. This he attributes to its greater capacity for realism.
"The psychological, moral, philosophical, emotional, poetic, visionary (one may supply the adjective as needed) power of Dickens, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Mann, Faulkner, is made possible only by the fact that they first wired their work into the main circuit, which is realism."
But the writers of novels still retained a distance from their material which was only now being eliminated by the techniques of the New Journalism. The novel would give way to such journalism because of the demand among readers to be engaged as directly and fully as possible in the experience described - to feel as though they were there in person.
Wolfe defines New Journalism as having four techniques or qualities that combine to achieve a transformation in the level of realism. First - tell the story scene by scene [so that readers experience events as they happened]. Second - record dialogue in full. ["It establishes and defines character more quickly and effectively than any other single device."] Third - present every scene through the eyes of a participant, ["giving the reader the feeling of being inside the character's mind and experiencing the emotional reality of the scene..."]. Fourth, a very detailed recording of what he calls the "status life" of people - their gestures,..habits, ..furniture.., clothing.., styles of eating, travelling, keeping house... "the entire pattern of behaviour and possessions through which people express their position in the world..." In brief, all of the techniques of reporting - all the weary slog of investigation and recording - are employed to supply the material required for a story and all of the techniques of the writer's art are applied to this material in order to construct an extraordinarily realistic account of people and events, so that the reader can in turn feel totally involved in the resulting account.
Wolfe's hymn to realistic writing is infectious. The anthology is by all means a tribute to its achievements. It is excessively masculine it must be said, with two women writers included among 23 pieces of writing. It is excessively driven too - just packed with energy and aggression and competitive testing of the limits. All that might be forgiven in "the most important activities going on in contemporary civilisation."
But all this was published in 1973. Reading again my terribly discoloured and worn copy of this exciting book, a treasured heirloom from my distant youth, I have to wonder what has become of this exciting movement towards greater realism and greater involvement of the reader.
Wolfe may have underestimated the capacity of our media to take hold of a powerful movement such as this and to tame it, to wring all life from it, reducing it to the limp reflection of the past which is the reality of much contemporary journalism. He may have correctly estimated the public demand for realism, but helped to open the gates to the modern levels of intrusion into the private lives of anyone standing between the media and a story they can sell. Realism may today have become a form of hyper-realism, with the publication through Wikileaks of impossibly huge quantities of deeply secret and private email communications between officials in the recesses of government agencies, and through Snowden proving the theft by government agencies of impossibly huge quantities of deeply private communications between citizens of every western democracy. In their turn, the public may have accepted the impossibility of privacy and taken to making their own lives public through Facebook and other social media.
Worst of all, I wonder how far the explosion of realism in our media conceals also an explosion of pure dishonesty and manipulation of the public by powerful agencies skilled in the presentation of a false reality. After every revolution there often comes a counter-revolution.
What is wrong then in this project? I wonder if it is a failure to recognise that reality (especially social reality) is as much a construct as a phenomenon. However close the New Journalist may approach to a detailed and exhaustive record of social reality, there will always be a huge element of selective perception, of selective blindness too, and it will remain to be further selected, interpreted and presented in accordance with the beliefs and values of the journalist, which may indeed have been formed prior to starting the work because that is how the New Journalist is likely to select a subject for research. The problem with "Realism" is that is in itself an illusion produced by great writing. And the problem with writing that deeply engages the reader is that it also disarms and manipulates, so that the reader accepts as reality what is, after all, story telling.
When anyone claims to have discovered the Truth, it is always a good idea to be deeply suspicious. Wolfe attacks writers who prefer myth and fable and other forms of writing that are less realistic and less engaging of the reader. Possibly, however, many writers do not accept the false god of realism because they suspect it has a very dark aspect. Perhaps it is no bad thing to hold some distance between writer and subject, between reader and story, that acknowledges the need for a more thoughtful, critical, complicated transaction between the reader and the material.
Finally, Wolfe has some entertainment at the expense of the "man of letters", a designation which Balzac has said is the worst insult one can offer to any author, and of whom T.S.Eliot said that they are "minds of the second order," useful to do the bookkeeping and to help circulate the ideas of others. Such a sharp blow to the wounded ego of any reviewer - for instance this one - is helpful to revive the critical faculties and overcome the temptation to hero worship of such a colourful and potent literary giant as Tom Wolfe. Yes he is a big guy, I am a little guy, but his excited appeal to the exalted status of the New Journalism, of realism in general and himself in particular, is nevertheless politically innocent, naive about the sociology of communication and mass media and blind to the potential abuse of these techniques in an age of continuing ideological conflict. And whatever T.S Eliot's status in the world of poetry, do we really want his elitist guidance in a matter as political as journalism? Wolf needs to read his Orwell again.
Truman Capote, when he published In Cold Blood, protested that it was not mere journalism, but a new style of novel that he had invented - "the non-fiction novel." Wolfe observes this is because novels had far greater social status than mere journalism. This was not always the case. When Henry Fielding published Joseph Andrews in 1742, he denied that it was an example of the novel, which was had very low status then, but was indeed a "comic epic poem in prose" comparable to a lost comic epic of ancient Greece called The Margites. In fact, especially with Tom Jones, Fielding and other writers of realistic novels transformed the status of the novel for the next two centuries. Tom Wolfe suggests that the New Journalism was about to have the same effect on modern journalism.
Wolfe argues that epic poetry belonged to an age before mass literacy. It inevitably gave way to the novel, because the novel is a far more effective vehicle by which to engage its audience - to draw the reader in. This he attributes to its greater capacity for realism.
"The psychological, moral, philosophical, emotional, poetic, visionary (one may supply the adjective as needed) power of Dickens, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Mann, Faulkner, is made possible only by the fact that they first wired their work into the main circuit, which is realism."
But the writers of novels still retained a distance from their material which was only now being eliminated by the techniques of the New Journalism. The novel would give way to such journalism because of the demand among readers to be engaged as directly and fully as possible in the experience described - to feel as though they were there in person.
Wolfe defines New Journalism as having four techniques or qualities that combine to achieve a transformation in the level of realism. First - tell the story scene by scene [so that readers experience events as they happened]. Second - record dialogue in full. ["It establishes and defines character more quickly and effectively than any other single device."] Third - present every scene through the eyes of a participant, ["giving the reader the feeling of being inside the character's mind and experiencing the emotional reality of the scene..."]. Fourth, a very detailed recording of what he calls the "status life" of people - their gestures,..habits, ..furniture.., clothing.., styles of eating, travelling, keeping house... "the entire pattern of behaviour and possessions through which people express their position in the world..." In brief, all of the techniques of reporting - all the weary slog of investigation and recording - are employed to supply the material required for a story and all of the techniques of the writer's art are applied to this material in order to construct an extraordinarily realistic account of people and events, so that the reader can in turn feel totally involved in the resulting account.
Wolfe's hymn to realistic writing is infectious. The anthology is by all means a tribute to its achievements. It is excessively masculine it must be said, with two women writers included among 23 pieces of writing. It is excessively driven too - just packed with energy and aggression and competitive testing of the limits. All that might be forgiven in "the most important activities going on in contemporary civilisation."
But all this was published in 1973. Reading again my terribly discoloured and worn copy of this exciting book, a treasured heirloom from my distant youth, I have to wonder what has become of this exciting movement towards greater realism and greater involvement of the reader.
Wolfe may have underestimated the capacity of our media to take hold of a powerful movement such as this and to tame it, to wring all life from it, reducing it to the limp reflection of the past which is the reality of much contemporary journalism. He may have correctly estimated the public demand for realism, but helped to open the gates to the modern levels of intrusion into the private lives of anyone standing between the media and a story they can sell. Realism may today have become a form of hyper-realism, with the publication through Wikileaks of impossibly huge quantities of deeply secret and private email communications between officials in the recesses of government agencies, and through Snowden proving the theft by government agencies of impossibly huge quantities of deeply private communications between citizens of every western democracy. In their turn, the public may have accepted the impossibility of privacy and taken to making their own lives public through Facebook and other social media.
Worst of all, I wonder how far the explosion of realism in our media conceals also an explosion of pure dishonesty and manipulation of the public by powerful agencies skilled in the presentation of a false reality. After every revolution there often comes a counter-revolution.
What is wrong then in this project? I wonder if it is a failure to recognise that reality (especially social reality) is as much a construct as a phenomenon. However close the New Journalist may approach to a detailed and exhaustive record of social reality, there will always be a huge element of selective perception, of selective blindness too, and it will remain to be further selected, interpreted and presented in accordance with the beliefs and values of the journalist, which may indeed have been formed prior to starting the work because that is how the New Journalist is likely to select a subject for research. The problem with "Realism" is that is in itself an illusion produced by great writing. And the problem with writing that deeply engages the reader is that it also disarms and manipulates, so that the reader accepts as reality what is, after all, story telling.
When anyone claims to have discovered the Truth, it is always a good idea to be deeply suspicious. Wolfe attacks writers who prefer myth and fable and other forms of writing that are less realistic and less engaging of the reader. Possibly, however, many writers do not accept the false god of realism because they suspect it has a very dark aspect. Perhaps it is no bad thing to hold some distance between writer and subject, between reader and story, that acknowledges the need for a more thoughtful, critical, complicated transaction between the reader and the material.
Finally, Wolfe has some entertainment at the expense of the "man of letters", a designation which Balzac has said is the worst insult one can offer to any author, and of whom T.S.Eliot said that they are "minds of the second order," useful to do the bookkeeping and to help circulate the ideas of others. Such a sharp blow to the wounded ego of any reviewer - for instance this one - is helpful to revive the critical faculties and overcome the temptation to hero worship of such a colourful and potent literary giant as Tom Wolfe. Yes he is a big guy, I am a little guy, but his excited appeal to the exalted status of the New Journalism, of realism in general and himself in particular, is nevertheless politically innocent, naive about the sociology of communication and mass media and blind to the potential abuse of these techniques in an age of continuing ideological conflict. And whatever T.S Eliot's status in the world of poetry, do we really want his elitist guidance in a matter as political as journalism? Wolf needs to read his Orwell again.
March 8, 2014
Disfruté, sobre todo, la primera parte: esa en la que Tom Wolfe habla sobre el nuevo periodismo, sobre el fenómeno que fue y sobre el posicionamiento del movimiento. La segunda, la antología, me parece a ratos un tanto irregular. Sin embargo, hay fragmentos que me gustaron bastante: el reportaje sobre las bastoneras, por ejemplo o el fragmento de "Izquierda exquisita" del mismo Wolfe.
Hay, en este libro, algo que me parece muy curioso: El nuevo periodismo se publicó en 1973, muy poco tiempo después del auge del movimiento. Me parece que es esta distancia, tan corta, lo que hace que Wolfe hable con cierta ceguera, medio a tientas, sin poder tomar la distancia necesaria para ver con objetividad el cuadro completo (es decir, Wolfe escribe desde adentro, como haciendo una antología sobre nuevo periodismo utilizando las técnicas propias del nuevo periodismo: aquí no hay distancia, se habla de lo que nos envuelve desde nuestra perspectiva, limitada pero inmersa en el fenómeno). Creo que para explicar mejor a qué me refiero es importante recordar que se trata de una antología, precedida por un texto que sirve de introducción pero, sobre todo, de manifiesto.
Es común que una antología implique una apuesta: el antologador toma riesgos, no sabe si su canon se empatará con ese otro canon mayor y más contundente que va construyendo la distancia, la relectura y el paso del tiempo. En este libro, Wolfe habla con una seguridad y una decisión tales que pareciera que no es consciente de ello: está apostando y no duda en su apuesta. Ahora, a la distancia, aún sabiendo que ha ganado parte de esa apuesta, podemos notar que aventuró demasiado, que exageró en su ser categórico, que se equivocó en varias de sus sentencias lapidarias.
Otro asunto que llamó mi atención es la construcción que Wolfe hace de sí mismo en el libro: en las primeras páginas suelta, como quien no quiere la cosa, su título académico: es doctor en literatura norteamericana. Pareciera que Wolfe, al armar este libro, trata de legitimarse todo el tiempo y frente a todo el mundo. Es como si nos dijera: "tengo la formación académica para hablar del nuevo periodismo como fenómeno, para afirmar la posición privilegiada que tomó, para narrar el proceso mediante el cual llegó a esta posición y, además, tengo las credenciales para considerarme eje central de este movimiento". En este sentido, a ratos, pareciera que este libro, más que dar a conocer el movimiento y sus ideales y características, busca posicionar el propio Wolfe como el máximo exponente, el mejor, el más certero, del nuevo periodismo: él nos dice quién juega y quién no, ¿quién más podría hacerlo?, es Wolfe quien está dictando las reglas.
Hay, en este libro, algo que me parece muy curioso: El nuevo periodismo se publicó en 1973, muy poco tiempo después del auge del movimiento. Me parece que es esta distancia, tan corta, lo que hace que Wolfe hable con cierta ceguera, medio a tientas, sin poder tomar la distancia necesaria para ver con objetividad el cuadro completo (es decir, Wolfe escribe desde adentro, como haciendo una antología sobre nuevo periodismo utilizando las técnicas propias del nuevo periodismo: aquí no hay distancia, se habla de lo que nos envuelve desde nuestra perspectiva, limitada pero inmersa en el fenómeno). Creo que para explicar mejor a qué me refiero es importante recordar que se trata de una antología, precedida por un texto que sirve de introducción pero, sobre todo, de manifiesto.
Es común que una antología implique una apuesta: el antologador toma riesgos, no sabe si su canon se empatará con ese otro canon mayor y más contundente que va construyendo la distancia, la relectura y el paso del tiempo. En este libro, Wolfe habla con una seguridad y una decisión tales que pareciera que no es consciente de ello: está apostando y no duda en su apuesta. Ahora, a la distancia, aún sabiendo que ha ganado parte de esa apuesta, podemos notar que aventuró demasiado, que exageró en su ser categórico, que se equivocó en varias de sus sentencias lapidarias.
Otro asunto que llamó mi atención es la construcción que Wolfe hace de sí mismo en el libro: en las primeras páginas suelta, como quien no quiere la cosa, su título académico: es doctor en literatura norteamericana. Pareciera que Wolfe, al armar este libro, trata de legitimarse todo el tiempo y frente a todo el mundo. Es como si nos dijera: "tengo la formación académica para hablar del nuevo periodismo como fenómeno, para afirmar la posición privilegiada que tomó, para narrar el proceso mediante el cual llegó a esta posición y, además, tengo las credenciales para considerarme eje central de este movimiento". En este sentido, a ratos, pareciera que este libro, más que dar a conocer el movimiento y sus ideales y características, busca posicionar el propio Wolfe como el máximo exponente, el mejor, el más certero, del nuevo periodismo: él nos dice quién juega y quién no, ¿quién más podría hacerlo?, es Wolfe quien está dictando las reglas.
May 21, 2018
If nothing else, a useful index into a range of skilled nonfiction authors from the '60s. Defining the exact limits of New Journalism is difficult, and I think probably archaic in a modern setting, but Wolfe does his best here to draw out the common threads from the exemplar work of some impressive journalists of the period. The core topics of the era (Vietnam, civil rights) appear a few times in the pieces, but the writers are not all 'big issue' commentators. More than anything, the defining characteristic of the genre is honest _detail_ from the lives and experiences of the observed.
A few of the pieces really stood out, and are worthy of mention. Michael Herr's dispatch from the besieged fort in Vietnam was riveting with atmospheric tension; Joe Eszterhas' article _Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse_ was beautifully evenhanded in dissecting the causes of a mad-dog shooting incident in a hippy-versus-square small town, almost a Stephen King novel by itself. Hunter S. Thompson was startlingly brilliant in his coverage of the Kentucky Derby and the Hell's Angels, which suggests to me that the drugs really didn't help his later work (but makes me want to read more of the earlier stuff). James Mills' _The Detective_ is great police reporting which could have been written last week; 'Adam Smith''s excerpt from _The Money Game_ was similarly brilliant at communicating the nature of market trading.
Other items were mostly entertaining even if not staggering. I quite enjoyed the pieces by Norman Mailer and Joan Didion, and the excerpt from _In Cold Blood_. Rex Reed's celebrity interview did nothing for me, and neither did Joe McGinnis' odd retelling of a Nixon television taping. The least virtuoso piece was probably Wolfe's own excerpt from _The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test_ which was frankly unreadable and tiresomely so, a babbling outflow of delirium from a subject I was not at all motivated to care about. His other excerpt wasn't much better, and even his editorial introduction was a bit grating. I think it's fair to say that I am not a fan of his style.
A few of the pieces really stood out, and are worthy of mention. Michael Herr's dispatch from the besieged fort in Vietnam was riveting with atmospheric tension; Joe Eszterhas' article _Charlie Simpson's Apocalypse_ was beautifully evenhanded in dissecting the causes of a mad-dog shooting incident in a hippy-versus-square small town, almost a Stephen King novel by itself. Hunter S. Thompson was startlingly brilliant in his coverage of the Kentucky Derby and the Hell's Angels, which suggests to me that the drugs really didn't help his later work (but makes me want to read more of the earlier stuff). James Mills' _The Detective_ is great police reporting which could have been written last week; 'Adam Smith''s excerpt from _The Money Game_ was similarly brilliant at communicating the nature of market trading.
Other items were mostly entertaining even if not staggering. I quite enjoyed the pieces by Norman Mailer and Joan Didion, and the excerpt from _In Cold Blood_. Rex Reed's celebrity interview did nothing for me, and neither did Joe McGinnis' odd retelling of a Nixon television taping. The least virtuoso piece was probably Wolfe's own excerpt from _The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test_ which was frankly unreadable and tiresomely so, a babbling outflow of delirium from a subject I was not at all motivated to care about. His other excerpt wasn't much better, and even his editorial introduction was a bit grating. I think it's fair to say that I am not a fan of his style.
February 5, 2012
La dignificación del Periodismo
¿Qué demonios pasa?, se preguntó un joven reportero Tom Wolfe en 1962, luego de leer un artículo de la revista Esquire. Lo que tenía que ser una historia relatada con la rigurosidad (y, aceptémoslo, monotonía) propia del periodismo más hierático empezaba más bien con el montaje de una escena conforme a un relato. Salvo el desfile de unos cuantos datos a la manera propia del periodismo viejo, lo demás muy bien podía leerse como un relato de ficción. Salvo que no era ficción. Era algo nuevo.
En la Norteamérica de los 60’s, y con seguridad en el resto del mundo, el nivel más alto del escalafón literario era ocupado casi enteramente por novelistas. Su trabajo se constituía como la expresión mejor acabada artística y profesionalmente en el ámbito de las letras. Más abajo, o casi a la altura, podían ubicarse los poetas, los ensayistas, luego los críticos, los biógrafos, etc.; y ya hacia el final, cuando no quedaba nada más por nombrarse, casi de manera desapercibida, estaban los periodistas.
Naturalmente, el periodismo siempre fue un oficio de muchísima utilidad social, capaz de prestar servicios valiosos, esgrimir la pluma y echar a correr ríos de tinta a favor de las causas más nobles. Sin embargo, su indignidad radicaba en el escaso valor artístico que tenía dentro del mundo literario. La mirada profunda y extensa, la amplia paleta presta al retrato más minucioso, la valía estilística y creativa eran propiedad de la novela y alguno que otro género. Los periodistas, en la mayoría de casos, eran más o menos considerados unos redactores baratos y de poco brillo. Hasta que, por alguna razón, alguien pateó la mesa.
El Nuevo Periodismo de Tom Wolfe es la explicación exacta, contextualizada y antologadora de cómo la mesa fue pateada, tirando en el camino copas, naipes, ceniceros y una que otra vieja momia. En la primera parte del libro Wolfe nos explica cómo es que a inicios de los 60’s, de buenas a primeras los reporteros de medios como Esquire o el Herald Tribune empezaron a experimentar con las formas propias de la novela: narradores heterodiegéticos, diálogos realistas, construcción por escenas y todo un sinfín de innovaciones que el viejo y tieso estilo periodista no concebía. Naturalmente, esta forma invasiva despertó el recelo del mundo académico serio, que no perdió tiempo en descalificar este nuevo movimiento acusándolo de mentiroso en sus datos y, además, banal.
De pronto, para redimirse, el periodista ya no tenía que abandonar la redacción y correr a la cabaña de un amigo para encerrarse y escribir, por fin, ¡La Novela! No. Ya no era necesario moverse de casa. El periodismo aprovechaba, además de las técnicas, toda la riqueza de los temas que los locos 60’s ofrecían (las drogas, Vietnam, el sexo, el hipismo, los movimientos radicales, etc.). Así lo demuestra la estupenda antología de artículos que recoge este libro en su segunda parte.
¿Cómo lo hace? Se preguntaría uno, tras leer La exquisita izquierda de Tom Wolfe. Un periodista que recoge en su texto sueños y pensamientos del protagonista, reproduce diálogos e impresiones de los personajes con exactitud y todo sin haberse inventado nada. ¿Es eso posible? Lo es. El truco es que no hay truco. Sencillamente la investigación ha sido exhaustiva. Aquellas piezas realmente esconden horas y horas de entrevistas y tiempo invertido detrás de los protagonistas. El periodista permanece tanto tiempo con ellos que, en un determinado momento, desaparece y los acontecimientos simplemente toman lugar en su presencia, casi como si ésta no contaminara.
En aquella década se publicaron muchas novelas que respaldaron la salud del nuevo movimiento. De entre todas ellas, destaca y nos ocupa, por supuesto, A Sangre Fría de Truman Capote. Podría decirse que esta non fiction novel es la guinda del pastel y la consagración de un escritor extraordinario.
Esta obra (descrita por Norman Mailer como «Un fracaso de la imaginación») trata sobre el horrendo homicidio de los Clutter, una próspera familia de Kansas, y el apresamiento y posterior ejecución de Dick y Perry, los asesinos. En este libro, el trabajo de investigación y recopilación (monstruosa) de datos llega a niveles insólitos. Capote llegó a acumular hasta seis mil páginas de notas y entrevistas transcritas. El escritor le dedicó a esta obra casi seis años de su vida. Trabajó en ella desde 1959, cuando se enteró del crimen por los periódicos, y no lo vio publicado en forma de libro hasta 1966, si bien antes el material vio la luz a través de cuatro entregas en la revista New Yorker.
Podría afirmarse sin miedo, que Capote se entrevistó con absolutamente todo aquel que tuviera que ver de alguna forma con la historia. Desde los cuatro agentes del KIB que llevaron el caso hasta los familiares de las víctimas y los acusados, pasando por la gente relevante del pequeño Holcomb y Garden City.
El producto es una novela de más de trescientas páginas en las cuales un narrador omnisciente nos presenta a la próspera familia Clutter, residente en Holcomb, Kansas. El montaje es en paralelo. Por un lado acudimos como lectores al último día de los Clutter y conocemos a cada uno de sus miembros. El laborioso y emprendedor Herb Clutter, el jefe de la familia que convive con su afectada esposa, una mujer delicada y con problemas psíquicos. Los dos hijos son ejemplares. La chica es una organizada y bella jovencita que siempre tiene tiempo para todos, y el hijo es un joven brillante, inventivo y hábil con las manos. Sus vidas son apacibles y no tienen enemigos. Nada parece presagiar que fueran a ser víctimas, aquella noche, de un par de desequilibrados criminales. Dick y Perry, por otra parte, a quienes el narrador alterna con habilidad, preparan el crimen que vivirá en la infamia. Hacia la parte final, cuando ellos son capturados, la narración se vuelve lineal y sigue con minuciosidad toda la experiencia que es para ellos el proceso judicial que afrontan.
El trabajo de los personajes no es solo impecable, va más allá. Principalmente en los perfiles de Perry y Dick, el narrador no solo nos da un generoso atisbo de quiénes y cómo son, sino que nos zambulle de cabeza en sus mentes, en sus historias personales y consecuentes formas de pensar y enfrentar el mundo. Dick es un joven encantador y despierto que, si bien no lo tuvo todo, sí tuvo en apariencia la suficiente protección familiar como para no volverse un sociópata. Su compañero, Perry, sin embargo, es el que se roba las miradas. Consciente o inconscientemente es el personaje que Capote retrata mejor, dicen que porque se enamoró o se identificó mucho con él, o ambas cosas. El caso es que este joven hipersensible, que cargaba a todos lados con su vieja guitarra Gibson y sus cajas de libros, es el que despierta más simpatía de entre los dos asesinos.
Hacia la parte final del libro es cuando las señas del reportaje se dejan ver con mayor claridad. Entonces uno se da cuenta, o vuelve a ser consciente, que de verdad todo aquello es investigación neta y que el autor no se ha inventado una sola palabra (o, si lo ha hecho, no han sido muchas). Capote alterna con la narración declaraciones directas de los dos condenados. Lo que están diciendo en sus últimos meses se lo cuentan a alguien, una persona que aparece mencionado directamente apenas una vez.
—La noche era fría —decía Hickock a un periodista con el que mantenía correspondencia y que tenía permiso para visitarle periódicamente—. Fría y húmeda.
Es, posiblemente, una manera que tiene Capote para decir «Hey, yo estuve allí», una forma de introducirse en una historia en la que, aunque no se mencione, ineludiblemente tuvo un papel importante. Es una manera de manifestar el nivel de intromisión del periodista en los hechos que investiga, a una escala tal, que a veces su participación en el relato se torna legítima. No por nada, el mismo Capote afirmaría que conoció a esas personas mejor de lo que había conocido a nadie.
Estos dos libros, juntos, conforman un pack de lecturas muy completo capaz de explicar de buena forma cómo es que el periodismo, desde hace décadas, dio un cierto quiebre en su dirección estilística. Si bien no cambió el tipo de redacción que se hace en los diarios al cien por cien, introdujo la idea de que una forma distinta y más libre de informar es posible, que el trabajo creativo y flexible en formas, sin dejar de ser riguroso y exhaustivo, puede funcionar de una manera fantástica y componer piezas de una calidad encomiable capaces de otorgar al periodismo un mayor valor artístico.
Rodrigo Vigo
¿Qué demonios pasa?, se preguntó un joven reportero Tom Wolfe en 1962, luego de leer un artículo de la revista Esquire. Lo que tenía que ser una historia relatada con la rigurosidad (y, aceptémoslo, monotonía) propia del periodismo más hierático empezaba más bien con el montaje de una escena conforme a un relato. Salvo el desfile de unos cuantos datos a la manera propia del periodismo viejo, lo demás muy bien podía leerse como un relato de ficción. Salvo que no era ficción. Era algo nuevo.
En la Norteamérica de los 60’s, y con seguridad en el resto del mundo, el nivel más alto del escalafón literario era ocupado casi enteramente por novelistas. Su trabajo se constituía como la expresión mejor acabada artística y profesionalmente en el ámbito de las letras. Más abajo, o casi a la altura, podían ubicarse los poetas, los ensayistas, luego los críticos, los biógrafos, etc.; y ya hacia el final, cuando no quedaba nada más por nombrarse, casi de manera desapercibida, estaban los periodistas.
Naturalmente, el periodismo siempre fue un oficio de muchísima utilidad social, capaz de prestar servicios valiosos, esgrimir la pluma y echar a correr ríos de tinta a favor de las causas más nobles. Sin embargo, su indignidad radicaba en el escaso valor artístico que tenía dentro del mundo literario. La mirada profunda y extensa, la amplia paleta presta al retrato más minucioso, la valía estilística y creativa eran propiedad de la novela y alguno que otro género. Los periodistas, en la mayoría de casos, eran más o menos considerados unos redactores baratos y de poco brillo. Hasta que, por alguna razón, alguien pateó la mesa.
El Nuevo Periodismo de Tom Wolfe es la explicación exacta, contextualizada y antologadora de cómo la mesa fue pateada, tirando en el camino copas, naipes, ceniceros y una que otra vieja momia. En la primera parte del libro Wolfe nos explica cómo es que a inicios de los 60’s, de buenas a primeras los reporteros de medios como Esquire o el Herald Tribune empezaron a experimentar con las formas propias de la novela: narradores heterodiegéticos, diálogos realistas, construcción por escenas y todo un sinfín de innovaciones que el viejo y tieso estilo periodista no concebía. Naturalmente, esta forma invasiva despertó el recelo del mundo académico serio, que no perdió tiempo en descalificar este nuevo movimiento acusándolo de mentiroso en sus datos y, además, banal.
De pronto, para redimirse, el periodista ya no tenía que abandonar la redacción y correr a la cabaña de un amigo para encerrarse y escribir, por fin, ¡La Novela! No. Ya no era necesario moverse de casa. El periodismo aprovechaba, además de las técnicas, toda la riqueza de los temas que los locos 60’s ofrecían (las drogas, Vietnam, el sexo, el hipismo, los movimientos radicales, etc.). Así lo demuestra la estupenda antología de artículos que recoge este libro en su segunda parte.
¿Cómo lo hace? Se preguntaría uno, tras leer La exquisita izquierda de Tom Wolfe. Un periodista que recoge en su texto sueños y pensamientos del protagonista, reproduce diálogos e impresiones de los personajes con exactitud y todo sin haberse inventado nada. ¿Es eso posible? Lo es. El truco es que no hay truco. Sencillamente la investigación ha sido exhaustiva. Aquellas piezas realmente esconden horas y horas de entrevistas y tiempo invertido detrás de los protagonistas. El periodista permanece tanto tiempo con ellos que, en un determinado momento, desaparece y los acontecimientos simplemente toman lugar en su presencia, casi como si ésta no contaminara.
En aquella década se publicaron muchas novelas que respaldaron la salud del nuevo movimiento. De entre todas ellas, destaca y nos ocupa, por supuesto, A Sangre Fría de Truman Capote. Podría decirse que esta non fiction novel es la guinda del pastel y la consagración de un escritor extraordinario.
Esta obra (descrita por Norman Mailer como «Un fracaso de la imaginación») trata sobre el horrendo homicidio de los Clutter, una próspera familia de Kansas, y el apresamiento y posterior ejecución de Dick y Perry, los asesinos. En este libro, el trabajo de investigación y recopilación (monstruosa) de datos llega a niveles insólitos. Capote llegó a acumular hasta seis mil páginas de notas y entrevistas transcritas. El escritor le dedicó a esta obra casi seis años de su vida. Trabajó en ella desde 1959, cuando se enteró del crimen por los periódicos, y no lo vio publicado en forma de libro hasta 1966, si bien antes el material vio la luz a través de cuatro entregas en la revista New Yorker.
Podría afirmarse sin miedo, que Capote se entrevistó con absolutamente todo aquel que tuviera que ver de alguna forma con la historia. Desde los cuatro agentes del KIB que llevaron el caso hasta los familiares de las víctimas y los acusados, pasando por la gente relevante del pequeño Holcomb y Garden City.
El producto es una novela de más de trescientas páginas en las cuales un narrador omnisciente nos presenta a la próspera familia Clutter, residente en Holcomb, Kansas. El montaje es en paralelo. Por un lado acudimos como lectores al último día de los Clutter y conocemos a cada uno de sus miembros. El laborioso y emprendedor Herb Clutter, el jefe de la familia que convive con su afectada esposa, una mujer delicada y con problemas psíquicos. Los dos hijos son ejemplares. La chica es una organizada y bella jovencita que siempre tiene tiempo para todos, y el hijo es un joven brillante, inventivo y hábil con las manos. Sus vidas son apacibles y no tienen enemigos. Nada parece presagiar que fueran a ser víctimas, aquella noche, de un par de desequilibrados criminales. Dick y Perry, por otra parte, a quienes el narrador alterna con habilidad, preparan el crimen que vivirá en la infamia. Hacia la parte final, cuando ellos son capturados, la narración se vuelve lineal y sigue con minuciosidad toda la experiencia que es para ellos el proceso judicial que afrontan.
El trabajo de los personajes no es solo impecable, va más allá. Principalmente en los perfiles de Perry y Dick, el narrador no solo nos da un generoso atisbo de quiénes y cómo son, sino que nos zambulle de cabeza en sus mentes, en sus historias personales y consecuentes formas de pensar y enfrentar el mundo. Dick es un joven encantador y despierto que, si bien no lo tuvo todo, sí tuvo en apariencia la suficiente protección familiar como para no volverse un sociópata. Su compañero, Perry, sin embargo, es el que se roba las miradas. Consciente o inconscientemente es el personaje que Capote retrata mejor, dicen que porque se enamoró o se identificó mucho con él, o ambas cosas. El caso es que este joven hipersensible, que cargaba a todos lados con su vieja guitarra Gibson y sus cajas de libros, es el que despierta más simpatía de entre los dos asesinos.
Hacia la parte final del libro es cuando las señas del reportaje se dejan ver con mayor claridad. Entonces uno se da cuenta, o vuelve a ser consciente, que de verdad todo aquello es investigación neta y que el autor no se ha inventado una sola palabra (o, si lo ha hecho, no han sido muchas). Capote alterna con la narración declaraciones directas de los dos condenados. Lo que están diciendo en sus últimos meses se lo cuentan a alguien, una persona que aparece mencionado directamente apenas una vez.
—La noche era fría —decía Hickock a un periodista con el que mantenía correspondencia y que tenía permiso para visitarle periódicamente—. Fría y húmeda.
Es, posiblemente, una manera que tiene Capote para decir «Hey, yo estuve allí», una forma de introducirse en una historia en la que, aunque no se mencione, ineludiblemente tuvo un papel importante. Es una manera de manifestar el nivel de intromisión del periodista en los hechos que investiga, a una escala tal, que a veces su participación en el relato se torna legítima. No por nada, el mismo Capote afirmaría que conoció a esas personas mejor de lo que había conocido a nadie.
Estos dos libros, juntos, conforman un pack de lecturas muy completo capaz de explicar de buena forma cómo es que el periodismo, desde hace décadas, dio un cierto quiebre en su dirección estilística. Si bien no cambió el tipo de redacción que se hace en los diarios al cien por cien, introdujo la idea de que una forma distinta y más libre de informar es posible, que el trabajo creativo y flexible en formas, sin dejar de ser riguroso y exhaustivo, puede funcionar de una manera fantástica y componer piezas de una calidad encomiable capaces de otorgar al periodismo un mayor valor artístico.
Rodrigo Vigo
July 26, 2021
This is an anthology and i didn't actually read every piece BUT the pieces I did read and the introduction/appendix were really good. What drove me to read this was Joan Didion but what I got out of it was a newfound love and appreciation for a transformation in 60s journalism that I had no idea about. Tom Wolfe perfectly constructed this to show the readers how the New Journalism movement forever changed the literary world and its perception of journalists. I really enjoyed Wolfe's humorous style and depiction of writers in the 50's, but I also loved how he was able to curate a collection that illustrated 60s culture so well.
February 14, 2024
The eras tour of journalism.
November 17, 2014
Having just read The New Journalism by Tom Wolfe, I’m compelled to say something about it, but not inspired. Nonetheless, you’ve gotta love an anthology and that’s what this is; a slice out of time with Tom Wolfe as an excellent curator. He’s a straight shooter and firsthand participant, which makes him a somewhat convincing historian, however that’s the thing about his story, any history; it’s as true as our collective memory.
Not knowing much about Tom Wolfe, nor having read anything he’d written, I was an open book (no pun intended). This made his introduction believable where he summed up the new journalism (his term) in sections one and two, “The Feature Game” and “Like a Novel”, while in section three, “Seizing the Power,” explained the impact of this new genre on the establishment. Wolfe describes himself as an upstart set out to stick it to the status quo. He name drops a few colleagues—guys he felt were faces of the new journalism along with him, such as Jimmy Breslin, Rex Reed, and Hunter S. Thompson. Admittedly they deserve credit for their early journalistic innovations and the unsettling of long established journalists and non-fiction novelists alike. However, here’s where Wolfe’s story lost some credibility for me. As I recall, these characters were, in real life, just as unfavorable as their predecessors, stumbling over themselves toward the sensational and inevitably impaling themselves on their own egos. However, I’ll reserve Wolfe’s full critique until after I’ve read his writing; after all, The New Journalism is an anthology (albeit a premature one) that was ironically, in his opinion, worthy of including his own work.
So, let me start instead by addressing Wolfe’s aforementioned colleagues. Jimmy Breslin the big mouth, Rex Reed a condescending snob, and Hunter S. Thompson a gonzo (Thompson’s own word), mumbled from his own mouth (thankfully he wrote because he honestly needed subtitles). Where each of them might have been forerunners of something new and innovative, they were also instigators of some of the swill we see now. Emboldened by the new journalism and devoid of the investigation that was its foundation1, you have today’s copy cats (the Glen Becks and Bill O’Reillys) blathering, “You can’t explain that!” Yet in comparison, you can. It’s why Jimmy Breslin’s big mouth style, while formerly entertaining, now reveals the entitlement of a bygone era. It’s why he can imagine himself above reproach when speaking derogatively of his Asian colleague.2 It’s also why Rex Reed with mistaken impunity feels he can with mean-spiritedness, deride women like Melissa McCarthy.3 Political correctness came about not just after the new journalist’s heyday, but because of it. America has evolved along with its demographic make-up, and now the threat of an open and diverse playing field replacing a profession once filled with mostly white males, has arrived. Journalism’s evolution. Déjà Vu, Tom Wolfe?
1 “…only in some vile Low Rent way the man’s output was literary.” “These weren’t even intelligent insults, however, because they dealt with Breslin’s attitude, which seemed to be that of a cabdriver with his cap tilted over one eye. A crucial part of Breslin’s work they didn’t seem to be conscious of at all: Namely, the reporting he did.” (pg. 27)
2 Fellow Newsday columnist, Ji-Yeon Mary Yuh, calls out Breslin on racist and sexist comments. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-1...
3 Female journalists outraged at Reed criticizing McCarthy’s weight and appearance. http://www.inquisitr.com/1340683/meli...
Not knowing much about Tom Wolfe, nor having read anything he’d written, I was an open book (no pun intended). This made his introduction believable where he summed up the new journalism (his term) in sections one and two, “The Feature Game” and “Like a Novel”, while in section three, “Seizing the Power,” explained the impact of this new genre on the establishment. Wolfe describes himself as an upstart set out to stick it to the status quo. He name drops a few colleagues—guys he felt were faces of the new journalism along with him, such as Jimmy Breslin, Rex Reed, and Hunter S. Thompson. Admittedly they deserve credit for their early journalistic innovations and the unsettling of long established journalists and non-fiction novelists alike. However, here’s where Wolfe’s story lost some credibility for me. As I recall, these characters were, in real life, just as unfavorable as their predecessors, stumbling over themselves toward the sensational and inevitably impaling themselves on their own egos. However, I’ll reserve Wolfe’s full critique until after I’ve read his writing; after all, The New Journalism is an anthology (albeit a premature one) that was ironically, in his opinion, worthy of including his own work.
So, let me start instead by addressing Wolfe’s aforementioned colleagues. Jimmy Breslin the big mouth, Rex Reed a condescending snob, and Hunter S. Thompson a gonzo (Thompson’s own word), mumbled from his own mouth (thankfully he wrote because he honestly needed subtitles). Where each of them might have been forerunners of something new and innovative, they were also instigators of some of the swill we see now. Emboldened by the new journalism and devoid of the investigation that was its foundation1, you have today’s copy cats (the Glen Becks and Bill O’Reillys) blathering, “You can’t explain that!” Yet in comparison, you can. It’s why Jimmy Breslin’s big mouth style, while formerly entertaining, now reveals the entitlement of a bygone era. It’s why he can imagine himself above reproach when speaking derogatively of his Asian colleague.2 It’s also why Rex Reed with mistaken impunity feels he can with mean-spiritedness, deride women like Melissa McCarthy.3 Political correctness came about not just after the new journalist’s heyday, but because of it. America has evolved along with its demographic make-up, and now the threat of an open and diverse playing field replacing a profession once filled with mostly white males, has arrived. Journalism’s evolution. Déjà Vu, Tom Wolfe?
1 “…only in some vile Low Rent way the man’s output was literary.” “These weren’t even intelligent insults, however, because they dealt with Breslin’s attitude, which seemed to be that of a cabdriver with his cap tilted over one eye. A crucial part of Breslin’s work they didn’t seem to be conscious of at all: Namely, the reporting he did.” (pg. 27)
2 Fellow Newsday columnist, Ji-Yeon Mary Yuh, calls out Breslin on racist and sexist comments. http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-1...
3 Female journalists outraged at Reed criticizing McCarthy’s weight and appearance. http://www.inquisitr.com/1340683/meli...
November 24, 2019
Amazing collection
November 11, 2019
A snapshot of the birth of the genre in the 1960s and 1970s. 40+ years later, I can't help noticing how much whitemansplaining there is in this anthology -- Tom Wolfe on Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, Life magazine explaining in passing how the killing of one black kid makes it hard for white cops to do their job, Garry Wills on Martin Luther King Jr.'s funeral and the significance of MLK. Joan Didion is the only contributor who isn't white and male. Weren't there any black or Hispanic New Journalists? Or more women? Maybe not. Still, some pieces in the book are amazing journalism. The big discovery for me was the James Mills piece in Life on Detective George Barrett in Times Square (great despite my problems with it).
March 30, 2010
Investigative journalist Nick Davies has chosen to discuss Tom Wolfe's
The New Journalism
, on FiveBooks as one of the top five on his subject - Investigative Journalism, saying that:
“When this was first published, news writing was written in a very strict, often quite staid style. New Journalism used a range of literary techniques commonplace in fiction, for example the use of dialogue or first-hand narrative. At that time they were virtually unheard of in news writing. Tom Wolfe wrote an essay laying out this new type of writing at the beginning of his anthology, and the writing he included in the book embodied the style of the movement. You have to do a huge amount of research to be able to justify writing like this. It puts great emphasis on truthfulness.”
The full interview is available here: http://five-books.com/interviews/nick-davies
“When this was first published, news writing was written in a very strict, often quite staid style. New Journalism used a range of literary techniques commonplace in fiction, for example the use of dialogue or first-hand narrative. At that time they were virtually unheard of in news writing. Tom Wolfe wrote an essay laying out this new type of writing at the beginning of his anthology, and the writing he included in the book embodied the style of the movement. You have to do a huge amount of research to be able to justify writing like this. It puts great emphasis on truthfulness.”
The full interview is available here: http://five-books.com/interviews/nick-davies
July 21, 2011
This is an almost uniformly strong collection of pieces, and as good a primer as one could reasonably ask for. It's pretty light on female writers - only Joan Didion and Barbara L. Goldsmith, and at the very least Didion warrants a second entry - but much of the early nonfiction canon is here: Hunter S. Thompson (twice), editor Wolfe (twice), Capote, Plimpton, Talese, Michael Herr, etc. And the pieces from which I didn't expect much still managed to deliver something even if they didn't blow me away.
The first thing I'd reread from this, though, is probably Wolfe's lengthy introduction, a series of pieces that had previously appeared in other publications. His basic thesis - that the novel had drifted too far from realism and left an opening for journalism to take its place - was ahead of its time, although it probably won't shock most readers of contemporary literary nonfiction. That said, I'd never read such a thorough and convincing argument as Wolfe's, and it definitely psyched me up for reading the rest of the book.
The first thing I'd reread from this, though, is probably Wolfe's lengthy introduction, a series of pieces that had previously appeared in other publications. His basic thesis - that the novel had drifted too far from realism and left an opening for journalism to take its place - was ahead of its time, although it probably won't shock most readers of contemporary literary nonfiction. That said, I'd never read such a thorough and convincing argument as Wolfe's, and it definitely psyched me up for reading the rest of the book.
June 25, 2017
Durante años, los profesores de comunicación y periodismo en las universidades, incluso los grandes editores, jefes de mesas de redacción, entre otros, han exhibido a este libro como el mejor producto final del oficio noticioso y reporteril. Desde el título, el lector recibe una lección que página tras página perdurará con los diálogos críticos y sin tapujos. El libro resulta una importante referencia del periodismo en viejos y nuevos tiempos y seguramente de los venideros pues su discurso ha logrado sobrevivir a las nuevas tendencias del periodismo y la comunicación. Nos deja ver que a pesar del avance de las tecnologías, el periodismo debe conservar ciertos detalles rústicos y simples como el manejo del eterno jueguito objetividad/subjetividad, las pequeñas «talachas» que el periodista tiene que hacer a ratos y las minucias que debe perfeccionar para hacer de su labor lo que dijo García Márquez: El mejor oficio del mundo.
Read
October 27, 2018This has not aged well. This is less a useful anthology of the origins of creative nonfiction and more of a relic of the hyper-masculine world of reporting in the days before women and minorities were allowed into the newsroom. But more than this, even the excerpts from works that have lasted (such as Capote's In Cold Blood) are weak selections (the one exception to this is Didion's "Slouching Toward Bethlehem"). Many of the articles are full of juvenile writing devices like onomatopoeia that make the prose barely readable, and almost all are written in the brash narrative voices of men who avoid crucial elements of good reporting/writing such as questioning/doubting one's own assumptions.
August 26, 2019
"-Supongo que los que estamos aquí no somos más que una pandilla de snobs intelectuales fatigados..."
Bien lo dice el señor Wolfe, al diablo las categorías.
Los ensayos iniciales presentan un viaje bastante reflexivo hacia el fenómeno New Journalism, la aplicación de recursos novelísticos en reportajes y artículos periódicos. Pensar en ese casos sesentero transporta al lector contemporáneo al mundo no lejano que determina gran parte de su cultura pop.
Al final la antología implícita es exquisita, la tesis propuesta por Wolfe es puesta en praxis. Personalmente los artículos hechos Rex Reed y Robert Christgau son una aplastante expresión literaria.
Bien lo dice el señor Wolfe, al diablo las categorías.
Los ensayos iniciales presentan un viaje bastante reflexivo hacia el fenómeno New Journalism, la aplicación de recursos novelísticos en reportajes y artículos periódicos. Pensar en ese casos sesentero transporta al lector contemporáneo al mundo no lejano que determina gran parte de su cultura pop.
Al final la antología implícita es exquisita, la tesis propuesta por Wolfe es puesta en praxis. Personalmente los artículos hechos Rex Reed y Robert Christgau son una aplastante expresión literaria.
March 2, 2015
Perhaps exciting at the time, the picks for New Journalism mostly come off as a very dated writing style. Tom Wolfe comes off like he is absolutely in love with himself and his perspective, mostly by including 5 sections he wrote for the book and 3 selections of his writing. Also dated–All the picks are white and all but Barbara Goldsmith and Didion are men. There are certainly a few stand outs, like The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved, Paper Lions and Martin Luther King is Still on the Case. Otherwise, this book is only good as a history of journalism.
July 24, 2008
"In April of 1965, in the New York Herald Tribune's Sunday magazine, New York, I had made what I fancied was some lighthearted fun of the New Yorker magazine with a two-part article entitled "Tiny Mummies! The True Story of the Ruler of 43rd Street's Land of the Walking Dead!" A very droll sportif performance, you understand. Without going into the whole beanball contest I can tell you that there were many good souls who did not consider this article either lighthearted or sportif."
July 23, 2012
An essential compilation of a radical journalism which left a lasting legacy on the industry. The focus on telling facts through the techniques of fiction mean that these stories, written about events 50 years ago, remain fresh. Among the familiar names (Wolfe, Thompson, Capote) some less well known writers stand out. Joe Ezsterhas' report on shootings in a rural town is a remarkable piece of work... And stands in strange contrast to his later career.
July 15, 2014
Wolfe's Preface gives one of the best explanation of "New Journalism". I don't think I could have written my paper without it. The term New Journalism is very confusing and even those within the field at times don't seem to know what it means. Wolfe's provides a simple explanation and supplements it with examples (occasionally followed by his analysis). Simply put: he lists the principles that makes New Journalism and shows the best of it at work.
August 3, 2017
Первый раз у меня случается синдром несбывшихся ожиданий. О книге до этого момента я только слышал. Собственно, труд считается чуть ли не классическим. И, значит, приступаю я к этой книге, держа в уме другие большие вещи Вулфа, прочитанные до этого, и тут возникает ощущение, что все хорошие места «Антологии...» я уже видел понадерганными по цитатам во множестве публикаций. Лучшие куски мне уже зацитировали, а без них остается не так уж много.
January 24, 2015
The late sixties and the early seventies were wonderful times for a functionally literate reader. So many great writers were pushing the boundaries on style and subject matter.
Michael Herr and John Sack covered Vietnam and brought a whole new perspective to covering war.
This book was published in 1973 and compiles many pieces I had read as they were published.
Michael Herr and John Sack covered Vietnam and brought a whole new perspective to covering war.
This book was published in 1973 and compiles many pieces I had read as they were published.
August 19, 2018
My copy is from 1973 and this truly felt like an artifact. I did learn a few things: Tom Wolfe is frequently self-referential. He really enjoys the work of Hunter S. Thompson. New journalism= very long pieces. I want to read more Didion and there are a couple of articles in this anthology that stand the test of time (In Cold Blood excerpt, Red Dirt...).
March 1, 2008
The foundation of present day journalism and documentary film-making--every current investigation conducted by a reporter driven to "experience" the condition/situation at hand owes a debt of gratitude to Wolfe and his contemporaries
August 31, 2008
I can't recommend this highly enough. A collection of journalism pieces from Wolfe, Capote, Thompson and many many others that not only writes about a radically changing America, but is itself a radical change to the way news was presented.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews