Vermont governor Peter Shumlin sparked the nationwide shift toward treating addiction like a health issue rather than a criminal one. Rehabilitation clinics have long waiting lists that often lead to more using while the addict waits. Rolling Stones focused on one woman's story, with others as supporting evidence, to demonstrate a lack of rehabilitation resources in Vermont.
The long piece by David Amsden relates to the story I am currently reporting on. In a way, my story on the financial assistance at one facility in New York State is a funneled version of Amsden's.
While Amsden put together a good article, I thought he overused the colon. I feel it is punctuation best reserved for special occasions, like to emphasize a fact or introduce a long quote. Some instances it came off as unnecessary. For example, Amsden paraphrases Bob Bick with a colon. "He knows how he can sound: frustrated, even overzealous." I think recasting the sentence to include those sentiments, or leaving each as its own sentence could work better.
I was first sucked into the story with the anecdotal lede. Readers learn about Eve Rivait, the small-town girl who works in the stables. Eve seems like she could be the perfect country girl. But then Amsden gets into how she fell into heroin and how it's not so idyllic in Vermont. The lede gives the story a face; it's not simply telling how there is a lack of resources but showing with a face to represent the problem. My story features a person who benefited from the financial aid of his rehab clinic, a story that would be far more boring if I simply stated the process and benefits of such a program.
Through the course of my reading, I reread sentences multiple times before fully understanding. While I was in an environment with distractions, I think this would be taken into consideration while writing the piece. I would assume readers might have the print copy and read while on noisy public transportation. The problem, I think, is the complexity of some sentences. It seemed information was included for the sake of including it. And I know that's not the case, but often information was packed into a sentence so that I couldn't understand on first read.
I appreciate the extent of Amsden's reporting, yet longer pieces often confuse me. Am I the only one? Not to say long pieces aren't good, because they can be very powerful, but it's the gap between introducing the main character and returning to him or her that throws me off. In this case, I managed to find my way back to Eve but other writers in the past have lost me.
This isn't a jab at Amsden; I just don't enjoy long pieces as much as I feel I should. I don't believe I have a short attention span. Because long articles feature extensive research, lots of information in the form of stats and quotes clutter my brain. So when the writer introduces John Doe, then veers off into facts, figures and sources before returning to Doe, I can't keep it all straight. Secondary characters/sources prove to be even more elusive when referencing them later in the article.
Despite any struggles I had in reading Amsden's article, I enjoyed how he used scenes. A personal favorite includes officer Merrigan's comment about the trio of houses where five major dealers were busted. I can visualize the run-down street and Merrigan looking out the window, saying how those major dealers are probably replaced by now. It's a little eerie.
The last scene with a pregnant Eve completes the story. Clearly well on her way to recovery, she's overcome with withdrawal symptoms. The guy at the gas station notices her and then emphasizes the article's point further by offering something he claims can help her. If the previous paragraphs chock full of hard fact and faces didn't get you, the kicker definitely did.
No comments:
Post a Comment