DeNeen Brown Literary Device: Roaring Success
City Desk has consistently returned thumbs-down verdicts on Washington Post Staff Writer DeNeen Brown and her literary devices. Any loyal Post reader knows the Brown MO--excessive second person narratives, purple prose bleeding off the page, and lots of italics.
Today, though, Brown pressed CTRL+i to stupendous effect. In a piece co-authored with Richard Leiby and titled "The Very Image of Affirmation," Brown capably and compellingly inventoried the reactions of African-American women to Michelle Obama's poise, stature, and presence as First Lady in abeyance. The story's central storytelling device was to use italics to convey a conversation about Ms. Obama at a hair salon on Georgia Avenue NW. The piece toggled back and forth between the salon comments and the input of academics and other experts on the same topic. Whenever readers alighted on quotes in itals, they knew they were listening in to the hair salon discussion, as follows:
"She is educated. She is not like 'Michelle the housewife.' It's 'Michelle the attorney,' " says McRae.
"She is smart. She is not an airhead. She's not the pretty girl. She's not the ugly girl. She's not the trophy wife."
"Nobody wants to see anybody in a Chanel suit," says Diavian Jeffreys, 24.
"I look at her head to toe, and I can't find one fault," says Nolan.
Aziza Gibson-Hunter, a non-italicized quotee in the story, was impressed with Brown's keyboard work: "It gives you a very good feel for how black folks talk and interact with each other," says Gibson-Hunter. "It gives you a really village feel."
Another of the story's subjects wasn't quite so impressed. "Most of us who don’t work in media don’t understand what you guys do or why you do it," says Alice M. Thomas. Of course, Thomas hadn't yet read the piece.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
5:36 pm
The ital is lame. The beauty parlor gimmick is almost racist. Oh, where to go to interview african-american women? Of course, the hair salon!
Typical Washington Post.
6:17 pm
An Open Letter to Mr. Wemple:
Shame on you! You spoke with me briefly (for less than five minutes) on last Friday, November 21. You neither asked me for an interview, nor did you ask if you could quote me (or indicated that you planned to). Instead, you misquoted me, or otherwise, took my words out of context. Shame on you! You also never revealed your true purpose for calling on me (and now I wonder).
It’s funny – what one tries to hurl at others, can come crashing back at one's own feet. Your lack of journalistic integrity comes roaring through in this blog posting and others that I have reviewed on this site. It seems you have a penchant for unjustly singling out the work of Ms. Brown who, from my review, is an award-winning (many times over) journalist. Why is that?
So, let's start over! When I returned your call as a courtesy, I was taken aback by your undue familiarity with me. I even chuckled at your ignorance. You called me by my first name, even though we had never met, nor had we been formally introduced. Such displays of familiarity have a history in this country that bespeaks the history of race relations over the centuries. It even goes back to the U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott decision where it was remarked that the black man “had no right which the white man was bound to respect." For the record, most people address me as Professor Thomas until it is appropriate to drop the formality. It has been my experience that when some white persons address a black professional, particularly a black woman, they speak with undue familiarity, such as you did with me.
Second, when I inquired of the purpose for your call, you began to speak in a nonsensical way about italicized quotes and non-italicized quotes, and rather it mattered to me that my quote was not italicized. Not getting your gist, I asked why the question, what were you probing for? I even said, "let me put on my law professor’s hat, and ask you, what is the question behind your question? The question you ask is nonsensical." The more I probed, the more you seemed to grow uncomfortable. Rather than answer my questions, you quickly alighted the phone call. After having read your blog that was brought to my attention, not by you, but by a student, it seems to me to reveal a hidden agenda that has little to do with your initial statement to me that "you work on the Post and provide media critique.” It seems to me that you have a biased agenda directed toward Ms. Brown, and not the Post.
Third, I took the liberty of searching your site and other blogs. Your blogs tend to reveal much ado about nothing. Critique is valuable when insightful and meaningful. Your critiques of Ms. Brown, in particular, seem to suggest something else. The election of Barack Obama revealed the centuries’ old chasm in this country along the race line. Dr. W. E. B. DuBois declared that the main question in the 20th Century was the color line, and many scholars believe that it remains the main question in the 21st Century. The election of President-elect Barack Obama hasn’t erased the question. Recent stories about the rise of racial incidents in our country following his election remind us all that much work is left to be done. The next phase of work is about dismantling the much more subtle forms of racism, such as your rants on the writings of Ms. Brown. Only you can answer, but is it her race - black, her gender - female, or her often enough, race subjects that are captured in her stories that compel your rantings? Ms. Brown co-wrote the article with another reporter (a white male) but you singled her out for your alleged “critique” of piece. Why is that?
As the election of President-elect Barack Obama signals, and the elevation of his wife, Michelle, indicates, the majority of Americans are open to, and ready to receive, views and experiences from a diversity of viewpoints. Most mainstream media however lack racial diversity, and as a consequence, the depth and complexity of the African American experience are often overlooked. Your subterfuge perpetuates this void. It is ironic that you represented yourself to me as a media critic, and yet my critique of your reporting in this matter is both unprofessional and unethical by any journalism yardstick. You violated the most basic of journalism standards – to seek and report the truth, show respect for the privacy of your subjects and to provide full and fair exposition. You failed to seek and get the permission of your subject before putting words in my mouth, and even more repugnant, you did so to serve your own non-journalistic ends. Shame on you!
Professor Thomas
7:19 pm
Ouch! I have to admit, Wemple, if what she says is true, she's got a point. Care to respond?
11:09 am
Dave: To which point would you like me to respond? Or should I address you as Mr. Dave?