This piece was in the NYT mag this weekend.
It's a account of how a business reporter got drawn into the financial crisis. Once you get past the part about him being a reporter making $120,000 a year, there's pretty interesting storytelling here.
I don't want to say too much about it, because it would spoil the story, but a friend and I discussed the story at length Sunday. I'd like to see what you think.
Read the story with an eye toward the bits he weaves in here and there about his wife. Do you think what was obviously left out makes the story more effective? (I am talking about his second wife; the one he bought the house with.)
OK, I just read it and I'm clueless but curious what you think was obviously left out.
ReplyDeleteI had the same reaction as Jen. What am I missing?
ReplyDeleteAnything real about his wife's role in this debacle. It seems like she was the biggest spender, but he never came right out and said it.
ReplyDeleteIn certain parts, he goes a little easy on the new wife. I got the sense she's the one who wanted the nice house, because he writes, "I had assumed we would start by renting a house or an apartment." Was she pushing for the house?
ReplyDeleteLater in the story, she enjoyed her fun but low-paying job selling high-end clothing. Did she fail to appreciate the tightness of their budget and not do a serious job search? She gets the $60K a year job, but then the writer says she "lost" her job. Was she fired, laid off? Did her employer go out off business? Then she says she'd collect unemployment for six months. Well ... she'd be bringing in more money if she'd hurry up and find a job, rather than bidding her time collecting unemployment.
Obviously I don't blame the guy for going easy on his wife, but I think there's a lot left unsaid. Maybe he went easy on himself too.
OK, I see where you're coming from now. I did get the impression in reading the story that she was (or he was casting her as) the spender, the one who never really had a concrete idea of (or possibly appreciation for) how much money was coming and going. Maybe that was enough for me, and I didn't need him to explore that any more in the story. But it's certainly possible that he could have, and maybe should have, so that's an interesting talking point.
ReplyDeleteNow that you point it out, I see it. I guess I, like Scott didn't feel like he needed to go into it more. But it's definitely an interesting thing to note that he didn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd today, on Gawker ("Scribe omits Vital Details from Article"), the wife is outed as someone who has had previous bankruptcies, which completely changes the story. He left that out. I had a feeling there was something more to her story.
ReplyDeletehttp://gawker.com/5265546/times-scribe-omits-vital-details-from-bookarticle