"Man of Extremes: the Return of James Cameron," has some nice insight into Cameron's personal and professional lifestyles. I'm glad it gives a semi-detailed back history of his previous films, and how he got started in the business.
In terms of how it's written, however, I'm not sure I like how the body of the article is broken up. Obviously, in an article this size, there will be instances where the writing will be at a juxtaposition to the information of the previous paragraph, but Dana Goodyear takes it to extremes I'm not comfortable with.
For example, each chunk of paragraphs could be a profile all its own. Then, when the next paragraph begins, it takes you through another set of facts and observations concerning James Cameron that could stand on their own as a separate profile. I don't like how its broken up at such disjunctures - shouldn't the paragraphs feed into one another to make a smoother article?
Time and space are also separate in this kind of organization. Some paragraphs are given in real time as they've been observed, others are in the past, and then, in the subsequent paragraph, time is shifted again - we're back in the past where we've already been, and we're drawn through to the present and left at the exact same place the previous paragraph concluded. Why not tell Cameron's story more linearly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment