Popdose: Bookshelf: “The Mental Floss History of the World”
Jack Feerick
· 1 year ago
I wrote a piece for mental_floss a couple of years ago, all about the Chinese Exclusion Act (one of the most nakedly racist pieces of legislation in our nation's history), the great San Francisco earthquake and fire, and the massive-scale immigration fraud that happened in their wake; I remember endless back-and-forths with my editor about the need to keep the tone light and frivolous, even while talking about injustices that would make any fair-minded man want to vomit blood.
JonCummings
· 1 year ago
How did you manage to pull it off? Were you OK with the result?
Jack Feerick
· 1 year ago
It taught me a lot of being a professiobal, I'll tell you that - especially with regards to noting the editorial "voice" that a magazine projects, and learning to write within that voice. What made the story work, I think - what attracted me to it in the first place - was the smart-assed, can-do, anti-authoritarian spirit of the fraudsters. In that sense, it would've been easy to write it as a rollicking story of the Little Guy sticking it to The Man.
But m_f is also determinedly nonpolitical, and - especially at the time that the story ran, when tensions were particularly high about this very issue - Editorial had to tread the fine line of not appearing to take a stand in favor of widespread immigration fraud.
So yeah, there's a mandate to be snarky, but to not actually ever offend anyone. It's a very tough mission the magazine has set for itself, and a very tricky tone to pull off. To that end, the editors rewrite pretty much everything, sometimes pretty heavily. Nothing personal; it's just that they've got a voice to maintain.
You can read the piece here, if you're at all curious. To be honest with you, it passed through so many drafts that I no longer remember which bits I wrote and which were added in the various edits.
All Comments
But m_f is also determinedly nonpolitical, and - especially at the time that the story ran, when tensions were particularly high about this very issue - Editorial had to tread the fine line of not appearing to take a stand in favor of widespread immigration fraud.
So yeah, there's a mandate to be snarky, but to not actually ever offend anyone. It's a very tough mission the magazine has set for itself, and a very tricky tone to pull off. To that end, the editors rewrite pretty much everything, sometimes pretty heavily. Nothing personal; it's just that they've got a voice to maintain.
You can read the piece here, if you're at all curious. To be honest with you, it passed through so many drafts that I no longer remember which bits I wrote and which were added in the various edits.