Stu Bykofsky knows a little bit about textual analysis. And he demonstrates how to use it as a bullshit detector in regard to sniffing out fiction writers masquerading as legitimate columnists employed by legitimate news organizations. He says:
Columnists don’t agree on much, but if we write two or more times a week, here’s one thing we do agree on: No one can report out a string of perfect, glistening columns. There are always clunkers – columns that don’t pull together, that lack some desired details, or color, or oomph. When that happens, you go with what you got, with your imperfections on display.
What you don’t do is invent stuff to “improve” your column. That’s a betrayal of what you are supposed to be, of your craft, of your peers.
If the columnist you read always reports events that play out like James Michener, if characters are always Damon Runyon, if they always say the most perfect things, if columns always end with a perfect O. Henry twist… that columnist is writing fiction.
Here we have a perfect example of one problem caused by the narrative bias of journalism. We humans tend to see situations in the world as an unfolding plot populated by antagonists and protagonists. We who teach journalism teach our students to look for these structures. Those of us who teach it well, however, teach our students that such structures do not exist in nature. Instead, we apply these narrative structures to what we see as a way to make sense of the world–so be careful!
What Bykofsky identifies here is the over-application of narrative structure to make one’s work conform to what editors expect (and what readers find enjoyable): a good story. Some cases of over-application certainly demonstrate fraud of a nefarious sort.
Readers should always be skeptical of narrative structures. Narrative denies its own rhetoricity, which is academic jargon for: stories persuade without seeming to persuade. Bykofsky’s advice boils down to this: When you encounter a neatly tied plot and well-formed characters, be skeptical.