Best Articles of the Year - 2007 Judges Report

CASE Districts I & II:

Of the nearly 100 articles, essays, and other forms of nonfiction narrative we read this year, we were in general (a) very impressed with the quality overall, (b) immensely impressed with the best, which could easily have been published in The American Scholar, The Atlantic, Harper’s, Rolling Stone, etc. The consistency of writing AND EDITING, and yes those words are in caps for a reason, was pleasurable. As a rule the pieces that did not make the final rounds were pro forma profiles, apologia for administrative decisions, thinly veiled, if veiled at, all sales pitches for various programs and investment opportunities, or sports stories devoted to accomplishment rather than people – the great sin of a poor piece of writing. The best pieces, interestingly, often spoke to younger audiences and were written with dash and verve and humor (Betty Dylan from Johns Hopkins, dorm room story from Harvard Magazine), or were really thoroughly researched and cleanly written science pieces. We were especially impressed with the science pieces, which have to take fairly complex material and translate it for the general reader. Here especially good editing is crucial – breaking pieces up into easily read parts, useful and vivacious subheads, informative photos, and the gentlest of touches tethering the pieces to the university, these were all good tools used well. The keys to great writing in our magazines are good stories told with an easy zest and itch for metaphor, edited down to be accessible and interesting, and not fussily linked again and again to Professor X and Vice President Y, saddled with quotes from Powers That Be, etc. The very fact that the story is there in the pages is really enough tether. The best pieces get this, and the reader is lured in smiling and riveted.

We did note an awful lot of pieces that began with The Important Moment and then built before and after, but we concluded that all human beings are now movie-addled and cannot help such narrative tics.

Also we celebrate humor wherever possible.

CASE Districts III-V

We received a daunting 105 submissions. A prescreening panel whittled that stack down to 64 submissions for review by six judges. The initial screening was easy, as some articles proved to be little more than press releases and others failed with their leads—or failed promising leads. Institutional stories—those admiring of academic programs and buildings—did not fare well. (One remarkable exception to the eschew-institutional-storylines rule was the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s “Flight Lessons,” an article about the lengths a university went to in order to retain a star professor. It gave a compelling behind-the-scenes glimpse of administrative struggles. The judges gave it points for bravery as well as fine writing.)

When the stack had been condensed to 19 semifinalists, the task of winnowing became much harder. The judging decisions were not as unanimous as we had been expecting; several articles that failed to make our final list of medal winners were admired, sometimes passionately, by more than one judge.

Strong narratives scored well with the judges. One judge noted that many articles had been written around facts and, while compositionally solid, failed to achieve a literary narrative. They were essentially without story.

Identifying fresh approaches to profiles proved a challenge. Several profiles were well crafted and appeared to have been well researched, yet they failed to deliver a satisfying portrait of the person featured. In many cases, the attempts to paint a complete picture led to a too-heavy reliance on quotes.

The judges found some articles too slavish to authority figures. One judge cited a well-written article on a compelling topic that suddenly lost its appeal when that reader came across a gratuitous quote from a dean. The judges also noted that some articles had too many quotations—often a range of talking heads making similar statements—and contained quotations that ran on too long.

A final item that drew critical comments from the judges was article titles. In general, the judges found them disappointing. Given the important role that titles play as gateways to and tone-setting elements of articles, the judges noted they frequently failed the reader—and the story.

The winning entries were well-crafted stories with compelling story lines, nuanced language, and careful editing. The range of subject matter was broad, from cadavers, to Americans playing baseball in Italy, to a hypermodern chef, to breast cancer, to tomb robbing, to methamphetamine addiction, to modern relationships, to ice-cream making.

CASE Districts VI-VIII

In winnowing the 54 entries, we used the mantra of “Who cares?,” proceeding on the idea that an article had to convince us to read it – through style, voice, structure, and narrative – even if we weren’t already interested in the subject matter. Human interest/personal stories need a larger context to matter.

We looked for a specialness, an intentionality that distinguished the winners from the larger number of well-reported, well-written entries. There had to be something more – not pieces that transcended the dissemination of information and even journalism – articles that approach and achieve art.

In seeking something beyond competent, in asking “Is this really excellent?” we used criteria that included the inherent interest/importance of the story, the clarity of its overall structure, its specific execution, its lively and engaging prose, its tight editing, and its appropriateness for the institution and its audience.

We were noticeably not engaged by pieces that:

• Were too institutional or sounded like cheerleading
• Were competent newspaper-style human interest stories yet lacked depth and tension
• Overwhelmed readers with scientific or technical information at the expense of the story.

Other negatives we identified included clichéd writing, straining to be too colorful, dryness, failure to “make me care,” obtrusive detail for its own sake, and lack of broad intent plus its twin – institutional parochialism.

Specific comments about the five winners:

• “Wood and Light,” Portland Magazine: Centering on the University of Portland’s Chapel of Christ the Teacher, has a remarkably distinctive voice, memorable imagery, and a poetic approach to narrative that weaves the story’s several threads into a moving and resonant whole.
• “The Stolen Years,” Columns magazine: A lengthy, two-part articles that is historically important, well-structured, and has an effective lead. It is an account of the 400 Japanese-American students at the University of Washington who had to drop out during the World War II years of the internment camps. The article integrates institutional past with national events and carries a good, human interest story across many individual participants. It draws the reader in and prompts him/her to care about it.
• “The School of Hope,” Santa Clara Magazine: This essay, which anchored an issue on death and dying, was written by a wife about her husband who dies of brain cancer. It is moving but not maudlin. The connection of the arc of like and the cycle of the church year provides a wonderful structure. The writing is clear, the editing sharp, and the use of detail effective.
• “Love at First Byte,” Stanford Magazine: We loved this piece from its first sentence, for it established a playful yet important tone that was sustained throughout. It was a pleasure to read. We admired the author’s ability to create and maintain narrative momentum in spite of the fact that the subject, computer scientist Donald Knuth, is now less active professionally. The writing showed a fitting restraint rather than trying to steal attention from his extraordinary personality.
• “Eating Well to Save the Sound,” Washington State Magazine: A well-written, scientific article of interest to the general reader, it portrays the complexity of the oyster’s ecosystem and how human activities affect it. The article is a call to action to save Puget Sound – an environmental message of general importance today.

Gold Medals

Duke University, Duke Magazine, “Smarter Than Your Average Fare,” Bridget Booher, writer
Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Magazine, “This is Betty Dylan,” Dale Keiger, writer
Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Magazine, “An Ear for Poetry,” Virginia Hughes, writer
University of Chicago, University of Chicago Magazine, “La Dolce Baseball,” Joshua Davis, writer
University of Portland, Portland Magazine, “Wood & Light,” Brian Doyle, writer
University of Richmond, Richmond Alumni Magazine, “The Circus of Cancer,” Kelly Corrigan, writer

Silver Medals

Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown Medicine Magazine, “Changing Your Mind,” Kris Cambra, writer
Harvard University, Harvard Magazine, “The Marketplace of Perceptions,” Craig Lambert, writer
Santa Clara University, Santa Clara Magazine, “The School of Hope,” Martha Ellen Stortz, writer
Stanford Alumni Association, Stanford Magazine, “Love at First Byte,” Kara Platoni, writer
University of Iowa Alumni Association, Iowa Alumni Magazine, “A Monster Called Meth,” Kathryn Howe, writer
University of Virginia Alumni Association, University of Virginia Magazine, “Plunder,” Maura Singleton, writer
University of Washington Alumni Association, Columns, “The Stolen Years,” Tom Griffin, writer
University of Wisconsin-Madison/Wisconsin Alumni Association – On Wisconsin, “Flight Lessons,” Michael Penn, writer
Yale University Alumni Association, Yale Alumni Magazine, “Out-Bartletting Barlett’s,” Carlo Rotella, writer

Bronze Medals

Brown University, Brown Alumni Monthly, “The Healer,” Charlotte Bruce Harvey, writer
Harvard University, Harvard Magazine, “The (Other) Crew Captain,” John La Rue, writer
Penn State Alumni Magazine, The Penn Stater, “Lab Partners,” Maureen Harmon, writer
Penn State Alumni Magazine, The Penn Stater, “The Scoop,” Dale Keiger, writer
University of New Hampshire, UNH Magazine, “Witness to War,” Suki Casanave, writer
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Magazine, “No Time for You,” Andrew Santella, writer
University of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, “Feet of Faith,” Dennis Drabelle, writer
Washington State University, Washington State Magazine, “Eating Well to Save the Sound,” Tim Steury, writer
Yale University Medical School, Yale Medicine, “Yale Medicine: The Final Chapter,” Marc Wortman, writer