Stories have a habit of mushrooming and expanding out, which one article can’t handle. The follow-up article continues the story. A follow-up article should follow on from the first story logically. But, sometimes, it’s a different story about the same group and people.
I haven’t done an extensive study on “narrative”, but a narrative is different to an outline or a sketch of events. One of my articles sketches or outlines someone’s career and vocation path, but I wouldn’t call it a narrative. A narrative would have embellished the sketch or outline by providing those things we call color, dialogue, what the person was thinking, the in-depth stuff of the soul condition on the journey, or however one frames the facts with flesh and blood. Narrative must go beyond the confines of a sketch or outline of events. It must substantiate it as much as the “narrator” knows.
Why did I write that, I wonder. In the day, it was okay; I may have believed in it or seen the good. Even now, there’s something that rings true and good about it. But I’m not 100 percent convinced. Is this healthy skepticism? Well, reality is, is that when one reports on something, it isn’t about yourself, but common ground makes it easier to relate. Yet there are always going to be things that I don’t 100 percent go along with for some reason, but must report on. It may that someone’s method doesn’t stack up, I must report on it anyhow. I may have a view on it, but then I don’t offer that view to the reader. I am reporting on what interests the community I am writing for.