Chasing the Scream is a work of nonfiction that focuses on drug policies and our understanding of addiction. After reading chapter 14 and 15 of the text, we paid close attention to Hari’s style. Here are some unique features of Hari’s style that we might consider using in our own research papers:

1. Participating in the research writing process: Hari always lets his readers know how he arrives at a particular research question. Before we get to know Bud Osborn, Hari describes wondering the streets and hearing tales of some mysterious poet addict- Bud Osborn. By sharing the details of how he came to find certain pieces of evidence or arguments or questions, Hari invites us to become more intimately involved with his writing process. While this technique is one that might be suitable for all classrooms, it’s certainly one we can try at least once in our writing careers.
2. Summarizing some moments, elaborating on others: Hari is purposeful in what he chooses to summarize. For instance, he shares Bud’s parents’ history in a brief paragraph. Hari is also careful to not shortchange his reader by summarizing things he feels require more details and for lack of a better term, more showing. Take for instance, when Hari describes Bud’s first encounter with heroin. Instead of writing, “Bud tried heroin at age X,” Hari puts us in the room with Bud, shares Bud’s anxieties and thoughts, and only when readers have experienced Bud’s first encounter with heroin alongside him, does he move on to his more observational notes on the way heroin impacted Bud’s life.
3. Letting a testimony take front seat: Hari lets folks describe in their own words their experience with drugs and addicts. Sometimes he lets them talk for paragraphs, other times for pages. Though this feels different than a traditional research paper that’s heavy with statistics, we understand Hari’s emphasis on the testimony comes from a particular argument: we don’t understand addiction. We also realize that sometimes testimony can give meaning to the numbers we cite to support our thesis statements.
4. Citing apprehensions that we have as writers within the text itself: Hari positions himself as both the writer and reader. When he’s the writer, he shares how he obtained evidence, when he’s the reader, he imagines what apprehensions they might have. This important technique helps readers feel as though the writer is credible and is taking all sides into consideration.
5. Providing context always: When referring to a policy change in Switzerland, Hari gives us a two to three sentence context summary of Swiss government and protocols. Throughout his writing, Hari understands the importance of defining unfamiliar terms, places, historical moments. Though brief, this context is so important for the reader to know where to go if they require more information.
6. Letting the evidence guide the process: Perhaps the best technique we’ve learned from Hari is the importance of letting the evidence determine the end goal. He had no idea Bud would appear, but when he did, Hari was left with more questions. Rather than avoid Bud as a piece of evidence, Hari looked deeper into Bud’s story and arrived at some answers, but also more questions. A lot of times we go into a research writing class and know exactly what we’ll write about and how we’ll write about it. But is that really research writing at its core? As Hari explains, sometimes the best way to really get to know a topic is to have a couple of questions in mind, but no concrete answer. That’s right. He’s taught us that sometimes the questions should guide our writing, even if it’s a bit dizzying at first.