|
Writing is largely a solitary activity. Even when we circulate a draft through a committee or bring our work to a critique group, that’s for review. The original is a solo creation.
Yet writing is all about relationships. Writers relate to the subjects they write about. Narrative history, biography, or personality profiles demand at least a bit of empathy with the people whose stories they tell. In fiction, characters take shape in my mind as semi-independent beings with their own notions of what they’ll do or say. Even when I write about fruit flies or galaxies, trying to do justice to the subject involves a personal sense of connection. And writing is about a relationship with the reader. Except perhaps for a personal journal, we write to communicate with others. Readers are a constant presence. Who might read this? What do they already know, what are they curious about, what might confuse them or draw them in? If you are reading this blog post, thank you! It was written with you in mind. Writers are like hosts at a party, introducing subjects and readers in the hope that something will click. To polish one’s craft is to strengthen the introduction. “Hello, dear reader. Here’s a subject I find interesting, and I hope that you will too.”
12 Comments
Beth Genne
6/27/2016 08:33:12 am
Agreed. I don't find reader-awareness in a lot of scholarly writing -- even if it is addressed to a specialist audience. When I try to make an article user-friendly I sometimes get slammed for it by referees. "Your tone may be too conversational" is a recent example.
Beth Genne
6/27/2016 09:28:35 am
I think its a combination of things: for one thing students model themselves on the tone of their assigned readings -- I find the humanities the worst in this regard. There is also the false (to my mind anyway) assumption, as you suggest that some how obscure writing is more profound -- but I find that the best scholars and the best students try hard to make themselves clear. Writing also reflects how a person has thought through a problem and I find many scholars are too pressured or too lazy (maybe both!) to publish. It takes a much longer time to think and write clearly. Searching for just the write word or phrase can be really time consuming.
Lisa
6/27/2016 08:50:07 am
Sarah, this is something I ALWAYS think about when I'm at book discussion, and also something I think about when I'm writing up family history. As a graphic designer (presenter of information), I ALWAYS think about who is the intended market (reader) and of what are we trying to convince them? Who is telling us the story and why? As the reader, I wonder the same in reverse. Who is telling me the story and why do they want us to know? I like the parallel with graphic design. Perhaps all the arts are about communication in some form? Thanks too passing the post on, and for the reminder that it works both ways - readers may also want to know who's performing the introduction. Even in conversation, I occasionally find myself wondering, "Why are you telling me this?"
Lisa
6/27/2016 09:58:31 am
"Why are you telling me this?" Laughing here, but in literature, as opposed to academic writing (HOPEFULLY), it's a really important factor in understanding the story. Sometimes we find an article or review which tells us why the writer wrote the story. Then we discuss whether we were convinced or not. Other times, we don't know and have to discuss it without the author's insight, so to speak. And if it's a good book for discussion, we enjoy that aspect of the discussion either way. Beth, yes, writing clearly takes more time. Worth it, to my taste. In history we used to take pride in being a jargon-free discipline, in which a well-written narrative is accessible to anyone. That is probably less true now, but I agree, the best scholars strive for clarity. Weaker ones confuse it with "dumbing down."
Lisa
6/27/2016 10:05:09 am
I don't know if "dumbing down" a written piece is the defense of a "weaker" writer, but I'm certain it is of the more insecure writer. Thinking the judgement "weaker" comes from the reader, and "insecure" comes from within the writer. Fair enough. My use of "dumbing down" comes from a party where I was chatting with a history faculty member about writing historical material at grade school reading levels. She asked, "Don't you find it frustrating to have to dumb everything down?" I said no, I enjoyed the challenge of explaining complex events in simple vocabulary and sentence structure. You have to genuinely understand what you are writing about, because your content is so transparent. There's nothing to hide behind.
Lisa
6/27/2016 10:47:01 am
Ah HA. "Dumbing down" was HER poor choice of words, and possible insecurity in her own ability to believe SHE could do that.
George Faunce
6/27/2016 04:50:24 pm
Sarah, I was thinking of a recent party I attended, and as I was introduced to several new people I was serving as a subject for them even as they were for me. Imagine that; two books reading each other simultaneously (and changing paragraphs on the fly in response to each other's "prose"). Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm a historian who writes novels and literary nonfiction. My home base is Madison, Wisconsin. Archives
September 2024
|
RSS Feed