Musings on the business and craft of writing, technology and whatever else passes through.

I had a bonus rule, number #11, included in yesterday’s post, Ten off-the-cuff writing rules. I deleted it because I started trying to explain my meaning and realized it should be a separate post.

Here is that rule:

#11 For marketing purposes, you may wish to refer to yourself as a business writer, a fiction writer, a web writer, SEO writer, technical writer and so on. There are many kinds of writer you can choose to be. However, that is just marketing. Writers write. Everything. You only describe yourself as a particular kind of writer because that is what someone willing to pay you wants to hear. When that person wants a copywriter, you’re a copywriter. When they want a web writer, you’re a web writer. But you are a writer. Period.

To clarify: Don’t confuse interest and knowledge with writing. You may have no interest in technical writing (it can be pretty dull). You may feel ill-qualified to write it because the subject matter is one you know little of (though keep in mind, there are subject matter experts with whom you consult). A certain kind of writing may have certain requirements and constraints that you need to keep in mind while writing, but writing is still writing.

For a certain job you may need to describe yourself as a “kind” of writer – technical, copy, web and so on. But writing is writing. You are a writer.

Share:

Hide Sites

I began this list last Thursday. I finished it off Saturday morning. Surprisingly, on Saturday I also came across Ten rules for writing fiction. It seems I wasn’t alone in putting together a list. (Those writers, by the way, are much better than I am so their lists should carry a good deal more weight than mine.) There is no order to my list. They are “off-the-cuff,” jotted down as they popped into my head. They read as follows:

#1 If you’re the kind of writer so very good that only modesty withholds the modifier “great,” you can ignore rules. By the way, if you’re that kind of writer you’re probably dead and have been for some time.

#2 Writing correctly is not the same as writing well. A sentence can be perfectly grammatical yet fail to communicate its message. Some sentences are ungrammatical yet communicate their meaning immediately and clearly.

#3 Writing isn’t about words, it is about communicating. Words are just the tool. Don’t fall in love with language.

#4 Few things are as discouraging to readers as very long paragraphs. Break it up. Better still, brutally look at what you’ve written and ask if it is really necessary. The answer is usually no.

#5 Get to the point. Immediately. Don’t write long paragraphs to set things up (referred to as exposition or back story). If that material is truly necessary, you can toss it in later (however, see rule #8).

#6 Read everything you write out loud. If you can’t read it out loud easily and fluidly, something is wrong with it. Rewrite it or drop it. (Additionally, read material that is not your own out loud. It will help convey to you how things should read and sound – or the opposite.)

#7 Listen. Everyone has their own way of speaking. They use particular words, phrasing and syntax. By listening, you’ll find new ways of constructing sentences and hear how language can communicate character (among other things). You’ll also notice that people rarely use long, clause-filled sentences.

#8 Edit. Rewrite. Edit. Rewrite. Edit. Rewrite. Repeat until doctors start suggesting Prozac.

#9 Your favourite writing is usually your worst, pretty as it may be. It’s the stuff that needs to be junked. It’s sad but true. On the other hand, it’s a great way to flag material that should be dropped. If you love it, that’s a sign something is wrong.

#10 Getting paid beats compliments every time.

Share:

Hide Sites

I’ve just quickly created a page of books that have influenced me. In fact, while it’s page name is “Books” the secondary headline is Books that have influenced me.

It’s a short list — just five. I think of all of them as related to writing though only one is specifically about writing. Most are web/social media related. But I see their messages as applicable to writing.

And a couple may strike you as peculiar. You may ask, “What the hell has that to do with social media?” or something similar. You may think they are old and no longer relevant.

As mentioned, I threw it together quickly and I hope to explain soon what it is about each of them that I think is important. If the stars are properly aligned and I can write well, you’ll understand what it is about each I find of value and why I’ve picked them.

You can see the list here.

Share:

Hide Sites

I’ve been busy this week and haven’t posted anything. (The web collectively mutters, “Thank heaven!”) But I have come across a few things that caught my attention.

The first is oodles of writers providing their rules for their craft and while it is in a fiction context many, if not all, are applicable to any kind of writing. The second is a brief Seth Godin post that points to how to use clichés (and why they work). Third is a post of my own from my other site, included if only because it has been ages since I’ve added anything new (probably of limited interest). And finally … a post that begins talking about language but soon reveals itself to be about impermanence. It’s interesting, at least to me, and may prompt me to write a lengthy post of my own. We’ll see.

And now the links:

Ten rules for writing fiction

“Get an accountant, abstain from sex and similes, cut, rewrite, then cut and rewrite again – if all else fails, pray. Inspired by Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing, we asked authors for their personal dos and don’ts.”

How to use clichés (Seth Godin)

“The effective way to use a cliché is to point to it and then do precisely the opposite.”

A Lady Takes a Chance -1943 (Piddleville)

After having it on my computer for about two months in a half-finished state, I’ve finally posted my take on A Lady Takes a Chance (1943). It stars Jean Arthur and John Wayne and, yes, it’s a romantic comedy.

Let’s Get Radical (thinkBuddha.org)

“… We are, perhaps, not very good at thinking about change. Western thought, in particular, seems to be very wedded to an idea of stasis as the fundamental condition of things.”

Share:

Hide Sites

As I mentioned yesterday Writelife will, “… be a bit of a schmozzle for the next day or two.” I’m experimenting with a few things, such as:

• trying Disqus for comments — just to see if there is any value in it
• setting up Google for site search — because I’m not thrilled with the current search
• trying a few different plugins and what not in the sidebars

The concern I’ve always had with Disqus for comments was simply that it might add a new step for anyone leaving a comment. I’m not sure that it does, but I believe everything should be as simple as possible for users — and they shouldn’t have to stop and figure out what to do. That is simply a barrier to using something.

I have the Google search way at the bottom of the far right column for now. It’s obviously not set up correctly since no matter what you enter it shows zero results. It’s one of those head scratching things that people like me encounter, people who are primarily something other than technology guys.

I’ve added a few Google ads in the sidebars mainly because I can and I’d like to see how they set up and, once in place, whether they are anything more than clutter. I’m looking at a few other things with “revenue generating potential,” as some might put it. I’m also considering going through those sidebars and whittling them down. Is there any value to some of them? (In some cases, the answer is yes but only to me.)

To sum it up, I’m in a revisionist frame of mind these days and thus I’m rethinking. I rethink best visually: I often have to see and use something to really get a sense for its worth.

From a visitor’s point of view, this means disruptions. Think of it as summer on Writelife and the city has road construction going on almost everywhere.

Share:

Hide Sites

Search engines aren’t the only ones looking for keywords. We are too. In a sense, we are search engines as we look for what we’re trying to find or we meander over the web hoping to stumble on something interesting.

When we look, we look for words and phrases.

I‘m thinking of email newsletter subject lines in particular. From what I see coming into my inbox, the majority die on the vine because they have poorly composed, poorly thought through subject lines. In other words, they likely go straight to the trash folder without ever being opened.

The point of a subject line is to get someone to open the newsletter. If most people are like me, and I believe they are, they get loads of emails, including spam, and therefore just glance at what is unread in their inbox. They only see a few keywords, usually those at the very beginning – the first three, maybe five. And what do they see?

• Now available at …
• Great ways to save…
• What’s New this week…
• Company Name newsletter for…

None of these would get me to open an email. They are all so generic it’s unlikely I would continue on to see if the subject line redeemed itself with something interesting. The last one really makes me crazy.

Anyone that gets email knows the From field comes first and it clearly displays your name.

If I was to send out a newsletter, or any email, people would see Writelife in the From field. Why on earth would I then begin a subject line with, “Writelife presents a unique …?” Why include the name at all? The shorter a subject line, the better. Every word counts. This is one case where repetition is definitely not a good idea.

How should a subject line read?

I would try to get the important words right at the start. For example, “Fix your PC…” or, “Secure your documents…” or, “Download Olympic performances …” I would also try to make my subject line as short as possible (although, admittedly, I often fail at this).

Keep in mind that many people get their email on their iPhone, Blackberry or other mobile device. In most cases, they’ll only see the first two or three words. “Great ways to …” isn’t going to get the job done.

In the case of a newsletter, the content and the audience determine the subject line. In many of the newsletters I’ve worked on (usually guided by marketing departments), the emphasis is on what they want people to read rather than on what their customers want to read. And it usually shows in the open rate.

You have to look at the newsletter content and find what would most interest your audience and determine how to best present that in a subject line. The subject line doesn’t sell; the subject line gets people into the store, so to speak. It encourages them to open the newsletter.

Let’s say I’m doing a newsletter based on my last few Writelife posts (not the best example because I’m not really selling anything). I might have a subject line like:

• Respect and work; what’s Seth Godin do?

(Note: obviously, subject lines don’t have links. These are included for anyone curious about see the actual posts.)

The line is short and in many cases the second part won’t be seen on a handheld device. But it does have keywords near the front. However, we could make it better if we look at the keywords, which are: respect, work, Seth Godin. Of those, which would garner the greatest interest? The subject line should be:

• What’s Seth Godin do?; respect and work

If you insist on including your company name (which I disagree with) at least have the good sense to put it at the end – after the important terms:

• What’s Seth Godin do?; respect and work | Writelife

Of course, this version risks having people think the second part relates to the first. These kinds of subject lines are a result of trying to do too much, say too much, reach too many people. You can’t be everything to everyone, so make some choices. To me, the best version of this reads this way:

• What’s Seth Godin do?

I’m not basing this on any data I have at hand. I’m sure there is data out there that either supports or refutes this approach. But my intuitive sense says this is the way to go. It’s definitely based on how I personally view emails and newsletters.

It should be noted that while I’ve been writing about email and subject lines the majority of this is applicable to blog post headlines, tweets on Twitter and most things web related. (And I’m guilty in not practicing what I preach.)

What do you think?

Share:

Hide Sites

Please forgive the nonsense going on in the sidebars this weekend. I’m playing around with a few things to see how they work and possibly making some long term changes.

So it will be a bit of a schmozzle for the next day or two.

Share:

Hide Sites

Work is necessary in order to be complete. We tend to think of work only in terms of reward – an income – that allows us to fulfill other of life’s necessities and, if we can, enjoy our lives more fully with some of its luxuries. But work itself is a necessity and for that necessity to be truly met how we work is important.

A long time ago I read The Snow Leopard by Peter Matthiessen. It masquerades as a nature/travel book but it’s really an account of a spiritual journey into the Himalayas with the faint hope of seeing the rarely seen snow leopard. One part of the book has always remained with me.

On their trek they have a Sherpa to help and guide them. In their group there is a British couple that continually treat the Sherpa with disrespect – with a kind of upper-crust disdain as if to say, “You don’t exist except to serve us.”

Yet the Sherpa continues along doing his work as if indifferent to his treatment. Finally, one day, Matthiessen asks him, “How can you be so indifferent? How can you respect these people?”

The Sherpa says, “I don’t. I respect the work.”

That made me think. The Sherpa separates the employment from the employer. I think regardless of the employer, regardless of the work, how he performs it says something about him. The employer and employment may be lousy but if he has agreed to do the work then how he performs it reflects on his character.

If the conditions of the employment are awful, he can look for other work, resign from the employment. To continue to do the work but do it poorly may make things difficult for the people or company employing him but they also undermine him.

Imagine an athlete, let’s say a hockey player. He has loads of talent. He’s in the upper echelon of players. His team, however, reaches a point that it has no chance of making the playoffs. As a whole, the team has performed as well as they might. What does he do? Does he continue to play at the top of his game, trying to help the team improve? Or does he slack off because there is no chance of winning and, “What’s the point? This team sucks. I want to get traded.”

He could probably get a trade in the real world. And in the real world I’m sure lots of teams would want him. But I think that would be a mistake. His performance on the team that is out of the playoffs says he only plays well under certain conditions. It says his interest in “the work” is only to the extent that he is rewarded for it with money and accolades. If you take those away, he’s a slug. He plays for himself, no one else. He certainly doesn’t play for the team.

He doesn’t respect the work and by extension he doesn’t really respect himself. It isn’t surprising that some of the best workers are those who have been out of work for a while. Take it away, and you quickly realize how important it is in defining who you are and the degree to which you have a sense of self-respect.

We tend to focus on jobs, as we should, but how we perform them, think about them and feel about them is just as important. More often than not, it defines who we are.

Related links:

• Mike Rowe on how we view work
• Why success can make for lousy work
• Work is not a dirty word (Broadcasting-Brain)

Share:

Hide Sites

Nothing is as easy as it appears – even talking.

We’ve likely all encountered variations of this comedic scene: someone looks like one thing but their voice doesn’t fit our expectations. Let’s say there is a huge football lineman who towers over us yet his voice is high-pitched and squeaky. He may even have a lisp. So we laugh or chuckle.

It’s politically incorrect and socially inappropriate. Worse, it’s unkind. But it’s a natural response to the gap between expectations and reality. Comedy is all about setting up expectations then delivering the unexpected.

How we sound has always intrigued me. I’m always surprised when I meet someone who, should the conversation turn to the subject of radio, has a kind of dream of being on the radio. Seriously, there are a lot of them! I suppose it’s understandable but I know that there is a huge difference between the idealized, fantasy image of being a radio announcer and the reality.

To begin with, it’s one thing to talk it’s quite another to say something that is listenable. You can talk, but are you saying anything worth hearing (the content)? You can talk, but do you have bad habits like a chuckle, the same chuckle, preceding every pause? Do you have to script everything you say or can you talk off the cuff and be sensible? Can you talk and naturally work in all the announcements you’re required to: weather, ads, promos?

Here’s an example: I have a moderately listenable voice. But if I were on the radio and had to talk off the cuff it would all be gibberish punctuated by the odd profanity because, unfortunately, you have to actually think about what you’re saying and my brain works slowly. It’s sad but it’s true. It also goes off on unanticipated tangents.

When you talk, do you sound like yourself or do you sound like a completely different person? Some people, I found, sounded like “announcers.” We use to have a term for that – “Ronnie Radio.” (In other words, there are announcers and there are people who trying to imitate what they think announcers sound like.)

Let’s say you are reading something, a news story or an ad or an introduction – do you sound like you’re reading or can you sound natural, as if you aren’t reading?

Some people have the skills and talent required to be on the radio. Still, they fall into a couple of types. There are some people who are great announcers but no matter what the situation, always sound like announcers. For example, if you have an ad that requires a character voice, let say the average Joe talking about his car, they can’t do it. Put in different terms, they can be a narrator in a film but they can’t be one of the film’s characters because they can’t act. They do one thing, do it very well, but that is it.

And some people can do those character voices but couldn’t be an announcer to save their life. A few can do both.

All this voice business, by the way, doesn’t even touch on all the other requirements, such as public appearances, community involvement and radio station functions they may have. (Maybe they have to also sell ads, or manage the music, or produce commercials.)

On the outside, being a radio voice appears easy and fun. It can certainly be the latter, fun, and for some it can be both. But talking on the radio involves a lot more than talking on the radio.

That is why it is something I never tried. Years ago, when I first started in radio, I saw what was involved and gauged it against what my skills were and my personality was and it was clear to me that it would not be something I’d do even remotely well.

And so I write.

(Yes, today was a bit of a tangent.)

Share:

Hide Sites