Posts tagged as:

posts

Writing is acting

by Bill on March 10, 2010

Comedy and tragedy masks.I’m not big on rules or posts that say “do this” and “do that,” so this post is to simply describe how I approach writing. It might be better to say it describes what writing feels like to me.

What is that approach?

Exactly what the title says: writing is acting. This isn’t an idea I picked up in a book, or in a class, or found online, though there may be people out there who have professed or do profess this approach. It is simply something I found myself doing as I wrote.

What I mean by “acting”

When I refer to writing as being acting I mean every word is delivered by a particular character, or “voice,” even if it is a third person omniscient narrator. It could be the voice found in a business letter, some web copy, a newsletter or poem – anything that involves writing. No matter how objective and dry the text may want to be, it is still a character delivering it – in some cases a very objective and dry one. It always has a voice. The question is, who is that voice?

I’m not talking about going into some great psychological-emotional examination of character as if you were an actor getting into a role (unless what you are writing is fiction and you’re developing a character). For the most part, it’s a kind of variation on the kid’s game, “let’s pretend.”

For whatever you are writing, you put on some kind of persona. I suppose we all do it in our daily lives behaving one way at work, another in a meeting with a client, another at home, another at a party. But it’s the persona that gives you the voice and the voice dictates the style – even the language. And for me, it all becomes much more easy when I’m “in character.”

Mimicry

I think what lies behind it is mimicry. As with many, if not most, writers, I began as a reader. Once started, soon I was reading just about everything I could find – old novels, new novels, science fiction, crime, mysteries, classic literature, books in translation and on and on. Also, when I turned on the radio or watched television, I listened. I also listened to the world around me — immediate family, relatives, friends, neighbours and on and on.

What I heard was a myriad of voices, some with puzzling syntax, unexpected contractions, emphases put in places that were strange (to me).

When I started writing, almost all of it was mimicry, a channeling and regurgitation of all these voices found in words on the page or heard spoken.

Of course, all of the writing I did was utterly wretched. But I was learning and, even better, I was having fun. The best learning is about discovery and the more you discover the more curious you become.

I kept doing it because, for me, it was fun and after a while it ceased to be mimicry. Somehow, it had become mine. I couldn’t tell you how but all of those styles I had come across, all the characters I had found and all the voices I had heard were mysteriously filed away so they could be called upon as persona templates, in a sense. They were starting places, if nothing else.

When I write something like a business letter I become a businessman with his own or her own voice. I write in a business-like fashion less because there are certain expectations and styles associated with a business letter than because that is how the character I become would write – a business person would write in a business-like way.

When I did editing work on some legal documents, I became a lawyer. I was anything but an actual lawyer but I employed his or her voice and his or her way of looking at text because in a sense I was playing a lawyer as an actor would. I was also trying to approximate how a lawyer might think as he or she looked at the text.

In fiction, if I‘m telling a story in the third person I might become my grandfather. He was great at telling stories. He was a natural raconteur (of course, he was Irish). Or I might assume another persona. But all writing comes from someone and I have to become that someone in order to write.

You might say, “Why not be yourself?” The answer is I do. But I emerge from the totality of the writing, the sum and not the parts. To take an example from fiction, ask yourself if you think the narrative voice found in the novels of Cormac McCarthy is the same voice of he uses in the world, the one you would hear him use in a casual conversation or while in a grocery store. His narrative voice comes, I believe, from a persona or character he assumes as he writes. It is both him and not him.

It’s just “let’s pretend”

All writing is acting. Even a narrator is a character – even if he or she is passively objective. A classified ad requires writing and that means it, too, requires a persona/character. For your wallet’s sake, that character will practice brevity. Business writing requires a business person’s approach and their language, unless they are speaking to customers when what they need is a customer’s voice and point of view.

You don’t need to go to acting school. You just have to remember what it was to be a child and playing “let’s pretend.” You need to be the voice you’re using.

A question often asked in marketing about companies, products and services is, “What’s your story?” The other question you need to ask is, “Who’s telling my story?” This second question is often taken to mean whether the teller is you, your customers or your competition. The other way to look at it is, if the answer is that you are telling your story, who are you and do you sound like who you think you are?

It may be that, if there is any trick to writing, it’s in not writing like a writer. That may be the one persona you can’t put on. Unless, I suppose, you’re writing for other writers. But that would be kind of boring, don’t you think?

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

I’m reading Seth Godin’s most recent book, Linchpin, and I was thinking today about how he writes. In this book, his style is a bit different than in the past, though if you’ve read some of his other books you can see how he has evolved into this style.

In Linchpin, the style is more direct, more emphatic and more personal than in the past. The key word in that sentence is “more” because it isn’t as if he hasn’t written that way previously. It is simply more.

Other people also write in this way and there is a good reason for doing so. I see it best illustrated by setting it against my own writing in blog posts.

I have a bad habit of equivocating. That isn’t an issue in Linchpin. Godin is direct and doesn’t fudge his statements. That makes for greater impact and thus effectiveness.

I think there are a few reasons why I equivocate. The first is the really bad reason. I don’t want to make a firm commitment to a statement I’m making. That is so very bad. I hope I don’t do that too often.

Another reason is a good one, but done to excess becomes a problem. I want what I write to be conversational. I don’t want my writing to come across as academic or formal. I want it to read in a way that you can “hear” someone speaking it in conversation. So I put in the odd conversational phrase, more or less, kind of … Like that, at least every so often. It’s okay occasionally, but done too much it undercuts what has been written. (Those italicized words are an example of what I do.)

The last reason is because I want to remain open to other perspectives. I don’t want to be dogmatic. This may be a well-meaning reason but it undermines the writing, makes it come across as non-committal and just reads as namby pamby. You can’t be all things to all people all the time. Take a position and live with it.

Godin does this in Linchpin and the book benefits. It is effective and engaging – partly for what it is about and partly for how it goes about it. It is direct and doesn’t equivocate.

If you’re writing, don’t be like me. Be like Seth.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

When do you post and why?

by Bill on February 25, 2010

This is a quick little post that is primarily questions. For instance, if you schedule your blog posts, when do you schedule them for?

I ask this because I’m in the Atlantic time zone. Many people are in the Eastern time zone and many in the other zones all the way to the Pacific. Of course, the internet being global, there are many more time zones.

If you monitor things like Twitter and Facebook, you see activity related to those time zones. As an example, I know many people in the west and I can see, around noon my time, activity firing up out there because it’s about 8:00 am in the Pacific time zone.

So when do you find is the best time to schedule your posts? Does it even matter? If you schedule for the west, do you miss the potential of the east and vice versa?

It seems a niggly thing to wonder about, at least to me, but it could be a significant factor depending on what you are posting, why you are posting and who you believe your audience to be.

Is there a best time?

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Ideas in the airTwo related post subjects caught my attention last week and I’m trying to distill them here. The subjects are ideas (coming up with them) and mind-mapping. I began the post, How to find an idea (since abandoned) and also scattered a few comments on a number of blogs providing my own less than profound insight.

The more I trailed these subjects the more clear their relationship was and, despite my initial denials of having a particular process or an ability to mind-map, the more clear it was I did have a process and it was a kind of mind-mapping, albeit a chaotic one.

So this is me trying to distill and explain.

Finding ideas

I don’t find ideas, they find me. I don’t recall ever having consciously made an effort to find an idea. I have certainly been flat broke as far as ideas went and I’ve stared at either blank paper or a blank screen. But I don’t think I’ve ever gone out looking for an idea. It’s not because I have a rule about that or some distaste for it. It just never occurred to me.

To say, “I don’t find ideas, they find me,” is a cutesy little sentence and many people may have a vague sense for the accuracy of it, but it really doesn’t say anything. As with many clever sentences, it’s all style, little or no substance. So here is the substantive part that is missing. In a comment on Remarkablogger I wrote:

I think coming up with ideas has a good deal to do with state of mind, probably related to brain wave activity, and “getting away from my computer” is really about a mental reset.

I come up with ideas by walking the dog or buying groceries. Every so often I’ll write an idea down to work on later but the reality is that I rarely go back [to] it. I appear to be reactive to my environment so I’ll start scribbling about something that has been sparked by what I’ve seen online or in the news. Just as often, however, for reasons I can’t fathom, I’ll find myself thinking about something that apparently hasn’t been sparked by anything — at least not that I’m aware of.

Walking the dog.This is why I say “ideas find me.” In some sense, it is a quest for ideas since when I do something like walk the dog it will be partly because I want a mental reset so an idea might find me. (Mind you, it’s largely because the dog is threatening to destroy the house.)

Something I did not say in the quoted comment was this: in almost every case I do not know what I really think until I have written it out. It’s one thing to have an idea, it’s another to have something to say.

Mind-mapping and process

This is where I get to the business of mind-mapping and process, process really being what mind-mapping is about. I had stated in another comment that I didn’t use mind-mapping, that whenever I tried it I failed. But as I kept thinking about it, I realized that was not true. I started thinking about process and then understood that is what is at the heart of mind-mapping. Strictly speaking, mind maps are graphical but in their essence they are about taking notes. (And notes themselves, in a way, can be considered graphical even though they are text, the traditional note taking method.)

I had confused technology (mind-mapping programs) and visual depictions like graphs, flow charts and coloured balloons with mind-mapping. They are simply tools people use. They aren’t, however, necessary to mind-mapping because mind-mapping is about process and clarity.

When I understood that, I understood that I had a process that brought me clarity. I mind-mapped without knowing it. My process is a ramshackle, chaotic amalgam of today and yesterday, technology and old school.

Often a post begins physically in a notebook with inked scribbles. Later, I transcribe it either in a Word doc or within Wordpress as a draft and continue writing. Later, I print it (back to the tactile). Printed, I read it and with pen or pencil start changing it: rewriting this, cutting that, moving this thing over there. There are arrows up and arrows down, ballooned comments in the margins. I see something is missing and, turning the paper over to the blank side, I begin scribbling again.

And then I take it back to my laptop, make my corrections and transcribe what I’ve scribbled. As the process goes back and forth, the paper side fades away and it is all done on the laptop.

As tedious as all this may seem it has an element that, for me, recommends it: it works.

For me it works though not necessarily for anyone else. I’m not usually the sort of person who can just sit down and pour out words that make a coherent post without any of that back and forth. It certainly doesn’t happen for something of any length. As an example of what I do and how and why it works, as I type this on my laptop I’m preparing to print it, sit down with it and a pen, read it over and orient myself as well as make some changes.

The word orient is key. Once I’m in the flow of writing I can go off on a related tangent. I need to go back and see what it was I wanted to say and if I’ve said it or if I’ve missed something or if I’ve inserted something unrelated to it. In other words, it helps answer the question, “What the hell have I been writing about?”

Conversations

I’m finished going through that process described above and, surprisingly, I think I’ve managed to maintain some coherence and say what I wanted to. However, I also discovered that, at the heart of all this, I think I really just wanted to state how it is I work. I’m sure other people work the same way. Let me add that while it seems tiresome and time-consuming and certainly not how everyone will work, it has the virtue of ebb and flow, back and forth. It is like a conversation with myself at the end of which I not only say what I want I also know what it is I really think.

Final destination.If I may toss in one last thing on the subject of ideas, one aspect that really engages me and helps to define and inform an idea (for me) is a bit of online researching, sometimes of a simple word – like “idea.” You may have a topic, you may even know what you think you want to say, but a bit of online window-shopping of articles and blog posts can highlight aspects and details that may have escaped you. It may also show you what line of thought others are taking and that may be something you want to address, pro or con, or it may put the topic in a light you hadn’t seen it before.

In other words, it turns it into a conversation.

We sometimes think “conversation” in this context is about comments and tweets after we’ve posted. This is true, but the post itself is a product of conversation – one with ourselves as well as with the posts, articles and comments we’ve found online prior to writing it.

Note:

This lengthy ramble was prompted by posts on several blogs, including:

Many thanks!

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Saturday morning project — 2004

by Bill on January 9, 2010

I’ve completed my Saturday morning project which was to go through my posts from 2004 and find the ones I most liked. They aren’t necessarily written as well as they should but such are the hazards of blogs.

It was fascinating for a few reasons. First of all, I was interested to see how much more I was focused on writing, presumeably the reason for a blog called Writelife. I think that is why I have fifteen posts there even though I want to try to keep each year to ten or less.

The second thing I noticed is how focused I was on blogging whereas now my focus is social media (blogging being a subset of). But that was six years ago when blogging was really taking off and there was so much discussion about blogs and what they were, as well as the criticisms — more or less the same as now with social media.

Two posts were of particular interest to me. One of them was 12 rules for Web writing which was actually a repost of something I’d written around ten years ago, about 2000 or so. Back then I was a bit anal about the word web and capitalizing it. Now, I don’t care. The rules, by the way, are more or less obvious ones — there are no great insights, I think. What I find interesting, however, is that by and large I think they’re still valid. (Now that I think of it, maybe some of them weren’t so obvious back in 2000.)

The other post is Language as a communication barrier. For a very long time it was my most visited post. What is of interest in that is where that traffic was coming from — outside of North America to a great extent. Africa, Pacific Rim etc.

Finally, many of the posts from back then have character set problems due to the many Wordpress updates and the importing of the blog from another location. (That importing business is also why some of the internal links go nowhere. It is simply too time consuming to go through and fix the URLs.) Although I tried to clean up the fifteen posts here, my posts from back then often show code rather than an apostrophe, quotation mark and so on.

If you’re at all interested, you’ll find the fifteen posts on my Highlights page, just below 2009. Other years will hopefully be coming soon.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

My themes over the last year

by Bill on January 1, 2010

I’ve been going through my posts from 2009 trying to identify the ones I think are the better ones. I suppose was making a kind of Top Ten list, despite my recurring griping about lists. It is not a “best of” list, however. It is a list of the ones I liked, though some may not have been all they could or should have been. It’s a favourites list, I suppose. It goes like this:

  1. What Star Trek did to me
  2. The class system is alive and well and now online
  3. Readers have responsibilities too
  4. I wonder what she’ll say today
  5. Generations, transitions, moving pictures
  6. Literacy is a prerequisite for independence
  7. Monetizing meaning: what is content anyway?
  8. Is usability kaput?
  9. Who are we not hearing from?
  10. The first draft is the outline

It has been an intriguing exercise. As I go through the posts I see the themes that have preoccupied me. I’ve been aware that there was some redundancy to my posts as I keep returning to certain subjects but I think this is likely true of anyone with a blog.

Here are some of the themes, observations and comments I see popping up over and over:

  • What I perceive as a belief among many that social media, and the Internet generally, is ubiquitous and of a democratic nature and how that is a false belief.
  • Sometimes the act of communication is more important than what is communicated.
  • Social media is not tactile. We’re all in touch with each other online but we never touch each other – there is no physical contact to technological connections.

Those are the three big ones I keep seeing myself writing about. As far as the topic of writing went, my focus was a bit generic. I seemed to write more about that vague thing we call content – what is happening to traditional news, how blogs have evolved, managing social media content and so on. I was all over the map which is not unusual for me.

As an aside … I rarely make lists like the one above. I decided to do so this time as a first step in a process of going through all my posts, back to 2004, and identifying the better material. In my inept fashion, I’m trying to do a bit of online housekeeping.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Writers write too much

by Bill on November 24, 2009

Yes, writers write way too much (including me). There are a number of reasons why. I’ll outline some below but first, how can I make such a claim? I can because I am a writer and a reader. It’s the reader that tells me we write too much. It’s the writer that tries to figure out why.

Love of it: Writers love to write. That’s why they write. This becomes a problem because we’re often self indulgent and very much enthralled with our own opinions. It is exacerbated by the web (where you write as much as you want for as long as you want) and the reality that there are few editors going over what is written and even fewer good editors.

Word count: In many cases, particularly with professional writing such as magazines, newspapers and so on, there is a word count imposed. One thousand words on a topic. It may well be, however, that what you have to say can be stated in a simple five word sentence. Word count demands that you dribble on for another 995 words.

This isn’t to say there shouldn’t be a word count. More often than not it prevents us from going on and on and on (because we love writing). It’s also a necessity because of how people read and the publishing format. It can simply be too labour intensive and costly to constantly design due to varying lengths.

Process: This is the interesting one and the one where an absence of a good editor really shows. More often than not writers preface what they actually have to say because that is how we get into what we are writing about. “I had been living in New York for ten years and had witnessed the seasons change in the pulsating city … blah blah blah.” After several paragraphs, even pages, you get to the point: you moved from New York to L.A.

The preface itself may not necessarily be superfluous (though it usually is), but it represents a writer’s viewpoint, not a reader’s. For the reader it’s a case of, “Why in the world am I reading this? What’s the point?” You have to keep reading before you ever get to the point, the one that may make the preface understandable.

I’ve seen this over and over and especially in my own writing. Before we get into the writing groove of our topic, we ramble on looking for our way in. That’s fine – it’s the process. But it isn’t fine if you make the reader go through it too.

The reason I’ve written this post, by the way, is because I came across a really good post yesterday that I never finished because the writer went on and on. What he had written could have been written in half the number of words or less.

This problem is evident in my own posts. I’ve written oodles. But how much of it was unnecessary? Quite a bit, I think.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Sometimes the start isn’t where you start

by Bill on October 18, 2009

With the help of Twitter, I came across Alexander Chee’s great essay on the subject of writing, Annie Dillard and the Writing Life. One part in particular struck me (I added the bolding):

In the cutting and cutting and the move this here, put this at the beginning, this belongs on page six, I learned that the first three pages of a draft are usually where you clear your throat, that most times, the place your draft begins is around page four. That if the beginning isn’t there sometimes it’s at the end, that you’ve spent the whole time getting to your beginning, and that if you switch the first and last pages you might have a better result than if you leave them where they were.

The part I put in bold is exactly what I find I do over and over again. In a way, it’s a form of what journalists called “burying the lead.” (Lead is sometimes spelled “lede.”) I’ve posted about this before (The clausal writer).

What Chee says is bang on. For me, I often don’t really know what it is I’m writing until I’ve written in circles for a while. It’s sort of like cooking: you get out all the ingredients and set them before you and then realize, “Oh, this is what I can make with this stuff.” Then you put away the ingredients you won’t be using and get started on what you’re making.

It isn’t a problem unless you’re disinclined to rewrite. Once the words are on paper, the real writing is supposed to begin. Add this, cut this, move this and so on. Unfortunately, we don’t always do this. I know I don’t, particularly on my blogs where I sometimes rush to get a post done and move on to other things. In fact when I look back on posts in my archive it can be quite embarrassing.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Everyday people always entertaining

by Bill on September 20, 2009

I’ve recently started a project that requires a certain amount of reclamation work. By that I mean my memory is pretty awful so I’m doing some work to reclaim my memory by going through my various blog archives. It’s been something of a revelation.

I have three blogs: this one, another devoted to movies and a personal blog that is currently on an extended hiatus as I decide what to do with it. Writelife (ostensibly about writing, social media and so on) and the movie blog both have a specific focus (and sometimes not so specific). To some degree, they are self-censored in that career-related people, companies and whoever else can see them and I don’t want to come across as too much of a raving blog lunatic. (I’m not always successful in that regard.)

The third, the personal one, is pretty much me uncensored. In fact, it’s on hiatus right now as I consider the wisdom of this, consider the wisdom of trying to manage three blogs and I try to figure out what to do with the blog name, which is a stupid one I dreamed up at the spur of the moment a few years ago. But all that’s an aside …

Here’s the thing: Of the three, the most interesting is hands-down the personal one. It is the one where, when I’m on my game, I have the best writing. It’s easily the funniest. And when I use the word “censor” in connection with it I’m not suggesting there is anything that needs censoring. I use the f-word more frequently there, in the older posts, more so than I would now. But other than that, it’s largely tame stuff. The censor business was simply considering how I appeared to others online, at least in the first impressions sense. From a career perspective, was it a good idea?

Going through the archives (and those of the other blogs) I see certain themes recurring. (That is my diplomatic way of saying I’m repetitive.) And I see that there is one thing in particular I’m interested in above anything else: people.

Why is the personal one more interesting than the other two? Because it is specifically about people: me as a people (obviously) and others as people. That’s also why it’s funny, at least to me.

The other two blogs come at the subject of people sideways. Here, on this blog, by discussing marketing, social media, marketing, communication and so on. On the other blog, via movies which, when they are good movies, are always good because they are good stories and good stories are always about people.

I found it interesting that among the posts in the personal blog archive there were a few that sounded very similar to recent ones posted here. The critiques of social media today are very similar to the critiques of blogs from several years ago, prior to the proliferation of social media tools and when personal blogs were either at their height or beginning to fall from that height.

What is most interesting to me, however, is the writing (to me) is so much better. I don’t think it relates to the writing as writing but to what the writing was about and how it went about it. Posts about events and topics that, on the surface, were utterly trivial, were actually the most engaging.

So once again, as often happens for me, I’m rethinking what I rethought a while ago.

As for the project I referred to above, my fingers are crossed that I have the tenacity to complete it. That is always the hardest part.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Teens and Twitter and the upside

by Bill on August 6, 2009

Why teens dont take to Twitter.I’ve been seeing all kinds of stories and posts and tweets and whatever about the alarming revelation that teens don’t use Twitter. (The link is arbitrary – there are loads of stories out there; it’s just one of many.)

The tone of many of these is that this is a bad thing and Twitter is in trouble and something really bad must be in the offing.

What if the reverse is true? What if one of the attractions of Twitter is that teens aren’t on it?

I hate sounding like some old grump doing the, “Kids these days …” routine because it doesn’t reflect how I think or feel. Quite the opposite. But let’s be realistic — much of what teens are interested in is only of interest to other teens, they often have a vocabulary all their own and, being the old grumps we are, it’s of no interest to us. It’s clutter. It’s noise.

Doesn’t that make something like Twitter more attractive if one of their aspects is the absence of this? For an older demographic, doesn’t it make it more useful?

And where did the implicit notion that the only demographic that spends money, the only one worth targeting for marketing purposes, was the teen set? An older demographic is likely to have more money to spend, and likely to spend on higher priced items (because they can). The only possible difference, and I’m not sure this is true, is that they may take more pursuading.

And where did this idea come from that in order to be successful you had to be the biggest, have the most users, reach the most people? Those might be nice things to have (if you know how to leverage such an audience – most don’t), but it’s more than possible to make a good buck being smaller or, put another way, big enough.

I’m not saying these things apply to Twitter. But they are worth taking into account. If Twitter doesn’t attract a teen audience, it’s not the end of the world. In some ways, it may be the best of all worlds.

Put another way, by putting the text of the image above the opposite way, “My kids don’t use Twitter. I shouldn’t have to explain this.”

(By the way … I loved that image. I thought it hilarious. It’s from the Seth Simmonds site.)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }