Posts tagged as:

Writing

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 }

What’s wrong with being silly?

by Bill on March 9, 2010

Let us dream of evanescence, and linger in the beautiful foolishness of things.
- Okakura Kazuko -

Why is a certain kind of writing always assumed to be for children? I’m thinking about writing that would include writers like Dr. Seuss or Shel Silverstein. It’s writing characterized by silliness and humour.

I write quite a bit of it and whenever I show it to someone they invariably say, “Oh, kids would love this! You should write a childrens’ book.” Why?

I can honestly say that whenever I have written something of this kind – something silly – children have never entered my mind. I’ve written for myself. I love this stuff. (Note: in excess, it can get annoying and very quickly.)

A lot of other adults appear to love it too. But it isn’t serious or “adult” enough so, in order to justify liking it, we say it’s for children. I don’t have children so I don’t know if I even could write a book for an audience of children. On the other hand, I have been a child so I do have first hand experience.

When we enjoy something but it doesn’t have the serious aspect we think we, as adults, should carry, we choose to see it as something “for children.” I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of childrens’ books sold appealed to adults first, adults who then figured their kids would love it. It may well be that children will like them but it’s the adults who really love them. It’s adults deciding what their children will or won’t like based on what they, the adults, do or don’t like.

What’s wrong with being silly? If the issues we deal with in our lives and in the world can be considered heavy (poverty, income, relationships) it is humour, including silliness, that leavens it and makes it light enough to make a start and continue with those tasks.

You can’t always be silly. It would be irresponsible and irritating as hell. But sequestering it as something that “children will love” is a kind of denial that misreads who we are. And on the subject of silliness:

Cinnamon cat

The cinnamon cat.Cinnamon Cat follows the scent
of cinnamon dust and that
is the only concern of the cinnamon kitty
known as the Cinnamon Cat.

She loves a bun, honeyed and swirled,
swirled with her favourite taste.
She’ll sticker her nose with honey and spice,
and no crumb goes to waste.

But taste isn’t what the Cinnamon Cat
finds precious in a bun,
and it isn’t honey that sticks her there;
it’s the scent of cinnamon.

Beware how you dress and perfume your wrist
and how you cologne your cravat.
If you’ve even a hint of a cinnamon stick,
you’ll be stuck with a Cinnamon Cat.

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 }

The peculiar tone of writing rules

by Bill on March 4, 2010

Tone is an expression of attitude. It tells people how we feel about something. In writing, it tells the reader how we feel about our subject.

Or does it?

We usually have two or more feelings about a topic though not simultaneously. There is an initial gut response. Then there is a more reasoned response. It’s often unchanged but perhaps not as extreme as the first. It’s a “toned down” response. Since discussions progress, our attitude may change further as we get more information and see other perspectives.

I began thinking about tone after my post Ten off-the-cuff writing rules which included a link to Ten rules for writing fiction (lists made by other writers). In my list and in many of those other lists, there was a common tone.

There is something about making a list of rules, especially writing rules, that seems to shoehorn people into a particular tonal stance: somewhat dogmatic, a bit pontificating. There is an air of absolutism in the rules though I don’t think anyone actually feels any rules about writing are absolute or even close to that.

I think it may have something to do with the conflict between feeling rules for writing are silly and knowing that for each of us, individually, there actually are rules we follow (though it may be more true to say there are particular techniques we use). So when we present “ten rules for writing” or something similar there is an element of the facetious, or self-mockery. However, that element is so buried it comes out as dogmatism. “Do this and do that.”

The rules we present are really descriptions of ourselves as writers. Put more accurately, each of our rules would read, “To write like me, do this.”

It may have something to do with the brevity we feel something like a rule requires. Who ever heard of a rule that went on for several pages with a really full description, clauses, exceptions and addenda? We expect rules to be short. Thus, when we set down a rule we generally keep it brief but, because we know nothing is as simple as that, we’re a bit frustrated and that mocking element slips in.

We know rules are nonsense so we can’t help feeling a kind of conflict in saying, “This is what you must do.” If you read Elmore Leonard’s list (“Using adverbs is a mortal sin”) you know they are great rules – if you want to write like Elmore Leonard. But if you’re another kind of writer, it might simply be a helpful guideline that, if applied too rigidly, makes your work stilted or gives it a feel that is inappropriate to its theme.

But if we equivocate, we undercut our rule. So we have an inner conflict because the rule is true but not necessarily everywhere, for everyone. This conflict makes itself manifest in a tone that is dogmatic. Yet when you look at it closely, it isn’t really dogmatism but a kind struggle between helpful advice and facetiousness. We know that what we’re really doing is describing ourselves and pretending it’s a rule for writing. So deep down we’re a little uncomfortable because we feel we’re a little bit like flim-flam artists. We try to mask that discomfort with a bit of bravado.

Still, the “rules” we present are usually good ones for someone who wants to improve their writing. They can try them out to see if they work for them. They just have to keep in mind that of they don’t work, junk them.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

A follow-up bonus writing rule

by Bill on February 23, 2010

Columbo - "Just one more thing ..."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.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Books that have influenced me

by Bill on February 20, 2010

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.

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

A few links worth a look

by Bill on February 20, 2010

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.”

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }

Keywords and subject lines

by Bill on February 14, 2010

Gmail inbox sample (admira.wordpress.com)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:

(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?

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 }

Puzzled by web design and services

by Bill on January 22, 2010

I’ve been looking at a few sites offering web design and related services and I find myself puzzled, even a bit alarmed. This is not due to what I found (though in some cases it was) but by what I did not find.

I have seen absolutely no reference to content. Do the sites magically populate themselves? If not, who does it? If the client does, is there no consultative service to advise them on what and how to put the content in or maintaining it? If the client doesn’t handle the content, who does? If the web design company does, who handles the research, the writing, the editing? Have they a background in it? Are they good?

There were no references to social media other than “Follow us on Twitter” and/or something similar for Facebook. If a company is moving to or revamping an online presence, isn’t this a crucial aspect? Where do they get help, direction or advice on this?

I found a few web design/web services companies with URLs that required the www preface. Personally, I never use it anymore. I just type in something like writelife.net. No http. No www. I suspect many people are like me. If so, there are a lot of people going to a “page not found” message when they type in the web company’s address. I can’t believe that builds a lot of confidence in a web design company’s awareness of how the web works.

I also found quite a few companies using dated language. In the world of business, marketing and technology, terminology changes almost daily and if you rely on today’s clichés you become tomorrow’s anachronism. Surely “offering solutions” is at least ten years old. I believe current terminology should be avoided at all costs but I do realize it is often unavoidable. But this puts the onus on you to continually assess your site and see where and how it requires revamping. In the online world, static means death.

None of the above is true of all web design sites. Hopefully, I just stumbled on a few that skewed my perception. It is worrying though. On the other hand, from my perspective, maybe it holds the promise of some work. :-)

Listen to this post Listen to this post

{ Comments }