I'm glad it inspired you. It's truly wonderful to know that there are people like you on the other side who appreciate and benefit from these posts. Kurt has been an important influence on my writing, and I hope his ideas are helpful!
Sorry Alvaro. The way these two words are spelled shows how strongly this editor wanted us to be exact and thrifty with our words. Instead of "write tight" he spelled it "rite tite." Thank goodness he didn't drop the silent "e's" because then it would have a totally different meaning. Have a great day, Alavaro. And thanks for this post.
Thank you for the post! You’re inspiring me to write my own post. It was very interesting to read about Kurt Vonnegut and I’m grateful for that. But, I have to be honest. The advice offered here is itself difficult to figure out. If clarity and a focus on the reader are the major concerns, we can provide more specific guidance instead of relying on value judgements.
That’s what I teach in my writing classes. We focus on readers and discuss the structure of sentences, paragraphs and whole papers
I'm unsure what you mean by "focus on the reader." Does that mean we write to the readers' interests and/or reading level? That's only part of the equation, though. Vonnegut's advice actually fits well for online writers because their readers only have so much time and energy, especially with all the mountains of online articles and stories available. I cut my writers' teeth on a newspaper where the inverted triangle formula ruled. That format of "getting to the point" and choosing powerful verbs to statement the case was all part of that training. It's designed to pull the reader into a piece quickly and gives them the essential facts without taking up a lot of their time. Modern news media, however, has wandered far from that standard. Most online news is opinion-oriented and wanders around, drumming up emotional response. A writer can still inspire emotional response to a story by stating the facts and pulling in the human interest with quotes showing the emotional state of the speaker.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. When I say focus on the reader, I mean what the reader will find interesting and what the reader may know or not know. We know that a piece of writing won’t appeal to all readers so it’s helpful to have a reader in mind when we write. We then choose subjects of sentences that would matter to them and tell them the stakes that are involved based on their concerns. (We might not always get that right.)
Considering what the reader would and would not know is also critical. It’s not necessarily about reading level, but it is relevant. (I have more to say about that.) it’s actually about “the problem of the expert.” Many, if not most of us, tend to think the reader knows more than she does. Or, that the reader remembers everything they are reading in our text. They don’t. This then leads to gaps in the writing and confusion when we rely on the reader to keep up with us instead of focusing on where the reader will likely be and walking with them.
I agree that Vonnegut’s advice is relevant and helpful, but I find that it’s “value-laden” as is most advice about writing. It tells people what to do in abstract and subjective terms without talking about how. It’s like a teacher telling a student, “Be clear and concise. Don’t include unnecessary words.” Notice how the words, “clear,” “concise,” and “unnecessary” are all evaluative words. Who decides what’s clear, concise, and unnecessary? This is eye of the beholder stuff and if you’re not a professional writer, you have no idea what to do. It’s mysterious. My aim in teaching writing is to make it less mysterious.
In some cases, writers will write about subjects they know and will not really regard the reader at all. They'll just put their thoughts on the page and edit the work to make their statement as understandable as possible. Whoever reads it will take what they will, regardless of the writer's intent. They will understand the subject based on their own knowledge and experience at that time. Reading the same work again will be understood according to what they've learned and experienced up to THAT point. Writers also have to clarify their writing because they know what they're trying to say and assume the reader will understand. That's where the problems of clarity arise. If a writer focuses on the reader, though, the writing will suffer from a lack of originality and voice. True art comes from the producer's story. It's the reader's responsibility ot take whatever they can from it.
I can't agree with the idea that writing will suffer from lack of originality and voice if a writer thinks about the reader. I get that fiction writing may be like that, but not academic and professional writing. The principles I teach help with that.
I look forward to your posts as there is always something to take home and ponder upon.
Hi! :)
I'm glad it inspired you. It's truly wonderful to know that there are people like you on the other side who appreciate and benefit from these posts. Kurt has been an important influence on my writing, and I hope his ideas are helpful!
As an editor told us: Rite tite!
Oh, Sue, what does that expression mean? I didn't understand it because I'm not a native speaker, hahaha...
Sorry Alvaro. The way these two words are spelled shows how strongly this editor wanted us to be exact and thrifty with our words. Instead of "write tight" he spelled it "rite tite." Thank goodness he didn't drop the silent "e's" because then it would have a totally different meaning. Have a great day, Alavaro. And thanks for this post.
Wow! I never would have guessed that was the meaning. Hahaha, well yes, that's exactly what Kurt meant!
Thank you for the post! You’re inspiring me to write my own post. It was very interesting to read about Kurt Vonnegut and I’m grateful for that. But, I have to be honest. The advice offered here is itself difficult to figure out. If clarity and a focus on the reader are the major concerns, we can provide more specific guidance instead of relying on value judgements.
That’s what I teach in my writing classes. We focus on readers and discuss the structure of sentences, paragraphs and whole papers
I'm unsure what you mean by "focus on the reader." Does that mean we write to the readers' interests and/or reading level? That's only part of the equation, though. Vonnegut's advice actually fits well for online writers because their readers only have so much time and energy, especially with all the mountains of online articles and stories available. I cut my writers' teeth on a newspaper where the inverted triangle formula ruled. That format of "getting to the point" and choosing powerful verbs to statement the case was all part of that training. It's designed to pull the reader into a piece quickly and gives them the essential facts without taking up a lot of their time. Modern news media, however, has wandered far from that standard. Most online news is opinion-oriented and wanders around, drumming up emotional response. A writer can still inspire emotional response to a story by stating the facts and pulling in the human interest with quotes showing the emotional state of the speaker.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. When I say focus on the reader, I mean what the reader will find interesting and what the reader may know or not know. We know that a piece of writing won’t appeal to all readers so it’s helpful to have a reader in mind when we write. We then choose subjects of sentences that would matter to them and tell them the stakes that are involved based on their concerns. (We might not always get that right.)
Considering what the reader would and would not know is also critical. It’s not necessarily about reading level, but it is relevant. (I have more to say about that.) it’s actually about “the problem of the expert.” Many, if not most of us, tend to think the reader knows more than she does. Or, that the reader remembers everything they are reading in our text. They don’t. This then leads to gaps in the writing and confusion when we rely on the reader to keep up with us instead of focusing on where the reader will likely be and walking with them.
I agree that Vonnegut’s advice is relevant and helpful, but I find that it’s “value-laden” as is most advice about writing. It tells people what to do in abstract and subjective terms without talking about how. It’s like a teacher telling a student, “Be clear and concise. Don’t include unnecessary words.” Notice how the words, “clear,” “concise,” and “unnecessary” are all evaluative words. Who decides what’s clear, concise, and unnecessary? This is eye of the beholder stuff and if you’re not a professional writer, you have no idea what to do. It’s mysterious. My aim in teaching writing is to make it less mysterious.
In some cases, writers will write about subjects they know and will not really regard the reader at all. They'll just put their thoughts on the page and edit the work to make their statement as understandable as possible. Whoever reads it will take what they will, regardless of the writer's intent. They will understand the subject based on their own knowledge and experience at that time. Reading the same work again will be understood according to what they've learned and experienced up to THAT point. Writers also have to clarify their writing because they know what they're trying to say and assume the reader will understand. That's where the problems of clarity arise. If a writer focuses on the reader, though, the writing will suffer from a lack of originality and voice. True art comes from the producer's story. It's the reader's responsibility ot take whatever they can from it.
I can't agree with the idea that writing will suffer from lack of originality and voice if a writer thinks about the reader. I get that fiction writing may be like that, but not academic and professional writing. The principles I teach help with that.
Ah, yes. There is a difference between those genres. Point taken.