Two Secrets to Good Writing

There are so many ways journalism could go today. New media is opening up many more opportunities.

We continue to need great editors. In a world where content is front and center and information is pouring in from every which way, it will become more apparent that editors are in charge of the meta conversation.

Will news organizations behave that way? It's a choice. There is at least one news organization that does. In an exchange with Andreas Kluth, the correspondent from The Economist who graciously agreed to have a conversation about new media here, he pointed me to this post in his new blog. In it, he details the first secret about good writing. Quoting from Clive Crook, who blogs for the Financial Times:

[...] In my experience, the editorial side of the enterprise spends little time worrying about what readers might want. In this insecure age, the larger part of the media industry thinks about little else but what readers, viewers, and advertisers might want—the better to serve them, or condescend to them, or pander. The Economist has always been much more interested in the world, and in what it thinks about the world, than in the tastes of its readers or anybody else.

[...] I suspect that if The Economist ever starts to worry very much about the new readers it would like to reach, in print and on the Internet, and to think about how it should tailor its content more deliberately with them in mind, then that will be the moment when its business starts to conform to industry averages.

"Don’t second-guess what others want, for that is the way to inauthenticity," writes Kluth. That seems to be something to remember with all writing, isn't it? When people read your material, they are looking to be transported into a story. Whether that be about current affairs, Hannibal (the subject of Kluth's book), a brand, a company, or a person.

Time and circumstance create a story. When individuals tell stories, they narrate a succession of events from their point of view - that is where the authenticity resides. Wasn't new media supposed to be about liberating the inner storyteller? Haven't we made strides into acknowledging that the point of view in journalism not only exists, but is needed and welcomed?

Before you throw your arms up in protest, the second post on the topic by Kluth comes full circle, completes the definition of what good writing is about. It's about empathy. "Empathy, properly used, means the ability to imagine what somebody else is feeling or thinking." A good writer puts himself in the readers' shoes. She imagines what the reader understands of the writing.

In this age of mobile communications the words themselves seem to be in transit - abbreviations, and harried sms are normal. Alas what happens when the meaning escapes?

The words you choose still matter a great deal. They harness the imagination, unleash emotion, and bring you down to earth ready for action. As Kluth explains, writers need to be mindful of an important question: "If I want to say this, what would somebody need to know first in order to understand it?"

If I begin a blog post with a quote or in mid-thought, what do I need to introduce shortly after my lead to help the reader navigate my meaning? Some of my favorite writers excel at this, and do so consistently. My most proud moment on words that matter was the post Upon Trajan's Column.

Clearly we all do have a style and a point of view. Yet the balance comes in when we empathize with our audience and open the door wide to the conversation with them. It's the difference between what readers want, concludes Kluth, and what readers might need. 

Think about who your favorite journalists are, and you'll probably find that they know about the two secrets to good writing. 

[image from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 2002]

Comments

[Karen Hegmann]

Valeria

Interesting post and you've hit on some key points as to what makes great writing - and a great story. I also find it interesting that you chose an image from the Harry Potter series...truly an example of great writing in itself.

I think there's always a fine balance between great art (writing), and marketability. On the one hand, you want to be authentic and unique - but you risk the fact that noone will read your work. To a large part, success in writing (as in business itself) still depends on finding your audience and catering to that audience. In the case of the Economist, I'm not so sure I agree that if they worried about what readers wanted - it would mean they would be catering to the "masses." I think there's a way to accomplish both.

I'd also add one more thing to what makes great writing, and that's the ability to personalize a story in a way that makes it the readers own. Most people have similar experiences in life and in general we all want the same things. Great writing caters to this, and makes the reader feel as if they are experiencing the story through the eyes and ears of the writer.

[Valeria Maltoni]

I like your addition of making a story personal, Karen. Perhaps we do that when we reach deep into what connects us to being human - whether we agree or not with the person's worldview.

My comment about editors being in charge of the meta conversation goes to the comment about writers not worrying about what readers want. Editors master the search of and understanding of what the audience needs. In the case of The Economist, it's easy to see how the voice of the magazine comes through as differentiated from other publications. The way they cover current affairs is a strength.

[Andreas]

Thanks for linking to my post, Valeria. I followed the link to your post about Trajan's column. Being something of an ancient history buff (hence that part of my book), I've spent quite a bit of time looking at pictures of the column--the Dacians and such. But it never occurred to me to make the connection to the typeface! How very cool to know this.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Glad you enjoyed it, Andreas. The ideas you put forth on point of view and empathy really resonated, as you can tell. It's how writers can reconcile being themselves with thinking about their readers.

[Jon]

Sometimes I guess we don't really know which of what we do will have unintended effects that might just be greater than we'd hoped.

It's great to have you back, Valeria.