![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWriting can get you into loads of trouble, hence the need to practice the art of writing carefully. By writing carefully, I do not mean applying good grammar, although that certainly helps, or covering your ass with footnotes or endnotes (which many writers misuse). What I mean is being careful to convey meaning, without inflicting unnecessary harm. A writer needs to learn how to engage their reader without pissing them off to such an extent that the reader can no longer read the work and goes scurrying off to pick something else. Once you lose a reader – it’s very difficult to get them back. What many writers forget – is that without readers? You might as well never type or draw a word. And in order to grab readers – you have to communicate your thoughts in a way that will engage them and not make them want to throw your book in the garbage can. If you do wish to inflict harm and offend – and some writers do – then you better be prepared to take the consequences. Most people don’t wish to inflict harm or offend – it’s usually accidental. But there are a couple professional writers that do it in order to get sold or make a point – two of those writers I read over the holidays. Writing carefully is far easier to do in fiction than non-fiction or analysis. Non-fiction writing requires much more attention to detail, syntax, tone, and structure than fictional writing does, which is one of the many reasons I’ve always preferred writing and reading fiction to non-fiction – it’s safer. However – as many people know, I have dabbled extensively in non-fiction writing these past few years – and I’ve gotten myself in trouble a couple of times because of it.
Paul Theroux – an established writer, who has published numerous novels – fictional and non-fictional, is adept in the art of writing. Two of his novels were actually made into films: The Mosquito Coast and Half Moon Street. He’s also written numerous travel books. And one controversial work of literary/personal criticism on the works and life of his friend V.S. Naipaul. It is the work on Naipaul that got Theroux into trouble. Because of this work, Naipaul stopped speaking to Theroux and ended their thirty year friendship. The work did portray Naipaul in a less than favorable light, from what I remember reading of it – there was a snippet reproduced in The New Yorker when it first came out. Theroux, embarrassed by the fallout, continued to defend his book – even though some of the information was later proven to be less than accurate. To the best of my knowledge they haven’t spoken since. Sad. The book sounds hardly worth the effort. It did sell well at the time – controversy always does. Theroux’s travel books are equally incendiary – depending on the reader. Reading a Theroux travel book is akin to taking a journey with a cantankerous curmudgeon, who likes to make all sorts of snide comments about the locals and the scenery. Theroux is that rare breed of travel writer who is more interested in the trip or process of getting to the destination than the actual destination. He reminds me a great deal of Mark Twain – who wrote Innocents Abroad or Evelyn Waugh’s Labels: A Mediterrean Travelogue. The difficulty with Theroux’s non-fiction writing is it can come off as slightly pretentious and arrogant. He makes a comment in a book (I forget the title of ) which deals with his travels through the pacific islands – about comic books. It’s a really nasty comment about the intelligence level of people who read comics. I was offended. A similar comment is made about Greeks in Pillers of Hercules – where he more or less states that Greece is a dirty tourist trap. I didn’t read all of Pillars of Hercules – Theroux take on the Mediterrean, just sampled a couple of chapters – on Greece and Turkey – two places I’d visited in 2000, and nope, didn’t agree with anything he said. But then I don’t do the things he does – like jump on Turkish tour boats or take million dollar cruises or visit rich people in their villas. His earlier works are much better – The Patagonia Express and Riding the Iron Rooster – he spends more time discussing the history, the local color and interesting anecdotes and less time on his comfort.
Al Franken is another established writer and commentator, who specializes in humorous political commentary. Franken is basically the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. Except, that I think, he takes himself just a little less seriously, he also is better educated. Franken in Lying and Liars – A Fair and Balanced View of The Right – goes after right-wing conservatives such as Bill O’Reilly and Anne Coulter – whose own writing and commentary sort of sets them up for Franken’s attack. O’Reilly and Coulter are examples, according to Franken, of people who do *not * practice the art of writing carefully. So, as a result, deserve to be ridiculed in public. O’Reilly’s big mistake was spouting off information in public forums without checking his facts. (Something I’ve done myself from time to time – due to laziness. But I’m no O’Reilly – ie. I do not get a paycheck for posting stuff on livejournal or on fanboards, nor is it nearly as public as O’Reilly’s soap box. And yep, just like O’Reilly, I got slaughtered for it. ) Ann Coulter did the same thing in a best-selling book – smugly making broad declarations and assertions about people and topics without checking her facts first. She gets slaughtered too. My main reason for checking Franken’s book out was well curiosity. I wanted to find out what happened during the infamous CSpan Book Panel Discussion between O’Reilly, Ivins and Franken. My friend Wales had seen it several months back and had asked me whether I’d call Molly Ivins too liberal or moderate? She also wondered if Franken was out of line or too liberal? (My best guess? Not really. But having not seen the discussion and not knowing who O’Reilly was – it was sort of hard to form an opinion. Still is actually – but I really like Franken’s sense of humor, even if I don’t completely agree with him – he is a little bit over-the-top in places.) Franken describes O’Reilly as a hypocritical bully which he succeeded in taking down a step. Since O’Reilly more or less set himself up for it – it’s really hard to feel that sorry for him. (He claimed that his show Inside Edition won a Pulitizer – it didn’t. He claimed that he never compared the Q’uarran to a text establishing The Third Reich – he did. He claimed he wasn’t a registered Republican. He is. Sigh. Why do people lie? You’ll get caught. Trust me.)
In law school – if you did not speak or write carefully – your argument would fail and the prof would ridicule you in front of the class. Not fun. In court – the judge does it or your opponent. Lives can hang on the use of a word or sentence. This is why lawyers have the irritating habit of using so many disclaimers/qualifiers – such as “basically”, “more or less”, “possibly”, “perhaps”, etc. The qualifiers or disclaimers are the lawyer’s way of protecting herself from coming across too smugly or too much of an authority. I’m not saying that using qualifiers is good writing – it’s not. But I think it helps to be aware of a word’s tonal quality and usage – good writing is clear writing. You want the reader to understand your meaning and not be distracted by the smugness of your tone. Writing is tough craft – no matter how many years you work at it – you still have room to improve. The art of writing carefully is lost on many amateur writers. They haven’t been trained to see what choosing a certain word or expressing a certain opinion in a particular way can do. Note more often than not - it’s not the opinion in of itself that is offensive – it is the “way” that the author chooses to communicate hi/r opinion that is. Amateur writers are not the only people guilty of this – as I noted above – there are several professional writers who also do this – either due to ordinary human failings such as laziness, ego, pride, and the need to vent or because they want to make a point. Theroux certainly did it in his book on Naipaul. Franken deliberately does it in Liars and Lying. O’Reilly inadvertently does it on his television shows and writings. Numerous journalists do it as well. Of course many of these writers knew going in that their works would offend people – they set out to offend people and placed the value and need of creating their work/expressing their opinion above the possibility and/or consequences of offense. Franken was prepared for the attacks he’d get as a result of his work. One landed him in court – it was over the title and it got thrown out. Franken had a team of students thoroughly research every fact in his book. O’Reilly wasn’t. Theroux wasn’t. Which poses the question – should we keep our mouths shut just because what we say or write may give offense? Of course not. We just need to be prepared for the negative reaction. Atonement by Ian McEwan is about a young writer who neither writes nor reads carefully. Her inability to do this results in tragedy and she spends a good portion of her life trying to find a means of atoning and never does.
The need to write carefully and take responsibility for our words does * not * let a reader off the hook. The reader must equally learn how to “read” carefully. Hard to do on the internet. Reading words on a computer screen strains the eyes and isn’t always conducive to thorough reading – there’s a temptation to scan. Also people who write on the internet have a tendency to write “emotionally” using words designed to trigger a negative emotion in someone else – often making it impossible for the reader to continue without punching their fist through their computer screen. I think we are all guilty of misreading and over-reacting to things. In our defense – some writers use words and phrases to deliberately elicit this response from us. Some don’t. On the internet it is impossible to tell which is which without knowing the person. In printed material – not so difficult.
While it is impossible to control the initial emotional response – the reader can control the extent that this response controls them. Does the reader continue reading? Does the reader respond? Or should the reader stop and go elsewhere? I know I stopped reading Franken, not because he offended me, he didn’t. But I grew bored of the griping. Same with Theroux. I drifted back to fiction – in this case The Da Vinci Code. Not a great book. But quick and easy to read with a chest cold. Oh if you are obsessed with The Holy Grail mythos? I recommend the Da Vinici Code – it offers an interesting twist on the whole concept. The Grail is not a cup but a person in The Da Vinici Code. And the search for the Grail is in effect the search for wholeness and truth – the desire to find the our own path and own truth as opposed to having some higher being show it to us.
Paul Theroux – an established writer, who has published numerous novels – fictional and non-fictional, is adept in the art of writing. Two of his novels were actually made into films: The Mosquito Coast and Half Moon Street. He’s also written numerous travel books. And one controversial work of literary/personal criticism on the works and life of his friend V.S. Naipaul. It is the work on Naipaul that got Theroux into trouble. Because of this work, Naipaul stopped speaking to Theroux and ended their thirty year friendship. The work did portray Naipaul in a less than favorable light, from what I remember reading of it – there was a snippet reproduced in The New Yorker when it first came out. Theroux, embarrassed by the fallout, continued to defend his book – even though some of the information was later proven to be less than accurate. To the best of my knowledge they haven’t spoken since. Sad. The book sounds hardly worth the effort. It did sell well at the time – controversy always does. Theroux’s travel books are equally incendiary – depending on the reader. Reading a Theroux travel book is akin to taking a journey with a cantankerous curmudgeon, who likes to make all sorts of snide comments about the locals and the scenery. Theroux is that rare breed of travel writer who is more interested in the trip or process of getting to the destination than the actual destination. He reminds me a great deal of Mark Twain – who wrote Innocents Abroad or Evelyn Waugh’s Labels: A Mediterrean Travelogue. The difficulty with Theroux’s non-fiction writing is it can come off as slightly pretentious and arrogant. He makes a comment in a book (I forget the title of ) which deals with his travels through the pacific islands – about comic books. It’s a really nasty comment about the intelligence level of people who read comics. I was offended. A similar comment is made about Greeks in Pillers of Hercules – where he more or less states that Greece is a dirty tourist trap. I didn’t read all of Pillars of Hercules – Theroux take on the Mediterrean, just sampled a couple of chapters – on Greece and Turkey – two places I’d visited in 2000, and nope, didn’t agree with anything he said. But then I don’t do the things he does – like jump on Turkish tour boats or take million dollar cruises or visit rich people in their villas. His earlier works are much better – The Patagonia Express and Riding the Iron Rooster – he spends more time discussing the history, the local color and interesting anecdotes and less time on his comfort.
Al Franken is another established writer and commentator, who specializes in humorous political commentary. Franken is basically the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. Except, that I think, he takes himself just a little less seriously, he also is better educated. Franken in Lying and Liars – A Fair and Balanced View of The Right – goes after right-wing conservatives such as Bill O’Reilly and Anne Coulter – whose own writing and commentary sort of sets them up for Franken’s attack. O’Reilly and Coulter are examples, according to Franken, of people who do *not * practice the art of writing carefully. So, as a result, deserve to be ridiculed in public. O’Reilly’s big mistake was spouting off information in public forums without checking his facts. (Something I’ve done myself from time to time – due to laziness. But I’m no O’Reilly – ie. I do not get a paycheck for posting stuff on livejournal or on fanboards, nor is it nearly as public as O’Reilly’s soap box. And yep, just like O’Reilly, I got slaughtered for it. ) Ann Coulter did the same thing in a best-selling book – smugly making broad declarations and assertions about people and topics without checking her facts first. She gets slaughtered too. My main reason for checking Franken’s book out was well curiosity. I wanted to find out what happened during the infamous CSpan Book Panel Discussion between O’Reilly, Ivins and Franken. My friend Wales had seen it several months back and had asked me whether I’d call Molly Ivins too liberal or moderate? She also wondered if Franken was out of line or too liberal? (My best guess? Not really. But having not seen the discussion and not knowing who O’Reilly was – it was sort of hard to form an opinion. Still is actually – but I really like Franken’s sense of humor, even if I don’t completely agree with him – he is a little bit over-the-top in places.) Franken describes O’Reilly as a hypocritical bully which he succeeded in taking down a step. Since O’Reilly more or less set himself up for it – it’s really hard to feel that sorry for him. (He claimed that his show Inside Edition won a Pulitizer – it didn’t. He claimed that he never compared the Q’uarran to a text establishing The Third Reich – he did. He claimed he wasn’t a registered Republican. He is. Sigh. Why do people lie? You’ll get caught. Trust me.)
In law school – if you did not speak or write carefully – your argument would fail and the prof would ridicule you in front of the class. Not fun. In court – the judge does it or your opponent. Lives can hang on the use of a word or sentence. This is why lawyers have the irritating habit of using so many disclaimers/qualifiers – such as “basically”, “more or less”, “possibly”, “perhaps”, etc. The qualifiers or disclaimers are the lawyer’s way of protecting herself from coming across too smugly or too much of an authority. I’m not saying that using qualifiers is good writing – it’s not. But I think it helps to be aware of a word’s tonal quality and usage – good writing is clear writing. You want the reader to understand your meaning and not be distracted by the smugness of your tone. Writing is tough craft – no matter how many years you work at it – you still have room to improve. The art of writing carefully is lost on many amateur writers. They haven’t been trained to see what choosing a certain word or expressing a certain opinion in a particular way can do. Note more often than not - it’s not the opinion in of itself that is offensive – it is the “way” that the author chooses to communicate hi/r opinion that is. Amateur writers are not the only people guilty of this – as I noted above – there are several professional writers who also do this – either due to ordinary human failings such as laziness, ego, pride, and the need to vent or because they want to make a point. Theroux certainly did it in his book on Naipaul. Franken deliberately does it in Liars and Lying. O’Reilly inadvertently does it on his television shows and writings. Numerous journalists do it as well. Of course many of these writers knew going in that their works would offend people – they set out to offend people and placed the value and need of creating their work/expressing their opinion above the possibility and/or consequences of offense. Franken was prepared for the attacks he’d get as a result of his work. One landed him in court – it was over the title and it got thrown out. Franken had a team of students thoroughly research every fact in his book. O’Reilly wasn’t. Theroux wasn’t. Which poses the question – should we keep our mouths shut just because what we say or write may give offense? Of course not. We just need to be prepared for the negative reaction. Atonement by Ian McEwan is about a young writer who neither writes nor reads carefully. Her inability to do this results in tragedy and she spends a good portion of her life trying to find a means of atoning and never does.
The need to write carefully and take responsibility for our words does * not * let a reader off the hook. The reader must equally learn how to “read” carefully. Hard to do on the internet. Reading words on a computer screen strains the eyes and isn’t always conducive to thorough reading – there’s a temptation to scan. Also people who write on the internet have a tendency to write “emotionally” using words designed to trigger a negative emotion in someone else – often making it impossible for the reader to continue without punching their fist through their computer screen. I think we are all guilty of misreading and over-reacting to things. In our defense – some writers use words and phrases to deliberately elicit this response from us. Some don’t. On the internet it is impossible to tell which is which without knowing the person. In printed material – not so difficult.
While it is impossible to control the initial emotional response – the reader can control the extent that this response controls them. Does the reader continue reading? Does the reader respond? Or should the reader stop and go elsewhere? I know I stopped reading Franken, not because he offended me, he didn’t. But I grew bored of the griping. Same with Theroux. I drifted back to fiction – in this case The Da Vinci Code. Not a great book. But quick and easy to read with a chest cold. Oh if you are obsessed with The Holy Grail mythos? I recommend the Da Vinici Code – it offers an interesting twist on the whole concept. The Grail is not a cup but a person in The Da Vinici Code. And the search for the Grail is in effect the search for wholeness and truth – the desire to find the our own path and own truth as opposed to having some higher being show it to us.
