Writing Style

I'll let you all in on a secret about me: My first name is Mike. True story.

 

Mr. Conant,

I can understand, I think, your upset at the turn this thread took. Let me try to help you understand where and why it took that turn. I do this because I think this board is a valuable resource to writers of every kind in every market, no matter how big or how small. It might be of value to you in that regard one day, and I'd hate to see you abandon it. Or, worse yet, poison it for yourself.

One of the reasons this is place is fun - and a great place for editorial debate - is that we mostly try not to bigfoot one another here. Especially when we're arguing about craft. If you don't believe me, take a spin through the Writers' Workshop. An absolute lesson in nameless online civility.

You are as you post here. We're very egalitarian that way. Jason Whitlock posting under his own name gets no more slack cut in those editorial debates than a kid on the classifieds desk at the Hooterville PennySaver. You are as you post.

Most folks remain anonymous here not because they want to high-hat their peers, but rather because they want to remain a mystery to their employers. Which, admittedly, can lead to some unbecoming displays of envy or bitterness or schadenfreude. Weirdly, though, it mostly doesn't.

Some folks choose to post under their own names. 'Jones', with whom you were discussing beginnings and ends, is one of those. Others, like me, have handles that can be easily decoded by even the moderately curious. It mostly doesn't matter, because again, you are as you post, and reap what you sow.

Everyone here has every right to any opinion they can argue well and coherently and in the right spirit. Beginnings are more important. Endings are more important. Middles, etc., ad inf. Make your arguments, make them well and offer them in the spirit of the place. Simple.

And while the tone of your initial posts was a little offputting, where this thread went into the trees last night was the use of the phrase

"You've pretty clearly never read me."

which has about it the dull thud of the self-aggrandizing bigfoot.

I'm pretty sure you didn't actually mean it to sound that that way. But if you want the forensic work-up on when and how this thread went sour, there it is. You are as you post.

It pays to remember, I think, that you never really know who might be reading your posts. Is it just the kid from the PennySaver? Or is it the SE from the NYT? That guy from Esquire? That other guy from Esquire? Many accomplished, to say nothing of famous, writers and editors routinely post here. It pays to be polite to everybody. Just as it does in real life.

As to whether or not beginnings or endings or middles are most important, I try when I write to deliver on all three, but am lucky enough to have the luxury of time in which to do so. Others, I know, have much less time than I - which was, I believe, the crux of your argument.

And your work is, in fact, available on a syllable-by-syllable basis thanks to Google. That said, I only read the ones for which no registration was required.

 

My thought: In order to be familiar with the quality of my work you have to actually read it. And to be familiar with me, you have to actually know me. I think I know two or three of the people on here personally, and two of them I haven't seen since college. One of them came in, posted once and left.

This thing went to the trees when people personally attacked me hiding behind a screen name. Disagree with me, fine. Think I'm a dick, fine. But, if you want to attack me, give me the decency of knowing who I'm talking to. I bristle at the notion people who don't know me feel free to take personal shots behind a screen name.

I made my arguments as to my beliefs. I believe you have to get people in the door. That's the most important thing, because there's no law that says they have to read you. Get them in the door, then let them have fun at the party. I'm not even on the same planet as Jim Murray, but that was his theory. I figure he's a pretty good source of theory. I don't try to write like him (Who can?)

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. It's part of public discourse. But we make the difficult assumption here sometimes of believing all of our situations are similar, which they're not.

You try your best to blow their doors off for all 15-20 inches. But if they hate the first five, they'll never see the last five. Readers don't read your entire story just because your paper printed it. That was my point. You have to give them a reason to read you.

Time is a big factor for some of us, so you do your best to be good for the whole thing. To me, on days like that, I try to give them as much as I have at the start. Case in point: Division III sectional final, the D3 school I cover makes the Final Four. I had 35 minutes to write. So, I worried about getting them in the door and having fun at the party. I let the ending take care of itself.

Mike, I won two first place awards from the Associated Press Society of Ohio for my work last year before transferring inside the chain to a better gig. Trust me, I care about the product.

 

I think you might have missed part of jgmacg's point. The main part.

Does that help?

 

Wingman,

The guy said I might win awards if I cared about the product. I was merely pointing out that I have, thus furthering my point that if you're going to go after someone here, you oughta know something about them.

He stated an opinion that I responded to with facts. Nothing more.

 

No it doesn't. Disagree with me, fine. But if you want to be personal, don't hide behind a screen name. That's my point.

I love how this thread has turned into a diatribe on how much of an ass I am. Beautiful.

 

For the record, being a dick under your real name is still being a dick.

 

Let me explain the "You've clearly never read me" bit, because that's where we went Oscar Bravo here.

My intent with that was in referece to me not caring about the full content of what I do. Having read my stuff would show differently, that I try to write strong from top to bottom with the understanding that some readers aren't going to make it to the end because they have 30-second attention spans.

You guys took that line as me basically saying I'm the greatest thing ever, which I know I'm not. One of the reasons I come here is to pick off the ideas and thoughts people have.

One of the deals of not knowing people: You take them literally. I'm one of the more unassuming people you'll meet. I, in fact, hate everything I do at first. I don't think I'm some amazingly perfect writer, far from it.

 

....And thus was balance restored to the world, and camaraderie and peace prevailed once again in the quiet twilight dell in which the sporting writers gathered to make their happy magic...

 

Chad,

It's obvious that you care about the craft, awards or no. That's part of the reason why you're posting here. Someone asked a question, and you wanted to share your approach, and that's good. It's a reasonable, rational, and in some ways typical, approach. I happen to disagree with it, but that's fine too. I'm sure you've done fine work, but just understand that you have to have a thick skin if you post here, either under your real name or an anonymous handle, and getting angry or flip or quoting your resume isn't going to help. There are several people on this site (including on this thread) who have won, or been finalists for, national magazine awards or a Pulitzer. Several who have been anthologized in BASW, or written widely-praised books of their own. None of them cited these facts in an attempt to shoot down your argument, and I don't think any of them assumed, as you said, that everyone's situation is the same. To be angry with them for debating you while remaining anonymous is like an NFL player agreeing to play in Canada and then getting angry there are only three downs in Canadian football. That's something you have to accept when you log on to SportsJournalists.com. People make things personal around here. And the SportsJournalists.com chorus, for the most part, appreciates humility. You've shown some now, clarified yourself, and as Mr. jgmacg said, all is right once again in the world.

As for the discussion, maybe endings don't keep people reading, and are thus, less important. But as a beat writer, an ending can be especially good at getting a reader to come back and read you tomorrow. Buster Olney and Dave Sheinin, who are are/were as good at writing gamers as anyone in the business, were especially good at endings. Barry Svrluga is very good at it now. Rarely do they just let a story fizzle out. As a reader, a great ending might leave me with the feeling that I want to come back tomorrow and read that writer again because of the insight I've gained. One of the more helpful things I've learned here is to always think about where the story is going. A great lead, yes, gets the reader in the door, but then everything else can build to a strong finish. The advice often thrown around here, especially by wise souls like Jones, Friend of the Friendless and jgmacg, isn't always poster specific, and isn't always about how to craft the perfect 15-incher, even if that's what's being discussed. It's general advice about the art of storytelling. And it's great advice for anyone to keep in mind if they aspire to write stories larger than 15 or 20 inches. That's the point they're making. Writing a strong lead on a gamer is the first and most important lesson to learn. But eventually, you take the next step (even under deadline) and try to write great leads with even better finishes. If you've already mastered the art of getting the readers to the party (your analogy), as a writer, your next goal should be to make certain that ther last drink, last dance, or last kiss is just as memorable so they can't wait for the next invite to arrive on their doorstep.

 

DoubleDown is much too modest to say it, but this sentence should make it clear: He's another one of those wise folks anyone with questions about the craft should be listening to.

 

Usually, I find the perfect last call moment for the party. Last night it was Kelly Shoppach saying "This team always has a chance."

I do that normally, I just don't go in planning the end of the bash to be sweeter than the start. I want them to relate to each other some, kind of like a circle so round you can putt in it. I just want the start of the circle to make my reader want to putt to it.