Notes From A Writing Coach

Lessons on the serial narrative

Roy Peter Clark of the Poynter Institute is crafting a “starter kit” on writing serial narratives in newspapers.

Check it out. Even if you are not a journalist, you can learn from Mr. Clark’s teachings. In fact, you should make it a point to read his Writing Tools blog and all of his articles on storytelling. Read his own serial narratives.

As I’ve said before, narratives—whether done as serials or single stories—are wonderful magnets for readers. I wish more newspaper editors encouraged their writers to use narrative tools and taught them how to do it.

But as I have also said before, narratives done badly are terrible. Some journalists hear that word “narrative” and they suddenly start writing purple prose, dripping with adjectives and adverbs. They seem to think narrative is a license to write tedious description, to substitute literary-sounding clichés for solid details and to plod into stories with leisurely leads that bore readers. The results can be embarrassing.

Writing a narrative is different from writing conventional news and feature stories. It requires a different approach and different techniques, and these must be learned. They must be practiced, too.

Practice with small narratives. A narrative need not be a blockbuster or a serial with multiple chapters. Good narratives can be done in 12 to 20 inches. They can even be done on deadline.

Practice using narrative techniques even in stories that are not narratives. A section of dialogue, for example, might add zing to that meeting story you have to write.

When you can write a taut short narrative, when you are comfortable with the tools of narrative—description, dialogue, suspense, scenes, cliffhangers—then you can try more ambitious projects such as a serial.

Labels: narrative techniques, serial narratives

Never defend bad writing as style

Voice and style matter, but inexperienced writers do best to approach them indirectly, with their attention on other issues.

If they think about their style and voice as they write, they may exaggerate or distort both. Concentrate, instead, on matters such as accuracy, clarity and simplicity. Concentrate on the goal of making the work easy and pleasurable for the reader. If writers do that, style and voice will take care of themselves.

This advice isn’t needed by writers who have mastered their craft. Such writers have the discipline to make conscious decisions about voice and carry them off.

In any case, there’s nothing sacred about voice and style. Never use them to defend bad writing. Some writers do that because their egos won’t let them admit the writing is bad or because they are insecure.

They turn in copy that is turgid and stuffy or, at the other extreme, sophomorically breezy. Then they get all prickly if an editor dares to tamper with it.

As a coach, I would rather work with almost any other writer than one who prattles about voice and style and can’t face the least criticism.

Any writer has a voice. The question is whether the voice is appealing. People won’t sit in an audience listening to a speaker whose voice is unpleasant, and readers won’t stay with a writer whose work is boring or distracting.

If the writing isn’t working, it needs to be fixed. The way to fix it is to focus not on voice or style but on the specific problems that mar the work.

Is the copy deadened by cliches and deadwood? Get rid of them. Are there strained similes and labored metaphors? Cut them. Is the tone pompous because the writer is being pretentious and trying to show off his vocabulary? Rewrite, using plain words and speaking conversationally to the reader.

Fix the problems, whatever they are, and you will find that style and voice are much improved.