The Rio Mamoré Effect

The Rio Mamoré, which runs through Brazil and Bolivia, meanders more than any other river in the world.

NASA’s Earth Observatory explains: “The greater the amount of sediment from external sources (glacial, volcanic, or human activity), the more likely the river was to meander; rivers and streams with lower sediment loads wandered less. Those high-sediment rivers also saw more cutoff events, where crescent-shaped oxbow lakes are for.”

There’s a lesson here for writers: To prevent your sentences and paragraphs from meandering, avoid filling them with unnecessary sediments.

Avoid using too many modifiers, which divert the prose from its main point. Instead, try to compose sentences that make a point simply. Make connections between ideas. But avoid making connections that connect with connections with connections.

Consider the following passage from The New York Times, in an article about Judge Tanya Chutkin’s “no-nonsense” handing of the case against Donald Trump for his involvement in the January 6 insurrection:

After watching from the sidelines for nearly eight months as Mr. Trump’s lawyers fought their way up to the Supreme Court with what turned out to be a largely successful argument that he had broad immunity from prosecution on charges arising from his official acts as president, Judge Chutkan moved quickly to get pretrial proceedings moving again.

This 57-word sentence requires too much work to follow. Let’s break down its component parts:

    • After watching from the sidelines for nearly eight months
    • as Mr. Trump’s lawyers fought their way up to the Supreme Court
    • with what turned out to be a largely successful argument
    • that he had broad immunity from prosecution
    • on charges arising from his official acts as president,
    • Judge Chutkan moved quickly
    • to get pretrial proceedings moving again.

Almost always, reporters and editors should break up a sentence like this. Here’s how a clearer might read:

Judge Chutkin paused the case for nearly eight months as Mr. Trump’s lawyers challenged Smith’s authority to make the charges. In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court agreed Mr. Trump had broad immunity from charges arising from his official acts as president. After the decision, Judge Chutkan moved quickly to resume pretrial proceedings.

This 53-word passage is easier to follow because three separate ideas are presented in three separate sentences. Each sentence offers a short and simple statement.

Here’s another Rio Mamoré passage:

In all of this, she distinguished herself from a colleague in Florida, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who recently threw out Mr. Trump’s other federal case — in which he stood accused of mishandling classified documents — on the grounds that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed both prosecutions, had been improperly appointed to his job.

This 54-word sentence begins with Chutkin, twists to Alieen Cannon, then twists to the case Cannon oversaw, then twists to special prosecutor Jack Smith, then twists to the charge that Smith was improperly appointed.

The sentence uses commas and em-dashes to create these twists. It’s hard to track the ideas–specifically, what is modifying what.

How might the Times reporter have done better? Try this:

Judge Chutkin’s response contrasts sharply with Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who oversaw the case in which Mr. Trump was accused of mishandling classified documents. After a series of long delays, Judge Cannon tossed that case. She argued that Jack Smith, the special counsel who filed both prosecutions, was improperly appointed to his job.

The new version is still 53 words. But broken into three sentences, it’s easier to follow.

Hey, I understand that the Times reporter was writing on deadline. When you rush, that kind of meandering often results. Still, it’s the job of the writer and editor to take an extra minute or two to make ideas as clear as possible.

In this important article, The Times let too much sediment into the flow of ideas. The result was a piece that meandered like the Rio Mamoré.

 

 

Whatever Happened to TED Talks?

Have you ever gone back to an old school? Driven past an old Little League field where you used to play? Or stopped by an old mall, where you once did all your shopping, and found it cluttered with Dollar Stores and fast-fashion outlets?

The experience is deflating. In your own mind, you imagined these places more exciting. One day, long ago, they represented promise and growth. But now, visiting the old dorm or ballfield, it’s a letdown.

Is that all there is?

That’s the feeling I got recently when I was sorting through old books and found Talk Like TED–a primer for wannabe spellbinders looking to enlighten the world with their mix of personal testimony and cutting-edge research.

Once upon a time, TED regularly delivered on its slogan: “ideas worth sharing.” My favorite was Ken Robinson‘s “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” Al Gore did a great talk on the climate crisis. Jane McGonigal explored how gaming can make a better world. Simon Sinek explained the importance of asking why. Brené Brown won fame with her talk on vulnerability. Amy Cuddy modeled how to use the Wonder Woman pose to supercharge your mind, body, and emotions. These, by the way, are all still among the top talks, a decade or more after their delivery.

TED, which launched in 2006, is still alive, with 27 million subscribers on its YouTube page. But somewhere along the line, it lost its mojo. Now, it’s a chore to find the mind-altering presentation among the 4,700 videos. With all the regional offshoots with TEDx, topics and speakers seem ordinary, sometimes even tedious.

And curious people have new options. Podcasts, from The Huberman Lab to The Joe Rogan Experience to Call Her Daddy offer sharper points through intense conversation. You can tell these people care about what they’re doing. They go deep on compelling topics.

But the problem is more fundamental: The TED formula got flat and predictable. As obscure speakers marched to the big red dot, armed with their tales of exploration and challenge, they seemed to follow a script rather than sharing their passions

TED succeeded, at first, because its presentations with carefully curated, with strict time limits, an understanding of narrative, an effective interplay of words and images. Plus, presenters practiced their talks endlessly. When they got on stage, they were ready to rock.

More important, the speakers had a passion and an urgency.

About that book, Talk Like TED, a 2014 bestseller by Carmine Gallo. Consider its nine “secrets” for public speaking:

  • Unleash the Master Within (huh?)
  • Master the Art of Storytelling (duh)
  • Have a Conversation (duh)
  • Teach Me Something New (you don’t say!)
  • Deliver Jaw-Dropping Moments (really?)
  • Lighten Up (always?)
  • Stick to the 18-Minute Rule (how about one minute to start?)
  • Paint a Mental Picture with Multisenstory Experiences (natch)
  • Stay in Your Lane (OK, but even if I really need to tell you something else?)

All good advice, I suppose. It can be useful to know Colin Powell’s body language: Both hands spread shoulder-length apart … Makes circular movement … Right hand extends and clasps into a fist ,… Points toward himself … 

And, yes, it’s helpful to think of stories as “just data with a soul” and to give the reader “one character I can root for.”

After this book came out, I watched as TEDster after TEDster followed Gallo’s advice. Problem was, the talks started to sound like stale paint-by-numbers presentations. The speakers weren’t brimming with excitement: Hey, there’s something I gotta tell ya. As the years went by, TEDsters spoke self-consciously rather than exuberantly or intensely.

To communicate well, sure, it makes sense to “Have a Conversation” and “Become a Master Storyteller.” Sure, follow certain do’s and don’ts. But before you do that, you need to care intensely about the topic.

Years ago, I sat in on the Dale Carnegie Training program in New Haven. Every week, participants delivered one-minute talks–without much preparation, without notes, but speaking from the heart. No one tried to out-perform Ken Robinson or Brené Brown. They just spoke about something that mattered to them.

The format was simple:

  • “So there I was…”
  • “And then, … And then, … And then, …”
  • “Until finally … when I realized …”

These talks were often emotional and revealing. Speakers described their fears, regrets, crazy moments, scary moments. They took us on a meaningful journey. At the end, we cared.

As you craft your stories–whether you’re in business, school, journalism, publishing, or just posting on social media–start there. Yes, you can and should use dozens of specific techniques to craft your story.

But the real energy a presentation comes not from a list of nine “secrets.” It comes from something you desperately want to share with someone (RIP, Ken) and willing to be vulnerable about (h/t, Brené). Find a puzzle you desperately want to solve (thanks, Simon and Jane). If you can, make it physical (props, Amy). If it’s socially important, great (thanks, Al).

The key word, I think, is authenticity.With it, you have a chance. Without it, you’re doomed.

I think TED has lost this basic truth. That’s OK. It was a nice run. Too bad it got so bland and predictable.

That’s my personal TED talk. (Bowing, waving.) Thanks very much.

TED’s Greatest Hits (IMHO)

Ken Robinson on creativity (pay special attention to the story beginning at 15:08)

Al Gore on the climate crisis

Jane McGonigal on creativity

Simon Sinek on the power of “why”

Brené Brown on vulnerability

Amy Cuddy on the mind/body/emotion nexus

The Case of the Missing Denominator

Journalism’s greatest sin might be the failure to provide an understandable context for stories.

One example: Too many reporters fail to use the denominator when describing simple statistics. As two researchers note in a recent academic journal, good analysis is “always about numerators and denominators (N/D).”

As any fifth-grader should know, the fraction’s numerator (the top number) tells us the number of parts of the whole. The denominator (the bottom number) tells us the total number in the whole. If 15 students fail an exam, it means something completely different if we’re talking about a class of 30 students (15/30) as opposed to a school of 400 (30/400).

A recent Hartford Courant report describes a protest against “huge school system cuts” in Hartford:

Emotions ran high as about 30 organizers gathered at city hall on Tuesday to demand the city restore $31.5 million in proposed cuts for Hartford’s public schools, which would avoid the 387 anticipated layoffs of paraeducators, custodians, social workers, resource teachers, counselors, and other school employees.

So: $31.5 million out of what? Is $31.5 million really a Draconian cut? One searches this article, in vain, for the denominator. We can start to calculate that amount:

In the 2025 budget, HPS is set to receive $224 million from the state under the ECS, more than half of all revenue. The district receives around $27 million in federal funds and an additional $74 million in other state grants. The city contributes $96 million to the district.

So does that mean the total budget is $421 million (224+27+74+96)? If so, the cuts represent 7.4 percent of the budget ($31.5 million/$421 million).

Not so fast. According to Connecticut Insider: “The Hartford City Council unanimously passed a $623.8 million budget for the 2024-25 fiscal year Tuesday with few alterations from the mayor’s original proposal.” If this report is correct, then the cuts amount to 5 percent of the budget ($31.5 million/$623.8 million).

Oh, and is this the operating budget or does it also include capital expenses?

Either way, we have no way of making sense of Hartford’s school budget problems.

Later, the article calls the cuts “the worst cuts for the district in at least 20 years.” That’s not a quote from an expert or advocate; that’s the reporter talking. I’m skeptical. Might we find a comparison? Also, what does “worst” mean? Suppose the cuts clear out deadwood and make the system work better. Is that bad? We simply have no way of knowing.

Another missing denominator concerns the protesters. Thirty people protested the cuts. How can we make sense of that number? The Hartford schools enroll about 16,500 pre-K to 12 students. Is that the correct denominator? How many people does a protest need to get media attention?

All we can say for sure is that 30 is enough for the Courant. This story ran under a banner headline at the top of page 1 of the May 23 edition.  

(P.S.: You might wonder how I can say that “too many reporters fail to use the denominator.” Good point. I can offer data for neither numerators nor denominators. But one is too many. And I see this problem almost daily.)

Addendum

Donald Trump’s argument that he won the 2020 election relies on his ignoring the denominator.

Trump has repeatedly said that “we got more votes the second time [in 2020, against Joe Biden], by millions, than we got the first [in 2016, against Hillary Clinton]” (quote from a rally in Coachella, California).

If only Trump’s numbers counted, yeah, he did better in 2020 than in 2016. He got 62,984,828 votes in 2016  and 74,223,975 in 2020.

But the denominator (the total number of votes) also grew substantially. The total number of voters increased from 138.8 million in 2016 to 158.4 million in 2020. Trump’s Democratic opponents beat him, in raw numbers, in both elections. Their numbers rose substantially, from Clinton’s 65.8 million votes in 2016 to Biden’s 81.3 million votes in 2020. Their percentages also increased from 48.2 to 51.3–both better than Trump’s percentages of 46.1 and 46.8.

The Missing Denominator strikes again!

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

The Universal Blueprint

This is the first in a series of posts about blueprints–simple formats that you can use to write all kinds of documents.

Almost everything you write takes a 1-2-3 format. Aristotle explained this format in The Poetics, two and a half millennia ago. More recently, brain researchers have confirmed that we perceive, process, and act on the world in three steps. The specifics vary depending on the format (email, memo, report, web copy, etc.). The specifics also vary depending on how narrative, reportorial, or analytic your piece.

Now, let’s get a sense of the universal 1-2-3 Blueprint:

  • Part 1: Beginning. Show or tell the reader what you’re writing about and why. State a problem. Introduce us to the key issues or characters. Maybe hint at how it will work out–at least, what factors might help to resolve the matter.
  • Part 2: Middle. Work through the issues. Break them down into manageable pieces. Work your way up to the more difficult aspects of the problem. Reveal the contradictions and conflicts. Explore some of the possibilities for solving the problem.
  • Part 3: End. Resolve the matter. The resolution could be positive or negative. It could leave some loose threads. One way or another, complete the journey.

You might think of the blueprint as a Bento Box–a container with several distinct sections. Let’s explore this breakdown in more depth.

PREFATORY MATERIAL

Give the reader–right away–reason to read your document. You only have seconds to engage the reader. If you fail, the reader is likely to skim and miss most of what you want to say. So start with a clear statement–subject-verb-object–that states why they want to read on and pay close attention.

Summary / Abstract / Precis

Many longer pieces–reports, RFPs, proposals, and case studies–provide a paragraph-long description of key problems and conclusions (findings). Summaries are best for pieces with complicated issues and many parts.

Indented, in single-space type, this summary offers a simple description of the piece, often with a listing of three or so fey components. You might also indicate the kind of evidence you’re using. You might also say why the research and findings are significant and for whom.

Some professional documents also list keywords. Some indicate something about the authors and their work.

Tips on Technique: Keep sentences short and use the simplest words possible to express the essential ideas. Whenever possible, use the active voice. Also highlight essential terms.

Nota Bene: Short pieces rarely have a summary–but even an email or short memo might benefit from a one- or two-sentence precis.

PART 1: BEGINNING

Introduction

Begin your piece with a bang, whether it’s a simple email or a longer piece. State the issue or problem right away. Grab the reader’s attention right away, in one of two ways:

  • Provide a vignette that distills the major issues at stake in the piece.
  • State the challenge, as directly and succinctly as possible. Make sure that the relevant reader knows, right away, why reading this piece will be worthwhile.

Once you have worked through one of both of these, summarize the information you will be exploring in depth.

Conclude with a summary of the findings or “moral of the story.”

Plan of Attack

Describe how you plan to address this issue.

This probably should not be more than a third of the first page.

The purpose is to give the reader a quick overview so she can be in the right frame of mind for reading—especially a long and/or complex topic

Describe the methodology—perhaps with a label (statistical analysis, assessment of lab studies, case study, comparison of life/unlike situations, etc.)

  • State the evidence to be gathered—and perhaps how.
  • Describe how it will be evaluated.

Look ahead to what it might show?

PART 2: MIDDLE

This is the most important part of your piece. If you have w=set u=it up well in part 1, the reader will be ready to dive in to explore even difficult topics.

The Body, With Background, Definitions, and Evidence

The heart of your email/report/proposal/whatever is your breakdown of the problem into three or more parts (usually), with explanation of each one.

What’s the best order for these parts? It depends.

  • From Big to Small: Sometimes it’s easiest to talk about the biggest, most important and inclusive part of the issue.
  • In Ascending Complexity: On complicated issues, with lots of moving parts, it often makes sense to build from ground up–starting with the easiest ideas that people can easily understand, then moving to more and more difficult spinoffs of these ideas.
  • By Category or Segment: On some topics, all of the aspects of the issue might be equally important and complex. If you’re describing the tasks of a corporate team on a project, everyone plays an essential role (e.g., product development, production, marketing, distribution, accounting, etc.). So just describe each as fully as necessary.
  • Chronologically: Sometimes, we best understand an issue by understanding its development or evolution.
• A Note on Background

When necessary, provide enough background information for people to gain an understanding of the issue. If you’re describing a new product launch, for example, you might mention the customer discovery process or the R&D innovation that led to the product. If you’re describing a scientific process, you might mention the key ideas that make the process possible. If you’re describing a company reorganization, you might summarize the problems the reorg hopes to fix.

You could use basic prose–good, old-fashioned sentences and paragraphs–but bullet points might be fine too. Whatever helps the reader get what they need, as clearly and simply as possible–that’s what matters.

• A Note on Definitions

Especially in specialized fields, you may need to define terms. You can do this in three ways: parenthetically, in paragraphs, and in side discussions. If you can define a term simply (that is, with just a few words–knowing that the reader will understand you right away), you might use parentheses. If it’s more complex, you might step out oif the flow of your writing and devote a short paragraph to the definition. Sometimes, you want to offer a detailed definition without losing the flow of your prose, so you create a definition in a sidebar.

• A Note on Evidence

Be clear about what evidence you provide. Scientists might report on laboratory results. Economists or marketing folks might use case studies or statistical analyses. Theorists might break down ideas analytically, using logical analysis to make sense of things–looking for commonalities and contradictions, sharpening definitions, and the like.

Counterarguments and Complications

By this time, it’s likely that readers will have objections or at least questions. Show respect by raising and addressing those points.

Nota Bene: You might want to integrate these points into the body of the piece (“Heart of the Matter”).

Discussion

Once you have explored your topic in depth, now what do you make of it? A discussion section allows you to open a new conversation with your audience. as if sitting side by side, you can review the findings and sketch out some implications.

What If?

The discussion could lead to a larger speculation about reform or change. Rather than just understanding and issue, we might consider some “what if?” scenarios.

Scenario thinking offers a useful way to do this. Business and planning professionals often use scenarios to sketch out different possibilities for the future. No one can predict the future of course; as Stewart Brand notes, “All predictions are wrong.” But we can consider the far-out extreme possibilities–the absolute best and worst possibilities–and prepare for both.

PART 3: END

As we approach the end, we want to prepare for action. Somehow, we need to make a decision–even if it’s just whether to accept the arguments of this piece of writing.

Options

When you offer the reader options, you take a step toward engaging them–and bringing them to your side of the issue. Consider the different between a mother asking her child “What do you want for breakfast?” versus “Do you want macaroni or a hamburger?” The choice creates involvement.

If possible, reduce the options to three distinct choices–or three clusters of choices. Try to label these choices or clusters with simple, clear labels.

Next Steps/Call to Action

Say exactly what should be done now–with specific assignments and dates for action to be completed. For larger initiatives, indicate phases of action–short-term actions, near-term actions, and long-term actions. As much as possible, be specific.

Conclusion/Summary

Finally, sign off. Conclude, perhaps, by referring back to the opening image or question. Summarize your findings and the options suggested by your piece.

AND ANOTHER THING . . .

Depending on the document, readers might want a coda. Many appreciate getting references, so they can follow up on the ideas you have offered. Many also appreciate other resources, such as professional contacts or programs, that they can use.

References and Resources

If useful, provide references–especially those that allow the reader to dig deeper to explore the issue.

Some reports describe their methodology–how they gathered information, how they analyzed it, why it’s valuable … as well as its explanatory limitations.

Also list other resources, including organizations and programs that can help people educate themselves and take action.

For Further Discussion

Some pieces close with a brief discussion of related topics. Academics, in particular, list ideas for future research.

Appendices or Exhibits

On issues with complicated evidence or analysis, it often helps to offer appendices with charts, tables, graphics, and even quotations.

Identify the issues that might be explored next. In academic writing, scholars often suggest next phases for research. Business writers often suggest new areas for R&D or new markets to pursue. A look ahead often reinforces the importance of the present document.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Genre, Simplified

To succeed as a storyteller–or as a musician, architect, scientist, or other creative person–you must work within a specific genre.

The story genre provides the style, rules, and expectations for the tale. What kind of hero and other characters will we meet in the story? What kinds of settings, struggles, and values will we explore? 

A genre is a promise: If you read this detective/romance/action/whatever story, you will get what you’re looking for.

In recent years, the idea of genre has spun out of control. One recent analysis posits thousands of kinds of stories. That’s way too many. That’s why I decided to create a simple framework for understanding genre.

How Genre Got Out of Control

Virtually every reader or movie-goer will recognize a dozen or so genres. Besides the overarching categories of Comedy and Tragedy, most people will recognize genres like Romance, Love, Western, Crime, Thriller, Gangster, Horror, Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and Memoir.

So far, so good.

But in the age of the screen, people are overwhelmed with stories. Stories were once a means of standing back to observe reality; now stories are embedded into everything we do. As a result, we can bet bored with the standard sets of genres. Detective, ho hum. Horror, yawn. Romance, (eye roll). Gangster, so what?

Storytellers these days have to be ever more clever, so they stretch existing conventions of storytelling (e.g., Memento, Life’s Arrow) and mix-and-match different genres (e.g., The Godfather and The Sopranos as family/gangster tales). Think of the opening montage of The Player. After hearing a pitch for a movie about a TV star who gets lost on a safari, the producer says: “It’s like The Gods Must Be Crazy except the coke bottle is an actress.” “Right!” the writer says. “It’s Out of Africa meets Pretty Woman.”

Eric R. Williams, a story and gaming guru based at Ohio University, has developed a rigorous system with three basic levels: Super-Genres (11 categories), Macro-Genres (50 story contexts), and Micro-Genres (199 specific story details). By mixing and matching these genre elements, Williams says we can come up with 187,816,200 distinct story types.*

Has the proliferation of genres–and the constant stream of genre theories–made the craft of storytelling overwhelming? Where is Occam when we need him?

Genre, Simplified

That’s why I decided to create The Simplest Genre System Ever.

I began with a simple idea: All stories are either comedies or tragedies. Comedies are struggles (often but not always ha-ha funny) that end with the hero getting what she wants. Tragedies are struggles that end badly, with the hero not only losing but often destroyed. That hero might gain a new understanding of life, but comes too late to save her.

But that’s just a starting point. To tell a good story, we need to answer two questions:

  • In what kind of setting does the story take place, ranging from someplace close to home to a faraway locale?
  • What kind of quest does the story depict, ranging from an inner, psychological quest to an outward, more material or transactional quest?

That’s what genre is all about. It’s about offering a distinctive kind of story, based on the setting and quest.

Plotting Genre

Take a look at the four-cell chart on the top of the page. With this format, I have arranged the genres that John Truby describes in his master work, The Anatomy of Genres. Let’s look at these genres, quadrant by quadrant:

Inner Quest/Close to Home: These stories play out on familiar ground of the heart.

  • Love stories almost all take place close to home and always awaken the heart. For example: Romeo and Juliet, Poldark, Wuthering Heights, Sleepless in Seattle.
  • Memoirs are even more interior in some ways, often depicting the Hero’s battle with herself to overcome the problems of living close to other people. Think: Running With Scissors, Listening to Prozac, Educated.
  • Ha-ha comedies also tend to be close to home, since they rely on misunderstandings revealed  by everyday fumbles. Such as: Duck Soup, Groundhog Day, Airplane!

Inner Quest/Faraway Place: These stories also plumb the mysteries of the heart but take place in strange places.

  • Horror stories often take place in the home, but also take place in mysterious and creepy woods, city streets, and even other worlds. For example: The Exorcist, Dracula, and Frankenstein.
  • Fantasy tales are set in whole worlds of invention and unreality. Think of the Harry Potter stories, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Game of Thrones, or The Hobbitt. Or if you’re old-fashioned, think of the enchanted forest of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
  • By traveling to whole new times and places–and even different dimensions of being–sci-fi goes deep on intimate or emotional issues. Think: Star Wars, The Bladerunner, 2001.

Outer Quest/Close to Home: In some takes, people are emotionally dead and battle exterior challenges.

  • Crime stories are all about solving problems, often with domestic characters, highlighting the power of logic and persistence. See: Anatomy of a Fall, The Talented Mr. Ripley, and Thelma and Louise.
  • Thriller and detective tales do the same, but with the heightened tension of impending catastrophe. Think of Hitchcock’s oeuvre and the gumshoe tales of Dashiell Hammett and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Outer Quest/Faraway Place: In these takes, the force and violence rules the untamed frontiers of human existence.

  • Action stories show characters clashing to the death, usually far from any domestic concerns. The goal is to vanquish a foe more than to find any inner child. Think Stallone and Ah-nold.
  • Westerns show the clashes of the good guys (sheriffs, cowboys, ranchers) trying to create order out of disorder–or to survive or thrive in that disorder. Bonds are based on opportunistic calculations, not emotional commitments. Think of Unforgiven, Tombstone, and Killers of the Flower Moon. Going back further, see Duke Wayne’s classics and James Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
  • Gangster stories bring the Western to the anarchy of city streets, where order is more dependent on a balance of power than a common ethos. For example: A Bronx Tale, Once Upon a Time in America, and Good Fellas.

This is just a starting point. We might debate the genres organized on the four-cell chart. But it offers a simple starting point for understanding the concept of genre. Ultimately, it’s up to storytellers to find the right place on that chart.

*That reminds me of Lewis Carroll’s story “Sylvie and Bruno Concluded,” in which people devise a map with “the scale of a mile to the mile.” It kind of defeats the purpose, no?

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

How Does a Writer Develop Voice or Style?

Jim Bouton gave me the best advice I ever got on developing voice or style as a writer.

Bouton, remember, was the New York Yankees pitcher who became a literary sensation in 1970 with his scandalous book Ball Four. Later in life, he became a protector of baseball’s truest values. I met him at a “vintage” baseball game–a game played with nineteenth-century rules.

I brought a couple of Little Leaguers to this game. They asked if they could get some pitching tips from Bouton, who won 20 games for the Yankees in 1963.

The challenge, Bouton said, was finding the best possible motion. No sport has such a variety of motions as baseball. Motions are the signature of great pitchers, e.g., Bob Feller’s high leg kick, Tom Seaver’s drop-and-drag, Luis Tiant’s body-twist, Bob Gibson’s falling followthrough, Chad Bradford’s dirt-scraping submariner, Fernando Valenzuela’s skyward gaze, Tim Wakefield’s push pitch, Hideo Nomo’s long reach, and Dennis Eckersley’s slingshot. So how can a young pitcher find his own best possible motion?

The answer, Bouton said, could be discovered in long-tossing.

To develop a motion, don’t even think of developing a motion. Instead, play catch from long distances. Toss the back and forth, with a friend, from the longest possible distance. Lean back and let the ball soar. Get in a rhythm. Then move a little closer and play catch again, getting into a new rhythm at that distance. Over time, get closer and closer. Eventually, you will be playing catch from the distance between the pitcher’s mound and home plate. That will be your natural pitching motion.

With this approach, you can find your most natural motion. Without thinking too much, you also meet the needs of your receiver. You don’t throw for yourself; you do it for your partner in the game of catch.

Likewise, as a writer, do not try too hard to develop your distinctive style. Just write, as naturally as possible. Pretend you’re writing a letter home or talking with a friend.

Try different voices and styles. Write long, meandering passages and short, telegraphic passages. Use a cascade of simple words. Describe using specific details. Deploy sensual images, then evoke sound and touch. Usually write right-branching sentences but try some left-branching sentences too. Play with punctuation: try to use as few punctuation marks as possible, then construct sentences that deploy all the tools in your kit. Be literal and be figurative. Move back and forth, like a pendulum, between scene and summary, short and long sentences, and abstract and concrete lamguage.

Play with language, without any intent to develop your “voice.” When you have written something, edit it to make sure that any audience can follow what you do. Think carefully about where you “meet” your reader at the beginning of the piece and where you want to take them.

This is the equivalent of long-tossing. You are writing, in the most natural way possible. By not thinking too much about voice, your voice will emerge.

It cannot happen right away. Just as it took years for you to speak at a high level, it will take some time for your to write in a distinctive way. That’s OK. There is no rush.

Whatever you do, do not devise a voice artificially. It has to come from your best skills and habits as a writer (which means you need to develop those skills in the first place). You will never develop your own voice if you are slave to some else’s voice. Do not aim to be Fitzgerald or Gilbert, Woolf or Wolfe, Hemingway or Mencken. Imitations are annoying and distracting. Don’t imitate arch academic writing or policy language.

You be you.

As you work to find your truest voice, the great Steven Pressfield notes, do not write for your own selfish, preening, attention-seeking ego. Be a servant of the topic and the reader:

What voice does the material want? Find that. You the writer are not there to impose “your” voice on the material. Your job is to surrender to the material–and allow it to tell you what voice it wants in order to tell itself.

Throw your pitch to the catcher. When you do that–at whatever distance–you will find your best style.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

Broken and Whole

All my problems are meaningless,
But that don’t make them go away.
– Neil Young, “On the Beach”

There is a crack in everything.
That’s how the light gets in.
– Leonard Cohen, “Anthem”

Every story is about being broken and trying to become whole.

All of us, even the happy ones among us, are in some way broken. At some point, usually early in life, we have experienced a moment of cracking and breaking. The breaking continues throughout our lives.

Start with the iconic heroes of literature: Oedipus, Odysseus, Lear, Macbeth. Gatsby (Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby), Jake Barnes (Papa Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls), Yossarian (Joseph Heller’s Catch 22), Holden Caulfield (J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye), Sethe (Toni Morrison’s Beloved). More recently: Camille Preake (Gillian Flynn’s Sharp Objects), Rachel Watson (Paula Hawkins’s The Girl on the Train), or Harry Potter (the series by J.K. Rowling).

The exception proves the rule: Socrates, who surrenders his life in Plato’s dialogues, struggles not with his own brokenness but with the brokenness of the Greek political elites. “You’ve acted as you have now because you think it’ll let you off being challenged for an account of your life,” he tells his prosecutors. “In fact, I tell you, you’ll find the case quite the opposite. There’ll be more, not fewer, people challenging you.” In other words: Your fake wholeness cannot hide your real brokenness.

How about modern American politics? So: presidents? Oh, god yes. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden? Broken, everyone one of them.

We are all broken in many ways, actually. The challenge for the storyteller is to find the defining brokenness of the characters and to figure out how it compels their actions. Once we understand this primary brokenness, we can understand all the broken ways that we try to survive, day by day, and pursue our goals.

The story is about how we struggle to become whole. Some of our strategies are conscious, others less so. Some are more effective, others less so.

Unconscious Strategies to Fix What’s Broken

A character’s unconscious strategies come from our deepest, most repressed selves. This repression comes from experiences and emotions that are too hot to handle. In youth, they could have been abused of neglected. Either way, their development is stunted by the need to survive their early traumas. Their story, then, is about trying to handle things that are (at first) too hot to handle.

Think of those strategies: Money. Fame. Career. Service. Security. Popularity. Power. Love. Respect. Knowledge. Religion. Fear. Friendship. Boosterism. Do-gooderism and caretaking. Civic leadership. Booze, drugs, porn, and other external addictions.

These are all adaptations. With the exception of addictions, each one of them has positive aspects. They help the character survive to face another day. But the are, at best, incomplete adaptations—and ultimately fail to achieve wholeness.

Most of these strategies don’t work because they only address a part of the brokenness—and that, badly. In doing so, they actually repress the other parts of the brokenness, even more intensely. Success with the strategy, like making a lot of money, serves to intensify the pain.

A Larger Brokenness

Here’s the hardest part: Not only is the character broken–so is the society. Gabor Maté has written about “the myth of normal.” We are raised to think that society is “normal,” that is, functional and fair. But it’s not. It’s a hot mess of trauma: inequality, abuse, ill health, neglect, blame and self-blame, addiction, distraction. When we accept the values of modern society, we set ourselves up for a fall.

Maté lists a number of basic needs:

  • Belonging, relatedness, or connectedness.
  • Autonomy: a sense of control in one’s life; – mastery or competence.
  • Genuine self-esteem, not dependent on achievement, attainment, acquisition, or valuation by others.
  • Trust: a sense of having the personal and social resources needed to sustain one through life.
  • Purpose, meaning, transcendence: knowing oneself as part of something larger than isolated, self-centered concerns, whether that something is overtly spiritual or simply universal/humanistic, or, given our evolutionary origins, Nature.

The story lies in the struggle to realize some of these needs in the face of an often-brutal or indifferent environment.

What Does Success Look Like?

So what does success look like, for the hero and other story characters? Think of the Japanese tradition of kintsugi, also known as kintsukuroi. It means repairing broken pottery by filling the cracks and gaps with lacquer.

The result is not perfect; it is better than perfect. In the Japanese philosophy of mushin, the imperfections symbolize the importance of non-attachment and acceptance of change. They also symbolize the the hard work we do to achieve this wisdom.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

Thinking, Fast and Slow: The Perfect Overview of How the Brain Works from a Nobel Laureate

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011)

Harry Truman once said: “Being a president is like riding a tiger. A man has to keep on riding or he is swallowed.”

Actually, Truman’s insight holds for the rest of us too. Living even ordinary lives can be like riding a tiger. But the lesson from Daniel Kahneman’s masterpiece, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is different. Truman says presidents have to rise to the frantic challenge of riding a tiger. But Kahneman tells us we need to get off the tiger and control our own pace.

Kahneman, a psychologist who won the 2002 Nobel Prize for economics, has died at the age of 90. His influence spans not only the social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, and more) but also business and the arts. Where the pioneers of psychology and economics often fell back on their wits, he did the hard work of experimentation and data analysis.

Kahneman worked with his friend and colleague Amos Tversky for decades before Tversky died in 1996. Undoubtedly, the two would have shared the Nobel Prize had Tversky lived long enough.

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman describes two minds or “systems” that govern how we operate in the world.

In System 1, based on our more primitive brain, we are constantly reacting to the world—even when we don’t know what happens. We evolved to have fast-twitch responses to events in the world. Until modern times, people faced constant danger when they ventured out to hunt or explore frontiers beyond their home base. To respond before they suffered a calamity—like getting eaten by a tiger—they reacted instantly. Humans responded by fight, flight, or freeze. This is a crisis approach to life. It’s useful when trying to survive in a wild and dangerous world. But it’s less helpful in modern times, when we overreact to even minor “crises” in our lives. Too often, we overreact to the words of actions of a family member, coworker, peer, or another driver. Hello, road rage.

Which brings us to System 2, the slower, more deliberative mode of thinking. Even though we are reactive creatures, we also have the capacity to slow down and carefully consider situations and problems. When someone cuts us off in traffic, we can overreact by nonking, shouting, or making a rude gesture. Or we can make an effort to pause, let the “crisis” pass, and decide how our better self should respond. Usually, we can just let a crisis pass. Then, if it makes sense, we can think through what just happened. If there’s an actual problem to be solved, we can break it down and decide what makes sense to do. We can collaborate with others.

Thinking, Fast and Slow builds on this foundation. But the heart of the book is a detailed discussion of the biases that we humans have. And oh boy, are we ever biased—and not just for people like us and against outsiders. We have “availability bias” (the tendency to rely on readily available information), “confirmation bias” (seeking information that confirms existing beliefs), “anchoring bias” (relying too much on what we learn early), and “loss aversion” (the tendency to prefer avoiding losses over making equal or greater gains).

That’s just for starters. Kahneman’s book shows that in every aspect of our lives, we fall back on primitive ways of understanding and action. So how do we deal with it? Acknowledge the power of System 1 and then nurture and develop System 2.

This book requires that you settle in for some concentrated reading—System 2 reading, if you will. But for anyone who wants to understand how humans really think and act, you can’t do any better.

You might also read . . .

Eric R. Williams on the Machinery of Genre and Storytelling

When Alfred Hitchcock roamed the sets of his movies, he could be seen with a small book called Plotto. With this book of prompts, storytellers can connect 15 characters types (listed in Column A) to 62 conflict situations (Column B) and 15 consequences (Column C). In a sense, Plotto is a guide for mix-and-matching the elements of a story.

Published in 1928 by William Wallace Cook—who used it to write an endless series of pulp novels—Plotto was responsible for the greatest stream of thrillers, this side of John Grisham. A former lawyer named Erle Stanley Gardner used Plotto to create a series of pulp novels featuring Perry Mason. Those novels sold 170 million copies and inspired the classic radio, film, and TV productions.

Enter Eric R. Williams, a screen/virtual reality writer who also teaches storytelling at Ohio University. His book The Screenwriter’s Taxonomy goes far beyond Plotto. In this fascinating guide to genre, Williams lays out 260 different elements of stories, arranged on a hierarchy that looks like this:

  • Super-Genres: These 11 basic categories (Action, Crime, Fantasy, Horror, Life, Romance, Sci-Fi, Sports, Thriller, War, Western) establish the basic expectations for stories.
  • Macro-Genres: These 50 story contexts show different “worlds of the story” (from Addiction to Workplace), each with its own distinct settings, values, and patterns of behavior.
  • Micro-Genres: These 199 details help to give further definition to the 50 Macro-Genres (e.g., a Legal Macro-Genre could have a Micro-Genre of Courtroom, Investigation, Tales of the System, or Underdog/Whistleblower).

All this might remind you of the old barb about academic analysis—that it’s an endless process of figuring out “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” In other words, it may seem like nothing more than mind-numbing insider-speak. Occam’s Razor, it ain’t.

But wait. This typology offers a brilliant way to understand stories and how they work. It’s a great way to brainstorm stories and to create a great plot.

Williams suggests using his story-generation machine in three stages:

  1. Start by looking at the 50 Macro-Genres. What kind of world do you want to explore? The world of Addiction? A Gangster story? A Love story? Maybe a Procedural? How about a Romantic Comedy?
  2. Now look at the kinds of stories you can tell within your Macro-Genre—in other words, look at the Micro-Genres. If you want to tell a Love story, figure out what kind. You have five basic choices: Disguise (think Roxanne), Nonconventional (Her), Obsession (Fatal Attraction), Traditional (Emma), and Unrequited (Remains of the Day).
  3. Now, decide what Super-Genre you want to use. Theoretically, once you have picked your Macro-Micro combination, you could tell 11 different kinds of stories. If you wanted to tell a tale of Unrequited Love, for example, it could fall under the Super-Genre of Action, Crime, Fantasy, Thriller, and seven other Super-Genres.

If this still feels overwhelming, that’s OK. Life is complicated, right? Williams estimates that his system could produce as many as 187,816,200 permutations of story types. But never mind.

My advice is to get the book, download a handy cheat sheet, and let your imagination roam over these three levels of story categories. Whatever you do, don’t rush.

This is not simple. But the more you work with it, the more you understand the internal mechanisms of stories. Lucky for me, I had an opportunity to talk with Eric R. Williams about his approach to genre. Here’s a transcript of our talk, edited for brevity and clarity.

We might think about genre in business terms. A corporate brand is essentially a promise. The brand says to the buyer of Corn Flakes or iPhones or UnderArmour: This is what you can expect if you enter this world.

Or look at it as a niche. It’s a way of zooming down to the most elemental or unique aspects of whatever we’re talking about. So a smartphones are a niche of the telecommunications business, along with flip phones, land lines, and even Zoom.

When you’re writing a film, just like when you’re creating a product, you are trying to meet the promises that you’ve made to your audience. With The Screenwriters Taxonomy, I wanted to help writers specify different elements that they’re going to be working on creatively. I realized that genre is just so broadly used that it’s lost its meaning. As storytellers, genre (as a concept) has to be useful.

In essence, I believe, genre is about character, atmosphere, and key expectations of the story. So if I’m doing a War movie, it’s going to be the us versus them, right? It’s going to be soldiers against those conspiring against the soldiers—other soldiers or people in a foreign land or political opponents.

So, what’s atmosphere? Well, where is the war going to take place? Here are some options: probably a contrast between foreign lands and back home, right? We’ll probably see some sort of combination of battlegrounds, training grounds, and the spaces in between. Atmosphere also includes props and costumes (so, in War, we’ll see uniforms and weapons and war machines and symbols of peace and patriotism).

We also know what’s going to happen in a war movie, right? We know the basic tenets and themes of stories of War. Sacrifice and survival, patriotism and camaraderie, and the effects or war on society and the individual. That sort of stuff, right? That what we expect in a war movie? Not all of it—not all at once, but some of it.

And we know these key tentpole scenes: Battles and injuries and captives and freedom. Decisions of life and death. Questions of rank and leadership. Themes of Us versus Them. We know thematically a handful of areas that we might explore in a war movie. We pretend that each war movie is unique. But they’re not. Not really.

Looking at your 11 Super-Genres, that’s one of them. Suppose we want to do a War story that’s a Comedy, like M*A*S*H. So we have a war with different ways people are fighting each other. The ongoing fight between the North Koreans and South Koreans is an obvious level. Another level is the dumb bureaucrats and martinets against ordinary people who are just trying to survive. So we have a comedy that falls in the Super-Genre of War. And then we look at the 50 Macro-Genres.

The War Super-Genre typically has multiple characters. Maybe a big band of brothers going off and fighting. But what else are we exploring besides war? You might have someone who, in a B plot, has left his family behind. So now we have a Family story as a Macro-Genre. And we can take that further by exploring the Micro-Genre of the Family story: is this a story that tests the family bond? Or is this a story about a family dealing with loss? Or has war created a feud within the family?

Or let’s take this war Super-Genre in a completely different direction with a Macro-Genre of Time Travel. We could have a war movie with all the typical trappings you’d expect, but then what would happen if one of the soldiers discovered a time-travel mechanism? All of a sudden, in the second act, it becomes a War story with a character who can travel forwards and backwards in time. Now you’ve paired your Super-Genre of War with a Macro-Genre of Time Travel. In essence, that’s what Kurt Vonnegut did with Slaughterhouse Five—except that the character Billy Pilgrim didn’t have a time machine, he was just unmoored in the time-space continuum.

You could also have Addiction—a character who is addicted to X, Y, and Z. During the course of the battles, he overcomes that addiction—or he becomes addicted. You can weave those thematic or personal stories (the Macro-Genre) into that larger Super-Genre in a variety of ways. So there’s 50 Macro-Genres, probably more. You can put any one of those 50 Macro-Genres into any of the 11 Super-Genres.

So one or more of the 50 Macro-Genres can be combined with any of the 11 Super-Genres. What’s the sweet spot for the number of Macro-Genres that might go with a Super-Genres like War or Romance or Life or whatever? Is it three or …

Off the top of my head, I’d shoot for two or three. Obviously, when you start telling stories with more characters, you might to pull more Macro-Genres. It’s also important to note that any of the 11 Super-Genres can act as a Macro-Genres. For instance, the 2021 film Cherry takes Crime as a Super-Genre, then mixes it with War and Addiction and Love Story as its three Macro-Genres to create a really amazing and complex character study.

It depends on the clarity of the expression. If by having four or five or more Macro-Genres, the story flies off in too many different directions, that could confuse the audience. The ultimate test is to have a core that holds everything together.

That’s exactly right. And I would add that, just because there’s some sort of storytelling element, that doesn’t mean it’s a Macro-Genre. Just because one of our soldiers wants to get home to his sweetheart, that doesn’t make it a Love story. Just because somebody is addicted to heroin, that doesn’t mean that it’s an Addiction story. For a Macro-Genre to emerge, you actually have to explore the character, locations, and story expectations of that Micro-Genre.

Do the Super-Genres have to have their own mini arcs? You hear people talk a lot about the B story. That B story is a complete mini-story unto itself, but it’s subordinate to the main story. Is that the ultimate test of whether you should think of it as a Macro-Genre—whether it helps contribute to the main story or theme?

That’s a great way to put it. The Macro-Genre really needs to be a B story (or even a C story).

If we think of genre as a promise, the B story and C story have to help fulfill that promise—not just for the genre, but also for the setup, right?

In the opening scene of The Godfather, it’s about family, it’s about loyalty, it’s about control. But to me, the main moment is Michael telling Kay, “This is my family, but it’s not me. I’m getting out.” So the big question is: Can a guy like this escape the vortex of a crime family? Everything gets back to that issue: How total is the experience of a crime family?

To me, this is the central difference between Super-Genre and Macro-Genre. Coppola is telling a Crime story (the Super-Genre) which also has elements of a Love story between Kay and Michael (the Macro-Genre). However, it would be possible for someone to take the exact same characters and situations and change the film into a Romance between Kay and Michael, right? That would change how those scenes are told.

If this was a Romance, it might start with Michael and Kay driving into the wedding. Little do we know about this guy who’s in love with his new girlfriend and is bringing her to meet the family. Well, the family is actually—nudge nudge, wink wink—a crime family. That changes everything. Now we have a Romance (Super-Genre) combined with a Gangster story (Macro-Genre). One way to think of Super-Genre is to ask: “How are they advertising this film?”

When I’m walking into a movie theater, looking at all of those movie posters, am I going to see Godfather: The Romance? If that’s the Super-Genre, then I want to see Kay and Michael deciding whether their marriage is going to work out, because that’s going to be our central set of expectations since it’s a Romance and not a Crime movie, right? But of course, as Coppola and Puzo imagined it, Kay and Michael’s love story becomes a secondary element in the Crime Super-Genre.

A movie involving the mafia doesn’t necessarily have to do with organized crime. Analyze This, for example, is not really about organized crime.

No, that’s a Day in the Life story, with Gangster elements. Day in the Life is the Super-Genre and Gangster is the Macro-Genre. It’s similar to the TV series The Sopranos. The brilliant thing that David Chase did with that series it that he chose a different Super-Genre. He made it a Day in the Life story as his Super-Genre, and then used Family and Gangster as Macro-Genres. See how that changes the focus of the piece?

Genre also forces you to be particular, specific. We all have an innate human urge for storytelling. But we also have a huge human tendency toward summarizing and generalizing. A niche forces us to stay specific.

A lot of it has to do with the medium. Film and television are hyper-specific, right? We get into these details because we can actually see it on the screen so we have to be specific. In that opening scene of The Godfather we see a room with specific actors doing specific things in a specific environment. The detail exists for us to point at and agree to: Brando petting a cat and discussing murder. Mario Puzo’s novel has a certain amount of detail, but you can still allow your mind to wander. For instance, Puzo can write, “the men talked about justice for Bonasera’s daughter” and the idea doesn’t need details the way that a filmed scene needs details.

One of one of the problems with biopics is that they try to do too much rather than getting specific. Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, for example, covers a huge sweep of time. Might it have been better to focus on one element of the story, like Malcolm’s break with Elijah Muhammad or his trip to Africa or his time in jail? Then you could have a tight theme, a strong story arc, with the details that really get it.

Yeah, I would buy that. Spike Lee tried to cover a lot of ground in three and a half hours. The story of Malcom X might have been better served by exploring a smaller section of his life in more detail. But keep in mind, the movie came out in the early 1990s and that was the biggest canvas Spike Lee had to paint that story. Now you could take that same story and stream it as a 12-part series and add a lot more specificity and detail.

In his interviews with Truffaut, Hitchcock said something to the effect of, “I have this funny idea of creating a movie not out of characters or situations, but out of scenes. And then I try to think about what would happen in the scenes.”

That all goes back to genre, because those are the audience’s expectations when they buy a ticket. You can subvert some of those expectations. You could have a gangster movie that takes place in space. But you have to set that expectation up for your audience so that they know that, okay, the theme and the characters are all going to still be a gangster movie, but people are going to be wearing funky futuristic costumes because the story takes place in outer space. Dark City, Dredd, Elysium, and maybe even Tenet would be good examples of Gangster movies that subvert our expectations by placing the story in outer space.

Similarly, if your audience is expecting to see a Western, they don’t expect the story to be in New York City. That just goes to say that if you’re trying to tell a Western and it’s surrounded by skyscrapers, you’re probably starting in a hole.

It could be a fish-out-of-water story. But that’s but that’s a different story. That’s a different niche or a different genre as well.

I’m all in favor of subverting expectations. If we’re going to tell a Western, we could start it in New York and make it out of fish-out-of-water story. But they better get out west by the second act or your audience is going to be wondering why the film was billed as a Western. Remember Back to the Future III. It becomes a Western as soon as Michael J. Fox gets catapulted into the past. It doesn’t start there, but we knew, going in, that’s where they’re going.

If you’re a hierarchical thinker, you probably start with the Super-Genres and then work down. But maybe if there’s a kind of Macro-Genre situation that you really love, you can start there.

I would almost always start with the Macro-Genre. People think in Macro and Micro terms. They’re specific. And their stories bubble up.

We have been talking about Gangster stories, so let’s continue along that line. You might be drawn to telling a Gangster story—be it from the anti-hero’s POV or the lawman’s POV—but that’s just a starting point. Next, ask whether it’s a Western or Sci-Fi or Fantasy or whatever. I mean, it’s possible to have a Gangster Western (3:10 to Yuma) or a Gangster Sci-Fi (The Dark Knight) or even a Gangster Fantasy film (The Forbidden Kingdom).

A story is only as good as its details. That requires research. You might think you know a subject. A young writer might know a lot about high school theater. But those aren’t the details that are going to tell the story. They have to somehow still do research to get the details for other aspects of the story.

Right. They also have to understand the details of the characters that populate those stories. If you’re doing a story about a high school musical, you might have a drama teacher who is going through a divorce and he’s torn because the topic of the play is about children while he’s in a custody battle in court in his real life.

As a writer, you might know everything in the world about high school musicals, but what do you know about divorce and custody battles? To tell this part of the story in your musical though, you’re going to have to write scenes about what that person is going through. And that’s the research you need.

You can’t create that high school drama teacher unless you know something about relationships and the awkward stuff that goes on between divorcing couples and how their friends and families react to each other. There’s a million things that you need to know, besides the world of theater.

Typically, I find that my Macro- and Micro-Genres help me to identify what to research. I might have enough of a general idea about the tropes of my Super-Genre to start imagining my screenplay. But when I dig into the details of the Macro- and Micro-Genres, then I need more specificity to create those characters and the nuance that makes them unique and interesting.

Let’s talk about beats. Robert McKee, in his Story Seminar, does a complete showing of Casablanca. He analyzes the bazaar scene, where Ilsa goes out and looks at fabrics and Rick comes out and tries to atone for his bad behavior the night before. Every moment of dialogue moves that scene forward—and not just the scene, but the whole story. (See this discussion.)

But it’s not just whether it moves the story forward. Sometimes we want a thematic beat that helps us understand the context, the values of the people in the story. Even if it doesn’t change the story, a moment can be valuable for revealing something about the character.

There’s a scene in Black Mass, about the Boston mobster White Bulger. There’s is a scene where he convinces one of his henchmen, Stephen Flemmi, to strangle his girlfriend to death in the trunk of a car. There’s really no other reason for this scene other than to create a distaste for Whitey Bulger.

You see, there’s also this idea of primary and secondary emotions. Primary emotions are what the character is thinking. Secondary emotions are what the audience is thinking. In that example, Whitey Bulger is smiling. He’s happy. He’s like, ha ha.

So the primary emotion is Bulger’s twisted glee. Then there are those beats that hit a switch in the audience’s heart or mind. In this case, hopefully, the audience is horrified by Bulger. That’s the secondary emotion. Secondary emotions are super important because they’re not very many of them. But when they when they hit, they carry this weight. So they don’t necessarily move the story forward. But thematically, and contextually, they play a crucial role in the story.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Varieties of Writer’s Block

No writer has ever escaped the curse of writer’s block.

You sit at the keyboard, immobilized. You thought you had something to say. You thought you had the words. You thought that persevering would help. But your ideas are stuck, like the water that won’t move in a stopped-up faucet. If you’re lucky, if you keep adjusting the hot and cold spigots, you’ll get a blast of water. But the chances are that it’s just a filthy torrent of dirty water: worthless dreck.

So what do you do when the faucet stays stopped up–or, even worse, when the words flow but they’re all terrible?

There are three causes of writer’s block: psychology, research, and perfectionism. Let’s look at each one in turn.

Writer’s Block 1: Psych Out!

Writer’s block is usually known as a psychological malady. Writers are, after all, simultaneously egotistical and insecure. They think they’re the king of the world and the worst pretenders and fakers ever.

Steven Pressfield use the term The Resistance to describe the force that blocks creative expression. In his tidy little book, The War of Art, he notes that many would-be creatives torment themselves with negative self-talk. After grandiosely imagining writing the Great American Novel (or other art form), they procrastinate, make excuses, drink and/or do drugs, find escape in shallow relationships, and otherwise piss away their creative juices.

Fear is not all bad. “Are you paralyzed with fear?” Pressfield says. “That’s a good sign. Fear is good. Like self-doubt, fear is an indicator. Fear tells us what we have to do. Remember one rule of thumb: the more scared we are of a work or calling, the more sure we can be that we have to do it.”

Nothing is worthwhile without a struggle. Creation is a process of struggle. If we have nothing to push against us–internally or externally–we will glide along the same old path and discover nothing along the way.

Pressfield’s answer is to man up–or, as he puts it in another tidy little book, commit to “turning pro.”  He contrasts the amateur and the pro like this:

“When we’re living as amateurs, we’re running away from our calling — meaning our work, our destiny, the obligation to become our truest and highest selves. Addiction becomes a surrogate for our calling. We enact the addiction instead of embracing the calling. Why? Because to follow a calling requires work. It’s hard. It hurts. It demands entering the pain-zone of effort, risk, and exposure.”

Writer’s block, then, is simply a refusal to face the daunting challenge of hard work. Pressfield spent years wasting his talent on bad jobs, bad relationships, and incomplete drafts. Like the alluring but degenerate artist in an alluring but degenerate subculture like New Orleans–a place where characters and misfits are celebrated– he refused to surrender his vices in order to realize his creativity. Until, one day, he rented a tiny house in northern California and lived a life of isolation.

Every day he got up, read, wrote, ate, read, wrote some more, and slept. He avoided newspapers and TV, relationships, and the life of the glib raconteur. The day he typed the words “THE END,” he knew that he had turned pro.

It did not matter that the novel was an inferior work or that he failed to sell it. What mattered was that he devoted himself, finally, to the work. He made that his priority and refused to let outside distractions and excuses rule his life. Like an alcoholic who no longer has any desire for a drink, Pressfield was now a different man. He didn’t need a spare and isolated houaw any more. From then on, he showed up to do the work. He was a pro.

“Ambition, I have come to believe, is the most primal and sacred fundament of our being. To feel ambition and to act upon it is to embrace the unique calling of our souls. Not to act upon that ambition is to turn our backs on ourselves and on the reason for our existence.”

Writer’s Block 2: Not Enough to Say

Not all writer’s block is as exquisitely psychological as The Resistance. For those seeking less than the Life of the Artist–people who just want to produce something worthwhile–writer’s block “presents itself” (to use the psychologist’s term) as a feeling of dumbness.

We have written before, maybe even well. We get an assignment–a paper, report, article, chapter, or even a book. We know the subject well–or at least better than 99.99 percent of the people that we pass on the street. We have piles of notes. We have talked about the subject with others. We have demonstrated our superior knowledge and even cleverness.

Then we sit down at the keyboard and nothing comes out. Or even worse, what comes out is garbage. The sentences are passive and clumsy, over-reliant on meaningless words (hedges like “almost,” “probably,” “almost,” etc., and emphatics like “very,” “strong,” “smart,” “best,”  etc.) Sometimes we can’t even write a sentence, so we resort to awkward phrases. Our drafts (if you can call them that) are filled with “TK” (the journalist’s note to herself meaning “to come”).

A friend or fellow writer, seeing the frustration, comes along to offer support: “Just tell me what you want to say.” It doesn’t help. Why would it? They haven’t been researching your topic. What can they offer besides a pat on the back.

This is the most common variety of writer’s block.  The only way out is to stop writing and do more rounds of research. Whether you’re writing a journalistic profile or a work of fiction, your job is to gather enough information to create a reading experience. Often, we think we have mastered the subject but have not. Nothing reveals our basic ignorance more than clunky writing about the subject.

So conduct more interviews. Dive into the archives. Explore more cases in point. Gather data. Go to the scene of the story and take notes. If possible, take a video so you have something to describe, moment by moment.

How do you tell when you don’t have enough information?  When you tell more than you show.

General summaries offer a dead giveaway of thin understanding of a topic. The lifeblood of good writing is details–details that the reader can see, hear, feel, taste. Even when exploring an abstract topic, the reader needs enough details to get a tangible sense of the topic. The more general your discussion, the less you probably know–and the less the reader will care what you have to say.

Here’s an example from my own book project about Woodrow Wilson’s 1919 campaign for the League of Nations. In the course of discussing Wilson’s speeches in the Upper Midwest–Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana–I learned about one of the most exciting reform movements in modern American history. The Nonpartisan League championed reforms for farmers: railroad rates reform, silos for storing grain, a banking system with fair rates. But such a summary does no justice to the movement. I had to learn about who organized it, how it pressured both parties, the backstory of failed previous reform efforts, and the backlash from big business and political elites.

Even more, I had to create some scenes to show how the NPL operated–how recruiters traveled from town to town, buttonholing farmers, rallying local leaders, endorsing candidates. I had to read the NPL’s weekly newspaper and track down arguments in court cases. I had to show how mercenary gangs threatened and beat NPL recruiters. Even if I did not use all these details, I needed a bounty of details so that I could select the right ones.

I had to follow Hemingway’s classic advice to seek out “the good and the bad, the ecstasy, the remorse and sorrow, the people and the places, and how the weather was. If you can get so that you can give that to people, then you are a writer.”

Details make writing come to life. When you don’t have enough details–when you fall back on generalization–you are probably failing.

Writer’s Block 3: Thinking Too Hard

What if we have committed to acting like a pro and done all the research imaginable. But we’re still stuck?

What do you do when you’re truly, deeply committed to doing the work and have done your job as a researcher. You know all you need to know but can’t get the words down?

Sometimes, we’re so bent on perfection that we can never accept anything less. Rather than gifting the world with something worthwhile, we immobilize ourselves because we are too committed and too diligent. Rather then doing our best and then moving on, we are obsessed with producing Big-A Art.

This is the situation that Tom Wolfe faced when he was assigned profile of young hot-rod race-car drivers in Los Angeles for Esquire. No one was more committed or hard-working than Tom Wolfe, who was one of the founders of the New Journalism movement of the 1960s and 1970s. He did everything that a committed writer could do but sputtered into a state of incoherence.

With the magazine all laid out–including a set of enticing photos–Esquire editor Bryon Dobell told Wolfe not to worry about writing a draft. Just type up your notes, he said. We’ll find someone to turn those notes into a story. And so Wolfe went on a writing bender. he wrote 50 pages of notes, in the form of a letter, and sent them to Dobell.

Because Wolfe was no longer under any pressure, the words flowed. The result was a literary sensation. Under the title “There Goes (Varoom! Varoom!) That Kandy Kolored (Ahhhhhhhhh!) Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby (Rash!) Around the Bend (Brummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) …,” Wolfe described a world that no one knew. With a mastery of psychological and cultural insight, a love of details, and an energetic stream-of-consciousness marked by inventive phrasing and punctuation, Wolfe changed the way journalists approached their subjects.

As you might expect in a letter, Wolfe begins simply: “The first good look I had at customized cars was at an event called a ‘Teen Fair,’ held in Burbank, a suburb of Los Angeles beyond Hollywood.” He simply shares his thoughts and observations: “Inside, two things hit you…” He makes simple transitions: “As I said…” With no pretension, he introduces characters: “All this time, Tex Smith, from Hot Rod Magazine, who brought me over to the place, is trying to lead me to the customized-car exhibit…” He ventures some broad observations: “Things have been going on in the development of the kids’ formal attitude toward cars since 1945…”

Once he brings us into this world, his diligent research, mastery of details, and love of oddballs have a chance to shine. He’s a pro and he did the work and it shows. He just needed to get of his own way–to forget about what he was trying to do and just do it.


Feedback from All Over

On Facebook, Jesse Highsmith writes:
When I started, I thought I was supposed to “plant my butt in the chair and write,” as many people say. That didn’t work for me. In fact, it was the fastest way to sculpt a writer’s block.
My formula now is so much better: make a basic outline. Figure out where it ends. Figure out where the start should be. Think about the chapter for days before typing a single thing. Obsess over the first sentence. Sit down. Type that sentence. Walk away. Think about the rest of that paragraph. Come back to write that paragraph. Usually, after that, it starts to flow. I start my chapters with an action, then use the second paragraph to give some short exposition before jumping right back into the action and running with it. Also, there’s two types of chapters.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

Don’t Believe a Word Your Friends and Colleagues Say. Instead, Find Someone Who Will Tell You the Truth.

The first time I published an article in my college paper, I asked a senior editor to give me a critique. I was expecting a pat on the back for a job well done. But I got a tear sheet* filled with red ink.

If you give a piece of writing to a friend or colleague, you will be lucky if you get the same treatment. You should always be open to critiques, of everything: the focus of the piece, the organization, the style, the evidence, and more.

But we writers are a sensitive lot. When we write, we put down not only what we know at the start, but also ideas sparked by the writing process. So writing takes on a life of its own. We often labor in isolation and get lost in our own world.  Because we get lost, creatively, we lose perspective.

But don’t count on friends and colleagues to offer good critiques and feedback.

Most people, when asked to read a friend’s work, want to be nice. Even if the writing bores them or confuses them, they will not say it. They will look for something nice to say.

“Great topic.”

“You know, I didn’t know that…”

“It was interesting the way you tied together those two events…”

Even your most critical readers will still avoid a real critique. Not just because they are sensitive to your feelings but because critical reading is a hard and laborious task. So if you press them, they’ll find a couple of nits to pick but avoid the big issues.

I have worked with writers in a wide range of settings: newspapers and magazines, government, websites, think tanks, and book publishing. Many of the people in these settings are open to critiques. They are grateful for any ideas you might offer about making copy more clear and energetic. But some resist.

“But that’s my style…”

“No one ever said that was a problem…”

“We always do it that way…”

Some sensitive types protest vehemently. They are (to use the word in vogue) triggered by any and all criticism.

This kind of resistance increases the chance that, next time, the critique will be softer. Rather than battle a sensitive writer, even determined editors give way. Why hassle?

Even if you want a real critique, then, you often get the most general praise or meaningless nit-picking.

How do you get past the politesse and avoidance of friends and colleagues? If you want to get better, find someone who will read your work thoroughly and respond honestly and specifically. Ask them to critique:

  • How clearly you state a controlling idea and build the piece around that controlling idea. (See my discussion of “The One Idea” here.)
  • How clearly you write every sentence and paragraph. Every sentence should state the idea right away, with specific subjects and active verbs. Every paragraph should state and develop a single idea.
  • How well you stay on the right track–and how well you get back non track after a necessary diversion.
  • How well you highlight different sections of the piece with subheads.
  • How convincingly do you make your points, with specific data and other evidence that speaks directly to your points.
  • Where you make spelling and grammar mistakes.

Ask them to mark the sections clearly. Get them to underline or put brackets around specific passages. Specificity is the key. You need to know exactly when and where you go wrong.

Find the people who will be honest and show them your appreciation, however you can.

As for your friends and family? Appreciate their support but don’t count on them for any meaningful critiques.

*The term tear sheet comes from advertising. It refers to a page torn from a periodical to show proof that the ad had been published.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Let Us Now Praise Robert McKee

As the script doctor steps off the stage, a look at his impact and storytelling lessons

Years ago, when I was transitioning from academic life to nonfiction narrative writing, I attended Robert McKee’s immersive Story Seminar. For three days, I sat in a New York theater for a complete course from one of Hollywood’s leading experts on narrative for the page, stage, and screen.

I felt like I was in that famous scene in Adaptation:

 

Brian Cox, the brilliant British theater actor who was the malevolent Logan Roy on Succession, played the McKee role to perfection. Stalking on stage, Cox/McKee barked out commandments for storytelling and dismissed the lily-livered comments of pretenders who do not want to work hard to construct a good story. His massive brows furrowing or rising to signal anger or glee, he teased, charmed, and berated the audience. He prompted the audience to agree with his takes on movies and literature. “Who thinks, as I do, that…” he would say. A forest of hands would rise.

Some view McKee’s performance as an ego trip, and it’s obvious McKee has a strong ego–at least in the sense of knowing who he is and what his mission and standards are. He knew what he wanted to teach and did not want to be distracted or deterred. He did not want to pal around with seminar participants. Many attempted to follow him at lunch and accidentally-on-purpose bump into him and ask a question. He would have nothing to do with it.

His standoffishness was one part self-preservation and one part lesson: I can show you what to do, but you have to put your goddamned ass on the chair and do the goddamned work yourself.

McKee started teaching storytelling after the release of his TV miniseries Abraham (1993). He realized, he said, that he could never be a great screenwriter–but he could become a great storytelling teacher.

Last year, Robert McKee performed the last of 400-plus of these marathon seminars. At 82, he has decided retire from his role as the Socrates of the Screen. But “retire” is not a word anyone uses to describe McKee, and he will stay plenty busy. For years, Story (1997) was the only way most people could learn McKee’s approach to create narrative. But in recent years he has produced four followup works: Dialogue (2016), Character (2021), Action (2022), and Storynomics (2018). He is now writing a new version of Story, which he calls Story II. (May it be a worthy sequel, more like The Godfather Part II than Return to the Blue Lagoon). McKee is determined to share all the tricks and wisdom he gained in a lifetime of writing and teaching. Obviously, his seminars and books overlap. But he has also expanded and deepened his core insights.

A few imperatives of storytelling

So what must the storyteller do? So what does McKee want us to know about storytelling? Here are some of the pieces of his wisdom that I have found most useful over the years:

• Forge character in the furnace of desire, conflict, and obsession: Nothing happens without a character’s passionate desire. That desire leads to action, with causes conflict, which tests everyone. Whoever emerges from the conflict more whole can be called heroic, even if they lose. Therefore, force the character to make hard choices–and make the choices harder as the story proceeds. Don’t give a character the choice between good and bad; make it good against a competing good or a competing bad. Make every choice involve loss.

• Create two great desires, one external and the other internal: People begin their quest with an simple, obvious, superficial desire: “I want to protect my family” (The Godfather) or “I want to rescue my son” (Missing) or “I want to get out of here” (Groundhog Day). As they encounter more obstacles, they deepen their understanding of what they want: “I want total control” or “I want to expose the truth about the Chilean coup” or “I want to be worthy of love.” By the end, they discover that their internal desire is the real point of it all.

• The point of action: Action is essential but only matters if it makes a difference in the story. If you have a great “action” scene but it changes nothing, it’s not worth keeping. Even the most exciting fight or car chase will drag down a story if it does not propel the story forward. By the same token, even the most mundane moments provide action if they make a difference and raise the stakes.

On the last day of the Story Seminar I took, McKee played and analyzed Casablanca, scene by scene. The highlight was his breakdown of the bazaar scene with Rick and Ilsa. Every line of dialogue is action: Every line changes the trajectory of the story and our understanding of these iconic characters.

• Alternate positive and negative beats: Audiences want change–or the possibility of change–at every level and at every step of the way. Make even the small actions (like a nod, an averted glance, or a soft-spoken word) matter. That’s what McKee calls a beat. Then alternate positive and negative beats. If a positive moment occurs, counter with something negative, then positive, then negative, and so on.

In a sense, action is a form of dialogue. Each act says something and forces others to respond.

• Make dialogue sound human (but better): Capture character with the way people talk: brave or cowardly, certain or confused, risk-taking or cautious, quick witted or slow, jocular or stiff, and so on. But remember that most people speak like fractured, conflicted, uncertain, and inarticulate beings. Find the sweet spot between realism and art. The goal is not mimicking reality but (to use McKee’s term) “enhanced expressivity.”

Also, remember that speech is a form of action. “Life is dialogue, action/reaction,” McKee says. But don’t use dialogue when you can tell the story in other ways. “When the screenplay has been written and the dialogue has been added, we’re ready to shoot,” Alfred Hitchcock said. First create the scenes, then the action, and finally the words.

Whatever you do, don’t “write on the nose,” using dialogue to provide backstory, which murders subtext and irony and treats the audience like a bunch of dummies who can’t add 2 plus 2. Avoid this kind of fake dialogue/exposition: “Yeah! I remember you! You sat in the last row of Mr. Leonard’s class! He was such a demanding teacher! And we just wanted to goof off!”

• Hit ’em again–harder: However much your hero suffers, make him suffer even more. Escalate the abuse, even if it’s just kidding/not-kidding taunts from friends. Giving your characters a hard time tests them, reveals them, and gives them an opportunity to respond and grow. “Pressure is essential,” McKee says. “Choices made when nothing is at risk mean little.”

“The more powerful and complex the forces of antagonism opposing the character, the more completely realized character and story must become.”

• Don’t say anything at face value: Everyone lies–like, all the time. No story should gather a group of good-spirited, accommodating truth-tellers. It’s fake and boring. Even honest people speak honestly in an oblique way. Even blunt statements of truth are oftentimes covers for something else. So make sure that dialogue contains two levels of truth: first the surface-level meaning of the statements, then the hidden misunderstandings and agendas of the speakers.

This, dear English majors, is where we find the all-important element of irony: The man-of-the-people radio star (A Face in the Crowd), the shy and skinny kid who knocks the block off the bully (Back to the Future), the legal secretary who learns tenacity she needs to fight polluters by managing life as a single mom (Erin Brockovich).

• Don’t mess with genre: Readers need to know what the story offers. Genre offers a wide but limited range of eternal tales, each one tapping something fundamental about the human condition. A genre, like a brand, is a promise: Read/watch this story and you’ll get the elements you’re expecting.

Genres also help us to get the story sizzling right away: “We don’t want people coming to our work cold and vague, not knowing what to expect, forcing us to spend the first 20 minutes of screentime clueing them toward the necessary story attitude.”

McKee lists 25 genres; that’s too many, I think. Mockumentary, for example, is not a genre but a way of presenting a story; a mockumentary can be a tragedy or comedy or Bildungsroman or any number of other distinct genres. Still, McKee’s list is useful for devising the right style of story.

• Pursue unity and truth: Ever the Aristotelian, McKee insists that all stories must reach closure by the end. As Aristotle says in The Poetics, the story should be “complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude.” The story and the fates of the characters should wrap up, even if they lose their quest. The ending should feel like a surprise, but it should also feel inevitable.

Of course Michael was destined to be a ruthless mob boss. Of course Rick would embrace patriotism and love over possession of Ilsa. Of course Macbeth would lose his kingdom. Of course Ed discovers the corruption and complicity that led to his son’s death during Chile’s coup.

To some, these rules of storytelling feel contrived, almost like a paint-by-numbers approach. But as in any other creative, skilled work–carpentry, sculpture, dance, architecture–the rules provide the grounding needed to work creatively. The rules prompt the writer to struggle through a raw, deep, agonizing, contradictory, and hard journey.

The Ultimate Hack: Do the Hard Work

The reason storytelling will never die, even with AI, is that it requires real imagination and struggle. The human experience is not an algorithm.

We have to do the work ourselves. Lots of people write “content” for “media outlets” and “clients.” Lots of people write “books” to promote their “brand.” But how many of them are willing to dig deep and work hard enough to produce a worthy story?

In a sense, McKee’s core message was that writing a story is a lot like being a hero in a story. It’s about having a goal and a determination to meet that goal. It’s about delusion, failure, denial, blindness, and laziness–and working hard to overcome these universal flaws to create something worthwhile.

The greatest challenge, then, is to find something worth saying. In a valedictory profile in The New Yorker, McKee tells Dana Goodyear: “The problem with Hollywood is, they’ve all read the book, they’ve all been to these lectures. They know how to tell a story, but they don’t have anything to say.”

In Adaptation, McKee tells Charlie Kaufman, played by Nick Cage: “Your characters must change. The change must come from them.” He’s telling Charlie that the writer has to do as much hard work as the characters. No formula or shortcuts for anyone.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

‘What If?’ Angus Fletcher on the Brain and Storythinking

What if (spoiler alert) all the wisdom of writing, storytelling, problem-solving, adventure, crisis management, and deep learning could be summed up in a two-word phrase?

Thanks to Angus Fletcher, a leading authority on storytelling and the brain, we know that two-word phrase: “What if?”

Storythinking, which will be published by Columbia University Press in June 2023, is available for pre-order.

Fletcher, the author of the landmark work Wonderworks: Literary Invention and the Science of Stories (2021) and the forthcoming Storythinking: The New Science of Narrative Intelligence, says the brain has evolved to be creative. We abuse that creative brain in our bureaucratic, mechanized, mediated, overwhelming society. But the brain remains ready to take its place as the out-of-box imagineer and battler against stale ideas.

Fletcher is the professor of story science at Ohio State’s Project Narrative. He not only teaches and writes books, but also consults with the Army and Hollywood. He teaches them how to do what comes naturally, until we’re denatured by modern life: How to soak up the world with a sense of wonder and then to create a strikingly original approach to living the best life.

OK, back up.

Fletcher’s basic insight is that human’s don’t just create and enjoy stories. Stories are not somehow some thing “out there.” Stories organize all our experiences. No, that’s not quite right; it still suggests that stories are outside of us. We are stories. Stories as as much a part of our experience as blood and organs and skin and bones and sinews. Just as we must understand all those elements of life to understand health, we need to understand the elements of storytelling to understand experience.

“Storythinking hails from a time prior to authors, prior to humans, prior to language,” Fletcher writes in Storythinking. “It dates back hundreds of millions of years to the first creaky machinery of the animal brain.”

Cogito, ergo sum? Actually, Diigoúmai, ergo sum—or, I tell stories, therefore I am. “The human brain empowered our Stone Age ancestors to respond to unpredicted challenges and opportunities by linking creative actions into new plans—which is to say, new plots. That hatching of plots was narrative cognition.”

Humans think and operate in two ways: logic and narrative. “Analytically, story and logic employ different epistemological methods,” Fletcher notes. “Logic’s method is equation, or more technically, correlational reasoning, which inhabits the eternal present tense of this equals that. … Story’s method is experiment, or more technically, causal speculation, which requires the past/present/future of this causes that.” Or: What if?

Think about that a minute. The more maniacally we embrace facts ripped from context, standardized testing, getting the “right answer,” an so on, the less capable we are of storythinking. And storythinking is essential to the human experience.

Fletcher suggests three major skills to improve storythinking:

  • Prioritizing the exceptional: Finding what’s unpredictable, surprising, weird, deviant, extreme, shocking, even gross or repellant. That’ll get attention, right?
  • Perspective shifting: Imagining being someone completely different—not just with a nice, cozy empathy, but with a kind of embodiment of another. Getting out of your own skin, as extremely or totally (see 1, above) as possible.
  • Stoking narrative conflict: Testing ideas and scenarios as a kind of epic battle that takes you “boldly … where no man has gone before” (catchy phrase, no?). Submit characters and situations to stress tests that take the storythinker’s mind far beyond where it was before.

Fletcher’s story has more than its share of plot twists. After four years in the neurophysiology lab at the University of Michigan Med School, he decided to focus on storytelling. He learned from the best, studying Shakespeare for his Ph.D. in literature at Yale. Then, at Stanford, he connected with Pixar storytellers and became a script writer for TV and movies. He has also worked with the Army Special Corps.

I recently spent an hour exploring these issues with Fletcher on the phone. But the recorder wasn’t working. (This was my “all is lost” moment.) So rather than giving you his word-by-word account, I offer a paraphrased summary. Fletcher okayed my summary of our conversation.

On the brain, evolution, and storytelling …

The brain is not a computer. It’s a way of experiencing the world. It’s not like we just gather data and then assemble those data. To be sure, we often develop stories out of information that we have stored in our brains, at different levels including the subconscious. But even more important, we create stories to produce something, not just organize information. We can actually produce stories out of nothing. We can actually create whole new worlds.

That’s what scientists do. They are always telling stories, trying to figure what will happen in this situation and that situation.

Over the course of human evolution, humans have not only mastered the art of storytelling—and, in turn, been shaped by stories. The human experience is itself inseparable from storytelling. Humans could never step out of storytelling even if they tried.

On the clutter of the modern mind …

We once had the ability to imagine something out of nothing. Before modern technology, we had to entertain ourselves when we were bored. We had to observe and imagine. But now every time we get bored, we turn to our iPhone. The best thing we could do to reignite our imagination is to smash our phones.

When we come into a room, we don’t notice anything unless something is out of place. Babies and toddlers, when they come into a room, they see something new every time. Even if that room is familiar, they look at the details in a room with fresh eyes every time. They don’t assume that anything is going to be the same way. In a way we have to recover our ability to look and observe like two-year-olds.

On the need to slow down and notice things, detail by detail and moment by moment …

People automatically make causal arguments and take all the interesting details out of the equation. They say X causes Y. But in fact, there are lots of other factors involved besides X and Y. The blandest ideas come from sanding over the details.

We are a storytelling species, to be sure, but we’re also a summarizing and simplifying species.

When we think that X causes Y, we have to push ourselves to see how X causes x1, x2, x3, and so on—actually more than that, like y1, y2, y3, et cetera—before getting anywhere close to Y.

Of course, as a writer and a storyteller, you don’t want to overwhelm people in details. You want stories to offer some coherent view of how the world works. You want stories to explore a coherent “What if?”

On ever-evolving genres …

Genres are not eternal. Working within genres, we need to twist and combine genres. Genres are always being invented and reinvented to put storytelling on new paths. (On the topic of genres, see the interview with John Truby.)

A number of important genres, like the Western or Detective story, are reflections of modern life. They could not have been imagined before the settling or urbanization of America. Science fiction is another new genre. In ten years, someone might discover or invent a completely new genre, like Poe did with the Detective genre.

On the power of unusual, surprising, shocking, and even perverse experiences …

The best skill writers could develop is to notice things better. Look for what’s out of the ordinary. Notice what you don’t see right away. Stretch your mind and imagination to include what you don’t see right away … and what you don’t see at all.

Every great advance in storytelling comes from doing something deviant and disruptive. Some examples include Hamlet, The Decameron, and Don Quixote.

What makes those stories so fascinating is that they do something completely different. In Hamlet, an action story, you have this thoughtful character who is thinking like a philosopher. In Don Quixote, the characters themselves are reading Don Quixote! Who would think of that? Only a “What if?” creator.

Take a modern example. Better Call Saul is immediately exciting and engaging because, in the very first episode, it does two things. First, it introduces a complete set of divergent characters. Second, it creates some very strange worlds that the audience probably has never imagined before. A case in point is the home of Chuck, Jimmy’s brother. Chuck is living in a house wrapped in aluminum foil and devoid of all electronics because of his belief that microwaves are messing with his body and mind. That’s a strange character and a strange world. And we want to know more.

Better Call Saul is an elaborate “What if?” story. The characters are believable in their own ways but also stretched beyond their own experiences. What if there was a lovable con-man lawyer whose life is dominated by his domineering and troubled brother? What if that lawyer got involved in a wild range of experiences that take him to skateboarding stoner conmen to drug dealers to a sweet, wry fellow lawyer to an Asian hair salon, et cetera?

On the structure of experience and stories …

In a sense, all kinds of experiences seem to take Aristotle’s format: beginning, middle, and end. Something prompts you to pay attention, then you process the idea, and then you resolve it.

Actually it doesn’t work quite that way. When you hear a dog bark, you’re actually in the middle of the story, not the beginning. That bark prompts you to work backwards to figure out what made the dog bark. And then you look into the future to see what’s going to happen next. It’s the familiar storyteller’s approach: in media res. You start in the middle of the action.

In all our everyday experience, we’re constantly looking backward and forward at the same time. Storytellers, take heed: Just saying who does when and when and how is not really a story. Story requires a structure that engages the reader in saying (you guessed it), “What if?”

On deliberate training to see, notice, and tell fresh stories …

Working with the Army Special Corps, one of their most important skills is to react constructively to strange and unexpected circumstances. They can’t just respond with the three automatic actions: fight, flight, or freeze. They have to respond more imaginatively. In those circumstances, where absolutely nothing is familiar, they have to learn how to construct a brand new story, not just fall back on familiar stories. That takes discipline and skill. They need to be able to imagine a diversity of possibilities—not only a whole batch of factors that led to the moment, but also a bunch of possibilities that might happen in the future. This takes discipline. That takes an extra brain muscle that they have to develop.

Until about 20 years ago, the military lived and worked in a world of “hurry up an wait.” They experienced a lot of dead time. Now soldiers are allowed to have cellphones with them so they fill that dead time. They would be better off observing and thinking. That’s the most important thing that artists do. They wander around, thinking and observing and speculating. To outsiders, it looks like they’re doing nothing. But really, they’re doing the most important thing—noting what other people don’t notice and thinking about the world in fresh, different ways.

On the power of fresh details …

Storytellers who think that everything comes from Aristotle or the Hero’s Journey don’t understand that a story’s energy and intrigue comes from the surprises. When a story fits a simple format (like the Hero’s Journey), it won’t be able to hold the attention of the viewer. It will be too familiar. After a while, the audience will turn away.

On the importance of asking “What if?”

“What if?”is the ultimate question for the brain and the storyteller and the audience. We need to imagine what might happen, outside of ordinary circumstances. We need to be able to construct whole new worlds.

Inventive and expectation-busting stories make the audience ask “What if?” They get us out of out of own world and into a wholly new place where we can imagine things in completely different ways.

Other Resources

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Why the Hidden Architecture Matters

People immerse themselves in stories for all kinds of reasons. They want escape or adventure. They care about the characters. They love the world of the story. They love the familiarity of a genre. Many appreciate the “moral of the story,” whether it’s subtly developed or explicitly stated.

Readers sometimes get annoyed when they hear conversations about the story’s allegories or deeper message or hidden structure. Why can’t a story just be a story? Why do academics and gurus have to spoil the immersive experience of a story by breaking it down into patterns and pieces?

Here’s a typical grouse against the analytic breakdown of stories (taken from an online discussion board):

I think some of the analysis that can go on in a classroom for literature can kill the enjoyment of a book. I mean, why does a dude traveling down the road have to be some grand allegory for man’s journey through life? Maybe dude just wanted to go to the store or something.

You could say the same for a piece of music, a painting or sculpture, dance, performance art, or comedy. As E.B. White cracked: “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process.”

Here’s the problem with that way of thinking–and why storytellers must always strive to understand the detailed structure of writing:

If you can’t understand what makes a story work, from the scene-setting to the action to the dialogue to the conflicts to the overall arc of the piece–you’ll never be able to write or perform a great story. You’ll never understand why a reader or viewer likes The Sopranos or Succession or Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes or Frankenstein, to name just a handful of popular stories. 

Miranda makes this point in response to Andy’s smirk in the sweater scene in The Devil Wears Prada:

Andy, the whip-smart intern for Runway magazine, is bemused by the endless conversation and debate about fashion. An aspiring investigative reporter, she has taken the job at the fashion magazine as a way to get started in journalism. But she smirks when she watches her boss and coworkers debate the pros and cons of various fashion choices. What’s the big deal?

She doesn’t understand anything about what makes a piece of fashion succeed or fail. When she buys a sweater, she just thinks she “likes” it, the way an uncritical reader or viewer “likes” a story. She doesn’t understand that her sweater was the result of countless discussions, analyses, creative exploration, A/B testing, fashion shows, and more.

So with any creative enterprise. To produce something at a high level, you must understand the deep structure of that thing. What are the necessary elements of a creation? What goes where, when, and how?

For two millennia, storytellers have started with Aristotle’s narrative arc. From there, they have followed the teachings of Shakespeare on tragedy, Jung on character archetypes, Poe on mystery, and Shelley on horror. Modern storytellers turn to Joseph Campbell on the Hero’s Journey, Robert McKee and Blake Snyder on story beats. More recently, we have benefited from John Truby’s work on genres.

Every time we write, we have to learn these architectural elements anew. Storytelling is not a paint-by-numbers operation. But over the millennia, we have learned a lot about what makes storytelling work. We have learned how to structure a story, how to rceate scenes, how to explore complex issues. Certain storytelling basics, which have evolved over time, are eternal. Follow them or doom yourself with an eminently put-downable story.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Ellen Jovin on the Strangely Universal Fascination with Grammar (And Other Topics)

If you have been in one of America’s 50 states lately, you might have seen Ellen Jovin.

In 2018, Jovin had a burst of inspiration. A lifelong grammar nerd, she decided to set up a table in Manhattan and answer questions about grammar.

Really.

Why didn’t I think of that?

Sitting at the 72nd Street subway station on the Upper West Side or near Central Park, she hung out a sign inviting passers-by to ask questions about periods and prepositions, colons and semicolons, run-on sentences and Oxford commas, and a whole lot more. Most people, of course, just walk on. New Yorkers are in a hurry, you know. But many stopped by—first out of curiosity, then with real problems to solve and arguments to press.

When she became a regular presence, Jovin got some media attention. Then she got a book contract. Then she took a 50-state tour to expose America to her passions.

Ellen Jovin is a cofounder of Syntaxis, a communication skills training consultancy, and the author of four books on language—the most recent one being the bestseller Rebel with a Clause: Tales and Tips from a Roving Grammarian (HarperCollins, July 2022). Her other books include Writing for Business, English at Work,* and Essential Grammar for Business.

She earned a B.A. from Harvard College in German studies and an M.A. from the University of California at Los Angeles in comparative literature. For grins, she has studied 25 languages. She lives with her husband, Brandt Johnson, not far from the World Headquarters of the Grammar Table in New York.

I first saw you outside the 72nd Street subway station in New York. Your popup table reminded me of Lucy’s setup on “Peanuts.” What made you think of turning writing and grammar into a public event? Is it even more than that— performance art, for example?

I never had any inclination to be a performer, so I’d say no to the performance art idea. I happen to love talking to strangers, and I love talking about grammar and language, and I was sick of being online so many hours a day. I wanted to be outside, in light and air and with people. Those were my main reasons.

What is fascinating to you about the mechanics of writing? Do you see writing as a kind of system or machine? Or is it about relationships?

I am drawn to excellent writing for its art and beauty, and I am also drawn to—and delighted by—the technical details. On complicated projects, I tend to write a whole bunch of stuff quickly, creating a big, chaotic mess many times longer than I need, and then I clean it up by going through that chaotic mess hundreds of times. When I edit my work, I suppose I am often thinking about the pieces of a sentence in a technical way, but it is so automatic that it doesn’t feel separate to me from the aesthetic qualities.

Someone recently asked me about a subject-verb agreement problem in a sentence, and I responded that it was technically correct but hard to read because the subject plus modifiers contained eighteen words—three prepositional phrases and one relative clause with a total of six different nouns and pronouns that shifted back and forth from singular to plural—so even though the verb was technically right, it was a failure stylistically. My impression is that I experience style more technically than most writers do.

Who are your favorite writers and why? How do these authors speak to you? How much is intellectual and how much is emotional?

I don’t have favorite writers, at least not now. I love so many. One of my most joyful experiences as a reader was when I was in my mid-twenties. I had just left graduate school in Los Angeles and moved to New York, and I could suddenly read whatever I wanted without having to take exams and write papers with deadlines, and I was constantly excited about it. Those first couple of years I regularly bought books on the street at St. Mark’s Place.

I read dozens of novels, many of them English-language novels that English majors might have read in college but that I hadn’t, because I wasn’t an English major. Instead I had studied German and then comparative literature. I had already done a lot of reading in various other literatures, and in English I had intentionally read a lot of works outside of the traditional canon, and I loved all of it, but there were so many books left for me to read by some of the standard big names in English literature.

It was like living in a magic land to be able to plow through book after book by Edith Wharton, all the Brontës, Dreiser, Thackeray. Thomas Hardy, George Eliot, Dickens, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Arthur Conan Doyle, Oscar Wilde, and a whole lot of others. For a small amount of money, way smaller than the cost of a television, I could buy compactly packaged worlds of words off the street.

OK, now I am wondering if frequenting book stalls in the early 1990s made me more likely to have a Grammar Table. Never thought of that before. Hmmm.

Oh, and the feeling is both intellectual and emotional. It’s a soaring feeling of joy like the one I get when I climb a steep trail and then get to look down at spectacular scenery below.

I’ve always thought that grammar is easy—or easy enough to write well—once you care. So the challenge, in mastering writing, is to care. Just like kids easily memorize sports statistics and teenagers remember arcane song lyrics, we master what we pay real attention to. Angela Lunsford at Stanford argues that people are better writers today because they have more opportunities to find an audience. What do you think of these musings?

How delightful to hear that! I say that all the time, though I think the benefits are not distributed evenly across personality type. I personally think social media transformed my writing life. It gave me free daily outlets for creativity and a way to geek out about grammar and language with people around the world. It’s because of Facebook that I ended up in tons of online language groups, and that’s how I got sucked into too much computer time, and that in turn has a lot to do with how I ended up outside at the Grammar Table.

Even now I still love discussing language topics on social media, and Twitter and Mastodon are fantastic for language polls about usage and punctuation and grammar. One thing about the online audience: To benefit fully, you have to have empathy and enough training or innate writing sophistication that you can actually pick up on the details of reader responses and the reasons for them. It is also far from automatic that well-intentioned, thoughtful people know how not to feel devastated when other people are mean.

Regarding what you said about caring: Yes, caring is key. How you make young people (or anyone) care about certain useful topics they tend not to care about automatically is an endless instructional and motivational challenge. I always loved grammar, even when I was in grade school. It tickled my brain. I was fortunate enough to have great instruction from first grade through the end of my education, but on top of that, grammar was like the idea equivalent of ice cream for me. I just wanted it. I didn’t want to perform in school plays—I wanted to do more sentence diagramming.

What surprises you about the questions people ask and how they get invested in the writing process? Can you think of two or three strange (or just memorable) characters you have met on your travels?

I am not surprised all that often, at least not in this realm. I’ve been around a while, you know! But because I have not spent a lot of time in the South, those Grammar Table stops were among my favorite—and for me the most educational.

A man in New Orleans didn’t like that object pronouns were called object pronouns. He thought that was dehumanizing and suggested that I, as a language professional, might be in a position to do something about picking less objectifying grammatical terms. I enjoyed that.

And then there was the construction worker I met in Decatur, Alabama, who was obsessed with punctuation and apostrophes, who loved calligraphy, and who was thoroughly annoyed by people who wrote “ya’ll” rather than “y’all.” He surprised me.

So you have now been in all 50 states with your amazing road show. What do regional differences tell you about writing—about what varies and why, and also about what is the same everywhere?

People move around a lot in this country, so everywhere I went, I met people from somewhere else. Mostly people had similar questions across state borders. In Ohio I was asked about the status of “ain’t” twice—more than in any other state—and I was also asked what I meant by “grammar” more in the South than elsewhere, but I don’t make much of the former (it’s not statistically significant) or much of the latter either.

I don’t think people understood less about grammar in the South, but it would make sense if a word associated with judgmental editorial orthodoxy were approached more tentatively in a region whose dialects are often picked on by the rest of the US.

How can mastery of grammar and mechanics help people to find their own distinctive style? Do you see this with your favorite writers?

When I look at a piece of writing, I really cannot tell how the writers got there. Was that cool sentence with a record-challenging string of opening dependent clauses leading up to a single punchy, zingy independent clause thought through grammatically by the writer and intentionally structured that way? Could the writer name the grammatical elements? And how much did an editor rewrite the person’s work? No idea.

I am confident that most skilled writers feel their way through sentences rather than engage in clause-counting. That’s true for me too, most of the time, and I think it’s the way it should be. Our grammatical explanations followed language; they didn’t predate it. I just happen to like supplementing my instincts with super-geeky technical analyses. Everyone has their hobbies.

Being closer to language and more aware of language, however you choose to acquire that awareness, helps people become more themselves in writing. Getting older helps a lot too. On average, people become more likely to say what they want to say as they age. Therefore, I recommend aging.

OK, seriously: How in the world can anyone ever not use the Oxford comma? It’s bad enough that some editors disdain it. You could write that off as a personal quirk. But for style guides to ban the O-comma is unthinkable and even unconscionable. What does that tell you about human nature?

Nice try, Charlie, but you are not going to get me to stop sticking up for the people who omit it. Despite the memes and public disputes and even litigation, I remain attached to my agnosticism on this point. “I ate carrots, celery and cucumbers” means exactly the same thing as “I ate carrots, celery, and cucumbers.” I currently use the Oxford comma, and I usually like it, and I sometimes even insist on it, but this is not an issue that rouses my passion.

Is the phone ruining people’s reading experience by making it so easy to get off to read a text, search a topic, or check social media? 

Ugh, this question distresses me. I am struggling with this issue. I don’t want to discuss it publicly right now. I will come back when I am emotionally prepared to look at the damage caused to my attention span.

*Sorry, Ellen, the Oxford Comma is not optional.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

Paco Underhill on Shopping, Observing, and Writing

Paco Underhill, the son of a diplomat, turned his liabilities as a boy into his greatest assets.

Underhill grew up on the move as his father took new postings with the State Department. Living in Poland and Malaysia, he did not experience the retail riches of Western life. Partly because of his itinerant life and partly because of a childhood stutter, he learned to observe his surroundings carefully.

He developed those powers of observation even more acutely as a city planner, working for the Project for Public Spaces under the direction of the legendary William (“Holly”) Whyte. Underhill then created a consulting firm called Envirosell that analyzes how people use stores, museums, and other public and private places. Using direct observation, time-lapse photography, interviews, and data, Underhill and his team identify ways to make the shopping experience more engaging to users and more lucrative to retailers.

Since its founding in 1986, Envirosell has worked in 50 countries and with more than one-third of all Fortune 100 companies. He has worked in all sectors, in virtual as well as brick-and-mortar environments.

Underhill’s new book How We Eat offers a friendly guide not just to the shopping experience, but also to the larger issues of food, e.g., organic versus mass farming, small versus supermarket buying, home cooking versus prepared foods, and varieties of diets and eating traditions. Like his previous books—Why We Buy, Call of the Mall, and What Women WantHow We Eat offers insights into the everyday design decisions that shape human behavior.

Winston Churchill once remarked: “First we make the buildings, then the buildings make us.” Underhill offers a methodology for remaking the spaces of our lives. The $1 trillion food industry makes us, for sure; but with the right insights, we can also redesign the systems that produce and sell food

Underhill, a graduate of Vassar College, lives in New York City and Madison, Connecticut.

You started your career as a city planner and analyst—using time-lapse photography to track how people behave in public spaces. How did that come about?

I went to Columbia for a summer and in one of my classes heard a lecture by Holly Whyte. As I walked out, I thought, “Man, this is so cool.” It was a way to observe people and understand how the built environment worked. It made complete sense.

After I heard him lecture for 45 minutes, I knew what I wanted to do. And then I ran my own study. I looked at a pedestrian mall in Poughkeepsie and how the street furniture and signs worked. Then I knocked on his door: “Hello, you don’t know me, but I just did this…” That’s how I got my first job. That’s when the Project for Public Spaces was just launching. I became the first staff member. One of my first jobs was working at Rockefeller Center.

Holly Whyte was a magical guy. He had a gift of gab. I saw him entrance people at least 100 times after that first lecture. I learned about how he wrote and presented himself.

How did you make the transition from city planning to retail analysis?

I was a junior member of a crew that would go to different cities and look at traffic patterns and rewrite zoning ordinances. I was on the roof of the Seafirst Bank building in Seattle, 60 stories up, and there was a stiff wind blowing. My job was to install cameras and I could feel the building rocking. I did what I had to do, but I would rather have a job where I don’t have to go into the roofs of buildings.

A week later I was in a bank and getting madder by the moment and realized that the same tools I used to explore cities, I could use to understand a bank or a store or an airport or a museum or a hospital and deconstruct how they worked. I had never worked in banking or retail or even took a business course. But I knew something about how to measure how people move. It also helped that I came to it with a certain degree of freshness.

A lot of observations seem obvious after the fact—but they are fresh insights at first.

One of my jobs was analyzing a Burger King and its new salad bar. It was in the early 1980s in Miami. Yes, my job was to look at the salad bar, I was going to look at the entire pad. There were so many things that were painfully obvious, but to the marketing research team, were just completely new and different. When a man walks into a Burger King, the way he chooses a table is different than the way a woman does it. We tracked who parks in the lot and who goes through the drive-through. If you drove a Cadillac, you would use the drive-through. That’s obvious but no one had noted it before.

There are implications in terms of design and management. I started with restaurants, then worked on hardware stores, music stores, fashion, then food. I was able to come up with [store design changes] that someone could do in a week or two or even overnight. Business in those days was focused on strategy—McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group. I was able to say, “Here are five things you can adjust and make a difference.”

Some of it was comic. The first hardware store, I said the brochures are in the wrong place. They let me move them but at the end of the first day the manager yelled at me: “You’ve gotten rid of a week’s work of circulars in one day!” One of the first drugstores, I asked, “Why are the baskets only at the front door?” I showed them video clips with customers walking to the register with their arms full. What if we trained staff so that when they see someone with four things in their hands, the customer would get a basket? We did it and the average purchase went up 18 percent.

How did you learn how to observe carefully?

Growing up I had a terrible stutter. As we moved every 18 months or two years, I was more confident looking and trying to understand how things worked than asking questions. So I took a coping mechanism and turned it into a profession.

I also remember looking at Sears and Roebuck catalogues—toys and furniture and all these things. Nothing in Warsaw duplicated that catalogue. Going into Germany during a family trip, getting into the first PX, it was a world I had never seen before. I am not a material kind of guy, but I do have a passion about understanding how things work.

How can we train ourselves to make careful observations?

When I taught field work at City University, we were right across from Bryant Park. I would pick one person from the class and say, “I want you to go and walk around Bryant Park for 15 minutes and come back and tell us what you did. After he left I would pick out someone else and say, “I want you to go follow him and record what he did.” Then they would come back and we would contrast what the two reported. There were obvious differences. People didn’t lie but what they said and did was often completely different.

What kinds of habits—and what kinds of people—make for good observation?

Over the last 34 years I sent out crews of trackers all over the world. When I’m in an environment observing, I have to be very careful after doing it for an hour—I haven’t seen what I need to see. It’s often the second or third day when you really see and understand. So a lot of it is a Zen-like state of patience.

One man did 500 missions for me. He had a short career as a guitar player in a prominent early 90s band called Codeine. It had its own distinct beat. He became a kindergarten teacher. I found him doing substitute teaching and he was so patient and so observant and so rhythmic, with a slow steady beat, and he was so empathetic.

I also had an Endicott Prize-winning illustrator of children’s books. He would work for me for nine months and then he would come in and say, “Disney just optioned one of my books, I need to take some time off.” So he would go and then come back when he was ready. I would rather have someone great for 60 percent of the time than someone not as good 100 percent of the time.

How did you develop as a writer? How did you develop your informal, avuncular style?

In my early college years, I had a wall in my dorm filled with rejection letters. I wrote stories and even poems. I wrote fiction into my 20s. I took the skill set I learned writing fiction and used it in my nonfiction writing.

There are nonfiction writers who are trying to show how smart they are. I firmly believe in edutainment. If I can entertain you, I can educate you. I want to change readers’ prescriptions [lenses] in how they see the world.

How do you break down and manage major writing projects?

I have always been a writer of columns. The form I feel most comfortable is a 2,000- to 3000-word piece. People’s attention spans aren’t the same that they were when Charles Dickens wrote his books. Therefore, when I think of a book, it isn’t 12 chapters, it’s actually 50. I’ve broken it down so it’s easy for someone to pick up the book, read for a while and put it down and not feel as if they’re missing anything.

To write How We Eat, I had 40 columns, 50,000 words already written. It was a matter of piecing them all together. I learned from writing reports, it’s important to create a framework to start out. It isn’t as if you start at the beginning and go to the end. Get a frame and put pieces into that frame.

The modern book isn’t measured in pages; it’s measured in words. I was informed early in my career that to get read, a book needs to be 70,000 words.

Also, I also recognize that I need to keep vocabulary simple. As a column writer, I’ve been very careful about use of adjectives and adverbs. I should say careful, not very careful.

I have always been a storyteller. Being able to take business or nonfiction knowledge and do it as a story is very reader-friendly. There are a couple of sections where it goes from being a monologue to a dialogue. That’s part of what pleased me—the transition between one and the other. It makes it m more informal. It’s storytelling.

What writers have you admired and emulated?

I always loved the fiction writer James Lee Burk. He could describe smell better than anybody I knew. His books are formulaic, but he can go on for 1,000 words describing a smell.

Then there’s the foreign service man, Edward Hall, who write The Hidden Dimension and The Silent Language. Growing up in a third world country, even as a teenager I didn’t have TV. I consumed a prodigious amount of books—60 to 80 a year.

How did How We Eat develop?

When COVID hit, I had been working on the manuscript for over a year and had to take 60 percent and throw it out. A year ago, after having been battered by COVID, I gave Envirosell to my young employees and shifted to being a strategic advisor. That means my platform is a lot freer because I don’t have to worry about stepping on toes.

This book feels lighter—the style and flow and personality—than Why We Buy. Am I right about that?

That’s a very conscious effort. The purpose is to get to a healthier version of ourselves and our planet. I’m not going to tell you what to do but I can change the prescription [lens] by which you see the world. In changing that, you able to make better decisions. I was also aware I wanted to write for a popular audience. Everybody eats and drinks and buys food and beverages. Why We Buy targeted a certain audience and What Women Want targeted a specific audience. This one was targeting everyone.

Hollywood uses the “logline” to describe the essence of a film—a simple one-sentence line about the major character or mission. What’s your logline?

Mine would be: I want to change your prescription to get to a healthier version of yourself and create a healthier planet.

When COVID hit, we recognized that the world was going through a fundamental change. It wasn’t World War II breaking out, but it was global and there was a great deal of hurt. And it affected the structure of our own lives. I realized I don’t want to write a negative book. I don’t want to say, “Oh, man, are we screwed!” I wanted to write a positive and enlightening and challenging book.

The word I kept using is “post-pan.” I want to focus on the post-pandemic period. It will be over at some point. There are going to be some big changes and we need to be ready for them.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

Naming Right: A Chance to Fix a Mistake by the Lake

Cleveland’s major league baseball team, known for decades as the Indians, struck out by taking the name the Guardians.

It’s hard to think of a blander moniker, especially for a gritty city like Cleveland with such a great baseball tradition. Seriously, the name was inspired by a statue on a bridge that no one cares about beyond, say, the Scranton Flats.

Zzzzz.

Paul Dolan, the team’s owner, explained the new name thus: “Cleveland has and always will be the most important part of our identity. Therefore, we wanted a name that strongly represents the pride, resiliency, and loyalty of Clevelanders. ‘Guardians’ reflects those attributes that define us while drawing on the iconic Guardians of Traffic just outside the ballpark on the Hope Memorial Bridge.”

Zzzzz.

But Clevelanders might have a chance for a do-over. A local roller derby team with the same name has sued the Not-the-Indians-Much-Longer-But-Maybe-Not-the-Guardians-Either in federal court for a violation of its trademark.

“Major League Baseball would never let someone name their lacrosse team the ‘Chicago Cubs’ if the team was in Chicago, or their soccer team the ‘New York Yankees’ if that team was in New York – nor should they,” said Christopher Pardo, the lead attorney for the real Cleveland Guardians. “The same laws that protect Major League Baseball from the brand confusion that would occur in those examples also operate in reverse to prevent what the Indians are trying to do here.”

I doubt anyone will confuse the rollers and the ballers, but the suit gives the former Indians team a chance to get the name right.

Every writer knows the important of giving characters the most fitting names. Consider a few examples:

  • The Dickens character Ebenezer Scrooge, from A Christmas Carol, sounds a lot like miser and screw, which is what he does to people before his Christmas Eve epiphany.
  • Gradgrinds, from Dickens’s Great Expectations, is a school superintendent who cares nothing about the souls of his students–only in disciplining them for their soulless lives ahead.
  • Holly Golightly, from Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s, sounds as airy as her character.
  • Big Brother, from Orwell’s 1984, conveys the message brutally and clearly, with just enough irony to make the concept chilling.
  • Lolita, from Vladimir Nabakov’s novel of that name, is best explained by the author himself: “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.”
  • Hannibal Lecter, from Thomas Harris’s Silence of the Lambs, sounds a lot like cannibal, which he is. It also evokes the Carthaginian general Hannibal known for his exploitive and uncaring attitude toward his own troops.

Naming can provide a memorable handle for characters. The same goes for place names. Can you imagine Los Angeles being called Buffalo or vice versa? No. Those names belong with those places. A good name rolls off the tongue and sounds like the character or place. Every time you hear the name, you are reminded of their qualities and lit’ry appeal.

The original Cleveland Feller

So what should the Cleveland team be called? That’s easy: The Cleveland Fellers. By far, the team’s greatest player was Bob Feller, the Hall of Fame pitcher who won 266 games from 1936 to 1956, an 18-year career interrupted by two years of service in World War II.

First, I was rooting for the team to be called the Rockers, which would create countless cross-marketing opportunities with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Can you imagine a Rockies-Rockers World Series? Neither can I, but still …

Rapid Robert Feller deserves the honor. No one ever performed better for the Cleveland Nine and no one better embodied the values of the Clevelanders or the game of baseball.

“I would rather beat the Yankees regularly than pitch a no hit game,” said the twirler of three no-hitters.

“I’m no hero,” he said of his service in the war. “Heroes don’t come back. Survivors return home. Heroes never come home. If anyone thinks I’m a hero, I’m not.”

“My father kept me busy from dawn to dusk when I was a kid. When I wasn’t pitching hay, hauling corn or running a tractor, I was heaving a baseball into his mitt behind the barn… If all the parents in the country followed his rule, juvenile delinquency would be cut in half in a year’s time.”

Talk about good Midwestern values. Corny as heck, but worthwhile.

And imagine the wordplay: “I know my Fellers will bounce back from this tough loss,” manager Terry Francona said. Or how about getting a player named Rocco: A Rocky Feller. The zany players would be called the Odd Fellers, natch, after the old fraternal organization. Rhymes will be fun too: the Stellar Fellers, the Killer Fellers, and the Cellar-Dweller Fellers. Cheer leaders could be called Feller Yellers. At the trade deadline, they’d be the Seller Fellers. The PR staff and broadcasters would be the Feller Tellers.

Once upon a time, teams regularly named themselves after people. The Cleveland Browns were named for the Brown family that owned the team. The Indians themselves were named, some believe, to honor a onetime Native American player. The practice is rich in international football (soccer to rubes). Argentina’s Club Atlético Aldosivi comes from the first two letters of the last names of the team’s founders: Allard, Dollfus, Sillard and Wiriott (typewriters then had no W, so the team used a V instead).

When you have a person whose name embodies everything that is great about a team, city, and tradition, do it.

While we’re at it, let’s name the Washington Football Team the Georges. America’s first president deserves the honor. The helmet practically designs itself. Let’s fill the stadium with powder-wigged fans.

But back to the city on the south edge of Lake Erie. (Note to self: Don’t call Cleveland the “Mistake by the Lake” and don’t talk about the lake catching on fire. They hate that.)

Dear Paul Dolan: Not many people get a chance to recover from such a lame decision like the Guardians name. Take advantage of the moment. Be a clever Feller.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Will Storr on Storytelling, Writing, and the Brain

Will Storr is England’s Malcolm Gladwell–a polymath who uses stories to explore complex and compelling ideas. His books include The Heretics, Selfie, Will Storr vs. The Supernatural, and the Science of Storytelling. His latest, The Status Game, will be released in September. His is also author of a novel called The Hunger and The Howling of Killian Lone.

Everything Storr does informs his other work. The Heretics have him the idea for The Science of Storytelling, which in turn informed his research for The Status Game.

When not working on his own work, Storr teaches writing seminars to audiences ranging from journalists to members of the European parliament.

Charlie Euchner: How can we take the insights from brain science and behavioral science and apply it to the process of writing stories?

Will Storr: About 10 years ago, I was working on a book called the Unpersuadables about why clever people believe crazy things. And the answer, in a nutshell, is that the brain is not a logic processor—it’s a story processor. The brain makes us this hero at the center of the world and we’re overcoming.

I was also working on my first novel. I realized that what the experts were saying about stories were the same things the scientists were telling me about how the brain works. It was the big lightbulb moment. Then I started thinking, well, maybe I can use it to make my own storytelling better.

The basic idea is that the brain is a storyteller and the way it processes reality itself has a story. We are a hero overcoming obstacles. We experience life in three acts, with a crisis, a struggle, and resolution. And that’s why we tell stories. So if that’s true, then these great story theorists have got to have some basis in science.

CE: Aristotle’s Poetics—from 2,500 years ago—still offers a brilliant overview of this. He got it right.

WS: I’m currently writing a book about status and [Aristotle] crops up in there as well. This man was just unbelievably smart. The things that he was coming up a couple thousand years ago! In all these different areas, he’s now being proven right–and wrong in some too. He was quite extraordinary.

CE: When you started to look into the techniques of storytelling, before you got into the brain research, who were you reading?

WS: The big three were Robert McKee, Christopher Booker, and John Yorke. Christopher Booker was the main one. For all of them, [the message] is to the focus on structure, structure, structure. If you compare all the stories that are successful, what they’ve got in common is structure. There are all kind of recipe books. …

But there’s another way. If you take a character-first approach, the plot is designed for the character, rather than starting with the plot and then thinking of a character to plug into it.

CE: The character is where the energy comes from. You can have a perfectly plotted piece, but if you don’t care about the characters and if they have no energy and if you can predict everything they say, the plot is just one damn thing after another—and not a process of exciting exploration and danger and risk-taking.

WS: If you can imagine Breaking Bad with a [poorly drawn] character, it would have completely flopped. For me Walter White was the perfect character—a low-status, embittered, scared character. Breaking Bad was great because of Walter White.

CE: So plot can actually get in the way of a story, without a great character.

WS: For me it’s that marriage of plot and character. When I’m teaching students, they have this great idea. They say, ‘This happens and then this happens, then this happens.’ I say, ‘Well, who does it happen to?’ And they’re not sure. They’re vague or it’s a version of them. They’ve got carried away with plot, plot, plot. They’re convinced they’ve got this bestseller but they haven’t got the character. What matters is our goals in life—the things that we want more than anything, which come out of our character.

We are all flawed characters and we always butt up against our flaws. The plot has to be specifically designed to connect with the characters’ flaws and then test it. Or if it’s a tragedy, make them double down on it. Define your character’s flawed idea about the world in one line, preferably.

At the end of the first season of Fleabag, the [lead character] has this great cathartic moment where she realizes what her problem is—and that is that she only sees herself as a sexual creature, that’s her only value. That problem has created all of the drama. She had sex with her best friend’s boyfriend and her best friend killed herself and that’s destroyed everything. So you begin with that very specific character and that specific flaw.

Another example is The Godfather. Michael’s flaw is his belief that he’s not a gangster. And then his father is assassinated and that tests him. Or in Jaws, the shark comes and starts eating everybody. The protagonist Brody, who is terrified of water, can’t go near it. So that shark, coming into his patch, connects specifically with his flaw and tests it and forces him wrestle with his deepest fears.

So the hero has a flaw and something happens to test it. Once people have done that, the plot thing becomes so much clearer.

CE: When you say flaw, it’s the false story you tell about yourself. It’s like the myth that you believe and live by, which causes you to do all these flawed things. Is that, is that fair to say?

WS: That’s definitely, that’s brilliant. But yeah, the flawed belief about the world.

CE: Your discussion of Lawrence of Arabia was especially powerful. His myth about himself was true in lots of ways. That’s why the myth is so tenacious and why it’s such a worthy adversary—because it actually works, until it doesn’t. Is that what you’re getting at?

WS: Yeah. I ghostwrote a book a couple of years ago for Ant Middleton, who’s a celebrity over here. He used to be in the special forces. I asked why he wanted to do it. “Well,” he said, “I want to be the best.” But why? “Why wouldn’t I want to be the best?” he said. So I asked again. “Because I wanted to be tested.” OK, so why do you want to be tested? Was there somebody in your childhood that made you feel that you had to be the best? And then he tells this amazing story. His father died when he was five. Then the evil stepdad comes along; it’s like a fairy story. He insisted that his kids become the best on pain of physical punishment. And I said to him, you know, would it be fair to say that when you were growing up, you were taught that we’re only safe if you are the best under all circumstances?

And he sort of leaped and said, “Yes, that is exactly it!” And that’s how it works. The idea that “I have to be the best, I am the best,” saved his life. It drove him to incredible heights. Being in the FAS, it’s incredibly difficult. He was in Afghanistan and he was the point man. He was responsible for landing in Afghanistan, 2 in the morning, walking to a Taliban compound and killing somebody and then going home again. You know, he was a tough bastard and they’d be shooting with an AK-47. But he had absolute confidence in his ability. That absolute confidence, he said, saved his life. He sincerely believed that he was invincible. He could dodge bullets—that’s what he said, “I can dodge bullets so that I am the best.” But then once he’s out of the army, he becomes his own worst enemy because he’s not the best anymore. He’s just a guy. And he gets into an argument with a police officer who’s treats him with a certain amount of contempt and he picks him up and he throws him on the floor and he knocks him out and ends up in prison for 18 months.

So that’s how the sacred flaw works. It’s the character’s best friend—but then, usually at a break point, it suddenly it becomes an enemy. And that’s why it’s drama. It’s, “Oh my God, I can’t live this way anymore.”

This myth, as you put it, by which I’ve been living my life and has given me everything that I value, becomes untenable. That’s what happens in great storytelling

CE: Speaking of flaws … Is there a flaw that’s common for writers starting out?

WS: Two of them. The first one is defining your character without specificity, without the understanding that they’ve got to go on a journey of change and they’ve got to be flawed.

CE: The other writer’s flaw?

WS: The second one is related—that you don’t need to know about plot, about structure and process.

I was on a panel at a literary festival and people asked, “What’s your process?” And every single panelist, apart from me, said, ‘Oh, I just imagine a character and see where the character takes me,” and I just don’t believe it. I’m sure some people can write like that and end up with a publishable story. But there’s a lot of bullshit published. And there’s a lot of mythmaking. When [writers say] you’ve just got to close your eyes and let the magic emerge, I think it’s almost cruel, you know?

CE: In your work, you use a process that I call yo-yoing—moving back and forth from scene to summary, back and forth. In The Science of Storytelling, you’ll have several pages where you dig into the brain science and your thinking about technique, which is abstract and not so emotional, right? Then you break away and talk about Lawrence of Arabia or Remains of the Day or other works. You are an explainer on one side, but you are also a storyteller.

WS: The brain wants change. So if you’re going on for three paragraphs about one thing, you need to switch.

In The Science of Storytelling, I had to explain some abstract, complicated ideas. Having the novels and the films is such useful way of describing this complicated brain stuff. It was a real gift to be able to describe confabulation by using Citizen Kane. Storytellers are great because before the scientists got, they understood how this.

CE: Scientists—Darwin, Einstein, Stephen Hawking—have a knack for storytelling. To understand time, Einstein talked about standing on a platform and imagining when lightning struck the top of the train. He was seeing in pictures. He wasn’t seeing equations. Only later did he translate the pictures into equations. So there was a dialogue between the abstract and the concrete.

WS: Jonathan Haidt’s a great communicator as well because he really understands the power of simplicity. The way he communicates complex ideas is just absolutely fantastic. So does Richard Dawkins.

CE: Let’s talk about detail and precision. I’m not sure how well people understand the need to amass enormous volumes of information.

When the average person walks into a room, they don’t see much that’s interesting, at least right away. They just see what they expect to see. As a writer, you have to stay there and just keep observing. You have to collect the most specific details about the character, about the background, about the room, about the conflict, about the other characters, about the situation, about the fears—the more details you get, you get all the building materials you need to build your house.

A lot of writers have an idea of what they want to say. But if they don’t have enough details, it’s like not having enough bricks to build the house and doesn’t stand up. It seems to me that a lot of what you’re talking about in your book is the power of precision—and that requires a lot of work.

WS: There’s precision on two levels. First, the more specific you are about a character at the beginning of a book, the more that character is going to explode out of that story.

In Lawrence of Arabia, he’s a very specific character. He’s an arrogant guy who thinks he’s extraordinary and that’s it. That’s Lawrence of Arabia. But when you put him through all that drama of the war, in all of these different scenarios, he becomes an incredibly complex, realistic character.

So there’s a paradox. I get pushback when I’m trying to define the character in a line or two. People say it’s simplistic. But it really isn’t—there’s something magical about it. You need to be precise about who the character is because you haven’t got the space to write someone’s whole life. You have to write about a precise character.

Also, when you are writing about a precise character, your book becomes about a precise idea. It becomes a deep investigation about how life should be lived. Ira Glass of This American Life once had a mentor who said that all story is an answer to the question: How should I live my life?

I think that’s really true. That’s what that precision in a character gives you. Your character represents a way of living life. And the story is a test of that idea of that—how should I live my life? How is this person living their life? And how is it working out for them? What does it mean? What are the ramifications?

Take Remains of the Day. In a really specific way, it’s about the whole English, stiff-upper-lip, cold, emotionless life. Stevens is very precise. He believes in emotional restraint—those two words, that’s him. That whole book brings out those two words, but it’s incredibly complex and nuanced—and believable. So that’s the first thing about precision.

CE: And the other way to think about precision?

WS: We read books and watch movies and the information comes into our brains in the form of words. The brain reconstructs the world that you’re describing. It’s much more automatic if you give specific details. If you say a monster, your brain doesn’t know what model to use. That’s why we “show, don’t tell.” If you’re just using abstract words, the brain can’t model it accurately.

CE: Then your brain compares the details to its vast database of other monsters. Then the story becomes a process of co-creation. You the author give that detailed portrait of the monster—it could be a dragon or it could be a sadist in a cabin in the woods. But you need to reader to relate it to something that they know. Even if they’ve never had to deal with a dragon or deal with a creep guy in a cabin in the woods, it becomes real to them because they connect something they know with something they don’t notice.

WS: Absolutely. That’s that beautiful thing. As you say, great art is an act of co-creation.

CE: Now let’s talk about the Two Plus Two Rule. If I say two plus two and immediately tell you it equals four, that’s an insult to you. But if I say two plus two and let you conclude, oh yes, that’s four, then the story is a lot more powerful. If I give you three details about that monster in the in the cabin in the woods, you can conclude yourself something about that character. But if I tell you what it means, it takes away the joy.

WS: You can’t spell everything out because then the reader has got nothing to do. The brain is a prediction engine. If the prediction’s unsure, that’s really fun. If there’s nothing to predict, there’s no participation from the reading brain. The more literary you get, the more writing is about hints and clues—the more gaps there are to fill. On Chesil Beach, by Ian McEwan, has very little actual story in it: A couple has bad sex and then breaks up. All the rest of it is like a smorgasbord of clues about what is it that triggered this terrible eventuality and why it’s there.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

The Quietest Hero: Remembering Bob Moses

The first time I met Bob Moses, I was sitting in a lecture hall with a group of more than 100 puzzled students at Holy Cross College.

The college invited Moses to speak to the First-Year Program. In that program, students in a wide range of classes–philosophy, history, theater, math, physics, the languages–grappled with a common question. The question that year was: “In a world bound by convention, how then shall we live?”

Robert Parris Moses, who died on July 25 at the age of 86, grappled with both sides of that question his whole life.

The convention ruling black lives then was not just oppressive and violent, but intellectually and emotionally crippling as well: Either accept the idea of white superiority, living submissively with your own kind in a segregated and unequal world, or face vicious retribution.

Moses was awakened in 1960. Teaching at a prep school in the Bronx, the 25-year-old Moses followed the exploits of the student sit-in movement with awe.

“Before, the Negro in the South had always looked on the defensive, cringing,” he later said. “This time they were taking the initiative. They were kids my age, and I knew this had something to do with my own life.”

Bob Moses went to Mississippi, the most violent of all the old Confederate states, and took up the challenge. Joining the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, he worked to register voters in the isolated towns where blacks had never been encouraged to speak or act for themselves. White mobs attacked him and cops arrested him. In Greenwood, sitting in the passenger seat of a car, bullets missed him but hit the driver and he had to steer the car to safety. In Liberty, someone attacked him with a knife as he was leading a small group to register at a courthouse. Bloodied, he was arrested; when he pressed charges, his assailant was acquitted by an all-white jury on the grounds that he had provoked the attack by assuming a threatening stance.

In 1964 Moses was the leader of Mississippi Freedom Summer, perhaps the most audacious moment of the civil rights movement. Hundreds of white students came into the state to register voters and lead freedom schools. The campaign led to countless attacks, including the murders of James Cheney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman, which put a glaring spotlight on violence in the system of segregation. Later, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moses also helped to organize the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, a democratically elected slate of delegates that demanded to be seated at the party’s 1964 national convention in Atlantic City. They lost that battle–the convention seated the traditional slate of segregationists–but that challenge transformed the Democratic Party. Before, it accepted segregation; after, it rejected segregation.

Back to that moment at Holy Cross.

Moses stood in front of the lecture hall and described a lynching in which (not uncommonly) crowds gathered to watch and celebrate, even photographing themselves near the hanged, charred corpse. He read a letter by a witness, who described the moment in detail, without a trace of understanding or care.

Moses asked students for a response and then fell silent.

Confused, students shifted in their seats. Their eyes darted to each other and to their professors. They expected (as did we all) an inspiring account of heroic exploits. Moses was defying this convention. Finally, the long, awkward silence broke and students began to talk. Moses stood and watched and listened. Some students later felt disappointed that they did not get their expected burst of inspiration; others walked out transformed. Moses had given them the ultimate lesson: You are responsible. You can’t wait on others. You need to find your own voice. In your own way, you need to face the brutality of this world.

That’s how he operated in the movement. He was the quietest of all movement leaders. Taylor Branch, Martin Luther King’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer, said: “Moses pioneered an alternative style of leadership from the princely church leader that King epitomized. … He is really the father of grass-roots organizing — not the Moses summoning his people on the mountaintop as King did but, ironically, the anti-Moses, going door to door, listening to people, letting them lead.”

Moses understood, as activists often forget, that the greatest resource in any struggle is the people themselves. They have the intelligence and strength to resist; the organizer’s job is to help them understand, develop, and exercise their own power. The greatest leaders are themselves servants who help others to become leaders.

In Mississippi, Moses found activists in isolated hamlets by bouncing a ball. He knew that blacks had been terrorized for generations and faced abuse if they stood up for their rights. If he approached them cold—knocking on doors, talking with them in stores or fields or churches—they might be too scared to talk. So he stood on street corners and bounced a ball. That attracted a crowd of kids. Then, inevitably, the ball got away. “Before long,” Moses explained, “it runs under someone’s porch and then you meet the adults.’’

If King was the Moses of the movement, as Taylor Branch said, Moses was the King of the movement in Mississippi. He was revered because he knew how to listen and guide people to become their best selves. In fact, hearing him often took great effort. He spoke so softly that you had to lean in and really focus on what he was saying. Since he was not nearly as voluble as others, what he said really mattered.

I met Moses again as I was researching my book Nobody Turn Me Around: A People’s History of the 1963 March on Washington. We met in Cambridge, where he was leading the Algebra Project, an effort to bring math literacy to blacks and poor people everywhere. He talked so softly that when I got home, I had to play the tape on a speaker, crank up the volume, and listen intently.

That conversation covered all the familiar topics. But to me, the most telling moment came when I minimized the importance of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The law established the civil rights division in the Justice Department and empowered federal officials to prosecute people who conspired to deny others’ right to vote. But the law did nothing to open schools or public accommodations or voting booths to black Americans.

Moses corrected me. That law made a bolder civil rights movement possible, he said, by giving activists a “crawl space” in the government. If a later president was sympathetic to civil rights, the activists could develop relations with the civil rights people in the DOJ. And so when John Kennedy became president, he sent John Doar and John Siegenthaler to DOJ. They offered critical help to the movement. They coordinated activities, shared intelligence, and developed a trust that made better things possible.

The civil rights movement required a wide range of heroes. The movement needed the audacity and grit of A. Philip Randolph, the nonviolent cunning of Bayard Rustin, the soul of Martin King, the egalitarian ways of Ella Baker, the intellectual rigor of James Lawson, the impatience of Stokely Carmichael, the love of Daisy Bates, the stubbornness of Fannie Lou Hamer, and the quiet servant leadership of Bob Moses–and so much more. In the story of civil rights, the idea of “a hero” is nonsensical. Countless heroes, most of them quietly working in the “crawl spaces” of the society that oppressed them, were necessary for success.

They were then, they are now.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

The Dangerous Stoicism of Lou Gehrig

On June 2, 1925, a 21-year-old rookie named Lou Gehrig played first base for the New York Yankees against the Washington Senators. He replaced Wally Pipp, a star player who was struggling with a .244 batting average. Gehrig was hitting only .167 in limited duty, but the Yankees were just a game out of last place and something had to change. That day, in an 8-5 Yankees victory, Gehrig got three hits in five at-bats.

You know the rest of the story. Poor Wally Pipp never returned to his position and ended up getting traded to the Cincinnati Reds. Gehrig, the “Iron Horse,” played in 2,130 consecutive games until he took himself out of the lineup on May 2, 1939. His  consecutive-games record stood for 56 years. Cal Ripken broke the record on September 2, 1995 and then extended it to 2,632 games.

Why Gehrig benched himself is the stuff of tragedy. After just eight games in 1939, he realized he had no energy or power. He could not control his athlete’s body any more. His teammates had noticed his physical decline for a year but he tried to ignore the signs. On June 19, his 36th birthday, he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, later known as Lou Gehrig Disease. He never played again. He died on June 2, 1941, the 16th anniversary of the streak’s first full game (he pinch-hit the day before), at the age of 37.

What most people remember about Gehrig, thanks to Gary Cooper’s portrayal in “The Pride of the Yankees,” is his simple, decent, sweet, uncomplaining, stoic response to this awful disease, which ravaged a once virile man until he could not walk or speak or swallow. In possibly the most iconic moment in baseball history, Gehrig summoned his strength to thank 61,808 fans who gathered at Yankee Stadium for Lou Gehrig Appreciation Day on the Fourth of July in 1939.

“For the past two weeks you have been reading about a bad break,” he told the crowd. “Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.” He thanked the team’s owner, general manager, recent managers, teammates, parents, wife, in-laws, groundskeepers, and fans. Then he concluded: “So I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I’ve got an awful lot to live for. Thank you.”

If that scene doesn’t move you, you can’t be moved.

But as baseball honors this man on June 2, a greater tragedy has never been appreciated. By not exploring this greater tragedy, baseball misses the opportunity to honor Lou Gehrig in the most meaningful way.

The Cost of Trauma

The following question cannot be answered with certainty: Did the traumas throughout Lou Gehrig’s life — and his heroic stoic response to those traumas  — kill him?

Dr. Gabor Maté, a leading authority on trauma and addiction, argues that 90 percent of all disease originates in trauma. Emotional stress, Maté says, causes terrible strains on the brain, the hormonal apparatus, the nervous system, and the immune system.

Trauma, Maté says, is a “disconnection from ourselves.” Trauma often begins with outside events, like a car crash, the death of a loved one, a debilitating accident, physical or emotional abuse, or a sense of abandonment. When a person experiences an awful event but does not get enough care or love, she represses her feelings. She does so to survive, to get through another day. It’s an emergency response.

Emotional stress overwhelms the physical system. Maté, the author of When the Body Says No, often quotes a 2012 article in the journal Pediatrics. Jack P. Shonkoff of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University and his colleagues argue that the repression of trauma creates a series of compensations, making the body susceptible to longterm damage.

Under conditions of extreme disadvantage, short term physiologic and psychological adjustments that are necessary for immediate survival may come at significant cost to lifelong health and development. Indeed, there is extensive evidence that the longterm consequences of deprivation, neglect, or social disruption can create shocks and ripples that affect generations, not only individuals, and have significant impacts that extend beyond national boundaries.

Emotionally, repression can lead people to avoid acknowledging pain, to pretend it’s not there or doesn’t matter. It can cause them to be stoic and uncomplaining — turning the early trauma into ongoing trauma.

Although manageable levels of stress or normative and growth promoting toxic stress in the early years (i.e., the physiologic disruptions precipitated by significant adversity in the absence of adult protection) can damage the developing brain and other organ systems and lead to lifelong problems in learning and social relationships as well as increased susceptibility to illness.

Since Decartes, scientists and medical experts have separated mind and body. The isolation of distinct systems can lead to greater understanding of those parts, as well as treatments for maladies. But the brain is actually inseparable from the body; the brain is as much a part of the body as the digestive tract or the pulmonary system. Damaged brains lead to damaged whole body systems.

A variety of stressors in early life … can cause enduring abnormalities in brain organization and structure as well as endocrine regulatory processes that lead to reduce immune competence and higher or less regulated cortisol levels, among other consequences.

The evidence is jarring. Consider a few examples. A Canadian study found a 50 percent higher cancer rate for people experiencing childhood trauma. An Australian study found a ninefold increase in the risk of developing breast carcinoma among those who suffer trauma. A West Point study found increased likelihood of Epstein-Barr virus for cadets struggling to meet a father’s high expectations. In another study, women struggling with marital problems were found to have diminished immune functioning.

Does this argument put blame on caregivers who might not be able to give adequate care? Gabor Maté says no. He recounts his own experience to make the point. Maté was born in Budapest in 1944 as the Nazis were taking over Hungary. His mother, frightened that they might be killed, gave baby Gabor to a stranger on the street. She hoped to reunite but was determined to save him no matter what happened. Mother and child did reunite but her anxiety, before and after, was intense. As the family learned the full extent of their tragedy — two were killed in camps, others were missing — young Gabor’s whole world was full of anxiety and fear. That created anxiety for the baby. Was it the mother’s “fault” if she could not provide a warm, healing, safe environment under such extreme stress? The very idea is obscene. The point is that we need to make sure everyone, parents and children and their extended circles, gets the support and help they need to deal with this toxic and debilitating stress.

Failing to do this, Maté and other researchers say, has dire consequences. Diseases resulting from trauma include atheroschlerosis, diabetes, Cushing’s disease, Parkinson’s, muscular dystrophy, coronary artery disease, hypertension, stroke, and major depression. Also: ALS.

The Lou Gehrig Story, Take 2

Lou Gehrig suffered trauma from a young age and spent a lifetime quietly compensating for that trauma.

Gehrig was legendary not just for his excellence on the field, but also his willingness to sacrifice for others. He was, by all accounts, a selfless teammate who led by example rather than claiming credit. He played injured for the sake of the team. He guided younger players, protecting them from playing hurt. He gave other stars the spotlight.

Gehrig was the son of German immigrants, an alcoholic father and an overburdened mother. His father Heinrich came to America in 1888 from Adelheim, Germany. He found work sporadically as an ornamental ironworker and sheet metal worker. But he was unreliable, owing to his alcoholism. He spent countless hours at a local tavern. After suffering a debilitating illness, during the time of Lou’s adolescence, Heinrich spent the rest of his life as an invalid. His mother Christina, came to the U.S. in 1899 from Wiltser, Germany. She worked as a maid and a cook to earn most of the family’s annual income of $300 to $400. She was tough but also brittle, unable to address the trauma in her own life.

The Gehrig family lost Lou’s two sisters and brother in childhood. His older sister Anna died at the age of three months. His younger sister Sophie died from a combination of measles, diphtheria, and bronchopneumonia before her second birthday. Lou’s brother died soon after birth and was never named. Lou never spoke about the deaths.

Growing up in poverty, Lou managed as well as he could. Chunky and uncoordinated, he was picked last in pickup games. As he grew into a muscular teen, he was hobbled by a painful shyness, made worse by wearing old clothes and shoes. When he went to school without a coat in winter, he was embarrassed. Like lots of immigrant kids who shared the same fate, he did not complain. He played soccer for three years before he started playing baseball at age 14. He could hit the ball far, which compensated for his shortcomings on the diamond. Eventually, he was good enough to play baseball and football at Columbia University.

Gehrig took a $1,500 bonus to leave Columbia to play for the Yankees to tide the family over until his mother could recover from illness and get back to work. “There’s no getting away from it, a fellow has to eat,” he later told The New York Times. “At the end of my sophomore year my father was taken ill and we had to have money. … There was nothing for me to do but sign up.”

After playing 13 games in 1923 and 10 in 1924, Gehrig got his break with Pipp’s slump in 1925.

He became the steady force on the greatest dynasty in baseball history. Over 14 full seasons, Gehrig batted .340 with 493 home runs. For 13 straight seasons, he scored and batted in at least 100 runs. He led the league in runs four times, home runs three times, RBIs five times, on-base percentage five times, and batting average once. And, of course, he played in 2,130 consecutive games.

The Ongoing Tragedy

Baseball’s greatest tandem was Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. The Dionysian Ruth was as different as could be from the Apollonian Gehrig. But the two happily supported each other in their roles and even socialized together. Ruth was a favorite of Lou’s mother Christina, who fed him her German food and idolized him. But the two stars grew to resent each other. Their fallout began when Christina made a clumsy criticism of Ruth’s wife. Ruth cut off Gehrig. Then in 1937, two years after his retirement, Ruth questioned Gehrig’s commitment to the streak:

I think Lou’s making one of the worst mistakes a ballplayer can make by trying to keep up that “iron man” stuff… He’s already cut three years off his baseball life with it… He oughta learn to sit on the bench and rest… They’re not going to pay off on how many games he’s played in a row… The next two years will tell Gehrig’s fate. When his legs go, they’ll go in a hurry. The average ball fan doesn’t realize the effect a single charley horse can have on your legs. If Lou stays out here every day and never rests his legs, one bad charley horse may start him downhill.

Ruth was right. But for Gehrig to stop, he would have had to abandon a moral code forged in trauma.

Gehrig’s streak subjected his body to constant punishment. While he protected young teammates from playing with injuries, Gehrig insisted on playing with dozens of injuries (including traumatic injuries) his whole career.

As researchers have struggled to understand the specific causes of ALS, they have focused in recent years on traumatic head injuries. God knows how many blows to the head Gehrig suffered playing college football and batting in the era before helmets. Consider this moment: On June 29, 1934, in an exhibition game in Norfolk, Va., he was beaned on his right temple and lay unconscious for five minutes before the team trainer revived him and sent him to a hospital. Gehrig was quoted in the next day’s New York Times: “I have a slight headache and there is a slight swelling on my head where the ball hit but I feel all right otherwise and will be in there tomorrow.” Sure enough, he hit three triples the next day against the Senators before the game was called for rain.

Other injuries were debilitating too: broken bones and backaches and pulled hamstrings, headaches and colds and viruses and the flu. Later X-Rays showed at least eight broken bones on his hands.

Around the time when Cal Ripken broke his record, Gehrig’s former teammate Bill Werber remembered a few of those incidents. After breaking the middle finger of his glove hand, he barely waved his bat. “He’d hit with part of his hand literally off the bat,” Werber said. “Don’t ask me how.” When Gehrig’s foot was spiked in a play at first base, Werber said, “he hurt terribly.” But he kept playing. By playing, he probably contributed to his untimely demise.

Baseball fans celebrate the Iron Horse for his selfless sacrifice. The Los Angeles Times rhapsodized that “there was an essence of nobility, courage and resolve to it. For a country that was enduring a crushing Depression, Gehrig’s record seemed a uniquely American achievement.”

But what if the streak sends exactly the wrong message? What if this individualist model of suffering in silence not only claimed Gehrig’s life but has also harmed generations of American children and families?

Gehrig’s stoic bearing is celebrated, in large part, because it exemplifies the ethos of American individualism. According to this ethos, we should all work hard, take our hits, stifle our hurts, not complain, and tough it out. Americans celebrate toughness and dismiss or even demean those who suffer. In dismissing victims, this ethos has contributed to countless cases (many millions, for sure) of people denying their own pain and not getting the help they needed.

This is, of course, not Gehrig’s fault. He was a victim of this stoicism too. But as we commemorate this man’s life, feats, and spirit, let’s think hard about creating a greater legacy for him and others who have struggled with trauma.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Slot Man: The Battle Over Truth and Ethics Between Seth Abramson and Lyz Lenz

Long ago, when I was starting out in the world of journalism, I discovered the anonymous but irreplaceable character of the “slot man.”

On the various section desks of the daily newspaper, editors were seated in a horseshoe arrangement of desks. When reporters weren’t out on a story, they worked there too. The slot man, or “slot” for short, put the section together: gathering stories, deciding on placement, laying out the pages. The best slot was also an editorial maestro. Moving paragraphs around, demanding a quote or a fact to strengthen a point, adding a nut graf, sharpening definitions, and shifting emphasis, he could make a good story great.

Legendary slots went even further. They took locally reported material and blended it with information from wire services like AP, UPI, Reuters, The New York Times, and more. With a broad and deep knowledge of the news — and history and human nature and storytelling — they could fashion a compelling, fair-minded, and sprightly summary of the latest news developments. If the byline didn’t carry the local scribe’s name, it would simply read: “From Wire Services.”

A friend once told me about the slot man on The Tennessean, back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, who reworked the stories of a young reporter named David Halberstam. Starting out, Halberstam’s stories needed help: better reporting, better leads and transitions, better quotes, better background information. Later, Halberstam became a superstar reporter in Vietnam for The New York Times. He wrote a series of bestsellers, like The Best and the Brightest, The Powers That Be, and (my favorite) The Breaks of the Game. But Halberstam needed that boost from the slot man in Nashville.

That gets us to the matter of Seth Abramson, the professor/author/podcaster/columnist/tweeter/lawyer/poet/gadfly who has attempted, in his own way, to provide a comprehensive overview of the many sprawling and tangled scandals of Donald Trump. This story, of course, reaches back to Russian beauty pageants, Saudi development deals, sketchy bank loans, crashed gambling dens, lawsuits, bag men, and enforcers.

To describe his work, Abramson uses the term “curatorial journalism.” With some exceptions, Abramson doesn’t pound the pavement and work sources for his information. He gathers news and legal documents from all over the world and tries to fit them into a larger whole.

Abramson’s great insight is that, too often, journalists forget about their stories almost as soon as they get posted. Reporters constantly chase the next new story and don’t have the time or inclination to weave old revelations into new stories. Abramson decided he would do just that, gather all of the great scoops and revelations from all the amazing reporters and bring them together into a single compelling narrative.

He is, in other words, a modern freelance slot man.

Abramson’s output has been overwhelming. He has written three dense books — Proof of Collusion, Proof of Conspiracy, and Proof of Corruption — that detail the crimes, high and low, of Trump businesses and political operations. He has a hit podcast and a feed on Substack. And he has almost a million followers on Twitter, where he spins out lengthy “threads” of tweets to make exhaustive arguments. He even did a Playboy interview.

Some people don’t understand what he does, but it’s really quite simple: He compiles info, wherever he can get it, and works it into stories. He checks his sources, as much as anyone can check sources about shady meetings in the Middle East to fix presidential elections for Russian assets. He’s serious about getting his facts right.

Abramson rankles some. The term “curatorial journalist” has a rarefied feel to it; curators, after all, acquire and arrange art in fancy, hushed museums. He also talks a lot about poetics and meta-journalism and metamodernism. If you care about literary and cultural theory, these ideas all offer some good chin-scratching opportunities. But for ordinary people, trying to make sense of this dangerous autocratic moment, such language can feel abstract and egotistical.

The old-time slot would not have talked like that. He would have said: “Look, I’m just tryna make sense of this mess. Who did what, when, and why? You know, follow the money. Connect the dots. That’s all.”

Hit Job?

Enter Lyz Lenz, an Iowa-based writer whose work has appeared in the Pacific Standard, Marie Claire, Jezebel, and The Washington Post. She is also the author of a new book on pregnancy called Belabored. Her writing has a certain snarky pizzazz.

Lenz wrote a long takedown of Abramson, titled “Thread Man,” in the Columbia Journalism Review. Her main contention is that Abramson splices together unverified rumors and hearsay, as well as real facts, in his work on Trump.

She claims, for example, that he embraced the Steele Dossier as if it were proven fact. “The reliability of the Steele dossier is, to put it mildly, in question; a report by Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, found that the dossier was dubious, unvetted, and shady as hell.” Actually, Abramson has carefully tracked what parts of the dossier have been verified independently and which parts have not. He says about 70 percent of the dossier has been confirmed. I’ve heard other experts say the same.

In the guise of demanding better accountability from Abramson, she absolves Trump: Oh, just forget about the Steele Dossier. That’s just gossip.

Abramson says he has spent about $75,000 to hire his own fact checkers. He did not want to get caught making an avoidable error in his books. Without doubt, his book will have some errors. Journalism is still just the first draft of history. As Abramson says, we now understand only the surface of the recent period in our history. It will take years of work, by legions of historians and journalists, to get to the bottom of it all.

Lenz has a hard time understanding Abramson’s logic. She complains that he uses others’ work. Well, that’s his point: to gather and synthesize an otherwise sea of confusion, like the slot man of yore. That’s his project. If she wants a different kind of book on Trump’s business and political activities, maybe she should write it. To undermine his deep dive, she says his extensive sourcing is actually, deep down, a trick.

Abramson is meticulous about sourcing, yet it feels a little disingenuous: he can say that his assertions have been verified by “major media reporting” and if he’s wrong, it’s not his fault; if he’s right, the facts were always there in front of us, and only he was smart enough to see the big picture. (How can he be a conspiracy theorist, he asked me, if “it’s all reporting from major media outlets”?) Slap a label of “proof” on the cover and call it meta-journalism—when really what you’ve done is news aggregation, selling three books based on other people’s work and claiming to offer proof of things that these very same journalists have said they cannot, did not, find.

Read that passage carefully. Abramson’s citations don’t count because “it feels a little disingenuous.” When he offers credit to the countless reporters who have reported on this topic, she holds that against him too. She says Abramson takes credit when the facts prove true and avoids responsibility if they fall short. That’s Lyn Lenz reading Seth Abramson, not reporting or even analysis.

Is Lenz doing performance art here? Take a look at how she impugns his character without evidence: “He denies doing it for the money, insisting that he is a public servant and educator. He just wants the truth to get out there, he told me. But his virality speaks to a different kind of validation, one that is less about monetary reward than cultural capital.” Work backwards to see her logic: His work is viral, therefore he must be in it for fame, if not money.

By the way, did Lenz actually meet Abramson? Yes, I realize we’re all locked down in the pandemic. But from her story and Abramson’s accounts, it doesn’t seem like there was a real effort to meet him on his own turf. Zoom’s fine, so’s the phone, even email. But if you’re doing to do a long-distance profile, make sure to connect in a meaningful way with the subject. Especially (LOL) if one of your complaints is that he doesn’t get out of the house for research.

Deep down, Lyz Lenz seems to resent Abramson for his Twitter fame. He has 928,000 followers but she has only 63,000. Reason for jealousy, right? You can practically feel her snarky anger bubbling up …

Ha! Gotcha! Actually, I have no idea about her motive. But Lyz Lenz makes these kinds of rhetorical moves often in her CJR takedown.

Abramson is hopping mad. He is threatening to take her to court. He is sending a detailed recitation of Lenz’s alleged errors and misstatements to the general counsel at Columbia University. He points out numerous instances where he tried to explain himself, both to Lenz and a fact-checker for CJR, to no effect. He lists a number of cases where she flat-out misstates the record. And, he says, he has the receipts. Working on his books about Trumpism, he had no choice but to carefully track every source, every fact. So he’s armed for bear.

Back to Basics

Seth Abramson, a man of unusual energy and stamina, took a risk and tried to do something no one else wanted to do — that is, to lay out a complete record of the Russiagate, using every scrap of information he could find. Most journalists don’t do that. Too often, journalists slight the scoop they did not get. Abramson did not have the opportunity or the inclination to get out and act like Bob Woodward, so he decided to do something different. He decided to be the slot man for the Trump era.

But something about Abramson rankles people. He sometimes acts like a know-it-all on Twitter. He waves his credentials around. He uses abstruse academic jargon (surprise, surprise). Lenz joins the Daily Beast in accusing him of exaggerating his place in various artistic events, like he’s Zelig. That bothers me, but others do it too (hello, Papa Hemingway; step right up, Truman Capote) — not an excuse, but also not the main point when assessing his actual work.

In a brief email exchange last summer, I told Abramson that I wish he had given his story a leaner arc, alternating tight narratives with essential definitions and background information. That’s the ultimate formula for complicated stories: Trees, forest, trees, forest, trees …

To his credit, Abramson wanted to avoid contriving scenes: “When Bob Woodward wrote Fear, he was stuck taking Steve Bannon’s word for how Bannon’s conversations with federal agents unfolded, with the predictable result that in those conversations Bannon sounds like Aristotle and Mueller and his assistants—some of the best legal minds in America—uniformly sound like Deputy Dog.” I mostly disagree but I get his point. So ixnay on the Woodward-style scenes. As Lyz Lenz notes and he acknowledges, that can make his writing dense and hard to read.

But you know what? Seth Abramson did a good job putting pieces together, as a first draft of history. Now it’s time for a break. Let’s get everyone to go to their corners. Let the pieces hang for a while. Then, as Trump and his gang get hauled into court and investigators, reporters, and historians do their thing, let’s see how the pieces come together. My bet is that Abramson’s work will offer a worthwhile roadmap.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

How To Draw Readers into the Story – Right Away

If you want a fun ride through the bizarro world of Florida, the modern spirit of destruction, and how ordinary people get pulled into wild tales of adventure, you can’t do better than Carl Hiaasen.

Hiaasen is a columnist for the Miami Herald and a bestselling author. Everything he writes offers a clinic on how to draw the reader into a story. Take a look at the opening paragraphs of Skinny Dip:

At the stroke of eleven on a cool April night, a woman named Joey Perrone went overboard from a luxury deck of the cruise liner M.V. Sun Duchess. Plunging toward the dark Atlantic, Joey was too dumbfounded to panic.

I married an asshole, she thought, knife headfirst into the waves.

The impact tore off her silk skirt, blouse, panties, wristwatch, and sandals. But Joey remained conscious and alert. Of course she did. She had been co-captain of her college swim team, a biographical nugget that her husband obviously had forgotten.

Bobbing in its fizzy wake, Joey watched the gaily lit Sun Duchess continue steaming away at twenty nautical miles per hour. Evidently only one of the other 2,049 passengers was aware of what had happened, and he wasn’t telling anybody.

Bastard, Joey thought.

She noticed that her bra was down around her waist, and she wiggled free of it. To the west, under a canopy of soft amber light, the coast of Florida was visible. Joey began to swim.

What does Hiaasen do in this 169-word passage? Hiaasen follows eight simple rules of attraction, providing:

  1. An immediate glimpse into the story: In the first sentence, we see Joey plunge off the side of a luxury liner. It’s almost as if we’re on the deck, watching as she f a l l s.
  2. A low-cost threshold: Joey’s plunge is easy to see. We have questions, but the immediate moment is not at all complicated. She falls. We have good reason to suspect she was pushed. Now what?
  3. A view of the goal: We immediately see that survival and revenge are Joey’s twin goals. “Bastard!”  says the former collegiate swimmer as she begins to dig her arms into rough sea, hoping to survive and swim to safety.
  4. A hint at the paths needed to get there: The path is simple: Bobbing in the choppy waters of the hostile sea, she needs to find her way to land. She’s got the athletic ability. But how far is land? Is there some island nearby? Or maybe someone sailing nearby? Or is there any way for someone to see her or notice her missing?
  5. Sensory involvement: We see a sexy, fit, feisty woman plunging into the dark waters below: the ripped clothes and undergarments, the fizzy water, the light. It’s just enough sensory stuff–sights, sounds, and feeling–to get a sense of the moment. Not to mention the sex appeal of this feisty heroine.
  6. A sense of what it means: We have good reason to know that the Joey’s husband, who forgot that his wife was a swimmer in college, tossed her overboard. That makes him the villain. More to come …
  7. The right balance of adventure and safety: No reader wants to fly overboard into ice-cold choppy waters. But as Hitchcock noted, we’re delighted to watch from the comfort of our armchair. So settle in for a rollicking tale of survival and revenge. Don’t worry. You’re safe.
  8. An early win: Joey’s surviving and keeping her wits is a major victory. She’s supposed to be dead, after all. That early win whets our appetite for the drama ahead.

We could do worse than to follow these eight basic rules for drawing the reader into the story.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Thanksgiving, the ‘Speech Act’ Holiday

By Charles Euchner

Thanksgiving remains the essential American holiday. It brings together kith and kin. Food and drink are plentiful. Don’t forget the Macy’s parade and the annual Detroit Lions game. And it’s (mostly) free of commercial exploitation.

After hearing an interview with Canadian author Margaret Visser, I offer one other reason to appreciate this moment of pause before the Christmas rush. To wit: It’s the only holiday dedicated to the power of language.

The purpose of the holiday is to give thanks. You say what you’re grateful for—your health, job, family, friends, church, neighbors, customers. You pause a moment, collect your thoughts, and then speak.

Other holidays mark religious moments, birth dates of leaders, and anniversaries of historic moments. But Thanksgiving, alone, encourages us to speak, to put our fullest feelings into words. Thanksgiving asks us to acknowledge how lucky we are to be alive, in a great country, among family and friends, with all kinds of possibilities for making more of ourselves and giving back to our community.

Linguists refer to this kind of statement as a “speech act.” We normally distinguish the concepts of speaking and acting. But philosophers like John Searle say that to speak is, in fact, to act. To act is to change the world. When you speak—whether you’re yelling at someone in traffic, cooing to an amour, delivering a speech, or arguing in court—you act. Giving thanks, as we do today, is a special kind of speech act. It’s both voluntary and expected, generous and reciprocal, moral and emotional.

Visser, the author of The Gift of Thanks (excerpt), yesterday took the listeners of NPR’s “On Point” on an etymological romp about the idea of thanks. Consider these roots and variations of our modern vocabulary of gratitude:

The Greek word for gratitude, translated into Latin, is gratia—not just praise but also delight and joy.

The Germans added the word to think, denken. To say thank you is to pause and reflect for a moment, rather than taking something and leaving right away.

The French use the term reconaissance (with the root word cognition), which recognizes the other.

The Japanese say “I’m sorry” as a way of expressing gratitude, acknowledging the sacrifice involved in any gift or good gesture: “I’m sorry to have intruded on your life.”

As Visser explains, gratitude and thanks provide essential glue to a society depleted of traditions and dedicated to individual pursuits. In an age when anything goes, saying thank you (and other social etiquette) provides the mortar for the big gaps between the bricks.

Giving thanks is, in some respects, a duty. As children we are taught to say please and thank you and we get chided when we forget. For a while, these manners are perfunctory. But then they become genuine. Saying thanks takes on an emotional meaning. After saying thanks enough times, we really mean it.

That is the essence of democratic practice. Democracy does not demand that we all like each other, think each other smart, or compromise our own interests. As opponents to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s noted, no law can make us love each other. But we need to respect each other even when we don’t want to, in order to get along. So we say please and thank you, even to people we can’t stand. We accept calls, answer requests, acknowledge others’ ideas, work together on committees, even exchange favors – even when, given a choice, we might not prefer to do so.

In the process of doing the right thing, we start to feel something. We take to heart the meaning of those practices. Partly that’s because of reciprocity. But also it’s because we internalize the meanings of our actions.

As a speech act, giving thanks affects not only how other people think and feel, but how we see ourselves. Thanksgiving shows, as much as anything, the power of words to enlarge us.

Lots of reasons, then, to like Thanksgiving, the holiday dedicated to speech acts.

Don’t Mess With Tenses

To start, let me say how much I admire Seth Abramson and the work he has done in the last few years.

Fearlessly and diligently, he has documented the sprawling cases of collusion, coverup, and corruption in the Trump White House. A lawyer, a former criminal investigator, and professor of communication art and science at the University of New Hampshire, Abramson practices what he calls “curatorial journalism.” That is, he pulls together the complete public record–journalistic accounts, books, reports, interviews, and more–to create a unified account of what happened. He curates existing sources into one mega-narrative.

For this, Abramson deserves our eternal appreciation. His books will provide a great foundation for historians who seek to make sense of this mad age. He is also, by all accounts, a terrific person. I’m a fan.he

And so I hate to say the next word: But . . . 

But along the way he makes a strange mistake. He tells his story in the present tense, presumably to create a you-are-there immediacy and urgency. With the right subject, this can be done effectively. Andre Agassi’s memoir Open, written by J.R. Moehringer, uses the present tense too. It works because Agassi’s story is relatively simple. It involves a limited number of characters and does not require reference to hundreds of articles, reports, and accounts.

Abramson’s story is much more complicated. In almost every paragraph, he needs to place even the simplest event into a broader context. He has to define terms and  note sources. To tell a story, he often has to refer to previous and (sometimes) future events. Often, to make a simple observation he has to provide an extended description of whole sequences of other events, with all kinds of strange  names (often, Russian and Saudi!) and arcane relationships.

Abramson’s reliance the present tense undermines his work for two reasons.

First, to maintain the present tense he often has to change the tense that others use. That means lots of brackets to change verb forms. So many brackets creates a distraction.

Second, to provide context, he constantly switches tenses. These switches create cognitive whiplash. We have to tell ourselves, through the story, that the present is really the past. So when he switches to the past tense, to say what happened before the scene in question, we have to go through a conscious process of asking: Wait? What? When? Especially with a complex subject matter, you should never require the reader to make an extra effort.

Consider the following passage from Abramson’s forthcoming book, Proof of Corruption:

According to the New York Times, the “sobering” Crimson Contagion data, which circulates within the Trump administration in October 2019, “[drives] home just how underfunded, underprepared and uncoordinated the federal government would be for a life-or-death battle with a virus for which no treatment existed.” Nevertheless, after the COVID-19 outbreak begins in the United States, President Trump will falsely declare that “nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion” and “nobody ever thought of numbers like this.” In fact, writes the New York Times in March 2020, “his own administration had already modeled a similar pandemic and understood its potential trajectory” and “accurately predicted the very types of problems Mr. Trump is now scrambling belatedly to address.” In addition to ignoring the lessons of the Crimson Contagion report and the work product of economists contracted by the White House, Trump also, per Politico, “ignore[s]” a sixty-nine-page 2016 National Security Council document, “Playbook for High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents,” that “provide[s] a step by step list of priorities” in a pandemic.

(You can see a whole excerpt of his new work here.)

Abramson’s problem goes beyond the confusion with tenses. Too often, he gets in his own way. He uses long setups and attributions. Since he uses so many footnotes, these are often unnecessary.

So how do you fix this? It’s simple, really: When talking about the past, use the past tense. The drama of any story comes not from the tense but from the actions and issues being described. The less work you make the reader do, the more she can focus on what’s happening. And believe me, Abramson tells a harrowing tale.

Writers often try to be clever when simplicity works better. As I sometimes tell my students, always begin an account with this simple formula: First, this happened. Then that happened. Something else happened. Finally, the whole shebang concluded when another thing happened.

Usually, you can write using only the simple past tense. Sometimes it helps to use simple past perfect to provide a backdrop (“He had just graduated from college when he met her at a party”). And sometimes it helps to use the progressive past perfect to describe continuous events in the past (“She had been planning to move when he asked her to marry him”).

Of course, we don’t need to use the past tense all the time. In fact, this blog post uses the present tense because it describes issues that we all face right now. We also use the present tense to describe what happens in artistic works (e.g., “Hemingway sets For Whom the Bell Tolls during the Spanish Civil War” and “At the end of A Farewell to Arms, Catherine dies”).

But when describing past events, use the simple past tense as much as possible. Don’t distract the reader. Avoid being too clever. Let the subject of your work create the drama.

Six Essential Writing and Communications Skills for Professionals

Communication is the lifeblood of professional life. Whatever their specialized knowledge, skills, or tasks, people need to communicate with colleagues and clients inside and outside the organization.

How can we understand the power of communication?

McKinsey consultants use the “T” model to describe their work. The vertical bars (|) represent the activities of distinct operations of the enterprise: R&D, production, marketing, sales, distribution, and more. The crossbar (—) represents the need to communicate and connect with people outside their primary operations

Workers—especially in technical, specialized fields or with large corporate structures—usually focus on the activities inside their specialized roles. That makes sense. In cutting-edge fields and legacy businesses alike, competitive value comes from specialists doing things that other people can’t do. Special knowledge and ability offer special value to the company.

No matter how good the work they do inside their “I” silos, the best organizations foster connections across the silos. They create crossbars that connect people across the organization, especially at the top and middle levels. Only by keeping each other posted on new issues and developments can the organization coordinate its activities.

The Six Essential Skills

So how does this horizontal communication occur? To work at optimal levels, professionals need to master six essential communications skills: Conversations, Interviews, Presentations, Emails, Memos and Reports, Public-facing communications.

The Elements of Writing provides a complete program for business professionals to master all six of the communications skills. The program includes not only seminars and workshops on these essential skills, but also followup guidance for managers to bring their teams into the fold.

Conversations—Connecting / Empathy

Conversation is the essential lubrication of business—whether you’re managing a department, selling products and services, or working on a project. A British survey found that people have 27 conversations a day, lasting an average of 10 minutes apiece. That’s 270 minutes—four and a half hours. Americans might be more taciturn (yeah, right), but talking will always be at the center of professional life.

Interviews—Digging / Curiosity

The more detail and insight you need, the more you need to dig. That’s where interviews come in. An interview is a structured, goal-oriented conversation. Unlike conversations, interviews tend to be one-sided. One side’s needs matter more than the other’s. A good interview is less a give-and-take and more a process of step-by-step discovery, which requires deliberate followup, strategic issue-hopping, clarifications, and connecting dots.

Presentations—Highlighting / 2+2 Rule

A presentation is a conversation of many, led by one or a few people. The trick is to present material that “lands and leads.” As filmmakers understand, an audience can absorb only so much information at a time. So the speaker must provide information in small doses; if the information “lands,” the audience can absorb that information and make sense of it in their own way, for their own purposes. And the presenter can lead the group in productive ways.

Emails: Acting / Conciseness

Emails are like nudges, with simple presentations of essential information for action. The key to writing good emails is clarity of purpose. Because business professionals take in hundreds of emails a day, they need to understand the purpose by reading the header—and then efficiently read only essential information about one idea in every email.

Memos and Reports—Signposting and Detailing / Organizing and Unfolding

Memos and reports are take-away pieces with one idea but multiple parts. They require thought and reflection, often among many people. A good memo states the One Idea clearly and then organizes the whole piece to state and detail all of the essential considerations for that One Idea. Good memos and reports organize information logically, with clear signposts for skimmers. (Note: All readers are skimmers)

Public Pieces—Reaching Out / Engagement

Communication with outsiders differs from communication with insiders. Public-facing pieces must be, at the same time, more intimate and more general than inside pieces. They must speak to the audience with personality—with concern, empathy, a desire to help, and (often) a dash of humor. So whether you’re writing a speech or a blog post, it helps to imagine one person in the audience. At the same time, the piece must appeal to a vast audience. This requires thinking of all the issues and concerns that your one imaginary person might need or want to know about. It also requires understanding their time frame. Web copy might require extreme conciseness, while a speech could engage the audience for 30 minutes or more.

What next? During the strange separations of the coronavirus pandemic, businesses offer their professionals online programs to improve their skills across the board. Writing and communication should be at the top of the agenda.

Daniel Menaker on Tragedy, Checking Facts, Writing, and the State of Publishing

Daniel Menaker likes stories that go “spooling off” in different directions, in unpredictable but necessary ways. His own life—as a red diaper baby, high school teacher, fact checker, editor, and writer—has had its own way of spooling off in different directions, sometimes tragically and sometimes humorously.

Menaker’s first story treated, fictionally, the death of his brother Mike. In a family touch football game one Thanksgiving, Mike came down hard on a pass play and ripped his ligaments. He got surgery, which should have fixed the problem. But weeks later, he contracted a septicemia infection and died. He was 26.

Just like that, the Menaker household was ripped apart. At the time, Menaker was working as a fact checker for The New Yorker. That job offered means of distraction until Menaker finally found the words to confront his family’s tragedy. His first story, “Grief,” appeared in the January 20, 1974 New Yorker.

Fame for humor came when he and Charles McGrath wrote a parody of a book called The Best. Not long after the publication of that parody–titled, naturally “The Worst”–Roger Angell came to Menaker’s desk waving a piece of paper. “Sorry, you’ve got to give the payment back,” said Angell, the magazine’s literary editor. “It’s a New Yorker tradition.” Wait—what? “It’s a rule,” Angell said. “Anyone who gets a fan letter from Groucho Marx for his first humor piece has to give the money back.” The letter is now framed in his country house upstate.

Menaker’s career as a writer and author is enviable. He rose to become fiction editor of The New Yorker. He published novels and collections of stories (Friends and Relations, The Old Left, and The Treatment, which became a movie), a book about conversation (A Good Talk), and a memoir (My Mistake). He rose to become editor in chief at Random House, working with writers like Alice Munro, Salmon Rushdie, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Elizabeth Strout, David Foster Wallace, and Billy Collins. He’s also taught writing at Stony Brook.

He lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan with his wife Katherine Bouton, an editor and writer.

Charles Euchner: Why did you decide to write? Who were your influences? What early lessons did you learn about writing?

Daniel Menaker: My mother was an editor at Fortune. She was an expert in grammar and rules. She was a classics major at Bryn Mawr. She was exigent about rules without being a pain in the ass about it. I just heard a boy say to another boy, “If you want to ride on the bicycle, get the f— on the handlebars,” and she said, “I wonder what part of speech f— was in that sentence.” I never heard her use that language before. When I referred to the famous jewelry store as Tiffany’s she said “If you say Tiffany’s anymore I will disown you. It’s Tiffany.” That was the background.

After college I became a teacher at the Collegiate School and Friends Seminary. I was staying out of the Vietnam War. I loved teaching and was pretty good at it. I would have kept on teaching except for grading papers. That was so onerous to me. It’s not that they were terrible, but it took an incredible time to do it well.

Then I got a job as a fact checker for The New Yorker. I was around writers and stylists and copy editors and people who cared about language. That begins to get installed in your neurons, practically.

Partly out of the long span of grief about the terrible event in my family, I was a very good fact checker. I needed to concentrate on something. I was very exigent and careful and respectful. I did what I was asked to do. I was taught well—the guy who ran the department was helpful and patient.

William Maxwell [the magazine’s fiction editor] coached me. He made his retirement contingent on me being allowed to be an editor. There were older editors, all in their 70s. People wanted to have some change but there was no reason to fire them. He said, “I’ll go but you have to give Dan Menaker a chance.” That was 1976 and I floundered around and then began to find my footing.

CE: And moving from editing to writing…

DM: The thing that made me decide to write was my brother’s death. I always felt guilty about it. We were close—I was shocked and my family was devastated. But I didn’t decide to write—it decided me.

I continued writing and the psychological pressure and the grief and the mourning eventually gave way to the professional aspect of it. I wrote my first book of stories—it was pretty dreadful, except that one story. I did a two-book deal and I couldn’t write the second book. So I returned the minuscule advance, $2,500. [The editor] told me he had never received a repayment of an advance, without asking for it, so he framed it as an example of good conduct.

I just kept on writing. My first nonfiction essay was about TV news, which came from years of watching TV during a grief-stricken state that lasted for a decade. There were formulae. It was scripted, from the introduction of reporter to the signoff. Lewis Lapham liked it and published it in Harper’s.

CE: The key thing for any story is coherence, not literal truth, right? A piece of fiction doesn’t require that every detail be correct. Like with your novel The Treatment … 

DM: I was in analysis for ten years and the analyst I was working with bore a strong resemblance to the character in the book. But if you’re talking about correspondence between real life people and people in the book—the dialogue and events and conversations—close to 80 percent is fictional.

Roger Angell once came in with a story by Susan Minot (“The Accident”). He said, “This story is very troubling.” I asked why. I thought it was really good and sad. He said, “I know this family and it’s based on her mother’s death.” Well, I don’t care about that. Fictional stories and novels have to work as what they are, like a painting. If you try to find out who the subject was and that the artist had an affair and her husband killed himself—none of that matters to the painting.

It’s very interesting to read about writers and painters’ lives. But what do you do with an anonymous poem like “O Western Wind”? Nobody knows who wrote it, but it is so beautiful …

CE: Who were your academic influences?

I was taught aesthetics by Monroe Beardsley at Swarthmore, who taught that every work has to be judged on its own isolated qualities. You can ask a writer about what his or her poem or story is about, but they can be wrong. I have this militant feeling about fiction having more to do with the presentation of sentences than any correspondence with real life.

Headley Reese taught a seminar on Baroque art and modern art. We would go to the museum and he would not talk about Rembrandt’s life. He would say, “What do you see in this painting?” It was a time where there was a great deal of new criticism, focused on the objects themselves. It was in full swing at that time.

CE: What kind of research do you put in?

DM: Almost none. I’ll check if I care about getting some geography right or the years of a presidency; I’ll be a fact checker for myself. I just reviewed Oliver Sacks’s posthumous book. In writing the review, I looked stuff up. At one point I simply couldn’t call to mind the ten famous writers about science and medicine in the last decade or so, so I just Googled “most important books about science and medicine.” There’s a condition, anomia, where you can’t remember names.

I’ve worked with historic fiction writers and they do a lot of research. I tend to stick more closely to my own life. I don’t need to know a lot of historic background.

CE: What about writing a memoir? How do you make sure to get that right?

DM: I relied heavily on memory. No one has pointed out any gross errors. I do have family documents—letters, obituaries. I found out about my father’s membership in the Communist Party [by talking with] an FBI guy who investigated by family. I read the Venona Papers. They mention my family. For the New Yorker stuff, the archives are online. I can check to see the first Alice Munro story I edited.

Memoirs are shaky, in my opinion. They’re not the same as autobiography. They’re much more loosey-goosey.

CE: Now, on to storytelling tactics. The best place to start is with in media res, right?

DM: That’s right—start in the middle, with action. That tendency is an outgrowth of movies. In the 20s, 30s, and 40s, suddenly there would be a scene and you would figure out what was happening later.

But that was also true with nineteenth century writers like Charles Dickens. He has a novel where you start with two people on a dingy raft on the Thames looking for a body. You have no idea why there are there. Pride and Prejudice has the same kind of immersion—Mr. and Mrs. Bennett arguing about who’s going to marry their daughters. Other authors do it—Fitzgerald and Alice Munro and J.M. Coetzee …

CE: It works well, in media res, but it works better with some authors than others. What’s the difference?

DM: What really works is when an author startles me—and that doesn’t happen very much—in a way that’s not a gimmick, that feels legitimate. Look at what Coetzee is doing in Disgrace. Hilary Mantel—her first novel is very domestic and close to home, about a social worker, but it had that same necessity and it’s startling.

When I was a kid, anything would grab me, because everything is new. I hadn’t had 50 years of editing. You get a little jaded. Or things become overly familiar.

CE: Who provides the greatest surprise?

Alice Munro. She’s an amazingly complex writer who hides her complexity under the most conversational, seemingly casual narration, but oh man, it is complicated, especially from the standpoint of time. She uses time almost as if it was a place. … Little by little, she begins to zero on the psychological and thematic concerns of the story that are not narrative, even though she uses narrative. Often near the end you have a dead-center target of some revelation or something that contradicts or changes something.

All this is in the service of her conviction that she’s writing about the chaos of the human heart. She ends up in the middle of the target and what you find is so basically elemental, so affected by drives and childhood that you don’t know about. But she ends up nowhere. Here’s what happened and why it happened, but it doesn’t make much sense.

CE: So it has a very strong arc. But it’s not a simple or obvious arc.

DM: Exactly. The resolution is an un-resolution. It’s a literary and eloquent and down-to-earth demonstration of chaos that rules most of us.

CE: When you write something, do you plot it out or do you do one page and the next—

DM: When I write, I know pretty much where it’s going. I know the plot and the five or six things that have to happen. It would be surprising if it went off direction. But there are these side streets that you don’t see till you get there.

In my new novel, a sequel to The Treatment, the shrink is 85 and only has a couple old patients. The teacher is now the headmaster and someone on the board wants to fire him. He’s a patient of Dr. Morales. He wants the headmaster to know, but he is precluded from telling.

CE: So you know the basic structure, but you can improvise along the way—

In this new novel, this guy goes to his wife’s funeral at Riverside Chapel. Since she was a very philanthropic and social sort, I decided that I could, with some humor and knowingness, create a list of people who attended the funeral. Some are friends and some have very fancy social names and some have names that are conglomerations. I didn’t plan that. I like lists and list humor; they seem funny to me. Since this guy’s a teacher, maybe some of his students will come. It’s as if you can play with a toy—you didn’t expect to find that toy.

CE: What do you make the state of publishing these days?

DM: It’s fine. Books are selling well. The supposed takeover of ebooks has not happened. They have reached a certain level and they’re useful. And the projections that they would be 80 percent of the market has not worked out. I have a theory that when two-year-olds start with Goodnight Moon, and they’re reading a real book, that feeling is never going away.

There was a time, six or seven years ago, I thought publishing was in serious fiscal trouble. It’ll never be a huge profit center.

Publishing is really gambling. You put down money on a table with a bet. Six out of seven times it doesn’t succeed, it doesn’t earn back the advance. But that seventh time, that other bet…

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

How He Does It: Robert Caro Explains His Research and Writing Process

So far, Robert A. Caro has published 4,816 pages of detailed, riveting history in five books–the first about New York’s master planner Robert Moses (The Power Broker), the next four about the life and times of President Lyndon Johnson (The Path to Power, The Means of Ascent, Master of the Senate, and The Passage of Power).

Those 4,816 pages do not include about 300 pages that Caro’s publisher forced him to cut from the first book. The problem was that that book’s 1,296 pages was the physical limit on what could be bound between covers.

Caro’s work provides some of the most revelatory and spellbinding writing in all of American history. The pages burst with new insights, not just about those two men bout about their times and how politics works.

It probably goes without saying that Caro researches the hell out of his subjects. The question is how.

Fans complain that Caro is taking too long with the fifth volume of The Years of Lyndon Johnson, covering L.B.J.’s five-plus years in the White House. After all, as he labored over that work into the fall of 2024, he was 88 years old. Not to be ghoulish, but can Caro even live long enough to finish? But as Caro explains, there is no other way:

While I am aware that there is no Truth, no objective truth, no single truth, no truth simple or unsimple, either; no verity, eternal or otherwise; no Truth about anything, there are Facts, objective facts, discernible and verifiable. And finding facts–through reading documents or through interviewing and re-interviewing–can’t be rushed; it takes time. Truth takes time.

Researching the hell out of his subjects is just one of the many lessons for writers in Caro’s memoir Working: Researching, Interviewing, Writing (Knopf). Caro’s brief work–and, by the way, this is the first and last time the words “Caro” and “brief” will ever appear in the same sentence–offers a master course in the art and craft of writing.

In this little book, Caro shows how and why he picked his subjects, how to find the throughline and plot the story’s arc, how to conduct archival research and interview subjects, how to write great scenes, explain complex processes, how to write with style, and much more. Here are a few highlights:

Subjects

The British historian Arnold Toynbee once said that history is just “one damn thing after another.” Clever line, but untrue. History is a way of revealing something about the human condition. A great work of history, then, aspires not just to tell a story–about a person or place, event or period–but reveal some truth about life. The purpose of Caro’s works is to understand power.

“From the very start I thought of writing biographies as a means of illuminating the times of the man I was writing about and the great forces that molded those times – particularly the force that is political power. Why? political power? Because political power shapes all of our lives. It shapes your life in little ways that you might not even think about.”

To achieve this requires much more than writing one damn thing after another. For Caro, biography must serve as a “vessel for something even more significant: examination of the essential nature—the most fundamental realities—of political power.” And what should serve as the vessel? For Caro, it was a subject  “who had done something no one else had done before” and then figure out how he did it.

For another author, biography could be the vessel to explore art or love or psychology or sports. Whatever its purpose, it cannot be just a recounting of what happened.

Research

Discipline–exploring every possible angle, looking at every piece of evidence, chasing down every lead–is the key to all great nonfiction narrative. Caro learned that lesson early, as a reporter for Newsday. He once got a call about the corruption behind the disposition of an Air Force base on Long Island. Come see these documents, a source told him. And so he did. He spent all night reading the documents and taking copious notes.

His editor, who had previously ignored him, was impressed. From now on, he said, you will be an investigative reporter. “Just remember,” he said. “Turn every page. Never assume anything. Turn every goddamn page.”

He took that advice to heart, making it his mission to dig deeper than anyone ever dug before on his biographies of Robert Moses and Lyndon Johnson.But when he got to the Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, he knew he had to be more selective. The library held 40,000 boxes containing 32 million pages.

No one of historical importance wants his career to be investigated without fear or favor. Historic figures spend their lifetimes creating a mythology. They do not want it dismantled.

Therefore, the biographer must start far away from the subject. When Caro started work on his Moses book, he refused interviews for years. So did his top aides. When Caro took on Johnson, most of LBJ’s aides were and friends and family were circumspect. So Caro draw a set of concentric rings on a piece of paper.

The innermost circle with his family, friends, and close associates, and I was prepared to believe that he could keep me from seeing them, and probably the persons in the next circle or two, also. But surely, I felt, there would be people in the outer circles – people who knew him but were not in regular contact with him – who would be willing to talk to me. And, in fact, there were, and, as I was later to be told, Commissioner Moses was more and more frequently encountering people who, unaware of his feelings, said that this young reporter had been to see them.

To know a subject, Caro suggests, you need to find a way to get the subject’s colleagues and family and neighbors talk. You can’t just show up and expect people to talk. You have to show a commitment to really know the subject. And so Johnson moved to Texas. It was then that people started to tell him more than the hackneyed old stories: “I began to hear the details they have not included in the anecdotes they had previously told me – and they told me other anecdotes and longer stories, anecdotes and stories that no one had even mentioned to me before–stories about a Lyndon Johnson very different from the young man who had previously been portrayed.”

Interviewing

Interviewers have to be persistent and reach their subjects on a deeper tlevel than they even understand themselves. But sometimes they also need to be manipulated. As a reporter for Newsday, he was working with a reporter named Bob Greene to expose a charitable organization that was using “the bulk of its money on a luxurious lifestyle for the director and his mistress.” They had the evidence but needed the organization’s director to acknowledge it. “When you talk to him, don’t sit too close together,” their editor, Alan Hathway, told them. “Caro, you sit over here. Greene, sit over there. You fire these questions fast—Caro, you ask one; Greene, you ask one—I want his head going back-and-forth like a ping-pong ball.” The ploy worked. the director got rattled and revealed more than he intended. They had their story.

After Caro worked on The Power Broker for years, Moses agreed to a series of long interviews. Caro had done so much work that Moses had to give him time now if he wanted his point of view in this definitive work. Now Caro’s task was to take in all that Moses had to offer.

Silence is the weapon, silence and people’s need to fill it–as long as the person isn’t you, the interviewer. … When I’m waiting for the person I’m interviewing to break the silence by giving me a piece of information I want, I write SU (for Shut Up!) in my notebook. If anyone were ever to look through my notebooks, he would find a lot of SU’s there.

It’s just a dogged pursuit of facts. No good interview is possible without the research to back it up. You interview someone to learn more things–but before that, you need to have enough facts to push and prod the subject. When you know some significant part of the story, then listening becomes golden.

When interviewing people, Caro pushes them–to the point of annoyance–to describe what they saw and heard and felt. It’s not enough to say the limo ride from the Capitol was quiet; Caro wants to know what that quiet was like. It’s not enough to decry the viciousness of racism; Caro wants to know what it felt like for blacks to attempt, time and again, to register to vote and get rejected by cracker election officials.

If you talk to people long enough, if you talk to them enough times, you find out things from them that maybe they didn’t even realize they knew.… My interviewees sometimes get quite annoyed at me because I keep asking them “What did you see?” “If I was standing beside you at the time, what would I have seen?” I’ve had people get really angry at me. But if you ask it often enough, sometimes you make them see.

Caro prods interviewees to remember what it was like to sit in a particular place or walk along a particular road. Sometimes they tell him but it doesn’t make sense until he recreates the scene.

One scene is especially notable. When he first came to Washington as a congressional assistant, LBJ would arrive at the office out of breath. On the last part of his morning walk to the capitol, he broke into a run. Why? Caro retraced the steps, again and again, but didn’t notice anything. Then he realized that he should retrace LBJ’s trip early in the morning.

At 5:30 in the morning, the sun is just coming up over the horizon in the east. Its level rays are striking that eastern façade of the capital full force. It’s lit up like a movie set. That whole long facade—750 feet long—it’s white, of course, white marble, and that white marble just blazes out at you as the sun hits it.

With that extra effort, Caro was able to be there–in the same time and place as the  excited young congressional aide would would become president–and put the reader in the same place. That one moment captures the excitement better than anything else could.

Puzzles

All great stories present puzzles inside puzzles. The ultimate puzzle is about the characters and the vents of the story. Who is he? What makes him tick? Why does he do what he does? Why did X happen and not Y?

To understand complex topics, look for the moments when something big changes. Notice the turning points, even if no one has ever seen those moments that way before. While interviewing the LBJ story, poring though archives, Caro noticed a change in tone in letters written to LBJ early in his congressional career. In his earliest years in Congress, LBJ looked like every young legislator. He sought the favor of his seniors. Then the letters showed something different. “in which they were doing the beseeching, asking for a few minutes of his time. What was the reason for the change? Was there a particular time at which it had occurred?” Caro pursued the puzzle until he discovered the reason. Johnson got monied interests to funnel contributions to Congressmen though him. Suddenly LBJ was the money man on the hill.

One of the oldest puzzles concerned the 1948 Senate race. After Coke Stevenson was declared the winner, a recount in Precinct 13 found 200 extra votes for Johnson and two for Stevenson. That gave the election to LBJ. Most people treated the election as a “Texas size joke, with stealing by both sides.” But Caro needed to know. After searching bars and other old haunts, Caro finally found Luis Salas, the man behind the discovery of those extra votes.For years Salas lived in Mexico, but he had recently moved back to a trailer park in Texas. Salas not only agreed to talk, but also to share his memoir of the incident. He wrote the memoir because “I am running short of time, feel sick and tired… Before I go beyond this world, I had to tell the truth.” No one had ever gotten this first-hand account–this confession–before. And so the mystery was settled. LBJ did steal the election.

Exemplars

Caro’s books are known for their heft. He’s written thousands of pages on his two subjects. He offers detailed examination of complex topics and intimate portraits of the people and places and scenes. But in those books are smaller stories that serve as parables for the larger epics. They are intimate accounts of ordinary people and how their lives were affected by these two political giants.

The most excerpted section of The Power Broker, a chapter called “One Mile,” tells how Robert Moses built the Cross-Bronx Expressway right through the neighborhood of East Tremont. This route led to the demolition of 54 six- and seven-story apartment buildings. He could have shifted the highway just two blocks and only demolished only six buildings. Community people asked him to do just that but he refused. Caro’s story is a devastating story of the destructiveness of power–and the callousness of the man behind it.

In the LBJ books, Caro tells of how electrification transformed the lives of rural Texans … how civil rights laws overturned brutal systems of racism … how LBJ began to use his ruthless tactics to control campus politics as a college student … his his brief period teaching in rural Texas have him empathy for the poor and dispossessed. These stories ring with energy and power because they are about ordinary people and how their lives were shaped by the was power was deployed.

Being There

To understand LBJ, Caro learned, he had to understand his father Sam. As he learned Sam’s story, Johnson’s cousin Ava decided Caro needed a reality check. He needed to see how foolish Sam was to settle in the Hill Country. So she told Caro to drive her to the Johnson ranch. When they got there she told him: “Now kneel down.” He did. “Now stick your fingers into the ground.” He could not move the whole length of a finger into the ground. The land had almost no topsoil. It looked like a lush land with its endless expanse of grass. But it could not produce anything. Sam was snookered by the appearance. Lyndon vowed not to make the same mistake.

Most biographies depicted Johnson as a popular BMOC in college. But Caro heard lots of rumblings that this was a myth. One of Johnson’s old classmates, Ella So Relle, grew agitated when Caro kept asking questions. “I don’t know why you’re asking all these questions,” she said. “It’s all there in black-and-white.” Where? In the Pedagog, the college yearbook. Caro had read it and found nothing of interest on Johnson. He want back and looked his his copy and again found nothing there.

He called Ella and asked her to tell him what pages she was talking about. Those pages had been skillfully razored out of the book. When Caro went to a local used bookstore to see other copies, the pages in question were also cut. Finally he found a complete copy, filled with stories alluding to Johnson’s early days as a political manipulator.

Writing

Before writing the actual draft of a book, Caro tries to articulate the point he wants to make. He writes one to three paragraphs that summarize the driving idea of the book. The process can take weeks. So what might this summary say. Caro summarizes his first Johnson book, The Path to Power:

That first volume tries to show what the country was like that Johnson came out of, why he wanted so badly to get out of it, how he got out of it, and how he got his first national power in Washington through the use of money. That’s basically the first volume–at the end of it, he loses his first Senate seat, but it’s pretty clear he’s going to come back. When you distill the book down like that, a lot become so much easier.

With that North Star, he begins to write an outline of the book. He posts those pages on his wall so he can see the whole book at a glance. Then he writes detailed outlines of chapters, which is really the whole chapter without the details. A long chapter might get a seven-page brief. Then, each chapter gets its own notebook, filled with all the chapter’s stories and quotations and facts.

Caro writes his drafts longhand on white legal pads, three or four times. Then he types these drafts on an old electric typewriter, using legal paper and triple spacing to leave lots of room for editing. Some drafts have more pencil marks than type.

He starts each day by reading the previous day’s output. “More and more frequently when I reread the stuff I wrote in the late afternoon the day before, it was no good and I had to throw it out. So there was no sense in working late; I stop earlier now.”

Writing takes enormous concentration. “Any interruption is a shock, a real jolt,” he writes. Once, working at the Frederick Lewis Allen Room at the New York Public Library, someone tapped his shoulder to go to lunch. “I found myself on my feet with my fist drawn back to punch the guy,” Caro says.

Research and early drafts make art possible. It’s the Michaelangelo Principle: To produce art, you chip and carve a massive hunk of granite until you find, inside it, your own David. Caro’s original drafts of The Power Broker were more than a million words. He cut that down to 700,000 words.

Style

When writing the preface for The Power Broker, Caro struggled to describe just how totally Robert Moses had transformed New York with bridges, highways, tunnels, beaches, parks, housing, dams, and more. Then he remembered reading Homer’s Iliad in college. Homer listed all the nations and all the ships that went to fight in the Trojan War. The epic’s use of dactylic hexameter gave this list a sense of drama. And so Caro, in describing the long list of Moses projects, made them sail across the page, as if ships going to Troy.

“I thought I could have a rhythm that builds, and then change it abruptly in the last sentence,” Caro remembers. “Rhythm matters. Mood matters. Sense of place matters. All these things we talk about with novels, yet I feel that for history and biography to accomplish what they should accomplish, they should have to pay as much attention to these devices as novels do.”

Genius

Lyndon Johnson was one of America’s greatest tragic heroes, a Shakespearean figure who transformed a nation but got brought down by his own demons. Johnson, Caro says, had “a particular kind of vision, of imagination, that was unique and so intense that it amounted to a very rare form of genius – not the genius of a poet or the artist, which was the way I had always thought about genius, but the type of genius that was, in its own way just as creative: a leap of imagination that could look at a barren, empty landscape and conceive on it, in a flash of inspiration, a colossal public work, a permanent, enduring creation.”

Here’s my definition for genius in a nonfiction writer: Someone who is intensely curious about the world and how it works, someone who wants to show it whole but also reveal its contradictions. To achieve this ambition, the writer restlessly explores issues that others consider settled or uninteresting or beyond anyone’s ability to know. This restless exploration depends on a commitment to facts–gathering them, checking them, making sense of them. And then, when the facts are gathered and organized, they are used to construct a work that reveals something fresh about how the world works.

By this definition, I think we’d have to say that Robert Caro is a genius. His body of work is as great as that of any biographer–or maybe any nonfiction writer, or maybe even any writer–now alive.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Tina Cassidy on Beats, Book Topics, Foils, and Plotting

Like other journalists of this late-print/early-digital age, Tina Cassidy has taken on a number of challenges as a writer. And more than most, she has succeeded.

Cassidy was a reporter for ten years at The Boston Globe, where she covered business, politics, and fashion. A Rhode Island native, she published articles in the Providence Journal as a high school student. She studied journalism at Northeastern University. After college she worked for the Boston Business Journal and the Associated Press before joining the Globe.

Since leaving the Globe, she has written books about Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, the process of being born, and, most recently, the battle for the women’s vote.She is now executive vice president and chief content officer at InkHouse, a national public relations and digital marketing agency.

She is active in civic affairs as a board member of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and as an activist for women candidates and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. She was a founding member of the Association of Capitol Reporters and Editors, a national organization dedicated to coverage of state and local government.

She lives in the Boston area with her husband, Anthony Flint, another ex-Globe reporter and author of acclaimed books on architecture and planning, along with their three sons and a Norfolk Terrier named Dusty.

Charlie Euchner: You began your writing career as a journalist. In your years with The Boston Globe, you also worked a number of different beats. Too often, beat writers get stuck in a rut, writing the stale old thing year after year. Can you talk about your experience covering different topics?

Tina Cassidy: I had pretty good self-awareness about when I needed a new beat. The clues included the feeling that I had exhausted interviewing all experts on the topic; that nothing I was writing about was surprising or felt new anymore. Weirdly, it was as if I had a biological clock timed to switch beats — typically every four years. Not sure if that was a coincidence or, as with a college degree, that’s about how long it takes to become an expert on something.

CE: Can you tell me about starting out as a teenager in Rhode Island. What kinds of stories did you do and what kinds of lessons did you learn then, about writing and reporting, that you remembered and applied thereafter?

TC: I wrote some articles for my hometown paper The Cranston Herald, mostly about school-related issues, and I was a stringer for the Providence Journal‘s West Bay briefs section; I think I got paid $25 per submission, which felt like a lot at the time. What I learned is that local journalism is essential, that people really care about what’s going on in their community and that there are stories all around us that go uncovered but shouldn’t. Today’s collapse of local journalism is a dangerous thing. Research has found that when community papers shut down, polarization increases. This is the last thing we need.

CE: Are there any stories for the Globe that you were especially fond of? Can you say a thing or two about them?

TC: “Fond” is not the word I’d use. But the most memorable ones for me were covering the 1996 Super Bowl between the New England Patriots and the Green Bay Packers (there was more drama off the field than on); JFK Jr.’s deadly plane crash; being in New York City on 9/11 and running toward the World Trade Center when it collapsed–and then somehow managing not just to survive but to run uptown in high heels and file a story before the special edition; and covering the 2000 Presidential election, from being on the bus with John McCain to looking at hanging chads in Florida.

CE: How did you make the transition from short pieces to full-length books? Some people think of books as collections of shorter pieces, and there’s some truth to that. But books need not only detailed stories and ideas, but also a sense of wholeness. So what helped you make the leap?

TC: The leap felt more like a continuation for me. I only write nonfiction and I am a compulsive writer who thrives on deadline. (I wish this weren’t the case.) If I sense a good story, I can’t stop myself from writing about it. At the heart of journalism and writing books is either a great story or the attempt to answer a big question.

My first book, about the history of childbirth (Birth: The Surprising History of How We Are Born) sought to understand how modern birth had gone so off the rails. I wanted to survey the historical and cultural landscape to see why it was that every generation and every culture had its own way of giving birth as a way to put modern birth in perspective.

My latest book, Mr. President, How Long Must We Wait? Alice Paul, Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the Right to Vote, is a great story that had not really been told before, pitting a little-known suffragette against a president whose multiple biographies may include a paragraph on suffrage (and his opposition to it) but little more. So it was a blue sky topic for me.

CE: Who are some of your role models as writers? Who do you try to emulate? What “tricks of the trade” do they offer to you as a storyteller, explainer, and book author?

TC: I’ve always admired nonfiction writers such as Hunter S. Thompson, Joan Didion and Tom Wolfe, who bring a journalistic eye and curiosity to their wildly different styles of writing. I can’t say I try to emulate anyone but I have worked hard to change my own writing style as I transitioned from journalism to writing books.

My first book editor, the wonderful Elisabeth Schmitz of Grove/Atlantic, told me to slow down my writing. Pacing is something they don’t teach you in journalism school. So I’ve worked on that. I also have to work at showing, not telling. I am always editing myself on that front.

CE: What’s your biggest challenge as a writer? How do you manage problems? Are you a plotter or a pantser? What “tricks of the trade” have you picked up over the years.

TC: I am a plotter. Structure is the first thing I figure out. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t change, but I need a road map to clarify the story or the question I need to answer — to proof it out. For my book on birth, it was about organizing millennia of history not chronologically but around subjects such as pain, fatherhood, postpartum.

For my book on Jacqueline Onassis (called Jackie After O) it was a tight chronology of one transformative year. So I built the structure, month by month, on a timeline. For my current book on Alice Paul, the heart of the book spans Wilson’s two terms as president. Plotting that story arc was fun but most challenging!

CE: Can you reflect on living in a writing household? I assume that you and Tony have lots of conversations about reporting, research, and writing. That’s very cool.

TC: Living with another writer means someone is always picking up the slack for the other. When I’m on book deadline, my husband is managing more kids stuff and meals and vice versa. It also means we truly understand the exhausting agony that writing induces, we can encourage each other and help each other get unstuck. Of course, there is also the brutally honest feedback (often accurate and helpful) that we give each other. My husband is always my first editor, though he doesn’t really have a choice because we live the process together. Thankfully, he is a brilliant thinker and writer.

CE: Tell me about your new book on the women’s suffrage movement and Woodrow Wilson. It’s a classic setup–pitting fallible protagonists against a fallible antagonist. How did you move from topic to story? What were some of the surprises and revelations for you, both about the subject and the writing process?

TS: I was scrolling twitter on vacation and came across the trending hashtag for #womensequalityday, which celebrates the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. I clicked and within an hour, learned about the leader of that suffrage movement, Alice Paul. The next logical question for me was what did the president think of Paul? Turns out, Wilson was the perfect foil – he did not believe the Constitution should give women voting rights. I was surprised to see that many Wilson biographies barely mentioned suffrage, and if they did, it was brief. Paul had been relegated to more academic biographies. I saw an opening and enjoyed weaving these two individuals together.

Excerpt: ‘The Advancing Army’

The following is an excerpt from Tina Cassidy’s new book, Mr. President, How Long Must We Wait? (Atria/Simon & Schuster, 2019), 304 pages

The women slowly made their exit from the East Room and returned to their new headquarters. After four years of toil and hardship in the damp basement on F Street, the CUWS, NWP, and the movement Paul reignited, were finally in a sunlit space, in a place of prominence. Cameron House stood at 21 Madison Place, on the edge of Lafayette Park—the green space in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The building—a wide, three-story, brick townhouse—had several benefits. First, it was visible and just two hundred steps away from the White House; the Wilsons could see the suffrage flag fluttering from its perch on the third-floor balcony. Second, there was ample space to work and entertain guests—from tourists and strangers walking in off the street to catch a glimpse of the women, to those attending ever-expanding fundraisers. There were also bedrooms to accommodate Paul and others, eliminating their daily commute. Paul was now using Susan B. Anthony’s old desk, a Victorian cylinder roll-top that Anthony’s secretary had donated to the NWP.

When the indignant suffragists walked through Cameron House’s front door, they entered into a great hall with a large staircase and a fireplace that burned eternal. Paul was there, waiting for them, ready to stoke their anger as they dropped into comfortable chairs in front of the flames and asked the question again: How long must we wait?

With the women assembled in front of the fire, Paul pitched a carefully orchestrated idea, which she asked Blatch to present. Cameron House. “We have got to take a new departure,” Blatch told them.

“We have got to bring to the President, day by day, week in, week out, the idea that great numbers of women want to be free, will be free, and want to know what he is going to do about it. We need to have a silent vigil in front of the White House until his inauguration in March. Let us stand beside the gateway where he must pass in and out so that he can never fail to realize that there is a tremendous earnestness and insistence in back of this measure.”

So far, with Paul as their leader, the women had marched four years earlier, in 1913, in the largest and most outrageous protest America had ever seen. They had assembled an eighty-car brigade to deliver signatures from all over the nation. They had testified, editorialized, and reorganized. They had formed their own political party. They held May Day parades in nearly every state in the union. They fundraised and actively worked to defeat Democrats. They had a booth at a global exposition, collected a miles-long scroll of signatures, and drove it cross-country from San Francisco. They dropped leaflets from the sky and a banner from the House chamber’s balcony. And they had sacrificed one of their own. On this day, in front of the crackling fire at their new headquarters, with the White House at their backs, they may have been exhausted, but they were neither depleted of ideas nor the passion to continue the struggle.

They listened as Blatch offered a new form of protest. In America, pickets had become a common union tactic, typically ending in violence. But suffragists had been employing the practice as well. Blatch had used pickets in her Votes for Women campaign with the New York Legislature in 1912, so when she delivered her final plea to the women of Cameron House, they stirred.

“Will you not,” she asked, “be a ‘silent sentinel’ of liberty and self-government?”

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Historian Garrett Peck on Discipline, Writing ‘What You Know,’ and the Importance of Hard Facts

Most of us only get one life to live. But Garrett Peck, a Washington-based historian, has had three. By day, he’s Corporate Man, working for a major telecommunications company. At nights, he’s an author. On weekends, he’s a D.C. tour guide.

Peck’s latest book, The Great War in America: World War I and Its Aftermath, explores the politics and social issues of America during the Great War. It’s a compelling read, full of drama and insights about a bygone age. Peck is an old-school historian. He does not want to overwhelm you with his theories and counterfactuals. He simply wants to recreate the past. In this age of “alternative facts,” his mission could not be more important.

I learned of Peck’s work while researching my own book on World War I. In the course of my work, I have devoured books on Woodrow Wilson, the war, America’s social conflicts during and after the war, and more. Peck’s is in the top tier.

Other books have a strong Washington focus. Titles include Prohibition in Washington, D.C.: How Dry We Weren’t (2011), The Potomac River: A History (2012), The Smithsonian Castle and The Seneca Quarry (2013), Capital Beer: A Heady History of Brewing in Washington, D.C. (2014), and Walt Whitman in Washington, D.C.: The Civil War and America’s Great Poet (2015).

His own “just the facts, ma’am” modesty aside, Peck’s work often explores the contradictions inherent in social life. The Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet (2009) explores the inherent contradictions of America’s brief ban on alcohol.

A native Californian, Peck serves on the board of the Woodrow Wilson House and is a member of the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of D.C.A U.S. Army veteran, he is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and George Washington University. He lives in Arlington, Virginia.

He can be reached at garrettpeck.com.

Charles Euchner: You are the rare writer who manages to keep a “day job” while also finding time to write ambitious books on important topics. How do you discipline yourself? When do you write? Do you have a big working outline, then work on one piece at a time? 

Garrett Peck: I’m a workaholic. That’s closer to the truth than I should probably admit. I have a very busy day job at a large telecom company, and then I write nonfiction books on the side (seven books so far), which always require a tremendous amount of research. And then I’m also a part-time tour guide, which I fell into as a way of promoting my books but has taken on an enjoyable life of its own.

I’ve long told people who want to go into writing: “Don’t quit your day job.” Writing is a tough profession: it’s time consuming, the pay stinks, and you’re competing against all that free content online. Most books sell just a few thousand copies, and getting literary reviews is a challenge. A day job can provide you all kinds of benefits, like financial stability, health care, and retirement savings. And it bears reminding: there is no dignity in poverty.

Of course, my advice is completely hypocritical, as I’m quitting my day job (taking a management buyout) in March 2019. So then my avocation printed on my business card will really become true: Author. Historian. Tour Guide. (I have my mortgage paid off, so that’s how I can afford to leave Corporate America.) But seriously, folks: if you’re a writer, don’t quit your day job.

CE: Publishing is a tough racket. Book enthusiasts don’t always buy books. I know that I go to lots of book talks and don’t always buy. 

GP: Whenever I give a book talk, I usually observe that about a third of an audience springs for your book. The others go home empty handed. This is a statistic that has held up since I published my first book in 2009 and hundreds of book events since. Again, you’re competing against “free,” whether that’s Wikipedia or someone checking your book out of the library. It makes it harder to earn a living as an author.

CE: Back to your advice about keeping the day job. It’s hard to keep a strong focus for a large project like a book. 

GP: Having so many jobs and activities can really be distracting. That said, I’m pretty disciplined about writing. I try to get a little done every morning before the conference calls begin, and I usually dedicate Saturdays to writing, if I’m not out leading a tour. Fridays at work are usually pretty quiet, so I can a lot done then too. It’s key to schedule time when you can write – and then sit down and get to work. As Barbara Kingsolver has said, the muse has a terrible work ethic, and you’ll usually have to go on without her. Be disciplined about it. Books don’t write themselves.

CE: On top of it all, you’re a tour guide …. 

GP: I love being a tour guide, by the way: you get to use your imagination to build a story and share a bit of history with like-minded people. Thus far I’ve developed about fifteen tours around the Washington, DC area (you can see them on my website, garrettpeck.com), and all of them I developed from my writing.

I daresay I get paid better as a tour guide than an author. Thus the paradox: writing a book enables me to create and lead a tour where I actually make the bulk of my living. Tour guiding also develops practical skills like leading a large group of people (“herding cats,” I call it), always knowing where the restrooms are (it’s the first question everyone asks), and using your inner diva to project your voice like an opera singer. Superstar!

CE: Most of your books are set in Washington. D.C., where you live and work. The classic advice for writers is to “write what you know.” But of course, that only goes so far. Most writers begin ignorant of their subjects–at least compared with what they need to know to produce a great book. 

GP: Write what you know. I actually love that advice, as it holds true for most people. Or alternatively (as they say in sales): Sell the bananas on the cart. Only you know you, and you have a library of content and lifelong experiences inside of you.

I’m working on a book about Willa Cather and how she created Death Comes for the Archbishop. Now that was someone who wrote what she knew! Out of her dozen novels, half of them take place in frontier prairie towns. Although the town names change, every one of them was Red Cloud, Nebraska, the town she grew up in, and most of the fictional characters were actual people. She endlessly mined her childhood and her hometown.

On the other hand, your own experiences can only take you so far. You also need to do plenty of research into a topic, and commit the time to develop your ideas. As you see in sports, very few people are naturally gifted. Most successful people in sports have practiced, practiced, practiced their way to the top.

CE: How does your knowledge of D.C. shape your topics and research? 

GP: I’ve lived here since 1994. I know and love a lot of the history – there’s always something new to uncover – but that’s just the starting point. Any nonfiction research project is going to require me to dive into the archives on a treasure hunt. It’s a fun experience. When you go down the rabbit hole of research, like Alice in Wonderland, you have no idea where you are going to come out. And that’s part of the adventure. It’s kind of a solitary activity, but it comes with many rewards, like the time I was going through C&O Canal Company records in the National Archives and randomly found a signed letter by Francis Scott Key, the Georgetown lawyer who wrote our national anthem. That was kind of cool.

CE: How would you describe your process of putting together big projects? Books require major investments of time and energy. Because of their large scale, they can get out of control. How do you manage it all?

GP: Imagine a book is like a giant dump truck that drops off a million bricks, whose driver tells you, “Here’s your house! Now go build it.” You have to start somewhere: a foundation.

I tend to research and write at the same time. That is, as I go through one source, I type up my notes and capture important ideas and quotes and put them into my draft manuscript. Pretty soon the content starts suggesting an outline for how to organize the material, and thus are born chapters and subsections. That tends to just flow naturally. (Look! I just split an infinitive. Sí, se puede! Yes, we can!)

When writing a big, big topic–like The Great War in America, which took me about four years to research and publish–you will collect far, far more material than you can actually use. So that’s where you have to be like Medea and kill your children. I make it easier on myself by asking: Does this material help answer the question I asked in the beginning, my thesis? If the answer is no, then it’s gotta go.

But don’t just delete the material: rather, cut-and-paste it into a new document. I call mine “Deleted Content,” and it’s there for you should you need to reference it. And that way you needn’t feel bad about removing something you worked hard on. You may get to use it for another project someday.

CE: Nonfiction writers have an advantage and a disadvantage: They can’t make things up. That forces us to do deep research, in order to piggyback off other people’s experiences and knowledge. The disadvantage is that when we run into a topic without any real records, we cannot make stuff up. We have to find clever ways to fill the gaps. What are your thoughts and approaches to these issues?

GP: Oooh, this is a bit of a philosophical question. I’m very much about the facts, which are even more important in this post-truth era. Cold, hard, provable facts. Yes, the truth can be discerned, and the facts are almost always out there. I have zero tolerance toward revisionism: making up a new story to suit your convenience. The current occupant of the White House loves doing this. Sorry to get political, but it’s true. He’s a fabulist and a chronic liar. And his lies are easy to fact-check.

But what happens if you have a few missing pieces of the puzzle? I think in that case that is okay to speculate the possible outcomes with your readers – as long as you make it crystal clear that you are speculating. You can come to reasonable conclusions about what directions the facts point toward, while also acknowledging that alternatives may exist.

As I said, though, don’t get into revisionism. That’s where you get to make up a whole new outcome that the facts don’t support. For example, many in the South think that the Confederacy might have won the Civil War if Stonewall Jackson had lived. That’s pure unsubstantiated conjecture (Jackson died in 1863 after the Battle of Chancellorsville, two years before the war ended). And could one general have made all that much of a difference? I kind of doubt it. The space-time continuum only goes in one direction, and you don’t get do-overs. So repeat after me: No historical revisionism. The facts must always trump lore, mythology, and speculation. Facts, not fictions.

CE: Have you always been a history buff? What history writers have inspired you? Do you model yourself off any great history authors? Or maybe even some fiction writers? If so, how? How would you describe your aspirations as a storyteller, explainer, and stylist?

GP: History has inspired me ever since I was a kid. In the summer before the fourth grade, my family took a driving vacation across the country from Sacramento to visit relatives in Minnesota. We stopped along the way at many historical sites, and was struck by their meaning, even at such a young age. Seeing a site is different than just reading about it in a book.

As a kid, I was blown away by Mount Rushmore and the four presidents’ faces carved there. But as an adult, I look at Mount Rushmore more skeptically and think, We blew up part of a mountain to build giant god-like statues of our favorite presidents?! Isn’t that idolatry? The Black Hills are holy to the Sioux Indians, and yet we went and turned it into a tourist trap. Your perspective changes as you get older and you realize the impact our actions have on other people. Such is the gift of self-reflection.

CE: Tell me something about your ambitions, style, and inspirations as a writer. 

GP: My ambitions are to spend the rest of my days writing history books and leading tours, things I can concentrate on full time now that I’m leaving Corporate America. I’ll likely never be J. K. Rowling or Jonathan Franzen, or constantly have guest appearances on CNN like presidential historian Michael Beschloss. And that’s okay. But I can be successful in a small way if I can put food on the table, cover the basics (“Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity,” Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden), and find time to keep pursuing an avocation I just adore.

CE: Do you model yourself off any great history authors? Or maybe even some fiction writers? If so, how? How would you describe your aspirations as a storyteller, explainer, and stylist?

It’s funny, but I’ve never really studied the writing styles of different authors, nor compared them to my own. I have my own style, which is refined in part on where I got my professional start: writing magazine articles. Breezy, somewhat informal, yet informative.

I certainly have my favorite authors, largely because of their craft in telling stories. And trust me: whether you’re teaching a class, writing a book, or leading a tour, it is all storytelling. I’ve long appreciated James McPherson, the dean of Civil War historians, as well as historian David McCullough and his detailed histories and analysis.

From the fiction side of the house, I love how sparse Willa Cather and Ernest Hemingway constructed their stories and even their sentences. They were so straightforward and to the point. Or how F. Scott Fitzgerald could stretch a metaphor into something beautiful and heartbreaking. I read Fitzgerald and think, if I could only write like him! But I’m not Fitzgerald. I’m me.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

 

How to Pitch an Article or Book (It’s All the Same)

Writing involves more than writing. In fact, writing is a vanity project unless you can get someone to pay you to publish your work.

As much as anyone in this 24/7, always-on, don’t-leave-your-phone-behind world, editors are overworked. They work through piles of ideas from hopeful writers. Most of them are bad, impractical, boring, impractical, tone deaf, and [insert flaw here]. As a writer, you need to stand out from this dreck. You need to be the bright spot in the editor’s day.

Here’s the lesson in a nutshell: Like readers, editors respond when they find a story or an idea that they simply can’t put down. They want to find something fresh, active and alive, provocative, counterintuitive.

So let’s talk about how to brighten your editor’s day. Let’s talk about creating a kick-ass pitch letter.

The Story’s the Thing

You have to hook the reader with your story, especially with the main characters and their dilemmas, struggles, and inner turmoil. Readers need a stake in the writing. They need a rooting interest. The more you give editors that, the better your chance to sell your article or book.

People buy fiction (and often nonfiction too) on the basis of whether you can hook them in the first paragraph. So don’t waste any time with pointless introductions. Get right to the business of seducing your reader. Show how it’s done. Show the editor you’re pitching that you are the writing equivalent of a pickup artist.

So how do you hook and intrigue the reader in your pitch letter? Before exploring that, let’s set up a quick case study.

A Case Study: The Parable of the Prodigal Son

Let’s pretend we want to write an article or a book about the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Jesus tells this tale to teach about human nature–about the power of love, the inevitability of mistakes, about learning and forgiveness, about jealousy and grace, and so much more. (If you want a great book-length treatment of this parable, see Henri Nouwen’s The Return of the Prodigal Son.)

Here’s an abbreviated version of the story from the Bible (Luke 15: 1-32):

A man had two sons: an older, responsible one and a younger, more adventurous one. The younger one said, “Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.” When the father gave him his inheritance, he journeyed to a far country.

The younger son then wasted his inheritance with riotous living. Then a famine devastated the land. To survive, the younger son got a job feeding swine. Tired and wasted, he would happily eat the husks he fed the swine. He decided to return home to apologize and beg for a job.

When his father saw him approaching, he ran and embraced him. “Father, I have sinned against heaven,” the younger son said, “and am no more worthy to be called thy son.”

But the father said to his servants, “Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” And they began to be merry.

When the elder son grew jealous and angry, his father came out and begged him to join the party. The older son recounted his many years of loyalty and hard work. Hurt, he said: “You never gave me a party. But as soon as your younger son came, you killed for him the fatted calf.”

The father told him: “Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.”

Now, suppose you wanted to pitch this story to an editor? What might that look like?

The Pitch Letter in Five Parts

You should be able to pitch this story–as an article or a book or even TV series–in a one-page letter. The trick is to excite the reader. Hook reader in right away with a scene, then explain how this scene fits into a larger story, and then provide some practical ideas for the project. Let’s explore it, step by step.

1. Introduction: Let Me Introduce Myself

Open, with the briefest hello that says something about the story. Introduce yourself if you must. But wrap that introduction into the first part of your pitch.

For the Prodigal Son, the intro might go like this:

“I write to you about my 74,000-word novel, The Deplorable Returns, a tale that reveals the major motivations of human beings–their fall from grace and their road to redemption.

Avoid talking about yourself. There’s plenty of time to do that if you intrigue the reader with your story.

2. You Are There

Next, give the reader a gripping scene. This is your opportunity to show off your best storytelling. Zoom into the story at a tense moment. Show the dilemma of the characters in their bodies, movements, tentativeness, halting words, and so on.

If you were selling the prodigal son story, you might open with the moment when the father’s joy intersects with the “good” son’s anger and confusion and the prodigal son’s hope. Zoom in and get physical. It might go like this:

After years of whoring and drinking in a distant land, a young man runs out of money and is humiliated doing menial work. Humbled, he decides to come home to beg his father for a laboring job. He doesn’t expect much. After all, when he left home, he rejected everything his father stood for. Surprisingly, his father embraces him when he gets home and calls for a party. All is well. Or is it? The older brother, who has been righteous, now feels slighted. He sulks and complains that his father is playing favorites.

In this narrative, move back and forth from positive to negative notes: Something good happened … then something bad … then hopeful … then scary … then uplifting … then deflating … And so on.

The prodigal son pitch could take another angle. We could have shown the drama of the son leaving home. We could have zoomed in on his dissolute living abroad. We could zoom in on the older son, following the rules and honoring his father but full of anger and resentment. We could show a scene of the sons fighting, and then zoom out to reveal their father and the story before the younger son’s return.

Pick the scene that best brings your reader into the drama you want to convey. Make it a real sample of the kind of writing you want to do.

Whatever scene you choose, let the reader get close to the moment. Show specific people doing specific things, with hopeful and then catastrophic consequences that force people to face the truth. Be totally visual. Get the reader’s mind racing. Get gritty as hell. Do that for, oh say, 40-50 words.

3. Here’s the Bigger Picture

Then step back and ask, in essence, How did we get here and where are we going? Provide a broader context. This broader context will help the reader to imagine the whole story–without your detailing it so much that the suspense is ruined. The followup paragraph might look like this:

This scene was just part of a larger filial drama. As the story opens, we see the father and his sons laboring at the farm. The father teaches his sons the virtues of good living. But sometimes those lessons require failure–venturing out into the world, making mistakes, learning from mistakes, and deciding to make amends. That setup leads to the homecoming. What follows is even more dramatic.

And so on. You get the idea. After giving the reader a dramatic moment, step back and put it into context. Then hint at larger dramas and lessons.

4. Why You–and Everything Else–Should Care

Now say something about your project and concept. You might mention the genre, how the project came along, or how it says something that modern readers would appreciate. As a prompt, consider starting with a reference to the present moment.

The Deplorable Returns offers an intimate look at a modern dilemma of families and communities everywhere. The story explores all three corners of the family drama–the importance of a strong parent who can teach their children but also allow them to make mistakes and learn; the value of duty and loyalty, as well as the potential for those virtues to breed resentment; and the necessity of adventure, mistakes, and redemption.

And so on.

5. So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu 

Quickly–before you lose momentum from your dynamic narrative–wrap up. Write one or two sentences about why this could be B-I-G. Again, for the prodigal son parable, you might close like this:

This story offers a timeless drama of failure, redemption, hope, and forgiveness. I would love to explore more details about the story, my plan to research and write it, and how it might fit in your publications. Might you be interested?

Congrats! You’re finished. Or are you?

Other Tips for a Winning Pitch Letter

• Read it aloud: Read your draft aloud. Read it fast and read it slowly. Read it backward, paragraph by paragraph. When you read it, break it up by phrases. Emphasize the nouns one time and the verbs another time.

• Simplify, simplify, simplify. When we summarize something big and complex, we tend to pack too much information. We jam ideas into our paragraphs like sardines into tins. Don’t! Do not make the reader track back to figure out who’s who, whats’ what, and where’s where. Introduce people and dilemmas slowly; let then u-n-f-o-l-d.

• Put everything into action. Show action to show the character doing something specific. Put something in the character’s hands. Show something happening nearby. Catch the character switching his attention and actions.

• Avoid boastful or tentative language. Yes, we know you’re the perfect person for the project. But don’t boast. Let your writing and record tell the story. At the same time, don’t be defensive. I know someone who mentioned that he had a “professional editor” read his manuscript. Ouch. That made him look tentative and defensiveness. (He shouldn’t be. He’s brilliant.) Let your ideas and storytelling prowess win the day.

• What about the “high concept”? Some publishers love the “high concept” idea–that is, the unique angle that cracks open a complex or overly familiar topic. You might know about The View from Flyover Country, by Sarah Kendzior; A History of the World in Ten Cocktails, by Wayne Curtis; or The Year of Living Biblically, by A.J. Curtis. These books provide unique overviews by taking a unique, usually neglected perspective. Better than that is …

• The ONE Idea: Try to build your book or article–and therefore, your pitch–around a single idea. Sure, you can explore more than that single idea–but do it with reference to the big, driving idea. Think of these classics: A.O.Hirschman’s Exit, Voice, and Loyalty; Peter Theil’s From Zero to One; and, of course, Gary Keller’s The ONE Thing. Each states a simple concept, then looks at it from different angles, like a jeweler looks at a gem.

That’s you–offering an editor, not to mention that editor’s readers–a gem.

Who could resist?

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.

Seven Essential Skills for Storytelling

People are storytelling creatures. We evolved to tell stories.

From 30,000 to 100,000 years ago, out great ancestors began telling stories. It happened around the time that the size of clans expanded and those clans began to wander longer distances and then come home again.

Sitting by fires or in caves, by streams or in mountains, our ancestors told tales that helped them understand the day-to-day perils and potential of life. They warned each other of predators (“Bear in woods!”), discussed the weather (“So hot!”), angled for advantage with potential mates (“Hubba, hubba”), and taught their young with stories (“In my day …”).

More than anything else, the power to tell, hear, and remember stories separates humans from other species. Other species eat, find shelter, reproduce, and make things. Some species—like apes, chimps, whales, and birds—use language. Others—including chimps, birds, dolphins, and elephants—use tools. But as far as we know, only humans tell stories.

Stories take us away from the here and now, move us emotionally and intellectually, and help us understand and organize our lives. “We experience our lives in narrative form,” the novelist Jonathan Franzen once remarked. “If you can’t order things in a narrative fashion, your life is a chaotic bowl of mush.”

So what are the essential skills of storytelling? Consider these seven “must haves” for all stories:

1. Develop Compelling Characters

Start with characters. Nothing excites our brains more than images of our own kind. We’re a narcissistic species, so find or create characters with strong qualities. Make sure you know the characters’ deepest desires. Present these characters in all their complexity—avoid cardboard heroes and villains—and show how they deal with conflict and adversity.

Put those characters on a journey. Put them into action. Show how they interact with different people and situations. Show them fretting and fighting, arguing and negotiating, holding and helping, guessing and calculating, wondering and deciding. Emphasize the word show.

Put these scenes in a setting that helps tell the story. To really bring your story to life, find the details about your settings that help explain the characters and action. How you depict places—homes, offices, schools, parks, cars, camps, churches, prisons, streets, and parking lots—will set the parameters for your characters and stories.

2. Show the ‘World of the Story’

Every story needs a container. We need places for characters to go and to interact. Simple enough.

But places do more for storytelling than to offer a sandbox for characters to play. They also offer insights into the values and abilities of the characters and community.

The world of the story shapes how people feel and behave—and are perceived by others. Well-designed places make it easier for people to do what they want to do. They boost people’s energy and focus. Poorly designed places disorient people, sap their energy, and alienate them from others.

Put your characters in different places. Note how they change as they go from home to school to work to mall to ball field to theater to pizzeria to pub. Place determines possibilities. Create settings that make the characters who they are.

3. Give the Reader Action and Emotion.

We live in the Age of Science.

Science has made all kinds of wondrous things—cities and skyscrapers, cars and rockets, machines from digital pens to and the energy to fuel them, medical miracles and yottabytes of data. Those advances come from a vast accumulation of data, equations, rules and laws, and analyses. It’s all very abstract.

Which is great. But …

To connect with readers—to get and keep their attention, to explain complex ideas—you need to show action and tap into emotions.

Animals—including the human animal—are programmed to respond to movement, sounds, touches, smells, and changes in the environment. Action arouses our attention. Your job as a writer, quite simply, is to attract and keep people’s attention. So show action.

What do I mean by action? It could be anything from a wink or nod to a riot.

A scientist named Paul Eckman has developed a whole system for interpreting people’s “microexpressions.” As the name suggests, microexpressions are small and often last for just fractions of a second. A psychologist named John Gottman can assess the likelihood of marital bliss in couples by watching their microexpressions for five minutes.

So, you see, you don’t need a lot of explosions or chase scenes to show something meaningful happening.

So what makes someone’s wink or nod “action”? And does that mean everything that moves, great and small, is action?

Action must matter. Somehow, to count as action, something has to change. Suppose I sit in a crowded theater and nod when a speaker says something. If our story focuses on the speaker, my nod doesn’t change anything. It’s not meaningful; it’s not, therefore, action. But suppose the story focuses on me and my struggle to understand an idea. When I hear the speaker’s words, I nod. That nod constitutes action if it changes my story.

What about emotion? Do stories really need emotion?

Absolutely. Emotions don’t just help people stay engaged. They also help people to understand. In fact, brain researchers have found that rational thought is not possible without emotion. The intellectual development of many autistics, to take one example, gets stuck when they cannot develop or express feelings.

Emotion compresses ideas. If I feel emotional when I visit my old primary school, it’s because that image distills all kinds of ideas—about my family, friends, childhood, hopes, fears, successes, failures, losses, and more. When I need to understand something about education, my emotions help me to organize my ideas.

4. Provide Details that Show Something New

Just as action arouse the reader, so do details. So what do we mean by details?

You could look at details at two levels. On one level, a detail refers to anything specific in a piece of writing. So if I describe a cafe, I might provide details about the tables, the aroma, the crowd, the murmurs of conversation, the interaction of customers and baristas, and so on. But there’s a problem.

Most readers could anticipate most of these details. But it doesn’t make sense to just tell the reader what she already knows. Readers want to learn something new, not get told what they already know. Readers want to be surprised.

So that’s the second level of details. To be effective, a detail requires some kind of surprise. As a writer, you need to discover new and fresh information and insights, something that adds to the reader’s knowledge.  So before you include a detail in your descriptions, ask: Would this surprise the reader? Would it add something new to her knowledge or experience?

For inspiration, consider this passage from Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables:

There were corpses here and there, and pools of blood on the pavement. I remember a white butterfly which went and came in the street. Summer does not abdicate.

The appearance of the butterfly in such a grim scene is surprising. But it makes sense. Whatever tragedy happens, life goes on. Look for the details that offer not just a surprise, but also a contrast–and which speak to the larger realities of life.

5. Organize Events Into a Narrative Spine.

The most important of all resolutions. In this day of blogging and cable TV shout programs, everyone has an opinion. Which is fine. But if you really want to capture your reader’s attention, tell a story. For most writing, you can tell stories at least once a page. If you tap into the reader’s hardwired love of narrative, you will be to explain even the most abstract concepts.

Put the reader in a time and place, with a character struggling to realize some goal and encountering resistance. Use concrete details. Try to inject at least one surprise in every paragraph of narrative.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Aristotle, in The Poetics 2,500 years ago:

A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

A beginning is that which does not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something naturally is or comes to be.

An end, on the contrary, is that which itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or as a rule, but has nothing following it.

A middle is that which follows something as some other thing follows it.

A well-constructed plot, therefore, must neither begin nor end haphazardly, but conform to these principles.

Dividing all drama into a beginning, middle, and end might seem simplistic. And many authors violate the rule. The French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard once quipped: “A story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, but not necessarily in that order.” But for most stories—and for other kinds of communication as well—readers need a journey that moves through these stages.

6. Give Characters Props.

A simple object—a key prop in a classroom, a small knowable place—offers instant insight into a stern, dreaded primary school teacher.

Avery Chenoweth, a wonderful storyteller, told me he uses props to break out of writer’s block. “If I’m stuck, I  get my characters to work with their hands–fixing a light bulb, changing a tire, anything sweaty and detailed that will get me into his or her skin. Being in that intensely focused problem transports me out of my chair and into the page.” But you don’t have to wait for writer’s block. Show a character working with his hands to start a scene or an analysis.

I realized the full power of the prop when listening to a radio interview with the economist Barry Bluestone. Talking to Tom Ashbrook of NPR’s “On Point,” Bluestone described working at a Ford plant in during his college summers in the 1960s. Bluestone brought an object for show-and-tell. “This is a two-barrel carburetor from 1964,” Bluestone announced, as if the audience could see. “It went into a Mustang and there’s a good chance that I built that thing.” Bluestone then recounted watching a worker at a McDonald’s restaurant a few days before. “I’m looking at a guy operating a fryolator and he’s going through the exactly same motions that I went through but he’s making one-fourth what I made.”

When I heard this, I was amazed. Simply bringing an object into the conversation, acting as if we listeners could see it, Bluestone activated the visual parts of our brains and our memories. He put us on that assembly line in Roseville, Michigan, and in that fast-food restaurant in Boston, Massachusetts. The power of props to enliven a scene—even when you can’t see them—is profound.

Wherever you set your story—at home or work, out in the larger world or on the road—create a container for the characters and action. Show the characters develop themselves there. Put objects around them; better yet, put objects in their hands.

Once your characters have established themselves in small, knowable places, they can venture into the big, unruly world outside.

7. Use Storytelling Techniques Even for Technical Subjects.

S.I. Hayakawa, a linguist who also served as a college president and a U.S. Senator, used the image of a ladder to explain the range of ideas that people need to use. At the low rungs, we see lots of detailed information-specific people, places, actions, and results. At the higher rungs of the ladder, we see abstract ideas—concepts like war, justice, fairness, and mind.

He called the “the ladder of abstraction.” And he explained that good communication requires climbing up and down the ladder, to talk at the appropriate level of specificity or generality.

I like to think of it this way. All writing is about storytelling. It’s just that some stories are on the lower rungs of the ladder—and others are at the higher rungs of the ladder.

Stories talk about particular people doing particular things in particular places at particular times, with particular results. So: Dorothy pined for a place “over the rainbow” after being shooed away by her aunt and uncle and attacked by an angry woman named Miss Gulch. Then a tornado came along and …

Analysis talks in categories, in generalities—at the higher runs of the ladder. Rather than talking about specifics, analysis gathers up whole batches of information to talk about how things tend to happen. Now think of Dorothy as just one of countless children.

So: Young people need to belong and feel special. When adults ignore or scold them, they dream of going someplace else. Not just Dorothy, but young people everywhere and all times. Not just Auntie Em and Uncle Henry and Miss Gulch, but all adults. Not just over the rainbow, but any kind of place far from the pains of growing up.

Get it? When you tell a story, get particular; when you analyzegeneralize.

Like this content?
Then sign up for the weekly Elements of Writing newsletter.