Sunday, November 1, 2009
Week 11
You have been reading your writer/essay/column for quite some time. You should know the writer's tendencies and voice quite well. What patterns have emerged? Does your writer love the colon? Secretly or not-so-secretly over-use the simple sentence? Think about what stands out most, what pattern is present only to the seasoned professional reader like you. Share, comment, keep up the great work!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
As I read Brotman, I realize that my style of writing resembles hers in many ways. She has a strong voice that is very present in her writing without overpowering the article, with that bit of sarcasm that adds a tinge of "bad-ass" in the article. She also is very fond of writing about topics that relate directly to her and not anything far away or distant (for example one article was about teenagers leaving for college like her daughter did, and another article was about email and spam and she describes her experience with that). I've noticed that her articles are a lot of the time like narratives, and that she uses a lot of dialogue within her writing. Another aspect of her writing is that almost every article ends with a comment that is her voice, with that sarcastic, funny tone. I really enjoy Brotman's style.
Daum is a fan of parenthetical comments. I'm a huge fan of parenthesis (though i try not to let it show) and her sassy comments fit between those curvy lines quite nicely:
"In other words, you're not supposed to dart through red lights on a bike (shame on you, 80% of Lycra wearers in my neighborhood)."
On a broader scale, there is a certain format Daum's articles follow.
First, perhaps simply a common journalistic method (I don't read enough articles to know), she always starts her article with the most objective, straight forward facts of the subject. She's a clever writer; i would expect her to begin with a witty comment or thesis.
Second, her means of argument is to begin with one perspective on the topic, outline it well, though noncommittally, then show where the holes in it are. She manages to do this with a nice balance, but it's very noticeable she doesn't just give you her decided perspective.
I've noticed two main trends in Friedman's writing. One is his clever use of metaphors to clarify what would otherwise be a very confusing political topic. For example, in his column today, he stated that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process "is now more of a callisthenic, like weight-lifting or sit-ups, something diplomats do to stay in shape, but not because they believe anything is going to happen." I am definitely a fan of his metaphors; after reading them, I come out with a clearer understanding of how the situation he was describing works.
The second trend I noticed just in reading his past three articles, was that he uses the phrase "It is obvious that..." surprisingly often (he used it twice just in his column today). While what follows usually clarifies the subject he is talking about, it often wasn't obvious to me before, and I would prefer if he instead chose to say "it has become obvious to me" or "i have realized it is clear." This might take away slightly from the punchiness of his sentence, but I think what follows this phrase is usually clever enough that it could still stand out.
This question is hard for me to answer because I follow a blog, not one writer. But I have noticed some trends. The authors use a lot of quotes from a primary source. Although using a lot of quotes in an article can be boring, it does add credibility to an article. Statistics are also a huge part of the articles in the blog I read. The statistics are usually used to an overwhelming opinion, leaving no room for argument. The statistics are something that I would not usually see, so I like that the authors include statistics.
Like Patrick, I follow an essay series rather than a specific author, so it's definitely challenging to comment on patterns. I've actually noticed a definite LACK of patterns in my column. Since the column is titled "Modern Love" I assumed that from week to week I would be reading about various people resolving problems with their partners, but what has struck me about the column is the great variety there is. So, if anything, I would say the pattern I've seen in content is that each author is very personal, staying true to his or her story and not letting the tale swayed by the expectations around the word "love". However in terms of structure, while the word choices and tone have varied along with the content, I've noticed a trend of many short paragraphs rather than a handful of long ones. I don't know if this is a requirement of the pieces submitted or not, but it's been quite consistent.
Caitlin Flanagan’s articles often disguise themselves as book reviews, but don’t be deceived. The articles may begin on the topic of the book, but one of Flanagan’s strengths is changing direction smoothly in order to get to her theses on society. She drifts from the subject of the book to her own experiences to human experiences (especially those of women) as well an anthropological evaluation of such experiences. Flanagan ties in other books and cultural references, ultimately ending up with a slightly messy, but nonetheless enjoyable, package. Though by the end of the essay I may not be able to remember how Flanagan got there, I am always interested and look forward to the next week’s article.
Perhaps the biggest pattern that I have detected in Belkin's writing is that she almost always poses a question for the audience to consider within the first paragraph. From then on, she provides an example from submissions from readers of the blog, and then analyzes them both, with consideration to her own personal beliefs. It's funny; after re-reading all of her posts, I've actually noticed that Belkin follows this exact same template with every new post she creates. Because her topics are usually interesting enough, I think it's less noticeable, but at the same time, I feel a little cheated after realizing that she writes almost the exact same thing every time.
Mark Morford has an interesting and very unique style to his writing. He always writes satirical and very opinionated pieces. He says what he wants to say and does not shy away from his point. He displays his points in clever but often round-about ways. He loves to use hyphenated-sentence-words-that-go-on-forever. He never fails to use the extremely long sentence/paragraph. And he always has two-line titles that are never shorter than 10 words long. This style is what first got me hooked in his 2006 article, "Naked, misled sleepers, awake already!" This article is what made me choose him for this project even though I hadn't read any of his articles since that first one. However after reading two of his articles every week for the last 3 months, his once refreshing and individualistic style is now getting on my nerves.
Noonan loves to come to conclusive statements. She will present some evidence or opinion in a paragraph, and then draw some conclusion from it in a sentence that you will remember. Her writing style is fairly stark, at least so that there is very little superfluous grammar and punctuation. Her voice shines through her content. The way she addresses the political evaluations (if you will) of each article exemplify her writing style.
One trend that I find interesting and fun about Ellen Goodman's columns is that she consistently involves the reader in one way or another. She generally writes about current pressing issues in society and current events, all of which the reader will have an opinion. In her writing, she never fails to provoke the reader to look further into a topic and beyond his or her preexisting opinions. She usually does this with a personalized question, that forces the reader to think about his or her life.
Another trend that I have found interesting is that at the end of each of her columns there usually a short and punchy quote that always sticks with me. This is fun because it is a nice twist on a sometimes boring topic.
Dionne tends to end his articles with questions. He also tends to use short, punchy paragraphs full of short, punchy sentences. He tends to use the hyphen but not the semicolon or colon when connecting clauses: I guess he feels it to be more punchy. He seems knowledgeable on the subject, and never quotes any other political analysts in his commentary.
I read "Lives" in the New York Times, so I do not have any particular author I read every time. However, the column itself always contains an essay, usually bittersweet, about experiences and relationships in life. The pieces are easy to read, flowing like a chapter from a good novel. Most of the writing seems to bring up some trouble or awkward situation, and then a resolution or explanation on how that changed the author. Working on college essays, I have realized many of the "Lives" pieces seem like they could answer the Common App prompts quite excellently.
Krugman asks many hypothetical questions in his columns, then answers them. By doing this, he keeps the reader engaged. On top of that, he uses humor that may be offensive to certain political groups.
In his writing, he is not afraid to take risks and say what he really means. He explained in a few of his columns that he gets a lot of hater-mail, and those who send them should try to understand why they feel offended by it.
His style is smart diction,taking risks, being informative,and fully engaging the reader (by hypothetical questions and humor).
Freakonomics has many different writers but there have been some consistencies. Most of the articles are very short and reveal two things that you wouldn't think would have connections that actually do. Also many of the writing styles of the authors have twists of humor and a fun side.
Post a Comment