Sunday, October 31, 2010
Week 11: The pattern watcher
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)
17 comments:
my writer is very opinionated. After every paragraph or factual statement she adds in a sentence of her own side note/opinion. It's almost as if she writes what she would think in her head after reading the statement. There are always a bunch of lol moments and occasionally a few "i knew that would happen" phrases. Hills sentence structure is very simple and sometimes reads as if they were notes from a sports interview or something similar. Seeing that she does write for ESPN and can only talks about sport related news, she really doesn't have room to broaden her writing topics or overall ideas. Her articles, though usually about different sports news every week, sound very similar to each other.
David Brown often tells a story rather than writes an emotionless report. Lately, he has been writing about medical treatments at war and the "Front line of Saving lives." Instead of going about this difficult topic in a boring way that just tells the bare minimum, he paints a picture for us. He opens each character with a back story, and while he is talking I almost don't believe that this is reality, and that instead I am reading fiction. Once he has introduced personalities to his characters and described a scene, he then goes into the factual portion of his writing. He will present statistics, treatments, methods, etc that will support his thesis, but he still laces the threads of his "characters" throughout the piece.
Gregory Rodriguez writes a lot about immigration and gives a lot of facts and statistics to prove to those that believe illegal immigrants are a problem to the country. He is very straight forward with his opinions and even though he has been harshly criticized he sticks to his views on immigration. Since he constantly writes about a controversial topic he always gives proof. He writes very strongly and also asks the reader questions to include them in the issues.
Bruce Jenkins constructs each of his articles as a story. Writing about sports can be very black and white, but Jenkins manages to construct each piece as if the reader has never heard any of the information before, thus enriching each sentence. He also enables the reader to connect to his writing because he uses day to day actions and information. For example, when explaining Pablo Sandoval's future with the Giants he says, "A crash diet program? An intense training regime. It all sounds nice, but that's simply not how the man lives." Instead of talking about an athletic weight loss program, he utilizes common weight loss programs, that most of his readers will comprehend.
my writer is a someone who provides factual ideas, but also his opinion is intertwined in the texta of his article. When he visits a certain country, recently went to Afganistan, he writes excellent articles because he gets a first-hand account on how the living conditions and major problems in that area. Since he has these first hand accounts, he writes his opinion. Overall he succeeds in providing factual information, but his opinion either brings a better understanding or digresses off the main topic of the articles.
Evgenia Peretz tends to write about a variety of things from Hollywoods new it girls to Hilary Clinton. She tends to use a lot of humor and sarcasm in her writing. She makes her articles relatable to everyone even if the subject is about war or about movies. Her writing allows her readers get to know her personality through her articles because of the way she writes them. I enjoy reading her articles because they are witty and smart and they are at the same time very informative and smart. I learn something every time I read her articles and find my self laughing at the same time.
My writer is completely in love with the one-sentence paragraph. At the beginning of most of his articles, he introduces the article or makes a point then usually uses a sarcastic one sentence paragraph to emphasize or introduce an opposing argument. Another pattern he has is the use of very short paragraphs. Although his articles can be long, they are usually a medium length, and all of the paragraphs are very short or have only one sentence.
Kathleen Parker uses the pattern of writing several long sentences, and then one short sentence (usually its own paragraph) containing 10 or fewer words. Usually these shorter sentences are the more important ones because they indicate a shift in topic, or they present her opinion, so by making this sharp contrast, her main points stand out well.
My Writer, Sharon Begley, always starts her articles with stories, quotes or statistics. She starts the articles this way in order to draw the reader in. She uses the most interesting information in the beginning of the article. She tends to write about science and health. Begley likes to alternate short paragraphs and long paragraphs. She also likes to use sarcasm in her articles and share her opinion on the matter, but she does not try to swing the reader to choose one side or another.
Practically all of Thomas Friedman's articles begin by explaining our global role as Americans, and then considering the role of other countries. He demonstrates how and why Americans are behind, and how other countries are ahead. I always find the steps of success of other countries that he lists inspiring, and they cause me to question and wonder. I like how Friedman gives steps for the US to improve at the end.
Charles M. Blow likes to end with a bang. This bang can manifest itself in mostly two ways. The first way, the question, essentially forces the reader to consider his point in a new context, or to summarize his point into a form that, when combined, really illuminates his message. The question is a great way to end, but a little less common than the other way, because Blow often likes to end...with a ZINGER. This can take a variety of forms, from a sarcasm-tinged quip to a direct (and often incriminating in the context of Blow's article) quote. Either way, though, Blow just likes to make the reader think at the end of his article--to make sure his ideas and messages do not pass by unremembered.
Frank Rich LOVES references/allusions. Whether he is incorporating something from pop culture, politics, literature, or sports, he frequently references other subjects in order to illustrate his point. Sometimes, it's as simple as name-dropping; other times his allusion becomes an extended metaphor that takes up half the essay. But it really works for him. And I think this tool keeps the reader engaged more than if he used bland factual information to illustrate his point.
Bob Herbert almost always starts his articles with a one sentence, hook-like paragraph. More often than not this opening sentence is directly relatable for the reader, using "you" or mentioning a common experience or big news story. In the few cases when Herbert is writing about a less-known or less-personal topic, he always manages to incorporate an intriguing idea or phrase to spike the reader's interest. These punchy, one-liners get me excited and interested about what is to come in the remainder of the article. I like how he sets them apart by leaving them as their own paragraphs, kind of giving me time to process what he has said, and ponder what the rest of the article might have to say.
Steve Mirsky is sassy, snarky, sarcastic, satirical, sardonic, and super smart. What I have discovered about the way that he writes is that he incorporates all sorts of cynical commentary into his writing, but does so without sounding too mean and opinionated. What is very interesting about his writing is the content that he writes about: Mirsky writes the monthly essay "Anti Gravity" for "Scientific American" magazine, which means that his topics are very academic and often grounded in very confusing science and controversy. Science writing is often considered to be very dry and boring, but what I truly admire is Mirsky's ability to make these topics interesting, accessible, and even entertaining to his readers. Mirsky also likes to make references to famous books and events, etc. to draw parallels to the subject about which he is writing and elaborate on ideas. I believe that he balances his clever commentary with clear intelligence and evidence very well, and this perfect combination that he embodies in his writing is what makes it so successful and compelling.
Well, I chose to follow the essay "Lives", instead of following one writer but even so, I still have managed to notice some patterns. For one thing, all the essay topics are topics that are not relatable to very many people. The topics have ranged from having to deal with a brother who is having surgery to be a sister, to what to do when you come across poisoned mushrooms in the woods. They're super specific for that one writer , however, each writer works hard to make their essay somehow relate to the reader. And most of the writers seem to do this. None of the essays I've read I've ever experienced on my own hand, but I've always felt the writers have caught my personal attention somehow. I've also noticed that none of the writers really use big vocabulary words or complicated sentences. I think they all try to make their writing pretty simple, yet still interesting, because the topics can be pretty complicated. All the topics written about in these essays are topics you would never think of. I always try to guess what the subject is about whenever I read the title of the essay, and I never get it. However, I guess that's how they keeps things interesting.
I touched briefly on this in my last post. Maureen Dowd LOVES short paragraphs. they range from a couple words to three sentences, and they are always concise and to the point. She doesn't use many descriptions, and there is no pointless fluff in her writing.
She also uses an extensive vocabulary that makes her articles seem intellectual as well as sarcastic, and always gives the impression that she knows exactly what she is talking about. Her tone is sarcastic to the point of disdainful, but she also incorporates humor, which works perfectly to lighten her writing pieces and not let them just be depressing. I think the short paragraphs work really well with her tone, and it seems to be her signature style.
My writer, Krugman, loves to compare current events to the Great Depression. Then he often proceeds to explain why what we're doing is similar or dissimilar to the events that happened back then. He also likes to either start the essay with a "snappy quote" or at least have a "snappy quote" somewhere during the first few paragraphs. One of the other patterns that I've noticed about Krugman's essays is that he often mentions China, probably to provoke the strong feelings that many people have about China in the US. Additionally, Krugman likes to perforate his essays with snappy one liners, letting them stand as their own paragraph to give them emphasis. (ex:
"And there goes the best hope that the Fed’s plan might actually work."
OR
"Famous last words. For we are, in fact, doing it again."
OR even
"Yet the Pain Caucus — my term for those who have opposed every effort to break out of our economic trap — is going wild.")
And these are all from just one essay (The Fed - Doing It Again). This basically covers many of the tendencies I've noticed about Krugman's writing style.
Post a Comment