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!
Maybe even, if you dare, comment on what patterns emerge in your own work. Personally, I can overuse the dash. I also love the long sentence linked to a short, crisp sentence via the semi-colon. Classic. How about you?
18 comments:
Jon Carrol's writing style has three noticeable consistencies to it. His use of facts and quotes followed by explanation and question, His nonchalant writing style is if to pretend he was chatting with you at a coffee shop, and lastly his variance in writing style! Each article by Carrol holds surprises not only in the topics but in the way he presents them. By consistently using facts and quotes he has fulfilled journalism's requirements it is what he does in-between them that spices up his articles.
(First)
Wray Herbert's writing has very distinctive patterns. In every article he writes, Herbert uses comparisons to make his pieces more relatable to readers. Herbert knows that some of his readers do not have a background in psychology and effectively avoids psychological jargon. In addition, Herbert usually references other scientific reports in his writing. He keeps readers interested by using a variety of sentence patterns. Herbert also ends his articles with a concise summary and by usually posing another question.
Frank Bruni's writing style is very conversational and captivating, while still walking the line of the intellectual. I like this paradox because he really is able to mix the two sides effectively. He gets this across by using a wealth of vocabulary and tackling interesting subject matter, while still engaging the reader by using the second-person and throwing out a lot of rhetorical questions, or questions that he then answers. He also tends to start with an anecdote, broaden out the article, and return back to the anecdote.
Gene Wojciechowski's style depends on the fact that he can sound both smart and clever. He is obviously a very strong writer, evidenced by his clever wordplay and concise analysis. At the same time, he thrives on his ability to write humorously. He employs pop culture references and the one-sentence paragraph to break up the serious material. Additionally, he excels at using a conversational tone through first-person accounts. Between these things, Woj comes off as a writer that can be trusted for his understanding and liked for his readability.
Joel Achenbach often makes jokes in his articles and he also sometimes shows his personal views by including a sarcastic remark. Because of this, Achenbach's writing is casual, and it also seems like Achenbach enjoys writing his articles. By using a lot of humor and a casual tone, it feels as if Achenbach is writing to his readers each time he posts a column and trying to get them interested in all of the subjects chooses.
Fareed Zakaria uses a fairly traditional style with his writing. He begins each essay with an attention-grabbing line, never failing to fixate the reader's interest on his piece. The essays always contain similar sentence structures: most sentences have two to three parts, separated by a comma, semicolon, or hyphen (which he has a tendency to overuse). Zakaria's vocabulary is, of course, impeccable; somehow he always manages to find the word that best describes the situation. However, he never chooses a "big" word simply to sound more intelligent. His closing lines make connections to the bigger picture or to other situations, ensuring that the reader can understand and relate to the content of the piece.
Kristof style lets the reader easily delve into any subject he is talking about. The structure of his work is simple. He introduces a problem or observation then he expands on that and in his final paragraph he attempts to summarize or draw a new conclusion on what he has already said. If there is one thing of punctuation Kristof can't get enough of, it's the dash. He makes a broad statement then draws the reader in with a more specific one and finally closes a sentence with something back to the bigger picture.
Jon Carroll has a strange, distinct style of writing, which is hard to put my finger on. His tone is very casual. This is shown through the way he addresses the reader, writes a lot in first person, and uses slang. However, the complex way he orders words makes his sentences difficult to read. At times I feel like he is trying to emulate Shakespeare. Other patterns I have noticed in his writing is that he uses the word “thing” way too much, he has a fondness for the dash and parenthesis, and loves talking about his wife and cats. Also, he tends to try to take on too many topics in one article, weakening whatever point he is trying to make.
Although the column that I have been reading is written by a different author each week, I have still noticed some patterns between the different articles. One common thread that I have seen is that all of the authors really let the reader into their life. They are all very personal, open, and honest and a lot of them break the 4th wall and even talk directly to the reader. Whenever I read these articles, I feel like I have gotten a short film of this one person's life. It feels as if I could know them. Another pattern that I have found is that most of these articles are humorous but still retain an important serious message. Whether they are talking about their boyfriend's bunny slippers or a terrible first date, the articles of "Modern Love" tend to wrap up with some sort of wisdom that can really make the reader think.
Dan Savage gets aggressive with his punctuation. Savage is unafraid to make gratuitous use of dashes, colons, parentheses, and "artistic" quotation marks if he feels it will accent his message. Creative phrasing and personally coined terms add to feeling of depth that goes with Savage's work: every response is written as an opinion piece on an issue, so it has to feel personal. Many of Savage's sentences run-on, but it is a style of writing that fits the format of bloggy quips that he works in. A defining characteristic of Savage's work are the loaded final sentences, whether they are as simple or complicated, they are final and definitive.
David Brooks seems to begin each of his articles in a similar way. He uses some kind of a rhetorical question or a variation of the words your or our somewhere in the first, opening paragraph of each column. Brooks consistently engages the reader right from the very beginning in order to make more of an impact with his audience. His openings are not usually flashy hooks, but meaningful thoughts that he has the readers ponder as he dives into the topic of his article.
Rick Reilly has a very distinctive style of a blend of wit/humor and a unique engagement with the reader. When reading Reilly's weekly posts, I feel as if I am conversing directly with Reilly. His tone is very casual and his writing bears the enthusiasm of a hardcore sports fan, which fits with his audience. Reilly's witty writing also contributes to his conversational tone. His jabs and pokes at certain athletes or organizations (ex. BCS, Lebron James, etc.) lightens up his writing and creates a perfect dynamic with the more serious parts of his stories. This keeps the reader engaged, and makes the writing seem almost informal and easy to read.
Kathleen Parker's tone in most of her articles falls in between that of a chatty friend and a professor; she uses quotes and statistics effectively, makes well thought-out points, but also keeps the writing light and casual. She's fond of sarcasm, and she also uses a lot of interactive sentences. For example, "Try staying mad while singing. Go on, do it. “When this old world starts getting me down . . . ” Okay, fine, so you can’t sing. But you should." She acknowledges the reader constantly.
One thing Parker likes to do which I'm not a fan of is ask rhetorical questions. She has at least four in every article, and they sometimes make me as a reader feel like she's forcing her opinions on me.
Soren Bowie's writing is characterized by a satirical tone and a considerable attention to detail. In all his articles, Bowie goes to great lengths to keep his audience entertained, often making controversial statements that are not meant to be taken literally. He accompanies this style with anecdotes that serve as hooks. Bowie's diction is precise and borderline gaudy. His attempts at interweaving a single story throughout are, for the most part, effective, but can make his sentences seem a bit staged or lengthy.
Anne Applebaum likes to open articles with a short description of a scene, almost like a snapshot. For example, she opens an article about Libya post-revolution with:
"Young men in fatigues hang around outside the offices of the Transitional National Council, carrying rifles and flashing V (for victory) signs at visitors."
Descriptions like these work as hooks, and also suggest that the author herself spends time in the places she writes about, the practice of any good international affairs writer.
Hendrick Hertzberg's unique writing style brings out the facetiousness in current world news and controversial topics. This distinctive writing style separates his work from most writers that I have read from in the past. He begins every article by laying out the facts of the current topic at hand, and as the article moves on he progressively starts adding his own opinions and ideas, which are mostly comical to the topic. He is able to do this through his use of a sarcastic tone throughout most of his article. Another aspect to his writing style that makes his work very fun and easy to read is his even mixture of short concise sentences, and extremely long sentences. If it was mostly concise sentences i would find myself getting bored, and if there were to many long sentences i would be overwhelmed by the amount of words. Hendrick Hertzberg is able to provide a common ground between the two. His constant use of the dash also makes his extremely long sentences easier to read.
Henry K Lee has a very interesting style that manages to mix in occasional emotional grabs for the reader while still retaining an objective tone. Interesting word choices provoke more sympathy in the reader than a typical article on crime issues would, highlighting Lee's ability to be subtle, but at the same time grab your attention.
Post a Comment