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! I know we looked at sentence patterns before, so try to move beyond that idea.
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 Collie. Lastly, I love the list with items separated by ands: she is thoughtful and kind and loving. How about you?
Keep up the good work. It's nice to read that the majority of you enjoy reading your selected writer.
19 comments:
Jennifer McHenery writes in a very laid back form. This technique however, is useful and comforting to the reader. She is a baking blogger and so the ‘informal’ or ‘more laid back’ tone allows the reader to be there with her in the kitchen. She writes from personal experience and so this tone fits just right. She talks about her preferences baking, and what she has learned along the years. When I read her work, I am intrigued and comforted because I feel like I know her, because her tone talks directly to the reader like in conversation. She adds in comments along with the basic explanations of her work, that serve as the comments going on in her head. This also makes her writing relatable. She is a human just like us, and has the same thoughts in her head. In terms of my writing, I am not sure of many trends. One thing that I struggle with is using the same word over. Often times when I am writing an essay about a certain topic, there are a few words that seem just right for description. The only problem is that I have trouble moving away from just those few words. The repetitiveness can harm not help.
I have noticed a repetitive use of parenthesis, used for an additional side comment or explanation of a phrase. For example, here she rights about getting hungry during a restaurant shift.
"I have to be thoughtful about what I eat and make sure I’m careful to monitor myself, my mood, and if I’m nearing a “hangry” (hungry/angry) state."
And here, she writes, "...there are health code rules about bringing outside food into restaurants (so it’s not going in our refrigerators)..." She also takes small breaks in her blog posts by inserting a sometimes witty or humorous sentence in between paragraphs. She jokes about her mood when she's hungry by writing this standalone sentence, "Because when I go red-zone, no one’s gonna get great service." As a transition into a new topic (snacks), she writes, "My first step? Snacks."
A habit I've noticed in my own writing is a use of the semicolon. Ever since learning how to properly use the semicolon Freshman year, I insert it into any sentence I can, whether in an essay, an email, or even in a text to a friend.
Collins has many distinctive stylistic approaches to her writing that have carried through all of her pieces that I have read. As always, she is a huge fan of using sarcastic wit as a weapon in order to drive her point home. Her most recent article made me laugh out loud while at the same time aroused the intended frustration with the state of Congressional disarray that she focuses her writing on. In addition, Collins is a big fan of the short, four-or-five-word paragraph.
It really drives the point home.
See? It really works. Collins has mastered this device, with punch-in-the-gut phrases like “Well actually, then can,” and “That last one was Representative Olsen again.” It is a clever and effective way of drawing the reader’s attention to her point while at the same time breaking up the writing and making for an easier, more interesting and engaging read.
Collins also makes a habit of addressing her readers directly. She involves the audience right off the bat in each of her articles. In her most recent, she begins with, “If you’re a citizen who tries to keep up with current affairs, your latest responsibility is having a strong opinion about the troubled rollout of the health insurance marketplace.” In a classic Collins move, she skillfully addresses her niche audience of well-informed New York Times Op-Ed readers by asserting the importance of her own article in their very identity as liberally informed, politically outraged subscribers. And, after that sentence, we are all made a part of the article. These consistent strategies Collins employs always make for a fun, engaging, and hilarious weekly read.
My writing is very different from Collins’. While she favors the choppy and straightforward sentence, mine tend to spin out of control with comma after comma and adjective after adjective spiraling into a bottomless grammatical abyss. There might be good things about my writing too, who knows.
After having read Boyt's works for a while, I have noticed that particular structural pattern has emerged which I briefly mentioned in my last post. Although I sometimes wish she had a little more variability, I do like the way that in every post, without fail, she uses this particular structure: The first paragraph is an anecdote about a more general topic then there are three stars separating the first paragraph from the second paragraph, where she then talks about a seemingly unrelated personal story. Finally, in the last sentence she relates it back to the general topic from the beginning.
Sometimes this formula doesn't always work for the stories she's telling because the transition from the general anecdote to her personal story can be a little bit stretched but when it does work I think making a clear delineation between the two and then rejoining them at the end is a clever and interesting way to structure a piece.
In my own writing I have noticed a pattern which I can't decide if I like or not. I have realized that my default opening line in almost every piece is something short and punchy. Like I'll say something along the lines of "It had been the worst day ever." or "I was grinning uncontrollably." Although I do think strong short hooks are effective, I think I'm going to try to work more on finding other ways to entice the reader.
I have noticed that Gene Wojciechowski has a very informal writing style, which works since he is a sports writer. Since his audience is typically sports fans, the informal laid back writing style is suitable. Gene Wojciechowski breaks up his writing into short paragraphs, which make his articles flow better and easier to read. I have also noticed a repetitive use of the double dash. For example, he uses it when adding information. “B.S. -- Before Saban: Alabama hadn't won a national championship in 15 years. D.S. -- During Saban: Alabama has won three of the past five.” And then there’s, “At some point -- days, weeks, months, years, decades -- the worm turns.”
While I don’t usually use the dash, I like using the semicolon and beginning a sentence with a subordinating conjunction.
David Brooks writes interesting things about interesting stuff in a very mundane structural format. In nearly every article, he follows the classic analytical essay format: Intro with a hook, a few pages of thorough analysis, and finally a connection to greater society and what it all means to the readers of the Times. In an article about Syria, he will begin with asking about World Peace as a whole. To start a piece on unemployment, a long-winded movie metaphor fit the bill. Without fail, Brooks opens his articles with some seemingly off-topic conjecture, and then proceeds to tie everything together with a series of classic SPA paragraphs, complete with quotes and everything. He'll then bring home the greater meaning behind each article clearly and concisely in any variety of ways.
I struggle with excessive punctuation. Ever since I learned how to use the dash, colon, semicolon, and even the comma, I am constantly trying to restrain myself from adding interjections into all of my sentences. Sometimes I even have the urge to put interjections inside interjections that I have allowed through, creating some sort of interjection-ception. It's bad.
From reading Meghan Duam, I noticed that she writes the best when her voice is simple. She writes as if she is talking to a friend. It provides a sense of clarity because she doesn't get caught in too much detail nor is she too wordy to impress her readers. Overall, her articles are about everyday events and people: politicians, celebrities, parenthood, pets, texting etc. The lists goes on and on, but with these simple topics, she puts her own twist on. She gives witty insights in her writing that many people are thinking but are too shy to say out loud. I find this refreshing as a reader because I feel like she's reading my mind at times. Although her writing contains a lot of sarcasm, she is funny and writes with a lot of heart.
One thing in particular that I’ve noticed about Woody Paige’s writing is that he tends to use short, choppy sentences. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, but I tend to enjoy it. As a sports writer, Paige isn’t writing to an overwhelmingly scholarly audience that necessarily cares about eloquence and fluidity, so this sentence structure makes sense. It is very comforting and authentic, giving us facts and opinions without any added frills. One of the reasons I picked Paige as my writer was because I hoped I wouldn't have to be reaching for a dictionary every other line, or rereading sentences to actually understand what he was saying. His style of writing was what I had hoped for, and I love it. I've also noticed that he begins a lot of sentences with prepositions and conjunctions, choosing to use two shorter sentences rather than one single sentence. This goes with my previous observation, and speaks to Paige's desire to keep his sentences short and simple. I do both of these in my writing as well, which is possible the reason why I am fond of it.
Though I chose Maureen Dowd as my writer, I do not think I am her biggest fan. I am having difficulty figuring out if it is her style or her content that I have grown not to like. First, if someone where to ask me what she writes about, I would not know how to answer. She writes about politics but also writes about random things such as the past life of the Washington D.C. police chief or about Harold Pinter's "Betrayal". Second, her main writing pattern that I have noticed is that she jumps around a lot. Meaning, she introduces quotes from different people and then talks about other things and then will introduce a quote about something completely different. I would say that our "flows" don't match up very well. I still enjoy the pattern of humor that she writes with though. So far, I have not noticed any patterns with her sentence structure, specifically the dash, colon or semi-colon. She does use quite a lot of quotation marks though.
Meghan Duam loves her parentheses. Throughout every paragraph are 2-4 parentheses of additional information. She uses them to add in facts in a paragraph made up of emotional writing, to add in emotion to paragraphs of mainly facts, and to put in little humorous asides. She can sometimes go a bit over board, and all the asides begin to confuse and take the readers focus too far out of the main message. But most of the time it's done tastefully and enjoyably. It makes her writing feel informal and adds to the humor or drama of her given topic.
I mentioned Duam's most obvious pattern in the last blog post. Before every one of her pieces, she has a sentence or two, in bold, separated from the rest of the essay, that either sums it up, or introduces the topic. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes serious, and sometimes they appear unrelated. I like how she always varies their tone, and every time I pick one of her essays to read, I look forward to just how she has crafted them.
I use the comma a lot. Too often. I am constantly going back through my work and changing phrases connected by commas into sentences.
Kristof always seems to begin his blog posts with something controversial. It may not always be a shocking statement or an attack on the opposite party's views, but he repeatedly tries to draw his readers in with a punchy dialogue to begin his column.
Some examples of this include:
"Perhaps there’s more we could do to antagonize American allies." (October 30)
"Congress is often compared to pre-K, which seems defamatory of small children." (October 26)
"'“Lead helps to guard your health.'" (October 16)
As I've mentioned before, although I've grown to really enjoy Kristof's writing, in the beginning of the year, I was often bored by his quasi-monotonous tone. However, the pattern of his dynamic and effectively concise introductory statements provides a much-needed witty relief in his writing.
I don't really do this in my writing, because I was taught that sometimes, over-captivating hooks can distract from the rest of the piece. However, I would like to try to incorporate these witty opening remarks in some of my writing, but in moderation like Kristof. Also, I often make my sentences too long. They're definitely never run-ons (thanks Dave Marshall), but I do find that some of my sentences can benefit by being sliced into smaller and more effective thoughts.
After following and reading the weekly articles that Rick Reilly has written on ESPN.com, I have gotten the opportunity to notice his writing patterns. One thing that i noticed after reading multiple articles of his, is that he using the dash a lot when writing describing events.
"It must've gotten through to Gomes. Minutes later, he drilled a Busch-busting, two-out, three-run home run -- with Ortiz standing on first -- that cracked the game open and evened this Dramamine Series at 2-2, with Boston getting two of the next three games at home."
"Big Papi will go down as one of the most clutch hitters in postseason history -- he's hitting a ridiculous .727 in this Series -- but who knew he was one of the most clutch speakers?"
This pattern doesn't annoy me in any way, but it is just one of the various patterns that I have seen him write in a lot of his articles.
On the topic of my own writing, i love using a long sentence and then shaking it up with a small sentence right after. I like doing this because I feel like it's different and provides a new structure to something.
My writer seems to overuse the dash. He uses it whenever he can and it has been prevalent in most of his essays. He uses them to replace commas, or parenthesis or just to extend sentences. I personally do not like how he uses so many of them and would like his writing to include a little more diversity.
When I write I think that I have a few run-on sentences at times and so maybe more dashes is necessary for my type of writing. However, if I do use dashes I will also try hard not to overuse them.
After reading Mark Ogden's continuous articles on breaking news, I have noticed he is a huge fan of the comma. He uses the comma to break his sentences more often than not.
"With black players such as Peter Odemwingie, Roberto Carlos and Christopher Samba suffering racist abuse while playing in Russia, Touré insists that many others will have reservations about travelling to Russia in 2018 unless the issue is addressed seriously."
Here is one example of many where Ogden uses the comma repeatedly. He uses this often as a structural pattern in his paragraphs to convey his ideas in a succinct manner. It seems to me that he tends to use the comma because with all of his news, especially related to football, he needs to give context before describing an incident. Just like I did in the last sentence.
As for me, I know that I repeatedly start my sentences the same way. It is an issue that I need to address and figure out because it makes my writing more boring and identical.
As mentioned in my last post, I dislike the amount of quotes that David Brooks uses, especially the amount of quotes that state an opinion. David Brooks is an opinion writer for the New York Times, and I want to hear his opinion on topics. Growing up in Marin and going to Marin Academy, I am well versed in the liberal and democratic ways of thinking, and I wanted to hear an intelligent, well spoken conservative tell me what the other side thinks. My problem is I am getting quotes from other, less well spoken and intelligent people mixed into David Brooks’ work. However, a habit that I like about his writing is that it is clear and concise, yet is well written and includes enough different sentence patterns and vocabulary to keep in interesting.
As for myself, I noticed at the beginning of the year that I used too many parentheses, and have been working to exclude them from my writing, as they mostly only sounded funny to me. Also, on my read-throughs I would realize that they were unnecessary and delete them anyway. Also, just reading this passage, I may start too many paragraphs with the word "as". I'll need to look out for that.
Michelle Slade is definitely a huge fan of the comma. However, I always find that she uses it very well. There are no confusingly long sentences, awkwardly placed fragments, or run-ons. Though there are many of them, I definitely think that they are an asset for her writing because she often uses them to throw in small details that may have otherwise not been noticed.
As for me, I definitely try to use commas a lot, but I don't think it always works out as I would like it to. That is something that I could definitely work on.
In Donny O'Niel's latest article on the Freeskier magazine website about the current 2012/2013 skier of the year competition, he makes frequent use of the dash.
"we’re confident our selections are fair and well-rounded—an accurate representation of the sport’s many facets."
"While this results in some ultra tough matchups—e.g. Sammy vs. Henrik in round 1 this year—the fact remains: each voter should theoretically know who they feel is the deserving winner from the get-go."
I think that this works very well for him and for this specific article. He has not made use of the dash as much in the other articles of his online that I have read recently so it was nice to see it. Also, it really fits with the style of the article. The article is a bit more of just listing attributes of skiers and how they compare to others and using the dash allows him to compare multiple athletes without having to do lots of sentences.
#itsontimeMary #barely #...
Gail Collins likes to use short sentences and short questions to emphasize parts of her article. This pattern occurs in almost all of her articles. Her one word sentences usually add some sarcasm to the article and her questions keeps the reader engaged. Each of these patterns serves a purpose in her writing and make her style and method unique!
Post a Comment