Hook
Background Info
Topic Sentence
Support
Support
Support
Conclusion
That’s one version of the “writing sandwich” we have all grown to know and love (or not so much). Personally, I always saw the writing sandwich as a template that just needs to be filled in. There was always a quota to meet: 1 sentence hook, 3 sentences background, 1 topic sentence, 3 paragraphs of body, and a 1 paragraph conclusion. There was certainly a lot of familiarity with this style of writing, but it can produce some of the most uninteresting writing in the world. I am sure no one would volunteer to read twenty papers written by middle school students who had just learned how to write in this format.
The trick to making people enjoy what the are reading is to feed them a writing sandwich without letting them know they are eating a writing sandwich. Great writers know how to shake things up. They know how to keep peoples’ attention with fresh ideas, original style, and a fully developed voice. They may switch up their formatting sometimes, but when it comes down to it, they almost always start out with a killer hook, plant their topic sentence somewhere towards the beginning of their article, support their claim throughout the article, and end with a convincing conclusion.
This type of writing, I believe, is the most interesting to read. It can be made fresh and new, but not so much that people can’t follow what the author is trying to say. It is familiar, but not so familiar that it will bore the reader. It is “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable- MAYA”, as Raymond Loewy would say.
Thompson’s article on “What makes things cool” brings up a great number of points about what consumers like and dislike. For me, the article boils down to the quote from Paul Hekkert. He states that “humans seek familiarity, because it makes them feel safe. On the other hand, people are charged by the thrill of a challenge, powered by a pioneer lust“. This quote applies to many aspects of human life, such as what people want in a movie or TV show. Thompson’s article claims that some of the most popular shows on television today are just “narrative Trojan horses, in which new characters are vessels containing classic themes“. The recurring themes in these shows make people comfortable, and the new, fresh characters keep them interested.
When producing a piece of writing for the public, all of these rules still apply. People want to read something that hasn’t been done before, but in a format that they are still comfortable with. If a writer is trying to make a groundbreaking claim, it might be smart to keep the organization simple and straightforward to keep the reader on track. If the subject is less interesting, it may be helpful to make the organization and style more complex. This perfect balance between unfamiliar and comfortable is not easy to find, but writers interested in reaching a large public audience would do well to take time in trying to get close to it.
I thoroughly enjoyed your blog post; just yesterday I was thinking about how we are taught to use T-charts to write when we are young. It seems juvenile, but really, doesn’t most writing follow the same format that you discussed? We scoff that something as simple as a T-chart can actually be beneficial but it’s really just a foundation for writing that can become pages and pages long.
I agree with your statement that writers can switch up the format but their information then can’t be too new, or vice versa. This can be seen as a bad thing, but I think it’s actually quite powerful. Keeping to the same structure you discussed, it allows writers to discuss “groundbreaking claims”, as you put it, while keeping some of the familiarity with the structure.
In your last paragraph, you talk about finding that balance between newness and familiarity. “MAYA” is seen in all types of writing whether it’s for the public or a sci-fi novel. Even with a sci-fi novel, there’s a component of familiarity, such as the main character falling in love with an alien inhabitant of a new planet. For public writing, striking a balance between the “unfamiliar and comfortable” can lead to powerful pieces of work. Authors are able to talk about topics that aren’t discussed normally; they can use this balance to educate the public or to show the public that there are problems out there that they didn’t know existed. If the author delivers his/her information in a way that is considered too different or radical, then the public is less likely to care, believe, or pay attention to the author. Finding the balance is key.
In my humble opinion, this piece was extremely well done! I think you really hit the nail on the head with your claim that “The trick to making people enjoy what the are reading is to feed them a writing sandwich without letting them know they are eating a writing sandwich.” This is exactly what I took from Derek Thompson’s piece, as well- there is a balance that must be struck between subconscious familiarity and more noticeable novelty.
This theory makes me wonder: are some people more prone to prefer one over the other? In other words, if you think of familiarity and novelty as a linear scale, does each of us fall in a different place on that scale? As in, some people prefer things that are closer to the familiar side, and some people prefer things that are closer to the novel side? I, personally think that I lean towards familiarity. I hate books, movies, and TV shows that I don’t feel like I can put myself in one of the character’s shoes. I’ve never liked fantasy, sci fi, etc. and now I’m realizing that maybe it’s because they are not familiar enough to what I experience in my daily life.
I really enjoyed how you tied this blog post to what we have been taught since elementary school to start off with something familiar: the writing sandwich. Your point of feeding someone “a writing sandwich without letting them know they are eating a writing sandwich” is a really great way of phrasing the point of Thompson’s article and putting your own twist on it. I agree, since any writing does need a good hook, background, support, etc. but can’t present it too conventionally. You did a good job of balancing concepts we know—the writing sandwich—with new ideas and examples in this blog post, and I like your voice and style of writing.
I had a few thoughts on how you applied this concept to writing pieces for the public, and Thompson’s ideas in general. It makes sense that, when writing about a brilliant new idea, the author should balance out the novelty with more conventional writing. But would it be possible that the simple organization throws off the reader or discredits the author in their eyes? Would it be effective to maybe intersperse some old ideas and still use an interesting format? Similarly, could a reader suspect that more complex organization and style is trying to mask something, and if so, how could the writer address that concern?
Like others, I enjoyed the writing sandwich line about not knowing you are eating the sandwich. I thought about papers I’ve read where I say to myself “ah, here is the hook that the test has asked the student to produce.” But I would bet a lot of great reading I tend to read still draws me in somehow, there is still a beginning point that sparks me (or, perhaps if it is a rigid genre, I get what I expect–e.g., a research article that starts with a claim and a literature review in a rather straightforward fashion?). The patenthetical in the last sentence leads me to questions by shy41, that I will try to remember to return to in class. It’s worth teasing these possibilities out:
“But would it be possible that the simple organization throws off the reader or discredits the author in their eyes? Would it be effective to maybe intersperse some old ideas and still use an interesting format? Similarly, could a reader suspect that more complex organization and style is trying to mask something, and if so, how could the writer address that concern?”