Writing, of all styles, is chalk full of rules which we can either choose or not choose to abide by. Some of these rules exist in the context of grammar, but most of them, it seems, exist because of a preconceived notion that the we as readers of the writing have about the ways we read and comprehend a text from its entirety, all the way down to the word level. Derek Thompson says that this “preconceived notion” comes down to neophilia and neophobia. He defines neophilia as “a curiosity about new things” and neophobia as “a fear of anything too new.” He further argues that both of these are ingrained in every person, and this is what defines the effectiveness of advertising. I would argue that this is true and that they both apply to writing as well.
In fiction writing, for instance, many writers—especially amateurs—are desperate to make their marks on the literary world. They want to create something original, something by which the readers will remember them (barring, of course, that given the whole of human history, the chances of a writer creating something that has never been done before are slim, if not impossible). The best way for authors to reach their audiences, then, is to take something that readers will be familiar with—a common trope or “the hero’s journey”—and to add something singular to the mix, something by which readers will, indeed, remember them, but for the right reasons—say, a sentient eyeball inside a glass jar. As Thompson points out, “People get tired of even their favorite songs and movies.” I can’t speak for everyone, but if I open a book and read a sentence within the first ten pages that I’ve read a million other times, I will close the book and never open it again. The trick for writers, then, is to create something that is familiar without being too familiar. Public and professional writing should take on these rules as well.
In a public sphere, readers are going to be accustomed to the texts they read behaving in a particular way. Lawyers have a specific style and format by which they are required to make their documents. Even the average person with a Twitter account is expected to keep their daily musings short and sweet. Thompson’s article touches upon the evolution of baby names, and I found the section pertaining to black baby girls quite intriguing. Rather than the evolution of the name being centered on the popularity of the name in previous years, the evolution was shown to be based on the change or removal of a single letter. This small action, which was able to make baby names both familiar and new, can also be applied to public and professional writing (although it may not be as simple as changing a single letter).
Lawyers, for instance, do have to abide by specific stylistic and formatting rules set out for them, but that doesn’t mean that there are never opportunities for them to push their documents further. The language of legal documents is surely not the same as it was two hundred years ago. With time and linguistic changes, there is a chance for lawyers to move beyond what is fundamentally familiar and into new territory. Will the word “yeet” ever be included in a legal document? I highly doubt it, but I can’t definitively say. There is always a chance for stylistic changes. Even on Twitter, there is room for change. Since the institution of a 280-character limit, as opposed to the 140-character limit that was previously imposed, there actually hasn’t been much move for people to use all 280 characters; it’s actually considered pretty taboo. Some people do use all 280 characters, but if they do, it’s usually humorous. When the feature first came out, people were using all of their characters to quote lines from “Friends” and “The Office.” The feature was new, and many people didn’t like it, but through the use of familiar TV shows, it was able to grow on people to some extent. In both cases, there is both newness and familiarity—and that is exactly what Thompson suggests is the most effective strategy in his article.
I thought your word choice of “desperate to make their marks on the literary world,” was very interesting. The desperation you refer to, I believe, is the attraction to neophilia Thompson refers to. In order to leave a a mark, they need to do something different and memorable, they need to test the limits.
Furthermore, the integration of Twitter and the public sphere proved interesting to me as well. Twitter was originally designed as a check in- a place to leave a short chirp of what was happening in the daily life. As creatures of habit, we as an audience generally stay under the 140 characters that originally limited us, again agreeing with the other stance Thompson takes on neophobia.
The balance between these two, however, I feel is the most important. At what point does the curiosity of newness outweigh the fear of change? Is this point what makes public writing effective or non-effective?
I was interested in your thought process of the Twilight Saga compared to the 50 Shades of Grey series. I see the similarities in both and feel that authors continue to utilize the plots they know appeal to the general masses. What I’m curious is why you think they transitioned so quickly from vampires to sex? I understand that romance played a major role in the Twilight Saga, but 50 Shades of Grey epitomizes romance and sexual encounters. Personally, I feel that this day and age people are more willing to express their sexual encounters and having unconventional sex is somewhat encouraged (at least in the environment of college campuses). Therefore, perhaps the producers of large-scale movies are catering to the general masses and the conformity of society.
I also wanted to highlight the idea that MAYA is blurred for professional writing, particularly college essays and resumes. I recall having difficulty with college essays – not because I did not have experiences that would make me a good candidate, but rather I found it difficult to cater to the admissions counselor whom would be reading my essay. I read the article you attached and really enjoyed the anecdotal piece. If you could start off explaining an experience that happened to you to make the admissions counselor emotionally attached, then they are more drawn in to understanding who you are as an individual. I also found the poem idea very interesting, where it’s something different than a few paragraphs on a sheet of paper. I guess the takeaway is find something important to you, then run with it and focus on making the reader intrigued. The same can be said about resumes, however highlighting/explaining previous experiences is evolved in a cover letter or interacting through an interview. I agree that we all use MAYA on a daily basis, but there is no definitive line where it can be applied.
I thought the comment on the 280 character limit and the familiar move of quoting funny lines from TV shows was a good example using familiar content for a new form. What about the reversal? Can you think of an example of using familiar forms for a new content?
Further, I may be simplifying this too much–there very much is a “form” to how we quote TV shows (e.g., sitting around with friends and adding a line, or a thinkpiece dropping a quick line in an article). Is the 280 character limit that dramatically new? Is simply doubling a limit a sort of MAYA in itself? (e.g., plenty of Facebook posts, for instance, are 280 or more characters). What do you think? Enjoyed reading!