Reading and Writing in a Digital Age

“Readers want the person who is talking to them to sound genuine. Therefore a fundamental rule is: be yourself.” (Zinsser, 19)

Being yourself is hard, especially when writing. When writing an assignment, sometimes it is easier to throw together whatever one thinks a reader would more likely agree with or what looks most sophisticated. Throwing in a few big words that required the writer to use dictionary.com to understand does not show intellectualism. Letting the mind tell the fingers what to write shows genuineness. And yes, additional revision will still be needed, but the initial flow of ideas straight from the mind of a person to the paper (or computer) is real. Zinsser is telling us not to let outside factors influence what we write, or even how we write it. Parts of writing including tone, diction and structure can be corrupted due to the pressure to not be oneself. A perfect example of this is standardized testing.

Writing for the SAT is absurd because the content becomes a generic, formulated essay that the reader has seen a hundred times with different information. Getting a perfect score on the SAT essay does not declare a good writer. The essay can lack much creativity and still receive a good score. It seems that the more formulated the essay, the better the score. How can anyone improve their writing if a piece that is written differently results in an inevitable punishment. Many children are being ridiculed for not fitting into the unforgiving middle school society, so what would make them think it would be a good idea to deviate from the standard essay formatting? Its a terrible problem in the younger levels of writing, but not all time does the problem only lie with children.

You would be crazy if you said that the 900 page Affordable Care Act sounds genuine. It does not even sound like people wrote it; it reads as though it was written by a robotic lawyer. Zinsser highlights how F.D.R. edited a government memo. The memo stated, in the most confusing diction, that in buildings where they have to keep work going to put something across the windows. So, F.D.R. said to tell the people just that, in the simple terminology, the way it should have been written in the first place.

Being yourself is a difficult task in writing, yet it is an essential one. Without it, the reader is left with a piece that is full of tension and a sense of the writer’s insecurity; and the author definitely does not want that.

“Make a habit of reading what is being written today and what was written by earlier masters. Writing is learned by imitation.” 

I know from experience that some of the best writers are also some of the most avid readers. I also know that the more I read at a given period of time, the better my writing will be. Why is this so? Because people learn by imitation. Infants learn how to walk and talk by imitating the actions of their parents or older siblings. In the same way, the beginning writer learns by reading what has already been written. As Zinsser mentions, we tend to read writing of a style similar to our own or of a style that we want to emulate. By doing so, we get a sense of what we want to write and how to go about writing it. We also get a sense of the best fitting syntax and word choice for our prose.

I have also found it to be true that my style changes depending on what I am reading at the time. While reading Elizabeth Gilbert, I have a sudden urge to be chatty in my writing and to make myself laugh. When Jane Austin graces my bedside table, I grow fond of her witty romantic style.  Perhaps this is because I’m a very impressionable writer. But perhaps it is because I choose to read pieces that reflect my style or mood. In this way, my writing develops as I do so myself.

I’m often surprised when I come across a piece of writing that puts together a thought that had been so abstract in my mind. And to think, if I had never come across that piece of writing, that thought would never have become so clear to me. In this way, reading nourishes writing and allows an abstract idea to grow into an essay or a novel that will one day inspire other essays and novels. I this sense, I think Zinsser makes a very strong point–in order to write well, we must first be well read.

“The reader will notice if you’re putting on airs. Readers want the person who is talking to them to sound genuine. Therefore a fundamental rule is: be yourself.” (p 19)

Although I’ve found all of William Zinsser’s advice thus far to be helpful, this particular bit really resonated with me. In chapter 4, Zinsser explains that style cannot be fabricated. If it’s not organic – if it’s not really real – then it’s transparent. And no self-respecting reader will tolerate see-through writing. In fact, they’ll likely view at as condescension. After all, a writer should never underestimate their audience’s capabilities.

Whenever I read something new, I find myself mentally cataloguing the elements of the author’s specific style. For example, if they use an expression I like, I take note of it and store it away for further use. But these things – these bits and pieces of other writers – will never be mine, and so I can’t use them. (It’d be hard to, anyway, with Zinsser’s authoritative voice ringing in the back of my head.) And besides, it’s only fair that I give my audience the best possible version of my own writing.

“With each rewrite I try to make what I have written tighter, stronger and more precise, eliminating every element that’s not doing useful work. Then I go over it once more, reading it aloud, and am always amazed at how much clutter can still be cut” (Zinsser, 11).

Like what Zinsser says, the biggest obstacle I face when writing is eliminating clutter so that my sentences and ideas can become “tighter, stronger, and more precise.” It means that I must repeatedly revise and rewrite. However, I have difficulties spotting them because they are so innate in my writing and thinking that they appear normal and often reassuring. The professionals, businessmen, politicians, new reporters, etcetera, all use it. And naturally yet regrettably, immerse in such an environment, I begin using it. Time after time I try revising my essays, but never am any close to being concrete and concise. It is frustrating. The more I write, the more my essay seems to inflate.

Even at times when it seem like I have successfully simplified my sentences, the words become “unsophisticated” precisely because they are too simple. What is the balance? Where can it be found? I have yet to find out. But I suspect that it must be somewhere within the revision process, waiting to be chopped and combined.

Arguably, the last but the most useful point from Zinsser’s advice is to read what I have written aloud. Often, I skip or ignore this because it is time consuming. It is not until I frequently notice my friend, who excels in presentations, read aloud his essays to himself as part of his revision process that I have decided to do the same. I catch mistakes that I thought is ridiculous to miss. I try, and encourage everyone too, to read everything I have written aloud whenever I have time.

“Look for the clutter in your writing and prune it ruthlessly. Be grateful for everything you can throw away. Reexamine each sentence you put on paper. Is every word doing new work? Can any thought be expressed with more economy? Is there anything pompous or pretentious or faddish? Are you hanging on to something useless just because you think it’s beautiful.”

This is advice that I need to follow in my own writing. Especially when I procrastinate, I tend to fill the page with meaningless verbiage that I believe sounds “beautiful”. However it doesn’t say anything and is simply filler. I often write a sentence many lines long that turns into one jumbled run-on sentence;  a sentence that I can concisely write with the same idea in one fourth the words. Most words that I employ do not contribute anything to the sentence. Because I do not proofread as much as I should, many of these long sentences are never edited. My ideas are not distilled and that which I’d like to convey to my reader remains lost. I think I am doing exactly that now… I have a tendency towards using more words than I need. I think that hours of proofreading will help me improve my writing. I promise to start such a daunting task on my next piece of writing. Oh Laziness!

“Be grateful for everything you can throw away” (16). Even writing this post, I’m becoming aware of how many useless words I use. In this chapter, Zinsser discusses clutter. Most writers have the tendency to use big words and intricate sentences that readers won’t bother making sense of. It is important to simplify: rewrite several times and eliminate wordiness. By constantly simplifying, we develop a sense of what is useless in our writing (50 percent of it, apparently). When I write a fancy sentence, it doesn’t always feel like clutter. Reading it back, though, I realize that if I were the reader I would probably roll my eyes. Writing is an active process, and we have to remind ourselves to throw out what doesn’t work. Deletion should always be welcome because it’s the first step toward clear writing. Cutting a sentences usually frees up the piece to become clear and concise.  Zinsser’s advice reminds us that clinging to every letter we write is counterproductive. It’s an important step that I think many of us forget about: deleting words is almost as important as writing them in the first place. We should be grateful for what we can throw away, because that means we can take the first step toward creating something that others might actually enjoy.

“You are writing for yourself” (24).

For as long as I can remember, I have been told to write towards a final objective- typically a grade. Even as I write this blog post, my primary motivation is to get the most credit that I can. Zinsser insists, however, that I should not attempt to visualize my audience, that is, I should not write with someone else’s interests on my mind. A writer’s efforts should be pleasing to themselves. Enjoyment is the number one goal. This is a way of looking at writing that I have not considered before. I don’t think that it has a place in every situation, but I do agree that this style of writing is essential for most nonfiction works.

When I say that this style doesn’t have a place everywhere, I am referring mainly to academic writing. Scientific journals, major news articles, pieces that are chiefly objective; they should not be written for the author. They are written for the bettering of the populus’ knowledge. Writing too much for oneself could detract from the message of one of these works, or start to toss subjectivity in a strictly objective piece. Sprinkles of  style and personal touch are appropriate, but in this kind of nonfiction writing, must be restrained.

However, this advice rings particularly true for me in most other areas. Whether it is an essay for a class, a blog on a website, or an op-ed in a newspaper, writing has to emit a passion and a voice. It must be clear that the writer put their own spin on this piece and enjoyed themselves while writing. It shows when you slog through a piece of writing, focused only on getting the minimum done. Especially during an initial drafting process, writing with yourself in mind will produce a personal piece, which through just one read, will have a touch to it that will make it worth a reader’s while.

I soundly agree that the enjoyment of my writing hinges on whether or not I make my pleasurement the priority when I write. I believe Zinsser makes an excellent point in insisting on a “me-first” mentality. It is more natural than trying to predict what readers want, especially when they don’t yet know what they want to read. Although there are exceptions in academia and some professional journalism, for the most part, a writer’s chief objective should be his or her enjoyment.

-Ben Chatham

“Make a habit of reading what is being written today and what was written by earlier masters. Writing is learned by imitation.” (Zinsser 34) I like this piece of advice by Zinsser not only because it is good, but because I need to learn how to write well consistently and the advice has truth to it. Many people copy something in order to learn it, and writing may be no different. People tend to imitate first before they can find their own style of writing or any other skill. This makes sense, since you need to have something before you can edit it. And by reading a lot, you’d be exposed to more writing. We’re supposed to learn from others, after all. It could partially explain why my writing is so bad, since I didn’t read a lot back then.

One of the most difficult things for me to do, upon completing a given writing assignment, is to rewrite what I’ve just written and try to make it even better. After sitting still for a long period of time, I tend to try to convince myself that it’s useless to improve upon perfection and that what I have already written will simply have to do. But William Zinsser’s assertion that “Rewriting is the essence of writing. (pg. 4)” is something that I’ve found to be very true. No matter how many times I’ve changed things that I’ve written, I am nearly always able to find yet another way to phrase things so that they’re either more clear or more accurate. Your writing has to be tirelessly reworked over and over and over again until you can’t figure out what else to do with it (or until you’re so sick of reading the same thing that you turn it in as is).

I like Zinsser’s advice to “beware of the long word that’s no better than the short word”(Zinsser, 15). Long words that most people cant pronounce really are “weeds that will smother what you write.” One time, I sent my very smart older brother an essay to edit for me. He sent it back with red lines crossing out at least half of what I wrote and blue lines through all the words that I hadn’t used correctly. At the bottom, he typed, “you need to start saying things with your words.”

When I read literature that is clean and neat, it is a pleasure to read. And when I read Shakespeare, I wish he read Zinsser’s advice.