William Zinsser, the esteemed writing teacher, died in Manhattan
on 12 May. I never met Zinsser, but he
nevertheless had a profound influence on me and my life. I knew him only through his book On Writing Well (first published in 1976
and now in its seventh edition), which was an assigned text for one of my
graduate classes at NYU back in the mid-1980s, and other pieces on writing that
he published. (I later bought Writing with a Word Processor when I got
my first home computer, but the 1983 publication soon was outdated by the march
of computer and word-processor technology.)
In a blog post called simply “Writing” (9 April 2010), I acknowledged
that when I started to pay attention to my writing because of the emphasis my
department put on it in grad school, “I began to read ‘words on words’—writers
who wrote about writing: William Zinsser, Peter Elbow, and William Safire—who
wrote not so much about writing as language—and the old standbys Fowler and
Strunk and White.” That brief statement
belies the importance Zinsser’s principal work had on my own writing and the
subsequent course of my life.
Zinsser was born in New York City on 7 October 1922 and grew
up on Long Island. He began his writing career at the New York Herald Tribune in 1946 as a
feature writer, drama editor, film critic, and editorial writer. He left the Trib in 1959 and spent the next 11 years as a freelance author,
writing for magazines such as Look, Life, and the Saturday Evening Post.
Zinsser left journalism in 1970, however, to teach at Yale University,
where his course, Nonfiction Workshop, was immensely popular. (On
Writing Well, which at Zinsser’s death had sold over 1½ million copies, grew out of that class.) In 1979, Zinsser left Yale to become general
editor at Book-of-the-Month Club but returned to academia in 1987 to teach
writing at the New School for Social Research (now officially known simply as The
New School), where his course was called People and Places, and
the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University. Despite his unquestionable success as an
editor and a publishing author—he’s also written 19 books on many topics
varying from jazz (Willie and Dwike:
An American Profile, 1984; later retitled Mitchell & Ruff: An American Profile in Jazz) to baseball (Spring Training, 1992)—the job he said
he treasured most was that of teacher. Zinsser
explained that he “wanted . . . to begin to give back some of the things I had
learned” from his years in the business.
He called teaching his “ministry.”
Zinsser may have been one of the first people in the world
of words to say outright that academic writing was terrible and that our
colleges and universities were training their students to be bad writers. He said that “much of what academics write
and read is fuzzy and verbose.” In Writing with a Word Processor, the
writing teacher warned that “very few people realize how badly they write and
how badly this hurts them and their career and their
company. People are judged on the basis
of who they appear to be in their writing, and if what they write is pompous or
fuzzy or disorganized they will be perceived as all those things. Bad writing makes bright people look dumb.”
Zinsser’s first fundamental good-writing principle was
clarity. “If it isn’t clear, you may as
well not write it,” he declared. “You
may as well stay in bed.” His second
principle was simplicity: “There’s so much verbosity in the air that people
assume that’s the way to talk, but it’s not.
Simple is good.” The third good-writing principle was brevity or economy: “Saying things
as briefly as possible with the fewest extra adjectives and words required” in
the writing guru’s definition. “Clutter,” the writer-editor instructed, “is the disease of American writing,” so he admonished writers to eschew pompous words and wordy phrases like at this point in time, quotidian, and venue instead of common, simple ones like now, daily, and place.
His fourth fundamental principle of good writing was what he
called “humanity—underlying all the others.” Zinsser explained: “If you’re not coming
across as who you are (writing is talking to someone else on paper), I think
you almost might as well not write, at least if you’re writing for the general
public”—as opposed to, say, academics who write for other academics. In their cases, and by implication, anyone
who writes solely for others in the same field as they are, “who am I to say
that they couldn’t write in the murkiest possible way,” granted Zinsser, “but
they shouldn’t inflict it on the rest of us, nor should they think it’s good
writing.” Or, I imagine he’d have added,
pass it along to others (like students, for instance) as such. (When I was doing some extensive research on
some writers, I tried to read an essay called “The Crisis of Narrative in the
Postnarratological Era: Paul Goodman’s The Empire City as (Post)Modern
Intervention,” which was so thickly written that even once I got past that
title—a classic of academese, in my opinion—I got very little out of it that
was comprehensible. I also bought a book
called Toward a Theater of the Oppressed: The Dramaturgy of John Arden—I believe it was a published
dissertation—that was so impenetrable that I returned it to the publisher.)
These are the tenets of the religion of writing that I
learned from On Writing Well, my
graduate class in Resources and Methods for the Study of Performance (1983-84), and the urgings of my other professors
at NYU (who disparaged the habitual academic writing in terms stronger even
than Zinsser criticized it). It’s the
kind of writing I try to produce myself (readers of Rick On Theater may notice that I haven’t entirely mastered all of
the journalist-teacher’s principles all the time yet) and what I’ve tried to
teach to my writing students, first in NYU’s Expository Writing Program, in English
(and, believe it or not, theater) courses I’ve taught since, and to students
I’ve tutored and coached. (I used to
make little signs on my computer to serve as reminders for my classes: for Principle
1 – Clarity: “What you talkin’ ’bout, writer?” borrowed from Different Strokes, the ‘70s/’80s sitcom;
Principle 2 – Simplicity: “KISS –
Keep It Simple, Students,” adapted from an army slogan; Principle 3 – Brevity:
“You may identify me by the nomenclature of Ishmael,” the title of an article
about academese and jargon; Principle 4 – Humanity: “I don’t think there’s
anybody back there,” a line from a popular 1980s TV commercial for Wendy’s
fast-food restaurant.)
When he started at Yale in 1970, Zinsser found a burning
need for his expertise. Nonfiction
Workshop was intended for 20 students but 175 signed up for it, prompting the Yale
English department to wonder if perhaps the school hadn’t been teaching writing
at all. “There was nothing else like it
at Yale in those days,” said one-time student Mark Singer, later a staff writer
at the New Yorker. Zinsser felt that his course was so necessary
because that generation of students had come from “the very permissive
let-it-all-hang-out 60s and hadn’t really been taught to write in high school.” I found that when I first taught writing and I
can only attest that it’s what had happened to me (high school class of 1965;
college, 1969). In that same post on “Writing”
I mentioned earlier, I observed:
I don’t remember ever having been
taught anything about writing when I was in school. We learned grammar in elementary and middle
school in those days, of course, but composition courses weren’t part of the
curriculum. In high school and college
lit classes we studied writers, but not writing.
In that same article, I noted that I was influenced by
writers I was reading and admired when I first set about training myself to
write better. Zinsser insisted on several
occasions, “We all need models . . . .
Writing is learned by imitation.”
Even before I heard of William Zinsser—On Writing Well was barely released at this time—I was emulating
him. “I learned to write,” he admitted,
“mainly by reading writers who were doing the kind writing I wanted to do and
by trying to figure out how they did it.”
That’s precisely what I was doing.
Zinsser mentioned writers like Ring Lardner, S. J. Perelman, H. L.
Mencken, and even Woody Allen (about whom the journalist wrote “Woody Allen: Comic on the Way Up” for the Saturday Evening Post in 1963); my paradigms
back then—ca. 1976—were Russell Baker, Anna Quindlen, E. B. White, and James
Thurber. (Notice how many of
these writers on both our lists were humorists.
I’m just sayin’.) In the end, as
Zinsser explained, I transmuted my models’ writing styles into my own, having
absorbed from them what was useful. The
writer-teacher observed that “we eventually move beyond our models; we take
what we need and then we shed those skins and become who we are supposed to
become.”
In “Writing,” I described my own earlier writing style, the
one I was trying to shed, as “pedantic,” my version of what Zinsser derided as “florid”
academic writing, “a ‘literary’ style” of writing that students think is what
English teachers want “and that they assume is ‘good English.’” (“Don’t assume that bad English can still be
good journalism,” admonished the writing guru.
“It can’t.”) I fell victim to
what I called The William F. Buckley Syndrome—deliberately using a $50 (usually
Latinate) word such as utilize when a
$5 (Anglo-Saxon) one like use was
available. “I think there was a hunger
in that generation,” suggested Zinsser; he heard his students imploring,
“Please help me to harness the world I live in.” (I’ve learned from my few years of writing
that putting words on paper or a computer screen can be a way to sort out what
I think about something—a phenomenon I discussed in another ROT post, “Why Write,” 4 March 2013. This rationale for writing generated another
of my little signs, a paraphrase of a line comedienne Gracie Allen used to use
in her vaudeville and TV performances: “How do I know what I think until I see
what I write?”)
An important thing to understand about Zinsser’s teaching is
that it wasn’t intended just for incipient professional writers. Some of his students did become pros, among
them Mark Singer and Jane Mayer of the New
Yorker, The Atlantic’s Corby Kummer, and Christopher Buckley, the political
satirist (Thank You for Smoking, 1994).
"The rest of the citizens are in some other line of work, and vast
numbers of them write something during the day that gets foisted on other
people,” wrote the author of Writing with
a Word Processor. His
instruction and advice was really intended for the student—in high school,
college, or grad school—who writes essays and term papers, the office worker or
executive who writes memos and business letters, the teacher who writes student
evaluations and assignment sheets, the lawyer who writes letters and briefs and
the judge who writes opinions, and everyone who writes letters and
e-mails. Among his students and correspondents
who weren’t famous writers were a family doctor in Quebec, a consumer advocate
in Pennsylvania, and the night manager of an Orlando, Florida, resort
campground. In 2012, when glaucoma
forced his retirement from writing, he announced that he’d offer “help with
writing problems and stalled editorial projects and memoirs and family history”
to anyone who needed it. In his
invitation, he added: “I’m eager to hear from you. No project too weird.”
Good writing, for Zinsser, was a product of an orderly mind. His argument was: “Clear thinking becomes
clear writing; one can’t exist without the other. It’s impossible for a muddy thinker to write
good English.” (His 1988 book, Writing
to Learn, Harper & Row,
was originally subtitled How to Write – and Think – Clearly about Any
Subject at All. The second part of the book covers writing
for different fields.) I’ve already admitted that I
use writing to help me sort out ideas and thoughts, even feelings; and though often
those writings go into the desk drawer (or, nowadays, remain on my hard drive),
occasionally they turn up on my blog (see my posts “On Reviewing,” 22 March
2009; “Sobaka: A Memoir,” 31 July 2009; and “Dad,” 20 June 2010, all of which were originally private ruminations I
later published). “Writing,” Zinsser determined,
“organizes and clarifies our thoughts.
Writing is how we think our way into a subject and make it our own.”
Zinsser, in fact,
declared that even when the work remains unpublished, “writing is a tremendous
search mechanism. The physical act of
writing enables us to find out what we know and what we still would like to
find out.” In many of my play reports
both on ROT and before I launched the
blog, for example, I used the writing as a way to figure out exactly how I felt
about a performance and why I felt that way, starting only with an
unarticulated impression. I was thinking
on paper—an expression Zinsser used in Writing
to Learn, his book on “writing across the curriculum.” The writer-teacher believed “that an act of
writing is an act of thinking—an organic compound, as the chemists would say.” (People who keep journals, especially
writers, often use them for this very purpose, along with recording
impressions, thoughts, ideas, and events for potential later use. I often find that I do this with e-mails I
send to a friend before I write something more formal.) In his 1988 book, Zinsser wrote that
we write to find out what we know and what we want to say. I thought of how often as a writer I had made
clear to myself some subject I had previously known nothing about by just putting
one sentence after another—by reasoning my way in sequential steps to its
meaning. I thought of how often the act
of writing even the simplest document—a letter, for instance—had clarified my
half-formed ideas. Writing and thinking
and learning were the same process.
In Zinsser’s view, good writing and clear thinking are boons
in any subject or field, from the humanities to the arts to the social sciences
to mathematics and the hard sciences. The
writing teacher liked the idea of “Writing across the curriculum” because it
“establishes . . . that writing is a form of thinking, whatever the subject.” Zinsser found,
Whoever the writer and whatever
the subject . . . the common thread is a sense of high enjoyment, zest and
wonder. Perhaps, both in learning to
write and in writing to learn, they are the only ingredients that really
matter.
On Writing Well has
had such an impact on my own writing—and to a large extent impelled me to a
life on paper and computer screen—because, aside from being a terrific guide,
it came along for me at just the moment I was obliged to pay close attention to
what and how I wrote. I started at NYU’s
Department of Performance Studies in the fall of 1983 and a required class was Resources
and Methods, a course taught then by Kate Davy (now provost and vice chancellor
for academic affairs at the University of Michigan-Dearborn) which
essentially covered just what the title indicates; it was partly also a writing
class for grad students in the department.
One of the texts was On Writing
Well, which I have characterized as the equivalent for writers of Uta
Hagen’s Respect for Acting: fundamental, practical, commonsensical, and
excellent.
The Department of Performance Studies insisted on “publishable-quality”
writing for all work in its classes. The fourth note I have from the
first day of Resources is: “Consider all writing as for publication.”
The underlining was in my original class notes, indicating the emphasis
Davy put on the statement. All of my professors made this admonition at
the start of their courses, and I managed to get several class papers published
in various journals, including my very first, “The Group Theatre’s Johnny Johnson,” written for Michael
Kirby’s 20th-Century Mise-en-Scene course in May 1984 and published in the
Winter 1984 issue of The Drama Review (of which Kirby, who had solicited
me to write for the journal, was then editor).
The requirement for our Qualifying Exams was that the three 10-page
essays we turned in had to be of publishable quality, too; I got two of
the three I wrote in December 1985 published later: “Dramaturgy: The Conscience
of the Theatre,” TheatreInsight Spring
1989, and “Konstantin Stanislavsky and Michael Chekhov: Realism and
Un-Realism,” Players’ Journal 2008.
(My essay “The Washington Square
Players: Art for Art’s Sake,” written for Brooks McNamara’s American
Performance class in May 1984, was awarded the first prize in the National Amy
& Eric Burger Theatre Essay Competition, administered by the University of
Wyoming, in May 2004 and was published in Theatre History Studies in 2005.) The department’s writing standards, based
largely on Zinsser’s precepts, became very important to me, as you can guess.
According to my class notes for Resources, Davy’s criteria
for publishable writing were that it:
·
has momentum to propel the reader along – not a
“string-of-pearls”
·
should have a theme
·
should make a point (has focus)
·
should drive toward a conclusion
·
needs a discernable beginning, middle, and end
(by the time it’s finished)
·
should lift the reader up, carry her/him along,
and set her/him down with a satisfying “clunk”
·
makes the reader feel she/he has “been
somewhere” by the time it’s finished
·
should set out to prove something.
These characteristics are all part of Zinsser’s basic
outline for good non-fiction writing as laid out (or implied) in On Writing Well and his other books. In fact,
when I taught in the undergrad Expository Writing Program at NYU, which I did
for two years, the mandated curriculum was clearly derived, whether intentionally
or not, from Zinsser’s principles. So were
my own adjustments, which I made continually
(much as Zinsser said he did) as I learned more about the craft—and the
teaching of the craft—on its practical level.
In other words, I couldn’t have done what I did or taught what I taught
had it not been for my introduction to On
Writing Well in my first semester at NYU.
(Like Respect for Acting,
Zinsser’s guide showed me that some of what I’d been doing instinctively turned
out to be the correct impulses.)
Though he called writing his “calling,” Zinsser insisted
that it isn’t an art, but a craft—“an honorable craft.” (I maintain that, like acting, it’s both an
art and a craft, but I’m not prepared to argue with Zinsser here.) An art is something you’re born good at, a
talent or a gift. You can’t learn it—or
teach it. But the principles of a craft
(including the craft aspects of writing and acting)—can they be taught? “Maybe
not,” said Zinsser. “But most of them
can be learned.” When you practice an
art, you wait for the muse to strike, the inspiration to hit, then you get to
work; if the muse doesn’t appear, you don’t work or you just go through the
motions. But if you practice a craft, in
Zinsser’s view, you go to work regularly, the same way that a salesman goes to
his store, a business executive goes to her office, or a teacher goes to his
classroom. Zinsser even kept an office about
a mile from his home, explaining, “I come into my office. I do my work.” He thought that “a writer is someone who has
to work every day with his tools—like the plumber, like the air-conditioning
repairman. The tools are words.” Zinsser, advising writers to “establish a
daily schedule and stick to it,” even essentially punched a clock, keeping
regular hours: “I have never worked on a weekend. I’ve never worked at night. I think you do what you can do within the time of
a normal working day, and go home. . . .
I think of it as a job . . . .”
Zinsser acknowledged, however, that “writing wasn’t easy and it wasn’t
fun. It was hard and lonely, and the
words seldom just flowed.” He once
estimated that in an hour of working, he’d “write maybe two sentences.”
On top of that, even as he kept regular working hours in his
office, Zinsser said, “I think a writer’s always working. You’re always thinking when you’re walking or
whatever.” Writers, whom he called
“solitary drudges,” are “always going to be vulnerable and tense,” he warned. He advised, though, “You have to keep
yourself cheered up. . . . You have to
find ways to keep yourself cranked up and keep yourself going,” even on days
when the tools don’t work as well as on other days. (One of my acting teachers gave this same
advice to us: find something that makes you want to do this role.) But Zinsser also asserted that he wasn’t
“trying to have a career. I’m trying to
have an interesting life.” For him,
writing was a way to expose himself to the world and the people around him, his
application of those students’ plea “to harness the world I live in.” For his book American Places (HarperCollins, 1992), a survey of famous sightseeing
destinations, the author spoke not to the visitors, whose responses he thought
he could predict, but to the “people who work there”; he interviewed “the
curators of all these places, the custodians, the park service rangers, the
daughters of the Alamo, the ladies of Mt. Vernon” because their stories would
be interesting to him. He wrote about
subjects in which he himself was interested—baseball, jazz, pop music—or was
curious about, like the historic sites.
Of course, Zinsser acknowledged that “there isn’t any ‘right’ way to do such intensely personal work”; it all depends on the individual writer and the reasons she or he has for writing. There are all kinds of writers, he recognized, and each has to find the atmosphere that’s productive for him or her to work—days, nights, in silence, with music, by hand, on a word processor, in long bursts, laboring over each paragraph and each phrase, and so on. There are lots of people “with a compulsion to put some part of themselves on paper,” the writing teacher observed, and, in a statement that is nearly identical to one about acting made in class by my first theater teacher, declared, “any method that helps somebody to say what he wants to say is the right method for him.”
Of course, Zinsser acknowledged that “there isn’t any ‘right’ way to do such intensely personal work”; it all depends on the individual writer and the reasons she or he has for writing. There are all kinds of writers, he recognized, and each has to find the atmosphere that’s productive for him or her to work—days, nights, in silence, with music, by hand, on a word processor, in long bursts, laboring over each paragraph and each phrase, and so on. There are lots of people “with a compulsion to put some part of themselves on paper,” the writing teacher observed, and, in a statement that is nearly identical to one about acting made in class by my first theater teacher, declared, “any method that helps somebody to say what he wants to say is the right method for him.”
The important result, Zinsser insisted, is that the persona
of the writer be as natural and warmly human on paper as the person doing the
writing. “For ultimately the product
that any writer has to sell is not his subject, but who he is,” admonished
Zinsser. He explained:
This is the personal transaction
that is at the heart of good nonfiction writing. Out of it come the two most important
qualities that this book will go in search of: humanity and warmth. Good writing has an aliveness that keeps the
reader reading from one paragraph to the next, and it’s not a question of
gimmicks to “personalize” the author.
It’s a question of using the English language in a way that will achieve
the greatest strength and the least clutter.
It took him a while to learn the lesson, but eventually,
“whatever I write about, I make myself available,” asserted Zinsser. “No hiding.”
He’s talking about his author’s voice.
A writer’s persona is her or his personality as the reader perceives it;
it’s how the writer presents her- or himself, the human being who’s
talking. It is, simply, the author’s
presence in the writing, and it can have a profound effect on how the piece of
writing is received. “Good writers,”
admonished the writing guru, “are always visible just behind their words.”
Now, Zinsser presents this concept as essentially immutable: it’s
“organic to the person doing the writing, as much a part of him as his hair,
or, if he’s bald, his lack of it.” You
are who you are; your only choice is how you reveal yourself in your writing and
how much of yourself you allow to be revealed:
Adding style is like adding a
toupee. At first glance the formerly
bald man looks young and even handsome.
But at second glance . . . he doesn’t look quite right. The problem is not that he doesn’t look well
groomed; he does . . . . The point is
that he doesn’t look like himself.
He’s right, of course, that revealing the humanity behind
the words is an important element in good writing (remember, “I don’t think
there’s anybody back there”?). Think,
for instance, of a magnificent argument mounted by a politician, say, in
support if of a policy she proposed. If
the pol gives you a positive vibe so that you trust her and like her, you’ll be
more inclined to agree with her proposal, or at least to listen to it with an
open mind. But if you don’t like the
proponent, if her persona turns you off, then no amount of arguing and
persuasion is likely to bring you over to her side of the issue. That’s exactly how persona works in a piece
of writing. “Sell yourself,” instructed
Zinsser, “and your subject will exert its own appeal.”
I don’t think Zinsser’s right, though, to imply that an
author’s presence in the writing is always the same and that all writers must
do is let their actual personalities shine through the work. What is someone’s “actual personality”? We’re all different depending on whom we’re
with, what we’re doing, and when and why.
I’m a different man as a driver when a highway patrolman is giving me a
ticket, as a teacher in front of my class, as a student in someone else’s
class, as an actor at a rehearsal, as a director at a rehearsal, when I was an
army officer before troops of whom I was in command, as a soldier before my own
commander. As an actor, I’ve drawn on
all of those persona and more—as I have in life as well. When we write, we can allow one or another of
those selves to come to the fore and be our authorial voice—and it’s not
gimmickry or subterfuge; it’s not even really acting. We’re just letting one or another of the
personae within us be our voice for one piece of writing or another.
Before we can do that, of course, we have to know the selves
we are and how they work—what the avatars’ feelings are, their prejudices, and
how they’re expressed differently than in our most common, everyday
persona. Now, I’m in no way talking
about some form of MPD—but these selves are real and they take over when the
need arises. Well, if we learn the
variations in our innate selves, we can select the most effective self for each
piece of writing we compose, using carefully chosen diction, point of view, and
tone. Yes, there needs to be somebody
back there behind the words, but which somebody should be a matter of choice
and effort.
As I said, I believe that writing is both an art and a
craft. Some people are born with a knack
for using words—Zinsser himself was clearly one of them—to make even unfamiliar
topics interesting to a reader with clarity and simplicity. As with any talent, no one can teach you to
be good at an art—it’s a gift. But just
like acting (which I used to teach also), the artist can learn how to make that
talent work for him or her—how to manage the gift, to channel it, to find the
skills that make it a servant of the artist and not a master. Just as actors learn technique, painters
learn brushwork and color theory, singers learn vocal technique and musical
genres, writers can learn ways that put the author in charge of the process and
not inspiration and accident. That’s
what Zinsser championed, taught, and wrote about. Left to their own devices, most people write
in the thick, impenetrable prose of the academic or the fuzzy, imprecise
language of the dilettante.
“Anyone who thinks clearly should be able to write clearly—about
any subject at all,” declared the writer-teacher, observing, “I think the urge
to put down what we think is an extremely strong human urge . . . . Everyone has the right to try.” He added, however, “that a lot of people
think writing is easier than it is.” He
asserted that “there are ways of learning to write more interestingly,” and
that’s what the bulk of William Zinsser’s life was about. I myself may not have mastered that yet, but,
because of Zinsser and On Writing Well,
it’s what I work at. I’ve compared On Writing Well to Hagen’s Respect
for Acting, and like my
copies of both that book and Harold Clurman’s On Directing, which
are full of marginal notes and highlighting, On Writing Well should be
reread periodically. My own copies of Respect
for Acting and On Directing are heavily annotated and falling apart
from use; any writer’s copy of On Writing
Well should end up in the same condition.
No comments:
Post a Comment