Posts
One of my favorite sources of such writing is New York Times fashion critic Cathy Horyn. She is screamingly funny, and one can learn a lot by observing her style. Notice how, in this little blog post, she glides between versions of the first person pronoun:
Full beards on men make us think of Karl Marx and Santa Claus. At least that’s my bipolar reference. But full beards on men in fashion shows just make us giggle.Clever. Once the topic is introduced ("full beards on men"), extremely specific references conjure diametrically opposed images ("Karl Marx and Santa Clause"). She uses "us" to make a sweeping but reasonable generalization...and to telegraph the essential regality of her authority. A sweet, self-effacing retraction follows before the hauteur gets turned up again in a funny image of twittering glitterati at a stone serious event. Exactly why we are giggling is importantly deferred for later in the essay. Before I know it, I'm reading this whole analysis of something I could care less about - male models' grooming habits - all because of a pithy, well-conceived lead in.
Am I making too much of one sentence? Perhaps. But I think not. Writing is a craft like those we practice in the studio. One builds, shapes, revises, cuts away. With practice, one knows what will work and what will not. I doubt Horyn toiled over a hot word processor to get this little nugget (Sam Tenenhaus, writing in the Times about John Updike's personal archive, suggests that writing matters when one sees the revision in it...yawn). I think it came to her, as if she were going to say it to a friend.
And that, dear reader, is what I think writing should feel like. But more on that later. If you'll excuse me, I have an essay that's overdue.
No, I don't think you are making too much out of one sentence. I found her blog to be enjoyable; it still makes a point and supports her point of view. The sentence about Santa Claus functions perfectly as an attention getter and is totally relevant. I wish more art critics would write with a sense of humor and an honest personality; perhaps I wouldn't have such a hard time comprehending super-deep-art-speak articles. Obviously, if she is writing for the Times she is a well respected journalist, but can other authors that inject humor into their writings also be respected? Your line, "as if she were going to say it to a friend," is that style accepted in The Serious Writing World? What better way to connect with your reader than to approach them a friend. Are artists that use humor not held as high because of their wit? Can it be part of an artist/writer's style without degrading their reputation?
ReplyDelete"as if one were going to say it to a friend"
ReplyDeleteThis is - in a nutshell - my whole theory of writing. Writing stands in relation to spoken language the way perspective stands in relation to the world as it is. Both are highly structured abstractions that function to represent extremely clearly. The best writing sounds like it could be spoken, just as the best drawing seems spatially continuous with this world.
So, yes, there is room for critics who use humor not to be 'wits', and there is room for writers who have ear for language. I hope we'll spend good deal of time on this kind of really nuts and bolts thing this summer, because it matters deeply to me. Thanks for commenting.