Chapter 3 in “Coaching Writers” deals with specific strategies for working with writers. What struck you as novel, revelatory or worthwhile in this chapter?
For me, it’s a sentencd in the “Editing Side by Side” sidebar on page 31: “Failure is normal and instructive.” That sure isn’t the way this perfectionist was raised. But I like Murray’s notion that “writing is experimental. We don’t know what works until we try it.” I need to embrace this more in my writing. And in life.
Advertisement
Don Fry’s encounter with a struggling writer on page 25 stuck out to me in this chapter. Like this writer, I find myself getting stuck trying to write a great lead. Fry’s strategy of asking the writer important questions, until he verbalized his own lead was great. Many times I come back with lots of information, not knowing what to use. If I talk it out with someone else, a bit of seemingly irrelevant information can turn into a funny anecdote. I would use this strategy in future ‘coaching’ endeavors.
And after repeatedly hearing the editor ask those same questions that get to the heart of the story, the writer begins to ask those questions himself. In the long run, it’s a strategy that pays off for both writer and editor.
I had that problem (finding a lead) for a while. I went to a writing boot camp at Iowa State last year and it really helped me with organizing and starting a story. The boot camp was led by their journalism Professors and instructors, their “coaches.” I still refer back to my notes for inspiration and reminders.
I found the idea that “editors should not be afraid to coach without reading the story,” on page 30, to be the most worthwhile. Before reading this chapter, I had honestly never considered that to be an option. The “grammar nazi” in me longs to physically hold the manuscript in my hands and mark errors the writer may have overlooked. However, this creates a possibility of over-editing by substituting my voice for the writer’s, as we have been warned not to do. An important piece of advice I took away from the reading was that we can be better editors by asking the right questions about the story without ever reading it. The example included in the text solidified, for me, that this method of editing could be more efficient than actually looking over the writers’ drafts. I think this method would also eliminate some insecurities a writer might have. By having a conversation, and “[allowing] that writer to maintain control of [the story] while it’s in progress,” I would expect the writer to be more willing to share their true concerns and listen to the editor’s suggestions.
One of the most helpful questions to ask a writer before reading the manuscript is: “Tell me how you feel about this piece.” Very often, the writer already knows the strengths and weaknesses. The writer’s answer often reveals her level of confidence, and that can help the editor decide on strategies to help her.
I also found this phrase intriguing. After correcting a friend’s paper in high school I realized that her paper had very little focus. Finally, after thoroughly marking up her paper, it occurred to me to ask her to point out her thesis. She had not written one. If I had asked her the simple question, “What is your paper about?” at the very beginning, I could have saved myself a lot of time and would have made it a lot easier on her.
The best advice in chapter 3 was that an editor should ask questions to decide what the most important problem is with a story, rather than overwhelming the writer with tons of suggestions. Even though as editors we want our writer’s stories to be the best that they can be, sometimes fixing everything at once is not only unnecessary, but frankly counter-productive. As we saw in class, marking up every little change is pointless if the writer has a flaw with the foundation of their story. We want to give writers time to reflect on the changes in their story and help them become better at doing the important stuff-coma splices can wait till later.
I agree. My problem, then, is what questions do I ask to zero in on what would be the most productive suggestions.
Well, that’s the hard part. I think the questions would be different depending on what kind of problems the writer struggles with. For example, if the story lacks detail an editor can ask questions abut the specifics of a person, place, event etc. to get the writer talking and thinking from an outside perspective. If the story lacks clarity just ask questions about what a writer means when they describe certain things and encourage them to possibly add more background.
I have edited many papers and articles in my career as a student, but I never realized how awful I am it, until I read this chapter. Chapter three really helped me discover how best to guide those writing for me or for a professor. I have often simply marked up a paper and given it back with no explanation, I feel like I owe apology to everybody’s writing that I have ever edited. I like that this chapter made me see how to be the best editor and even how I would like to be edited. These are very valuable pieces of the writing process that I had never really considered. From here on in, I will take a much different approach to editing and being edited.
I like the idea on page 22 that the writer should always speak first during a conference. I think too often when I edit something I automatically assume that the writer will benefit more from listening to me and my suggestions, but “Coaching Writers” suggests the exact opposite. The writer is the most experienced person on that particular news event and can therefore benefit more from listening to himself talk through the story. It’s the editors job to listen and catch the important phrases the writers says and make sure those ideas make it into the story. I’ve never really thought about it before, but I definitely agree that to make a conference the most beneficial and effective, the writer should do most of the talking.
There are a few interesting points that caught my attention in this chapter. The first being that “conversation between reporter and editor leads to a shared vision of the key problems in the story” (page 24). It then leads into a great example about reporter and editor not discussing a story which then leads to more work for the editor at deadline.
This is something that I’ve done in the past. I will put things off until the very last minute, I will wait until the night before an a.m. deadline to get a story done, and then it turns out to be more of a hassle for everyone. I found over time that the best way to handle situations is bit by bit from the very beginning, so when crunch time comes, there’s no rush to get everything in it’s right place. This is in terms of not just the workplace, but everyday issues.
The other piece that grabbed me was that “As a good editor, you must prove to the writer that no evil consequences will flow from sharing work with you” (page 26). This one actually made me laugh, but it makes perfect sense. Everyone had different experiences within the journalism industry, both bad and good. For an editor, it’s about building trust through continually holding up their end of the bargain when it comes to coaching and helping with a story. It’s something that takes time, which is difficult in a fast-paced industry such as journalism, but nevertheless needs to be done.
**correction** its
I agree. Procrastination does not help anyone especially in the journalism industry where everything is run on such a tight deadline. That’s when the coaching and multiple meetings between editor and writer will really help the development of a story.
I really liked on page 24 when Fry talked about the nature of writing and writers and how sometimes when a writer turns in a story they’ll start saying how stupid it is or I don’t think I did a good job or it’s not my best work etc. Looking back I think I did this with almost every story I turned in in high school. I think writers hate to be put down and told that their work sucks so even if its good they cover themselves by saying its bad upfront. That way nothing negative that the editor can say will surprise them. As Fry points out, this is where coaching is crucial. If an editor meets with the writer multiple times throughout the writing process, he/she won’t have to listen to the “it’s horrible” rant from their writer.
I agree. After reading that section I felt a moment of guilt remembering all of the times I walked into J91 announcing how terrible my story was.
I definitely agree with this as well! Looking back to J91, there were some classes where we all practically were banging our heads on the table and reconsidering our majors just because of the lack of confidence we had in our stories. I think some guidance and reassurance in our writing would have been greatly appreciated in that case and tips on how to continue or to improve would’ve created more confidence.
I’m taking J91 now, so I will definitely need to keep this advice in mind throughout the semester!
In the reading for Chapter 3 there were two ideas that really stuck out to me. The first idea that intrigued me was on page 27 in the story about Ray Lyle, the city editor at the Kansas City Star, asking seemingly simple questions to get his writer’s to thoroughly understand the material they had gathered. It made a lot of sense to me because sometimes when covering an event it’s easy to get caught up in the process of writing/interviewing which can draw focus away from actually understanding what your covering.
The second part of the reading that stuck out to me was “The Unnatural Act of Listening” section. I was really not a big fan of the approaches to listening outlined in that segment. I can understand how having your opinions or problems listed back to you can confirm that you’re being listened to, but it seems like a waste of time. Why not simply show that you are listening by giving intelligent thought out responses to problems or questions presented to you? Personally, when I’ve shared a frustration with someone and they’ve replied with “Well, itt sounds like you’re really frustrated about a, b and c,” I generally think “Well, right, that’s exactly what I just said. Now what’s your advice?”
I think an important part of an editor’s job is to think like a reader and ask those little questions to get the writer to also think that way. I agree that the writer can get caught up in making sure they have the right quotes, etc. and it’s refreshing to simply take a step back and think about the basics.
The piece that stuck out most for me was what Cynthia Gorney said on page 25. “I know there’s a whole school of thought in newspapers that experienced, professional reporters just do it and don’t need their hands held. I think that’s crap. What makes an editor great is support. I don’t know a writer who isn’t insecure.” This quote explains some of the qualities I would want to have in an editor or be as an editor. Having honest help and support from an editor will make the writer improve their stories, and therefore will help the newspaper became better. The don’t necessarily want to have an editor that will hold my hand step by step every time, but just knowing that you have an editor that will always be there to guide and help you is comforting. I think this paragraph is good information for anyone who wants to be a good editor.
I also really felt that the tip “Failure is normal and instructive” is beneficial to all writers. Being told that your article was bad is hard for most writers to hear. I think this tip says that hearing criticism is normal and instead of giving up or finding a new career, you should learn from your mistakes. As someone who has a hard time failing, this quote was comforting to hear because it shows that everyone has and will make mistakes, and that you shouldn’t feel really crushed over it.
I agree with the quote but being able to move on after you’ve heard that your article is bad is easier said than done. Never should an editor come right out and say to the writer that their work is bad. That’s where the support should come into play. Instead of saying that it is a bad story or article, show them all the ways in which it could be improved, even if it’s just a few tips. The writer will then see that they made mistakes and come to terms with that, without crying that what they thought was their best work was said to be “bad”.
One thing that really struck me in chapter three was when he said that “writers crave feedback.” As a writer, that’s definitely the case for me. When I turn an article in that I’m really proud of, or even an article that I think I like, but am unsure of the lead, I really appreciate when my editor gives any kind of feedback. He’s right, even a nod of approval, or a grunt is better then nothing.
I also really liked the anecdote about the writer struggling with his lead. I feel like I’m constantly in that boat, grasping at straws to think of a good lead. Fry’s strategy of talking it out with the writer until a good lead presents itself that I’ll take with me, and try on my next articles.
I’m also a person who craves feedback. One of the most frustrating feelings I think is when spend days writing a beautiful, well thought out essay only to get a 100% with no comments. That feeling is only seconded by the feeling of working hard and getting a C on a paper with no feedback. This past semester I turned in two essays, both 15 pages each, got 100% and no comments. I wanted to know what I did that was so good that I could get a 100% on a paper but neither of my teachers gave me anything to work with. It made me feel like I put so much effort into my work only to have my professor not care enough to even annotate. In a newsroom, I think that same kind of doubt can be instilled in a writer.
I agree, except I unfortunately was on the other end of this. In J91 I was editing a story and I thought it was so great that I hardly had any feedback for him. This chapter reminded me that although the story may be great, the writer can always receive feedback. Even if there are few changes needed, tell the writer what parts of the article you specifically liked (lead, transitions, quotes).
I definitely agree with Bailey. I get really frustrated when there’s hardly any feedback given to me after I turn something in. I’m a strong believer in always learning as many things as you can from your mistakes. It’s hard to improve on anything unless you’re reminded of what you’re doing wrong. On the other end, If you’re doing something well, it’s nice to have that reminder too.
One of the best tips of Chapter 3 for me was noted on page 26. I never really thought about having a conversation with an editor before a first draft was handed in, I was always just prepared to have it be criticized and corrected. I think conversing before turning in would help to put the writer at ease and allow the editor to become aware of the writer’s believed weaknesses of the draft. In also doing so, they become more aware of their own mistakes and already start brainstorming ways to improve the next draft. This allows the editor to see where the writer is currently, and where she is headed down the road with the story. The editor can then proceed to caution herself and really analyze the draft before getting out the red pen. Also, as the editor is looking it over she may find out that what the writer originally thought of as flaws, were actually strengths. I think this is a good step to achieve clarification for both people and will help to set them on the right path.
I definitely agree with you on this. From both perspectives, it’s easy to simply assign a story and then assume that’s it until due date, and when that time comes around, the editor changes what he or she doesn’t like, and you’re both done with it.
It’s just like the situation Van Wyke was talking about in class where the student kept having problems with his or her article, and finally they realized that the student had never been given a story assignment.
My first noteworthy finding was on page 23. The point is made that writers may hand a story in but they may not be satisfied with it. I had a momentary sigh of relief that I am not the only writer out there who is not always satisfied when I turn in a story. Another thing that struck me was the affect having a predictable questions for your writers can have. The editor’s question of “What happened?” caused his writers to become better reporters, which would help the writer and editor out in the long run.
I have also turned in a story or two that I was not satisfied in, and am also glad I’m not the only one who has. Luckily, the editor I had at the time was very helpful, especially when I didn’t like what I had written. I can only hope that I will continue to have editors that will sit down with me and try to make the story something I can be satisfied with.
I also really liked this point. Often times, as pointed out in this book, writers and editors are happy just to have enough content to be able to print a newspaper. Writers, whether they’re happy with their story or not, are happy to meet their deadline. I think it’s great when editors take the time to talk to the writers about their stories, that way any concerns or dissatisfaction regarding a story can be addressed and hopefully fixed. I think helping writers feel more confident in their stories is beneficial in the long run because it encourages writers to continue writing and improving, thus making the paper or publication better overall.
One piece of advice that really stuck out to me in Chapter 3 is on page 24, which is the importance of conversation between writer and editor in solving a story’s problems. This tidbit stuck out to me so much because it brought me back to the idea we were focusing on last class, “coaching.” Even if the writer and editor have the briefest of conversations before deadline, this can greatly help the writer in working out the kinks in his article. In my opinion, and as emphasized throughout Chapter 3, these conversations can play a key role in the editing process, sparking the writer to fix the problems himself instead of relying on someone else to “fix” them, possibly altering his voice.
I agree with Sam, I think it’s important for us (as editors) to deconstruct the stereotypes of the profession and really help writers understand that we are a foundation of support, not just a person who criticizes their work. I do think that that model is somewhat changing, but there will always be those editors who prove it to be true over and over again.
I also think we should definitely strive to break the stereotype of the writer-editor relationship. Instead of approaching it as a power struggle, we should be encouraging discussion and working together like we are supposed to, as a team.
I like the idea of editors conferencing with their writers prior to deadline. This chapter mentioned many important traits for editors to portray; one being a great listener. Conferencing will provide the opportunity for both the editor and writer to bounce ideas off each other to ensure they’re on the same page. I also agree that editors can start editing before reading the copy, as mentioned on page 30. The editor can ask probing questions to make sure the writer has the history and knowledge to begin writing.
This strategy can also save a lot of time and frustrations in the long run. As we discussed in class, it can be overwhelming as a writer to receive your copy back with tons of markings. A writer may not know where to begin making corrections or get discouraged because they don’t know the reasons behind some of the edits. Mini-conferencing during the writing process would hopefully help the writer with some direction, and in return the editor can feel at ease that the writer knows what is to be expected.
I really liked the situation between Don Fry and one of his writers on page 25. I feel like I can relate to the writer, but also Don Fry. Quite often as a writer I turn in stories that I think suck. I get frustrated and can’t think of how to make it better, so I hand it to the editor and hope they can tell me what to do, or that they’ll change it (I crave feedback!). Then as an editor, I often get frustrated with writers. I’ll tell them to change something, and their second draft comes back exactly the same. The concept of asking questions – especially in person – is the solution to both of these problems. The writer in this situation was stuck in a rut and couldn’t think of a lead. After asking him what was important, if there were any good quotes, the writer finally found the spark he needed from “Did he say anything funny?” It’s extremely easy to fall into the trap of over-editing. In this scenario, Don Fry could have taken over as soon as the writer said he was having trouble, but instead, he persisted to ask more questions, until the writer figured out a solution on his own.
I said this in last week’s post as well, but I’m realizing I’m a really terrible editor. What I’ve taken out of this reading, is that I need to give feedback, but in a way that the writer can figure it out themselves. I’m just a catalyst.
One thing that really stuck out to me while reading this chapter was the fact that during a conference or meeting between a writer and an editor, the writer should do most of the talking. I like how this chapter, and book in general, emphasize that the editor should ask questions to get the writer thinking more to help with the writing process. Sometimes editors simply tell their writers what they think is wrong, what needs to be taken out, or how they would write the story themselves. From personal experience, both as an editor and as a writer, I’ve learned that this isn’t the the most effective way to encourage and help a writer. I liked the story in the chapter where the editor asks his writer if the person in the interview said anything funny. Just this simple question allowed the writer to think more about what was said during the interview and therefore write an effective lead. I think this is a great example of the way editors should approach their writers when discussing stories and how to improve them.
I absolutely agree. I think it’s excellent for an editor, or teacher, to get the writer or student to realize they have the answers they’re looking for. It’s a great feeling when someone helps you realize you knew the answer all along, but just didn’t quite know where to look for it. I especially like this because the editor is not the person who has done the reporting or research and as such, can only draw out what the reporter knows with carefully crafted, or even simple, questions.
I think it is interesting what the book says on page 30 “in brief conferences, body language is especially important”. I would also build off of that idea and say that body language is important as well as the tone of voice you “coach” in. I had a teacher who was the master at making you feel inferior if he wanted to. We would ask him if we could do something and instead of saying a simple yes or no he would ask a ton of patronizing questions. He would ask stuff like “Well what to you think you should do?” or “I just don’t understand what your problem is”. These may seem like harmless questions but with the tone he used it was like he was accusing us of being the biggest idiots for even asking him such a question. All he needed to do was say “No and this is why I am saying no” but the fact that he had to demean us in the process was unnecessary and detrimental to the crew.
I agree with your post. I, too, have had teachers who asked questions that seemed belittling. As a writer, it made me feel like I was destined to fail, which made me increasingly less confident in my work. As an editor, I hope to never make anyone feel that way.
After reading Chapter 3, the point that still hit me the clearest was what Donald Murray called ‘consultive editing.’ Those three main points were really something that I saw as necessary and I think that all editors should do this. Although the last step ended in eliminating the editor, I think that by preparing writers to write in the most proper way, the editor’s job is not exactly eliminated, but merely minimized. I also think that the third point, which talked about creating a place for the writer to be completely comfortable and able to do their best work is another key to creating the perfect editor-writer relationship. After receiving numerous drafts back from my professor in J91, I sometimes felt that I wasn’t really being helped and my story wasn’t being built up, but more so that it was just being ripped down. That put me in a very uncomfortable situation and I never felt that my work was good enough. Murray’s step could change this, and make sure that the feedback writers receive doesn’t always inflict them to turn to crying in the fetal position.
This leads into the conference technique of editing. On page 23 it says, “…the writer can benefit from hearing himself talk about the story. The editor learns from listening and can then suggest new sources of information or fresh approaches…”. This conferencing idea will create the ideal relationship between the writer and the editor because then once the writer gets everything out, verbally, the editor can help tweak the story into perfection. When I get stories back and they say things like ‘good’ or ‘awkward,’ I am in the same position I was in when I handed it in. Actual verbal criticism would be me wonders because then I would be able to talk out the kinks.
I was particularly interested in Donald Murray’s “Editing Side by Side” rules about being a writing coach. I was especially inspired by his third rule, “Fooling around with language is fun. We are playing a game of voice and meaning, and we can’t afford to take it too seriously.” The general public tends to think of journalism as a formulaic style of writing, but journalists are just as passionate about language and words as English and writing majors. Working on a deadline can be stressful and overwhelming, so I think it is important, as journalists, to be reminded that we are journalists because we enjoy it. Something that I struggled with in J54 was approaching each article as a new chance to tell a story, rather than another article that I had to crank out. This rule reminds me that I enjoy writing and I enjoy journalism because I love language, and that it is important to maintain that level of enjoyment in order to write fresh, interesting articles.