A
long, long gap since my last post, for which I apologise, but I took a
much-needed holiday in August. Italy,
to see some nice relatives and eat some nice food and enjoy some nice weather – and to deal with some not so nice lizards trespassing in my bedroom
and some un-nice snakes seeking out water around our house and even less
nice blood-thirsty mosquitos making the most of the opportunities my uncovered
summer skin presented them. I’ll say no more, because holiday descriptions
longer than what might fit on the back of a postcard tend to make for dull
reading, but my point is there was a lot of niceness, and a bit of
not-so-niceness too, and I’ve told you about both.
And
that’s the theme of today’s post. You see, a lot of what I read by students is
ever so nice – through and through. Take reviews, for example; specifically,
restaurant reviews. The food is nice, the waiters are nice, the salt’n’pepper
shakers are nice, even the blooming parking spaces outside are nice, and well
before the (without doubt nice) dessert arrives my yawns have become very nice and
my sleepiness has broken all niceness records since niceness records began.
Please
keep me, and every other reader, wide awake with some not-so-niceness.
Remember:
you are under no obligation to restrict yourself to positive comment when
reviewing a product, location or event. I’m not quite sure why newer writers appear
to feel they need to. Do they fear some sort of retaliation or comeback or
complaint? It rarely happens – certainly nothing serious, anyway. I’m
struggling to think of an instance in my experience. There have been a few
minor grumbles, mainly from PRs, but nothing intimidating or of concern.
Provided you are fair, honest and reasonably objective as you can be, it will
be fine.
Perhaps
some fear niceness is required or preferred by editors? Well, it generally makes
no difference to the editor, I don’t think. In fact, he may prefer some
not-niceness as it’s likelier to trigger stronger letters – and all editors love
a vigorous letters page. What he definitely prefers is you to be fair and
honest. If that means nice, fine – but balance is important too.
If
you find it hard to criticise something, because it genuinely is too nice (or whatever superlative it may be), then don’t be afraid to say so – at
least you’ll be telling your editor and reader that you considered any
potential flaws, and it communicates that there’s really little or nothing not
to like about what you are writing about. In other words, it’s not the case
that you’ve omitted the negative or critical stuff – merely that there
wasn’t any.
Another
example is in the reporting of events – say, fairs or shows or theatre
productions. Often I read of delighted audiences and thrilled exhibitors and
chuffed-to-smithereens visitors. Well, they may seem on the surface all these
things, and asking some individuals a few basic questions in order to obtain
some quotes for your article is likely to confirm those first impressions, in soliciting
little but general positivity. Yet this is the equivalent of asking a friend
or acquaintance ‘How are you?’: you’re going to get the automatic response of ‘Fine,
thanks’ and the like. But if you persist, and ask ‘No, really – how is your
health? What problems are you having?’, you’ll hear about verruccas or tummy
troubles or migraines…
And
it’ll be the same with interviewees. ‘What’s been less successful about the
show?’ and ‘What problems have you faced today?’ are examples of questions you may
do well to ask, in order to tap into what may be lying under the surface. The
stories lie deeper, quite often. You’ve really got to talk to them to get the
not-so-nice stuff, and directly try to solicit the more intriguing stuff.
I’m
not advising you aggressively dig for dirt, by the way; I’m not suggesting a
trashing, as admittedly entertaining as these can occasionally be. But you
should ask questions – of your interviewees, and indeed of yourself – which
challenge that default niceness which is inherent in most of us, which is very
human and, well, very nice, but not always useful or productive in the writing
business.
It’s
harder, granted, when your subject is an individual – for instance, when you’re
profiling a notable figure. I’ve written before, very early on in this blog’s days, about the importance of asking some more probing and potentially
difficult questions, and of putting the reader first, but it’s worth
reiterating again. It’s the reason why you (probably) shouldn’t profile someone
you know, or review anything you have a personal or deeply emotional connection
with. If you can’t critique someone or something fairly and squarely, then you
may not be able to be true to yourself, or fair to your editor or reader.
Ethically, it can be questionable. You are not being paid to write advertising,
but editorial.
And
now I’ll await some not-so-nice comments with some disquiet …
Labels: Interviewing, Mistakes