by Kevin Pointer Sr.
William Zinsser was a journalist and a nonfiction writer whose career spanned the 1940s through the 1970s. He worked for many notable employers including the New York Times and Yale University. A well-rounded gentleman, Zinsser also played the piano and the sax. This prolific writer is best known, however, for his book On Writing Well: The Classic Guide to Writing Nonfiction. In this enduring tome he staunchly maintains that writers should write for themselves instead of their readers. We will look at both sides of the case. To his credit, Zinsser recognizes that his position may seem paradoxical – How can you think carefully about not losing the reader and still be carefree about his opinion? he offers (Zinsser, 2013 p. 25).
Despite Zinsser’s paradox realization, he variously sprinkles in “helpful” admonishments to bolster his case: “If it amuses you in the act of writing, put it in” he implores . . . either you’ll get along [with the reader] or you won’t” he adds with a bit of the spice of an impatient trial lawyer. Finally, he advises, “to not give the reader a moment’s worry” save, he essentially argues, for the craftsmanship, simplicity, and creativity that all good writing should exhibit.
To further make his point about writing for yourself and not “giving a damn” about what anyone else might think Zinsser calls to the witness stand the premiere American journalist of his time, H.L. Mencken, a true iconoclast. Zinsser then offers Mencken’s account of the notorious “Monkey Trial” of theory of evolution teacher John Scopes. Zinsser points to Mencken’s “pyrotechnical use of the American language” and Mencken expressing his prejudices with “mirthful” abandon as an admiral examples of writing for yourself. Pyrotechnic?, mirthful? . . . indeed! Who knew that the trial’s mob could have the “smell of antinomianism”? or that Mencken was introduced to the “favorite tipple of the Cumberland Range”? In writing for himself Mencken actually offends modern language sensibilities and retards a basic understanding of the trial, no matter what the era.
The notion, then, of writing for one’s self being a universally great writing approach applicable across all writing genres based on Zinsser’s say so or Mencken’s “testimony”? I think not. Not so fast.
William Zinsser’s strict contention that writers should write for themselves can make sense for certain genres. The reality, however, is that the question of who you should write for is a much more nuanced, contextual, and deliverable dependent proposition. A writer’s approach should certainly be influenced by considerations other than self, such as the audience and writing genre, not too mention industry norms, or editor’s or organizational preferences. There ought to be room for adaptation. Zinsser’s point of view of writing for yourself can be best appreciated only if you subscribe to a more liberal interpretation of what writing for yourself means. If writing for yourself means more generally applying your craft and innate skills to whatever you produce, then I can appreciate that point of view. If you subscribed to a more narrow definition of writing for yourself, no matter the audience and genre, then I disagree with such an unqualified approach.
Technical and scientific writing, academic writing, and business writing are three genres where a strict approach of writing for yourself might necessitate you updating your resume to find a new writing position. In technical and scientific writing, for example, there’s little-to-no time for personality; complicated rhetorical devices or sentence structures; an abundance of creativity; fancy, ornamental graphics; big words; nuance; or interpretation. In his book, Technical Communication Today, Richard J. Sheen confirms that (technical communication) concentrates on what readers “need to know” to take action, not on what you as the writer want to tell them (Sheen 2015).
In fairness to Mr. Zinsser, we should keep in mind that the type of nonfiction writing he probably first had mind when he issued his edict of writing for yourself included interviews, travel articles, and memoirs. This, as opposed to scientific and technical writing, which he appropriately discusses more contextually, a little later in his book. With the former types of writing, Mr. Zinsser’s edict to write for yourself rings true. With the latter, scientific and technical writing, being Zinsser’s own example, it does not. Not too unlike a lawyer adapting his skills to a new case, a good craft writer should take into account and adapt on some level to the genre, product, and environment, not necessarily the other way around.
References
Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2015). Technical communication today, fifth edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Zinsser, W. (2016). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
