Another music writer rule --by the way, these aren't really in any particular order.
Rule 2: Remember who you work for.
You work for your reader. In the end, that's who buys the papers, that's who buys the products your advertiser's sell, etc... etc... You work for the audience; the same as a singer, an actor or a stripper. The difference, naturally, is the previous occupations require more talent for any degree of success and pay better for the size of audience.
Music and entertainment writing isn't high-minded stuff really. It branches into it sometimes and sometimes, some entertainment writers can attain the profound or the poetic riffing off an album, a song, a performance, an experience, but usually not. Mostly, entertainment writing is about diverting people's attention, providing them with something pleasant to think about, and giving the reader options on their weekend. At it's worst, it becomes gossip. At it's best, it's human interest --it's about people and maybe a look at some aspect of people we either share or wish we could share.
Often, a story will encourage other things --like commerce. Entertainment features put people in movie houses, get them to buy records (sometimes) and push them in the direction of a show. This is a side effect --kind of like how certain heart medicines also give you nuclear-powered boners. While the side effect is not without its benefits (and is certainly more lucrative), it's not what you're here to do.
Occasionally, others will confuse the side effect with the intended effect. They will want you to confuse it, too, and for all kinds of reasons that sound good on the surface. Just remember what's good for the performer or the show is not necessarily good for the reader --or the newspaper or the magazine.
Also... and just as importantly... what is good for the writer is not necessarily what's good for the reader. I'd be lying if I didn't say I occasionally wanted to do stories that are only for me. Sometimes, it's wanting to help someone who really needs it. Other times, it's wanting to get a piece of knowledge that's hard to get at. Validation is another thing: some sort of proof of self-worth as seen reflected through the job. It's kind of a sickness, given the kind of things I write about. Really, are there ten people in this state who are bothered that Bruce Springsteen hasn't played in West Virginia in over 30 years?
Periodically, I pitch things at my editors of dubious value and they have to remind me: who does this benefit? If the answer is "me," then we don't do it.
Remember your reader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know about that... any good comedy writer will tell you that the best gauge of whether material is funny or not is if they themselves laugh at it. Chances are, if they laugh, someone else is going to find it funny. It's not a rule, but it's certainly a starting block.
ReplyDeleteThe Springsteen piece could have legs with some solid research on whether he's played comparable places in 30 years, or whether there's not enough of his blue collar target audience here to buy tickets. I'm not a fan of his and I wouldn't go see him in concert, but I'd certainly be interested to read a well-written article on why he's not played here recently. The power of a good journalist is not only to inform, but to MAKE the reader care about something they didn't previously give a toss about, surely?
mmm. I see what you're saying, but don't think you're on the right page.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, Comedy writing is art. Writing about art or music or comedians is more craft. Art can be itself for the sake of itself. A craft has to have a purpose other than itself otherwise it's art or crap. Art can be crap, too, but it's a different path to get there.
However, a comedy writer does think of his audience --starting with himself. Good comedy writers will also tell you sometimes what cracks them up, they're pretty sure won't make anyone else laugh. They learn that one the hard way, same as everybody else.
But I do think of my interests, too. However, as a writer/pseudo-journalist, I am charged to expand my interests as much as I can, to be curious, etc... but to also listen to my readers, watch what they seem interested in and keep an eye toward that. It's not exclusive. I try to follow trends, look at what they might be interested in and what maybe they should be interested in --even beyond my own personal knowledge or experience.
Along with remembering your reader, you have to know your reader or try to. It's another rule. There are many.
And the Springsteen example doesn't have legs, not in a town where nobody much complains that the Civic Center used to get big name acts 30 years ago (or 40, when Jimi Hendrix played) and can't do better than a couple of country stars these days. There isn't much of an outcry when I do write those kind of things. You... and me.. would be in the minority. I actually catch some occasional ribbing from people who think it's funny that I think about the last time bands played here. It's important to me, but not really to anyone else.
Something to remember... Very little of what I do matters a great deal in the dynamic of necessary news. Even Bruce, my beloved white whale, and his avoiding playing WV for 31 years is less important than a kid getting shot on the West Side. This is not to denigrate what I do, but perspective. It's necessary in that people need to be entertained. They need diversion, inspiration and the other things what I do may occasionally provide. It's news with a little 'n' however.
I don't know if writing comedy is art necessarily. Writing for yourself may be, but writing to specific guidelines and not having final say over what happens to that material turns it into a craft, I think. Chore, even!
ReplyDeleteI still think you should write it. You might be surprised at the reaction. And even if it comes and goes and makes no waves either way, surely it's no harm no foul?