A More Poetic Style

Tonight I've been writing a list of new Provo businesses of 2009 for Rhombus Magazine. In my opening paragraph I had originally written "...surprisingly managed to bring new life to our struggling downtown." However, I felt like that wasn't really very interesting to read because "bring new life" was boring and clunky. After considering for a minute the image of someone using a defibrillator kept coming to mind. Thus I changed the phrase to "...surprisingly managed to defibrillate our struggling downtown." It's shorter and easier to read, and, I think, more interesting.

If I were writing a poem such realizations would be necessary and one as simple as this wouldn't warrant any particular rejoicing. However, since I was writing an article I think it is an occasion worth taking note of. The first phrase was adequate and would be sufficient. In my own writing I'll actually usually go with whatever is adequate eight or nine times out of ten simply because I have to move on. Though different writers have different skill levels, I'd bet that most professional writers work similarly simply due to time constraints (though "adequate" from great writers is obviously better than "inspiring" from mediocre writers).

This all raises some questions: does it matter? Does an audience really care if a magazine author or journalist uses more interesting diction? Do they notice? (Am I even correct in assuming that my second choice was more interesting?) I'm not sure. Most writing I read isn't remarkably well written, nor is it terrible. It does, however, seem to place a premium on content. Language, most popular writing apparently assumes, isn't something that is supposed to call attention to itself or be anything but the background for the ideas it conveys.

However, a more poetic style (which I hope I was inching closer to when I happened to think of the word "defibrillate") is more exact. I think the verb I decided to use is more violent and vivid than the bland phrase I started out with. If it really is better my conclusion is then that I hope to continue to work toward a more poetic style in my future popular writing. By extension I'd argue that writers generally should do the same.

Of course, probably no writer would argue that he or she shouldn't try to find better words to use. However, I think that my argument is also that, by extension, "adequate" is actually less adequate than it seems. Though the basic idea gets across when writers settle for the first thing that comes to mind, the complexity of a concept is lost. In other words, ideas and language are closely integrated with one another and using inexact words conveys ideas inexactly.

Ultimately I think that popular writing shouldn't strive for transparency. It should strive for poetry. Though poetry itself is all but a dead art (which, as a writer and reader of poetry, I lament), the power of language is significant. Obviously few writers have the luxury to treat everything they write like a poem. Yet I know that in my case when I simply adopt the belief that writing should be poetic my work is profoundly changed. This, coupled with reading more poetic works (such as actual poetry) could substantially improve writing in many venues. Theoretically it could also inspire readers to become more passionate about what they're consuming, which in turn could (in some small way) help to reinvigorate the struggling writing industry.