Grandma Gets Rerun Over in This Blog

This is a rerun of a feature on "Grandma" Gatewood, whom I wrote about roughly a hundred years ago. <recalculating> Actually, it was 2003. It appeared on a (now defunct) content site for which I was the Ohio Guide. I see that look of awe on your face. Yes! And now you get to read it, right here! But wait, there's more...

I've been reviewing a lot of things I wrote back in the day, and decided (are you sitting down?) to compile some of them in a book. I'll publish using Amazon's CreateSpace, because if there's one thing the world needs more of, besides self-published books, it's a collection of snarky essays, right?

You're welcome.

But back to essays and writing them, since this is supposed to be a "writing blog" and all. As you're sure to notice, this ditty on Grandma Gatewood isn't an essay; it's an article. Factual is nice (I loves me my research) but there's no personal insight or thought-provocation going on here. I really need to fix that, but this post is a bit long already. So I'll add some enduring wisdom to the piece when I get a round tuit, and put it in the book, which will be available from Amazon sometime in December. In time for Christmas shopping, even!

#seewhatIdidthere

In the meantime, the original post appears below. This one is for Maureen, who rightly noted "We really need to bring 'pantywaist' back to the insult table."

Good Ohio Grandma

When we sing, “over the river and through the woods, to Grandmother’s house we go…” most of us conjure up visions of a stereotypical grandmotherly figure, all round edges and special recipes. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – that describes my grandma pretty well, and I’m not interested in amending my memories, thank you.

But let’s remember that grandmas come in all shapes and boot sizes. Grandma Gatewood, for example, raised 11 children in southern Ohio in the early 1900. She also worked as a practical nurse and trained Peace Corps volunteers. And when she read that no woman had hiked the whole Appalachian Trail in a single season, she decided to be the first. She was 68.

She hiked the AT twice more before taking on the Oregon Trail in 1959, when she was 72. At age 75, she was still building trails in Ohio, some of which would become part of the Buckeye Trail.

Thanks to the vision and toil of Grandma and others, today we can go over the river and through the woods, indeed, on more than 1,280 miles of the Buckeye Trail, on foot. If you haven’t logged at least a few miles over the river and through the woods on foot, Grandma had a name for you: Pantywaist.

Fittingly, one of the most frequently-used portions of the trail, from Old Man’s Cave to Ash Cave in Hocking County, is dedicated to Grandma Gatewood.

##

This article first appeared on the long-defunct Suite 101 Ohio: People and Places page in 2003. Although I’ve logged a lot of miles on Ohio’s trails, including those between Old Man's Cave and Ash Cave. I’ve never built a trail, though, or trained a Peace Corps volunteer, so I suppose I could be labeled a “pantywaist.”

~Diane Stresing

You & Your Source: Different Interview Perspectives

PR Daily is good at asking questions, and How far should you stretch in an interview? is a good question.

In the case of this particular question, author Brad Phillips concludes that there's no right or wrong answer. I beg to differ.

As a writer, I've been on the deadline end of the wrong answer, and it stinks (to put it politely).

On Being a Good Source 

My answer to would-be sources is this: don't stretch for an interview unless you're really, r e a l l y going to stretch and actually become a good source.

Trust me, a prompt, professional response that you're not able to authoritatively address the specific aspects of the assigned topic will be appreciated.

Do you worry because you "hate to turn down a media opportunity?" Don't. Generally, a prompt, professional response of any kind will be enough to get you on the list of "people to call" for future assignments on any related topic.

As a source, the second-worst thing you can do is stretch a little. If you stretch enough to talk around the topic, but are unable to offer any real insight into the topic, you've wasted not only the writer's time but the readers' time as well.

The Worst Source

In my opinion - as a writer and a reader - the worst thing a source can do has nothing to do with stretching. It has to do with bending.

Sources who bend, twist, or turn their responses, or who stray so far from the topic that their comments are useful only to themselves and/or their brand, are the worst... when you're prepared, that is.

Sometimes - rarely, but sometimes - a "bad" source can, like a lost sheep, be worth following. The trick is knowing when.

Don't Get Lost, Get Lucky

Following a wayward source is worthwhile when you have enough time to appreciate the detour as part of the education process. Managing your work so that you can have "enough time" is a challenge every writer knows too well - and most know it depends on having a lot of discipline and even more luck.

To increase your chances (I'm talking to writers now, you source-types are free to leave) I've found it helps to identify potential sources as early as possible in your research phase. I've lucked out a few times by contacting those potential sources before I understood the topic well. In those cases, I suspect my totally honest approach improved my luck.

Contacting Sources Too Early Can Work

When contacting potential sources before I've had a chance to develop good questions, I say something like, "I'm researching X topic and would like 10-15 minutes of your time while I begin to understand how Y and Z are affecting X. Before you agree I should tell you this interview would be considered background only - in other words, no attributable quotes at this time. If you're willing to speak to me, please call..."

Obviously, when using this approach it helps to cast a wide net (or look for a lot of sheep). And it helps to have a long lead time - something almost always out of your control as a writer.

What is under your control as a writer, and what you must remember during the interview and writing process, is that you and your sources approach the interview from completely different perspectives. Put another way: as long as you understand that the question How far should you stretch in an interview? is one sources must routinely consider, it's probably unlikely that you'll be led too far astray.

~Diane Stresing

Research Before Writing: Essential to do, then stop

Would you spend a year learning to quilt or paint before writing a book about a character who quilted or painted? If you did, you might find your name on best-seller lists, like author Tracy Chevalier.

Or not. 

The trick is not just falling so hard for your story that you're willing to do the research - it's knowing when to quit researching and then having the discipline to write. (And revise, and rewrite, and revise, and rewrite...)

The History Girls' excellent blog asked Chevalier when was the right time to stop researching and her short answer was, "Never." The long answer was a bit more illuminating, particularly for fiction writers. 

But what about copywriters? How much research is enough? Unfortunately, the answer is usually determined by deadlines and budgets - neither of which, in the commercial world, have much respect for the writing process. 

Which means the writer must be a quick study, of both subject matter and of the personalities in play - who are you really writing for? The customers, about whom you have reams of data (of questionable significance) or the CEO, the sales manager, or the marketing director (who hired you)? 

While it's a conundrum and not one a blog can answer, I'll go back to Chevalier's answer, because she's right: as a writer, you'll probably never do enough research.  And I can safely say you'll never quiet all the critics - book reviewers, editors, clients or the CEO's sister, for that matter. 

It's frustrating, but the tremendous reward in this messy ball of wax is that writers are truly always learning. 

Tracy Chevalier's latest book is set in northern Ohio. She spoke at commencement to Oberlin's class of 2013 - 29 years after her own class graduated from the school - and she gave the grads a lot of advice. Five of her points were supposed to be all about writing - but they can be interpreted broadly. Most of the advice was good, for fiction writers, copywriters, and everyone. My favorite bit was this:

"Make your life one long string of punchy verbs."

Go on, now. Stop researching - and see what you can do. 

Curriculum Resource for Children's Writers

Readers of my reading blog know I love The Why Files, now here's a reason for writers to love it too:  the awesome science team at University of Wisconsin-Madison recently highlighted its Classroom Activity Pages in its newsletter, and what a line-up! From amoebas to tsunamis, children's writers are sure to find those pages an excellent resource.
_______________________
Link not working? Here's the URL:
http://whyfiles.org/category/cap/?orderby=rand

Handy Journalism Toolbox

Thank you @JournToolBox for this DIY Freedom of Information Act letter template.

http://www.splc.org/legalassistance/foiletter.asp

We're all fact-checkers now?

Could be a good and/or bad thing, I think. Certainly worth considering and if you're willing, participating in the public "calling %v!!$#i+," as the author says. Read the article at regrettheerror.com

Bye Bye Blogs, So Long to Standards?

Today I read that blogs are passe, dead, a waste of time. When the question is, how can I get readers? apparently, the answer is Twitter. Hm.

I can digg (in fact, I really Digg it!) but I'm not ready to tweet.

Assuming there's some momentum and truth (or real worth) to back up the tweeting on Twitter, and Digg lasts longer than most of my web-crushes, then (you know what's coming) what does it mean for writers? and for writing?

I'm not sure, beyond the fact that it's acceptable to start a sentence like the one above with a lowercase "a."
- - - - - - - - - -

I believe writers are really, really important in any civilized society. Seriously. And not just the legal specialists who write the plethora of contracts, disclaimers, and warranties.

But it's been a long day.
- - - - - - - - - -

I spent part of it on a conference call with about a dozen eager writers who were, I was led to believe, all ready to jump at the chance to write for the website of a "major brand" in the medical space for ... ready? $70 per article. The articles should take about two hours to complete, we were told. (I suspect more like five.) Writers on the project are instructed to conduct one interview and use it to create 5+ articles on a given topic. And/or to source quotes from the host website - with attribution to the folks previously quoted on the host website.

Is anyone besides me nauseous at this point?

If we, the professional writers, are to repurpose and essentially regurgitate the same material, the same quotes, over and over and (I really HATE this part) reuse OTHER writers' material (even from "approved" websites - in this case, a partner site, but one with separate ownership and a separate staff of writers) how long will it be before what we read has no meaning?

Not very long, my friends; webspeed is roughly equivalent to the speed of light.

And the ugly twist in the wild-web-world is that while we can crank out "new" material with a few keystrokes and cut-and-paste commands, it's damn near impossible to to determine the relative age, or accuracy, of anything we read.

What if I repurpose a quote from a doc who was an expert in his field last year but who recently was indicted for having sex with his patients, prescribing drugs based on kickbacks, fiddling with research results to further his career at the big-name clinic?

I won't know and readers won't know, if I didn't do the interviews firsthand.

So for $70 you can get a pithy article on pinkeye, and say "goodbye" to journalistic standards.

That's a very costly mistake.

I'll admit that news of the death of the blog may be grossly exaggerated, and not at all related to the demise of journalism, however, there's a lesson to be learned in both.

I think it's this: While you don't always get what you pay for, even more often, when the price tag is low so is the quality.

In the case of the $70 medical article, you, dear reader, don't know if you're getting the story straight from the horse's mouth, even if the horse is quoted and the website looks like a thoroughbred.

Caveat emptor, dear readers. Writers, good luck. And fact-checkers, raise your rates. I hope you'll soon be in great demand.