Roy Peter Clark on writing complicated stories with clarity

Poynter's Roy Peter Clark guided us through a list of great tips on how to make a complicated story easy to read and understand during the last of NewsU's series of writing webinars this afternoon.

They're so good I'm going to list them all here (my notes from Clark's powerpoint). You can also see his webinar at newsu.org (see me for access):

• Use shorter words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs at the point of greatest complexity (from writing coach Donald Murray). You have to report well to do this effectively. But the point is: Guide people through the heavy stuff with your writing choices.
• Slow the pace of information. Use periods to make the reader pause, at which point he/she can absorb information before moving on.
• Translate jargon. Kind of self-explanatory. But basically, you don't need to use the same specialized language your source does in order to help your reader understand.
• Lift numbers and technical info out of text and convey it in images (graphics, breakout boxes).
• Engage readers in conversation. Blogs, social networks, etc. You'd like to get to the point where you know what language your readers are comfortable with.
• Find a microcosm -- a small example that represents a larger reality. Clark gave the example of a New York Times reporter who told the story of 9/11 by focusing on one person, because the overall story was too big.
• Introduce difficult concepts one at a time. I like this at the story level, but also at the sentence level. I think a lot of times we think we have to introduce several facts or concepts in one sentence, because they're related. But (see above) use the period and give readers a chance to absorb one piece of info, then the next, then the next.
• Reward readers with high points. As Clark puts it, "gold coins" sprinkled throughout a story tell the reader, "Thanks for coming this far. Here's your reward. Keep going."
• Keep boring parts short. Be selective. Use your best stuff. Self-edit and cut 10-20 percent of your text.
• Assume responsibility for what readers learn. Can the reader ID the most important points of the story, pass that info on to another person, or pass a test on the main points?
• Watch the separation of subjects and verbs. The further apart they are, the less understandable the sentence will be.

Terrific teaching, as usual, from Clark. Thoughts or elaboration on any of these points, anybody? 

Is narrative always the right answer?

"Those of us who love narrative might be tempted to say that it conquers all. But are there some experiences which are perceived as being so subjective—or about which readers may be so committed to an opinion—that writing a piece as a pure narrative might work against the story?"

Andrea Pitzer of the Nieman Narrative Digest poses that question in an essay about a narrative on a woman's struggle to leave an abuser.

Pitzer notes that narrative has techniques to address the shortcomings that might come with telling a story from, for example, one person's perspective. And she says the author "makes sure we don’t dismiss her article as more advocacy than journalism by anticipating the moments when context, facts, and quotes from lawyers or policemen will make her story stronger."

I must say I can't immediately see why a narrative writer wouldn't try to do everything he/she could to ensure a piece doesn't come off as advocacy, because advocacy journalism lacks the credibility and force of well-done independent journalism.

But the question Pitzer asks is a good one, and reminds us that we should always be asking how best to tell a particular story, and vetting our decisions to make sure the story is told as well, and accurately and independently, as it can be.