It was inevitable that it should happen at some point, but I’ve started this morning assailed by the conviction that anything that I write will be reductive, and that I really need to include more (and more, and more, and more) information.
This isn’t driven by a desire to show off… actually, possibly the opposite. I work on the history of oppressed or marginalised groups, and I’m oftenvery aware that my commitment to their empowerment will be doubted if I get the writing wrong. So, it’s more likely a fear of being misunderstood that is coming out. Which combines with a genuine desire to respect the reality of multiple points of view in the history that I’m writing about… and ends up with me wanting to caveat every point of view with every other point of view.
Aside: maybe it’s all the same as showing off – I mean, isn’t it a way of trying to shore up my insecurity? Although, in this case, I think being insecure about my ability to accurately represent someone else’s history is a valid concern. Particularly here, because one of the reasons for this article is to surface the varying ways that history can be told, and the stakes that are in play for each telling. But not this much variety. This much is enough for a book – several books, probably. And I’d probably still feel that I wasn’t being comprehensive enough.
So I have to remember the two questions that I ask others, when they are stuck with the same problem. “
- What is the central point you want to make?
- What do you need to set up, so that your reader can follow your argument?
When I apply these to my own work, the answers to those two questions allow me to discern whether the information I want to include is directly relevant to taking my reader on a journey towards my central point… or just “Interesting, and I want to include it”.
Plus, I have to remember that in my field, the reader won’t be just be reading for ‘facts’. For them to follow my argument, I also need to reassure them my motivation in writing is one that they can trust.
Thinking about it, that’s actually not best served by a confused text that tries to cover every opinion. Rather, what I need is a couple of really tight, well-written methodological paragraphs at the beginning.
And then a text that doesn’t wander.
Hmm… thanks blog, that’s helped.
P.S. And if you want to think through an issue by writing a blog piece, which ends up probably being more useful for you (the author) then for the audience, then feel free to use this method. You’re welcome!
The Garage of Books 