I had a discussion with one of my friends Nicole over dinner about how to write for an audience. As someone with close ties to a magazine publisher, and is generally more in tune with trends, Nicole stressed the importance having a personal narrative in almost all forms of media nowadays. The story of how someone got to where they are is compelling and that's hard to refute. An audience needs someone to root for, which makes complete sense. This is, however, so far from how my internal monologue. I actively try to avoid creating narratives and push myself to speak in principles and truisms. After establishing these sets of boundaries, then I formulate my opinion or take on something. This seems to be the exact opposite of what it necessary to write a compelling piece. Maybe it came from my predilection to arguing/debating, but I try to ground my arguments in the truth. But I think that could be the difference between my current writing style and the writing style necessary to sell. I'm not sure I should be creating media that attempts to convince anyone of anything or have a compelling argument. I don't think that's what's popular. People have their own perspectives and rarely ask to be convinced otherwise. However, through storytelling and creating captivating narratives, perhaps I can begin to have the same type of influence as I would have arguing, albeit in a much less forward manner. If we follow each path down to their logical conclusion (here I go again) then we have two outcomes. A compelling narrative has the chance to affect many people if it gains enough of an audience despite not being the most effective way to convey information. An argument based in truisms and principles may be much better at convincing people but lacks readability and gets pushed to the side in favor of other forms of media that capture attention better. There are instances of creators breaking these molds but it seems difficult to set it up to make it likely.
Comments