Photo by Dmitry Demidov from Pexels
Writing is speaking to someone who isn’t in the room. It takes more effort than speaking to someone in front of you because then you have the benefit of their non-verbal reactions to see if you are understood and you can make changes as you speak.
That is why when writing, you have to get your message right before you share it. That is why words are so powerful. Besides the picking of the right words, what adds to the power of a written piece is how you place the words together. It’s something writers and editors agonise over.
We are living in a time of content overload. And much of that content is average - its message is lost on the reader or is easily forgotten. So when you find a written gem, it stands head and shoulders above everything else. I came across such a piece of writing this week. For me the test of art is whether I think about it long after I have experienced it. This gem passed that test, so I went back to examine why. I’m sharing my analysis with you here.
We are often told that readability is important when writing. It is. But what about a connection with the reader? What about taking them where you, the writer, are? Not just in their mind’s eye, but emotionally. It is said that reading makes you empathetic, but it is good writing that does half that job.
The piece I’m talking about is called Who set Greece on fire?, published by Unherd and written by Aris Roussinos. I’m sharing the link here. I recommend that you read it before you read the rest of my newsletter but the choice is yours, of course.
First a word about the mood the piece evokes. You will find the writer moves through concern, despair, argument, anger and returns to concern. All through, there is a cry for reason, logic and selflessness to prevail.
Besides his command of vocabulary, there are other clear signs that Roussinos knows the rules of the writing game, particularly with regard to sentence construction. He knows the what-not-to-do’s we are told about, but still chooses to go his own way.
Let’s look at the sentences he has constructed that make the writing beautiful and thought-provoking. I will quote from the piece and then analyse the quote.
“The desperate fight to stop the flames encroaching on Athens left Evia to be sacrificed for lack of resources.”
No punctuation in some sentences: This is rare. Punctuation helps the reader navigate as they read, but sometimes it’s not needed, and that keeps the sentence stark.
“For the first time, this trip back to Greece has hit me with the realisation that climate change isn’t just a notional threat on an ever-shifting horizon: it’s already here, right now. The apocalypse has already arrived.”
Here is the construction skeleton of the sentences above:
Complex sentence (one independent clause and other dependent clauses/phrases): simple sentence (one independent clause and a phrase). Simple sentence (one independent clause).
Mixing different types of sentences: The mix of simple, compound and complex sentences engages the reader, otherwise the reading rhythm becomes monotonous. This is common knowledge, but applying it does not always mean that the writer in you and me will hit the mark as perfectly as this writer does here. The last simple sentence could be considered unnecessary. Here, it rams the point home.
“The winter rains that blanket the forest floor with a leafy undergrowth which dampens the threat of fire are getting weaker.”
Use of out-of-the-ordinary verbs: ‘Blanket’ is generally used as a noun. Using it here as a verb helps create lush imagery in the mind of the reader.
“The Mediterranean climate, punctuated by dramatic changes of season so punctual that over the centuries they could be predicted almost to the day, has become erratic.”
Separation of the subject and the verb: The writer, Roussinos, does this often in this piece. Writers and editors are told that to keep things simple for the reader the subject (the Mediterranean climate) and the verb (has become) should be placed next to each other. But think about it. Change this sentence in your head and think of how you feel about the change. Placing the dependent clause that is in between anywhere else would remove the beauty in the sentence.
“That the trillions of dollars and the vast quantities of natural resources spent on extending and maintaining its imperial hegemony across the furthest corners of the earth would have been better spent on addressing the threat of climate change is an unarguable fact.”
Use of the noun clause as the subject: This too is extremely rare. The noun clause begins at ‘that’ and ends with ‘climate change’. Using a noun clause as the object of the verb (after the verb) is done subconsciously by most writers, but to place such a long noun clause as the subject is the mark of someone who is very comfortable writing.
“No leader of any industrialised nation has shown themselves capable or even willing to face the challenge directly: we will all pay the price.”
Choice of punctuation: The writer’s choice of the colon over the period here is interesting. The period would have had an impact but the colon creates a strong correlation with the previous sentence, and amplifies the meaning and effect.
“For how many years, I wondered, would my five and one-year old sons be able to live here safely? How many decades has the Mediterranean left to be liveable, for the trees to still bear fruit, before our wells run dry?”
The use of questions: Questions make the text emotive. They get the reader to ask the same questions of themselves and their situations, and thus, kindle empathy in the reader.
If you’ve reached this point and haven’t read the piece yet, I urge you to please read it. There is a lot in it that I haven’t mentioned at all. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed writing this newsletter.
Until next time,
Michelle