Previous
Chapter 11
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in On Writing Well, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
The Human Element
Simplicity vs. Clutter
Process and Organization
The Gift of Writing
Summary
Analysis
The best writers let people tell their own stories in their own words, which requires interviewing them. By finding “the human element” behind a story, writers can make any topic interesting. For instance, Zinsser uses interviews to bring boring institutions to life. He has interviewed the research division curators at the New York Public Library, the department heads at Sotheby’s auction firm, and the editors of the Book-of-the-Month Club. The most interesting stories are usually “locked inside people’s heads.”
A nonfiction writer’s job is to tell a compelling story that connects with the reader. The best way to make this connection is to tell relatable stories about people from a human perspective. Zinsser does this by putting a face on a faceless institution: nobody can personally relate to the New York Public Library, but everyone can relate to the curator who spends all day watching paranoid inventors try to patent their ideas. And Zinsser argues that interviews are the only good way to get such personal stories. Just like writers should be clear and let the facts speak for themselves, they should let actual people speak for themselves whenever possible.
Themes
To learn interview skills, aspiring writers should practice, starting with interesting people in their communities. Luckily, interviewing always gets easier over time. It just requires knowing what to ask, how to listen, when to push for more information, and when to let go. Preparation is key—interviewers should bring paper and sharpened pencils, do background research, and put together a list of possible questions (even though they sometimes have to throw them away). Inexperienced interviewers sometimes worry about invading their subjects’ privacy, but most people actually enjoy talking about their lives. Some are uncomfortable doing it, but the solution is just to come back later and try again.
Zinsser argues that interviewing, like eliminating clutter and organizing a piece, is one of the few absolutely essential skills for writing good nonfiction. Like those other skills, it’s possible to improve, so motivated writers should practice as much as possible. But unlike those other skills, interviewing is social: it depends on empathy and human connection. The key to interviewing is understanding how commitments, ideas, and feelings motivate people’s behavior. This is what lets writers get into their subjects’ heads and see what’s compelling about their stories.
Themes
While tape recorders are an invaluable tool for interviewing, they’re better for social scientists than for writers. They sometimes fail, and they force writers to rewind back and forth through audio, rather than looking at the whole interview together on paper. Therefore, Zinsser recommends physically writing notes, except when honoring a subject’s personality or cultural background requires having an exact record of their words. (For instance, Zinsser used a tape recorder when he interviewed the Black jazz musicians Ruff and Mitchell, because he wanted to get their exact phrasing right.) Notetaking can be slow, but interviewers can just pause their subjects and ask for a moment to catch up. With practice, writers learn to abbreviate and take notes faster.
Zinsser’s advice about note taking might seem old-fashioned, especially since recording and transcription software keeps improving. But many reporters still prefer taking physical notes because it’s simply more reliable and engaging. When they conduct interviews, writers are no longer just accountable to their own integrity and their readers: they’re accountable to their subjects, too. This is why Zinsser thinks it’s important for interviewers to get details right and understand their own social position in relation to the people they are interviewing. For instance, as a white man researching the largely Black world of American jazz music, Zinsser recognized that he had a special obligation to respect and understand Ruff and Mitchell’s work and speech.
Themes
After finishing an interview, writers should fill in any gaps in their notes, then go home and type them up. Then, they should choose the most interesting quotes. Writers can move quotes around for the sake of brevity, as long as they represent a subject’s words and opinions accurately. For instance, if a comment from the end of the interview helps explain a point from the beginning, it’s acceptable to link them together in print—as long as this makes the interviewee’s ideas clearer. Similarly, while many subjects speak carefully and deserve to be quoted verbatim, others are messier, and their quotes need cleaning up. When in doubt, it’s always possible to just call up a subject to clarify their words or ideas.
Writers have a responsibility to respect their subjects’ intentions, but they’re also responsible for delivering a coherent, readable product. As with jargon and usage, Zinsser says, the rule of thumb for rearranging quotes is that it’s only acceptable when it’s necessary to make someone’s language more clear and precise. Writers should be confident that their interviewees would be happy with the change—and they can always just ask if they’re unsure. At the same time, rearranging quotes to misrepresent a subject’s ideas or intentions is always wrong.
Themes
Get the entire On Writing Well LitChart as a printable PDF.
In an article based on an interview, writers should start by explaining why the person they interviewed is important, and they should try to find a balance between their own words and their interviewee’s. They should put their quotes at the beginning of sentences when possible, and they should only break them up where it sounds natural. Finally, there’s usually no need to replace “he said” and “she said” with synonyms like “he replied” or “she added.”
Like all nonfiction writing, interviews have to focus on a single provocative idea. This idea is always about the significance of the person being interviewed. And like in any other nonfiction, writers should also ruthlessly cut out anything that doesn’t serve this central idea. This is why writers should give relevant context about the people they interview, without stealing the spotlight from them.
Themes
Many prominent authors have gotten in trouble for making up quotes, which is obviously unethical. But even the best reporters have to take some liberties with quotes. For instance, in the influential piece “Mr. Hunter’s Grave,” Joseph Mitchell patches together Mr. Hunter’s quotes from a year’s worth of interviews into one long paragraph. But this “literary arrangement” helps Mitchell better portray Mr. Hunter’s voice and personality, so Zinsser thinks it’s acceptable. Other writers might disagree. But all writers know that making up quotes is always wrong, because it means exploiting the public’s trust.
There’s no clear line to dictate how much “literary arrangement” is too much, but there is an extremely clear ethical line between arrangement and misrepresentation. This line depends on intention. Thus, Mitchell’s changes are reasonable because they clarify Hunter’s identity and significance. It accentuates the truth and humanity in the story, rather than distorting it. But misrepresentation is a fundamental violation of trust, and it destroys a writer’s credibility. This is a serious problem because trust and credibility are foundational to the writing profession: without them, writers can’t convince others to take them seriously.
Themes
