This is a review (newly edited) that I posted a while ago on my older blog, which has served as my “go to” blog since I began blogging. I have some relevant materials there that I’ll share here as well. I believe that the contents of my original blog will explain why I think that it’s relevant to this blog. For a comparison, look at this review from Legal Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD.
The art of telling an effective story, whether as a matter of fiction or of non-fiction, has become increasingly celebrated and promoted as the most effective means of communicating a message. Wherever we turn for advice about communicating effectively, we are told about the power of story or narrative (if you prefer the more hifalutin term). The reasoning is simple: we seem programed to remember stories that are tales across time involving characters who engage us in their quests.
Jack Hart is a professional journalist who describes the skills needed to write an effective non-fiction story for a newspaper or magazine. The book provides a number of tips and explanations about how good stories come to be written. But he also includes consideration of the usefulness of communicating other than by narrative, such as by explanation. However, the stories that Hart’s colleagues have written on a wide variety of topics have enhanced their effectiveness (and one assumes their readership) by use of a strong narrative line. The elements, when you reflect upon them, seem almost self-evident: characters (persons that we can care about and understand), a conflict or obstacle that present the characters a challenge, change through time (a narrative arc), and a well-researched facts. Like lawyers, journalists have a professional ethical obligation to “tell the truth”, as problematic has that statement always is. Both professions require us to ground our narrative in some sense in “what really happened”, perhaps easier for journalists because they don’t (or least shouldn’t) work for self-interested clients. One of the points that Hart rightfully addresses includes the ethics of required for appropriate truth telling.
Who might enjoy this book? Anyone who might want to tell a story, fiction, or non-fiction. (In truth, the fundamentals are not so different and Hart draws in a number of sources that originally addressed issues of fiction and play writing.) However, I read it from the point of view of a lawyer, an attorney, an advocate. I’m convinced more and more that our first job as an advocate is to learn and then tell our clients’ stories in a comprehensible and engaging manner. In some cases the law may prove an insurmountable road block to a remedy, but in most cases, especially any case that requires a trial or hearing to resolve the issues, telling the clients story, and thereby making the client and the client’s plight as sympathetic as possible, is the most important aspect of representation. Lawyers don’t write essays about “why my client should win” in “25 words or less”, but our briefs come close to allowing us to do that (and considering the “25 words or less” isn’t a bad idea either). As advocates, attorneys need to become as literate in telling a story as we are in forming an argument (which, of course, may incorporate storytelling). We especially face issues with younger jurors and lawyers who have a more native mastery of visual storytelling that older, logocentric lawyers like me lack. If the book has one weakness, it’s that it is limited to telling stories through the written word. Oral and visual storytelling must gain a place in the advocate’s arsenal as well as the use of the more traditional written word.
A fine book, well considered and well written (not for the most part in storytelling mode, I might add) that most anyone with curiosity about this topic would enjoy.