Editing Series: Introductions
Please allow me to apologize for my gap in newsletters. Thank you for sticking with me :)
In this series, I’ve wanted to take you through the editing process. We’ve started with big picture items like conceptual work. We’ve discussed math, specifically the basic math of editing. We have discussed structure. Last time, we moved to another – particularly fragile – structure: the paragraph. This week, we’re moving into the introduction.
Of course, many writers of all kinds have made much ado about their introductions. Toni Morrison analyzes the first sentences of her novels. Shot fiction writers say you must know the end o the short story at the beginning. Some poets or academic writers know exactly the imagery that begins their work. Sometimes it happens that way. You understand the way the introduction is supposed to go.
More often for me, the introduction is written last and or revised more than any other chapter or paragraph (depending on the project). The introduction has an incredibly difficult task. It must create the space for your ideas to enter. It should be compelling (or at least not boring). Many people still describe poetic and fictional work in terms of a hook (“it grabbed you and didn’t let go”). For argumentative work, the introduction has to lead to the argument or be the argument itself.
Yet, there is one aspect of the introduction that remains true over every piece of writing. I do not know how to introduce something until it is done. This actually shouldn’t be a surprise. When you’re at a keynote address, the person introducing the speaker has to read a bio. They know something about the speaker. The best introductions are from folks who know the person (or their work) really well. When you introduce friends to each other, you have some details that allow folks to grab onto a conversation topic: for example, this is Claude McKay. He was born in Jamaica and has an affinity for the sonnet. This is Audre Lorde. She is a warrior poet who speaks truth to power.
Honestly, I think the biggest hurdle to an introduction is this psychological block. I often find that writers who begin with the introduction find themselves mired in the various possibilities of what a project could be. Instead, they would be better served if they focused on what the project is. If a writer begins with the meat, broadly speaking, the analysis, then that writer can better explain their position or introduce their position. Writing is often not written in the order it is read. This is for the best.
Some of you will ask, what happens if you need to write the introduction first? This is a good question. Sometimes, you will need to write an introduction before you have everything else figured out. Be clear, the introduction can exist in multiple forms: job letters, book proposals, abstracts, elevator pitches, full drafts in need of editing. In all of these cases, you do the best you can to describe the project as it is. After you’ve examined your work, you do have a sense of the project: what questions it asks, what questions it answers (or has the potential to answer), how it engages with comparable work already in the public, etc. When you must introduce the project (in process), you have a sense of what questions are still left, what work is left to do. In the case of the elevator pitch, let that guide the conversation. In the case of the full draft (in need of editing), put some of those questions in the cover letter. In the case of the job letter or book proposal, let that help you determine when you will be done working. In these moments, “further discussion” is not cause for alarm. It is a signal that the writing is still in progress. The introduction, then, becomes a useful placeholder for your budding ideas.
I know I have not provided components of an introduction. This is because each introduction is different. I have used anecdotes, fun facts, definitions, descriptions of my process, and rhetorical questions. I have begun pieces with the argument. I’m talking baldly stating “in this paper…” It was all dependent on what the piece needed. So, ask yourself am I ready to write the introduction? If the answer is no, begin with another portion of the text. If the answer is yes, ask yourself what does someone need to know before they are ready to engage? Where do my ideal and implied readers need to begin?