At the beginning of meetings or any sort of project I would ask this question. What does good look like, so that expectations were managed by all those involved and we all knew what would make each other happy. Of course, that might change during the course of the project but as long as it was communicated (and usually it wasn't) then things went fine.
Take this and turn to writing about someone. What does good look like? I see good as writing an appraisal of someone's achievements - identifying the good in them, or identifying the flaws in them, which may be one and the same. Good is also relative just as the same quality may be regarded by some as a weakness and others as a strength. Being generous and spend thrift, lazy or chilled out, focused or nit picking, the words say the same but the value is different.
I've had just such a challenge. On the first draft of a biography, I was told I was making someone appear much better than they are (hegeogaphy), but if that is my perception, that is my perception. Perhaps as a travel journalist I've always been encouraged to look at the positive, focus on the positive and view the flaws as things which are human, rather than 'bad'. Also 'bad' is such a loaded word. And relative.
The person I've recently written about came from a family of grafters who encouraged the same and he led life at full pelt. Someone like that is at times bound to crash and burn. And I don't want to go down those rabbit holes, because the flaws are mundane, the achievements are not. Perhaps like my travel writing I have chosen to see the best in this person rather than the worst, making up for what I am sure will be the remit of other writers more akin to seeking out something to attack. I would still rather see and seek out the good rather than the bad. It's a quality I like in myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment