Thank you, Paul, for sharing both versions of William Chiddicks’ story. I enjoyed reading them both, and I can see the value in each. The first gives a clear, structured account of events and offers a strong factual foundation. But for me, the second version resonated more. It felt more personal and reflective, and I found myself more emotionally drawn into William’s life. I think that tone helps readers feel closer to the subject, as though they are being gently guided through his experiences rather than being presented with a formal record.
Of course, it is a matter of personal preference. This might reflect my own writing preferences. In my own family history work, I try to convey a human tone while also placing individual lives within the broader political, social, and economic context of their time.
Your post also prompted me to reflect on the question of rewriting. I agree with Kirsi’s original point, it can be challenging to know whether to leave earlier writing as a record of how far we have come or to update it to reflect where we are now. I suspect most of us end up doing a bit of both. As others have said, the hybrid approach is a practical and often satisfying middle path. But in this case, I think the rewrite works very well on its own and shows how much you have grown as a storyteller.
Thanks again for inviting readers into the process and into William’s life.
Thanks Peter for taking the time to read both versions of William’s life and for sharing with me your thoughts on both versions. One thing is certain, I am definitely leaving both versions on my blog site, this clearly shows how my writing style has evolved over the years. I think it’s important to capture the changes in style. Both versions stand up, the research facts are consistent in both versions, but I guess you can say one is more factually based and the other comes more from a storytelling perspective. I really do appreciate everyone’s thoughts which gives me a lot to think about going forwards. Thanks again for your time and for commenting.
As a general comment I would say both are well written (although the addition of footnoted sources would improve the first one) ... Which is best? ... Well it depends on who is reading it and who you are writing for. Is it progression? ... Or is it just about finding your own style? Which do you feel more comfortable writing?
Personally, I prefer version 1. I suppose when it comes to genealogy, I am a bit of a purist. I want to know the facts and where they come from. I don't much care for embellishments. I tend to read for information not entertainment. I occasionally but rarely read fiction. I want to know the facts about someone, where they lived and details of the events surrounding them without surplus descriptive material unless it is coming direct from the subject of the story e.g., via a diary. That's just me. I don't need it storyitised. Is 'storyitising' even a word? If not it should be!
Having said all that, I found your version 2 relatively easy to read. I can't say the same for all pieces of the same type. ... Some have a tendency to stretch the truth and I find myself screaming in my head ... "How do you know that? ... Show me the facts! Where's your source!-?"
So ... I come back to where I started - Which is the best? It depends ... Think about who it is you are writing for and find a style that you are comfortable with that will suit your audience.
Thanks Jane for a very concise reply and you are spot on with your reply, who is the target audience? Am I writing for other family members to read the stories or am I writing for fellow family historians to read, or both? I would say that either style targets one audience more than the other, but is there a version or style that captures all, possibly not. I think there is room for both styles and maybe as suggested elsewhere a hybrid version of the two is the best solution, certainly food for thought.
Very interesting, thanks Paul. If I was looking for facts, version 1. If I wanted to read a story, version 2. The difference between head-led and heart-led genealogy.
Version 2 has better flow while version1 holds up as a more traditional academic or "just the facts mam" style of writing. Version 2 if I want to be entertained but Version 1 if the audience is some genealogy nerd reading it circa 2125.
I would say a hybrid as both have appeal - my assessment matches that of David Shaw. Interesting that when you started out you too didn't include references - I thought it was just me.
Over the years I have gone back a couple of times and updated older ancestor profiles as new information comes to light creating that hybrid.
In theory I'd love to go back and update all the old profile posts, but am not sure I have time to do so unless new information prompts me to. The tension between revising old work and advancing my research is difficult to balance.
Thanks Theresa I really appreciate your comments. There is a balance between how much time you have to refresh and rewrite earlier blogs as the yearning to research more and discover more stories is always a strong pull. I think you’re right about a hybrid of the two blogs being the way forwards.
It's an interesting question. Version 1 is how many of us used to write. Now, we are learning to apply narrative non-fiction. I couldn't write to save myself, so I chatted my way through many of my older posts over on WordPress. I tended to write with someone in mind that I was directing the article to and may have included too many facts. I've revamped a few, especially those I have more information about and adding them to my archive at http://weare.xyz. Sadly, I've had experiences with school teachers trying to change my voice. Now with AI, which I will use, I still try and make it my voice. I like both versions and I guess it comes down to a time thing. How much time do we have to revamp those old posts?
You’ve hit the nail right on the head @JenealogyScrapbook I have written the life stories of all 8 great-grandparents and all 16 great-grandparents, so to recreate the new style blog would mean rewriting another 23 blogs, no small task! I will have a think and I appreciate your comments which are invaluable. Maybe the solution is to change the style going forwards and leave what I have already written firmly in the past, but it will be interesting to hear the views of others. Thanks again
Most people have covered the main points here, I come rather late to this experiment. But first of all, thank you for asking, Paul. It shows how this community works, asking for feedback—and getting it.
I tend to agree with Jane on somehow preferring version 1, but for different reasons. It is not because I prefer fact over fiction. It's not about me as a reader. It is about William himself. He strikes me as a plain, hardworking man, a labourer. And for this reason I found the embellishment in the second piece seemed to lead me further away from the essence of him. Some of it read like a kind of nostalgia for the good old life which I found hard to swallow, especially given the death of his first child.
For me the search is always for the defining characteristic of the person and how to paint it so the reader feels they got to know him. The style should fit to the man, in my opinion.
Thanks so much Xanthe you raise some extremely valuable points which have not been raised before and something that I had not considered before. Your comments about the style of writing fitting the man really did resonate with me and has given me a lot to think about. Your comments about the story taking you further away from the man makes a lot of sense in the context of the style fitting the man. This feedback is invaluable thank you for taking the time to read both stories and comment it’s greatly appreciated.
Thanks Deborah I really appreciate your open and honest feedback. I will certainly take all the points you raised on board. I have never received any tuition or taken any courses in writing ( hardly surprising) - the last time I had any English lessons was over 45 years ago, so I’m a little rusty. My style has evolved and I think it has improved, but to get sharper and move to another level then advice like this is so important. Writing is always subjective, what one person likes another hates so I’m not too hung up on that bit. I will sit down and look at these comments in detail and try to implement them into my natural writing style. Thanks again I do appreciate your comments
You are very welcome! One of the things that I find lacking in the genealogy community is that there haven’t been any real supports for helping us to improve as writers. Most of the classes and institutes teach research techniques and how to write reports, not tell engaging stories. So we have to help each other make that happen!
Thanks Deborah I really appreciate your thoughts. I am not an academic in any way, I am first and foremost a family history researcher. Writing about my ancestors has become a natural extension of that and something that I have struggled with in the past and am still struggling with today. Writing doesn’t come naturally to me, my style, for want of a better description has definitely evolved and I would say definitely improved over the years. I cringe when I look at some of my earlier work. At the moment I regard myself as someone who writes, rather than a writer, maybe one day that will change. I would love to hear your thoughts on this story that I wrote sometime ago when you get time.
Thanks so much Deborah for your comments and I am really interested to hear that you were able to form an opinion so quickly, that’s definitely something to take away. Thanks also for spotting the typo will correct that now, just shows you can read reread something many times and still miss something obvious!
I returned to school three years ago in order to earn an additional teaching certification. In the process I took a few writing courses to improve my writing skills. I’ve really pushed myself to become a better writer, reading several books from experts in the craft along the way. In your first essay, your first sentence begins with the typical academic genealogical wiring…so and so was born. It’s dry and boring, and does not engage the reader. I zone out when I read anything like that at this point. I have been guilty of similar writing because that is what ProGen, BU, ESM, and all the genealogical journals have been teaching us to write for the last decade. Whereas in the second essay, you begin with a description and an active verb. It’s much more enticing to the average reader.
My goal as a family historian is to tell stories that hook and interest people. During my coursework I was turned on to the idea of creative nonfiction, telling true stories using the elements of fiction. Two books that helped me in the beginning were Stephen King’s On Writing and John McPhee’s Draft No. 4
I have a few comments for the story you shared.
Too many words. The draft could use revisions. Tighten up the sentences. Also there is research out there that shows that modern readers have been spoiled by the Internet. We lose interest quickly when reading screens. I would break your piece down into smaller bits. If the reader has to scroll down multiple times, they will lose interest. I know this is true for me. I could not finish your piece. Try and limit a piece to 500-1000 words and see what happens. I also find that the photographs break up the narrative too much. When I see a photo mid story, I feel like the piece is done and am surprised when the words continue afterwards so I limit photos to the very beginning and very end.
The biggest pet peeve of one of my writing instructors was sentences that start with gerunds (-ing verbs). She hated them with a passion. Since she was a published author, I followed her advice.
Stephen King recommended eliminating adverbs (-ly). Sometimes they are inescapable, but find a more descriptive way to describe a scene without them.
The third thing I strive for in my writing is to eliminate passive verbs (was, were, is, are, etc.). Find a way to restructure your sentences using active verbs. For example, instead of saying so and so “was born,” switch it up and say so and so “began life.”
Thanks so much @Cath Giesbrecht I really do appreciate you taking the time to read both versions and also for taking the time to drop by and leave me your thoughts - thank you
If I were a relative searching for info on my person, say, Polly, I would prefer the first version, where I could find my person more easily. I also like the way your voice comes out in the first version. I like the way the stories about the bike light and the Sunday dinner are in the storyteller's own words.
The second version grounds the family in the history of the time, which is an important facet missing in the first version. I especially like the way the second version points out the closeness that would result from the in-laws being neighbors.
I think the second version has too much generalization. I don't know much British history, so a lot of that went over my head. I would want to know, for example, why there was an economic downturn in the 1920s and why William was worried in the Great War. Were his sons fighting in it? How did the cement industry provide infrastructure? How close were the changes like railways to where the Chiddicks lived? Since men didn't retire, but worked until they died, did William?
Thanks Anne you raise some very important questions which has given me plenty to think about in terms of things to include and equally as important things not to include. Like everything, we will all see things from a different perspective and how we relate or connect to a story will also come from our own background. I think this highlights that the two styles are vastly different from each other, it’s not necessarily about one being better than the other, they are contextually vastly different. But plenty to think about going forwards which was the whole purpose for the rewrite. thanks again for taking the time to read them both and comment
Paul, I’m so excited for you and jealous that you were able to dive in, head first and tackle a rewrite without the extensive amount of overthinking that I seem to do! And on top of that, I admire you putting both versions at our fingertips for comparison which of course started this great dialogue.
Your example has highlighted that rewriting has value—even if just as a conversation starter.
In the matter of preference, I lean strongly towards #2. Your original story is what my daughter would call a “bucket of facts”. They are relevant facts of course, but, for me, they aren’t held together by a narrative thread. As a reader, that can make a story feel disjointed, which makes comprehension more difficult. No matter who your audience is, aiding comprehension is surely a goal.
From the opening paragraphs of your revised telling, I was engaged. You connected us with history in a very impactful way and highlighted your family’s journey along the way.
Thank you for answering the question I posed with gusto!
Thanks so much Kirsi, you are exactly right in what you say. The two go hand in hand you can’t tell the story without the facts. The facts are the foundations of the story, the rest is framed around that. It was definitely a worthwhile exercise and thank you again for providing me with the inspiration and courage to have a go!
Thanks so much @Kirsi Dahl its has been such a worthwhile exercise I have receieved so many different comments and opinions which was the whole purpose of the exercise. This has given me so much to think about going forwards. What I have taken away from the exercise is:
1) There is real value in doing a rewrite, especially if there is a large time gap between the two.
2) There is room for both styles of writing. of course one is more a factual list whereas the other is more of a story based around those very same facts.
3) A hybrid of the two styles os definitely worth considering, taking the best ideas from both.
4) Keeping the original helps to chart my development as a writer.
I am sure there will be any other thoughts in the coming weeks.
I agree with your take-aways. I loved how framed your new version in the monumental changes happening in the world around your ancestors. It helped to explain why the career changes and why they moved around. I suspect as you thought about the world changing, it brought a new understanding to who your ancestors were and why they did what they did. And as you say, there is room for a more academic approach and sometimes maybe starting with just the facts helps us move to the story. You can’t do one without the other in some cases. Brilliant work.
Your post prompted me to think about the question of rewriting.
I was given the challenge about two years ago of printing my posts for a particular branch of my family for a cousin who does not use the internet. What should have been a simple task turned into several month’s work. I did review my work but did not rewrite. I wrestled with the organisation.
The book became a growing log of my family history explorations, not a continuous historical narrative. Where a later entry expanded and corrected earlier material I left the earlier entry in the form it was posted.
Turning a web site into a paper journal comes at a cost: hyperlinks and navigational aids are lost, and the ability to perform casual text searches disappears. In an attempt to compensate, for each branch of the family I provided an index that leads to the posts that mentions its members.
Thanks Anne, you highlight another problem that I have also wrestled with. How do you present or show your work to a relative who does not use the internet. Many years ago I handed my great aunt her branch of the family in a printed format. It was years of work and over 20 pages long, I was immensely proud of what I had achieved. She flicked over the pages and said oh that’s interesting then carried on watching the TV.
I love the exploration of different blog writing styles in the field of ancestry! We are telling stories for very sophisticated readers in social media - especially but not exclusively on Substack.
Plus the interactivity between authors and readers is simple here!
Planning to ditch my Wordpress blogging! Staying with Substack and WeAre.xyz
It’s always a good idea to canvas the option of others, there are some really talented writers and also web page designers here and I am by no means an expert myself. We are always learning aren’t we!
I much prefer version 2, 'In the Footsteps of William Chiddicks'. The title suggests a life (or lives) beyond that of William, and from the first paragraph I could see this was a more personal and passionate story. Your narrative adds life and depth to William's story, and the background woven through it is great. In my view, it's much more polished than version 1 (not that there was anything wrong with the earlier version). A great read!
Thanks so much Sue. The research. and factual details remain the same, but I think the second version reads more like a story whereas the first version is more a factual timeline.
Thank you, Paul, for sharing both versions of William Chiddicks’ story. I enjoyed reading them both, and I can see the value in each. The first gives a clear, structured account of events and offers a strong factual foundation. But for me, the second version resonated more. It felt more personal and reflective, and I found myself more emotionally drawn into William’s life. I think that tone helps readers feel closer to the subject, as though they are being gently guided through his experiences rather than being presented with a formal record.
Of course, it is a matter of personal preference. This might reflect my own writing preferences. In my own family history work, I try to convey a human tone while also placing individual lives within the broader political, social, and economic context of their time.
Your post also prompted me to reflect on the question of rewriting. I agree with Kirsi’s original point, it can be challenging to know whether to leave earlier writing as a record of how far we have come or to update it to reflect where we are now. I suspect most of us end up doing a bit of both. As others have said, the hybrid approach is a practical and often satisfying middle path. But in this case, I think the rewrite works very well on its own and shows how much you have grown as a storyteller.
Thanks again for inviting readers into the process and into William’s life.
Thanks Peter for taking the time to read both versions of William’s life and for sharing with me your thoughts on both versions. One thing is certain, I am definitely leaving both versions on my blog site, this clearly shows how my writing style has evolved over the years. I think it’s important to capture the changes in style. Both versions stand up, the research facts are consistent in both versions, but I guess you can say one is more factually based and the other comes more from a storytelling perspective. I really do appreciate everyone’s thoughts which gives me a lot to think about going forwards. Thanks again for your time and for commenting.
Interesting question.
As a general comment I would say both are well written (although the addition of footnoted sources would improve the first one) ... Which is best? ... Well it depends on who is reading it and who you are writing for. Is it progression? ... Or is it just about finding your own style? Which do you feel more comfortable writing?
Personally, I prefer version 1. I suppose when it comes to genealogy, I am a bit of a purist. I want to know the facts and where they come from. I don't much care for embellishments. I tend to read for information not entertainment. I occasionally but rarely read fiction. I want to know the facts about someone, where they lived and details of the events surrounding them without surplus descriptive material unless it is coming direct from the subject of the story e.g., via a diary. That's just me. I don't need it storyitised. Is 'storyitising' even a word? If not it should be!
Having said all that, I found your version 2 relatively easy to read. I can't say the same for all pieces of the same type. ... Some have a tendency to stretch the truth and I find myself screaming in my head ... "How do you know that? ... Show me the facts! Where's your source!-?"
So ... I come back to where I started - Which is the best? It depends ... Think about who it is you are writing for and find a style that you are comfortable with that will suit your audience.
Thanks Jane for a very concise reply and you are spot on with your reply, who is the target audience? Am I writing for other family members to read the stories or am I writing for fellow family historians to read, or both? I would say that either style targets one audience more than the other, but is there a version or style that captures all, possibly not. I think there is room for both styles and maybe as suggested elsewhere a hybrid version of the two is the best solution, certainly food for thought.
Very interesting, thanks Paul. If I was looking for facts, version 1. If I wanted to read a story, version 2. The difference between head-led and heart-led genealogy.
I like this description ... head-led and heart-led ... I hadn't thought of it that way but you are right.
Thanks Michael, appreciate your comments and thoughts. I guess a hybrid of both versions might be the best way forwards.
Version 2 has better flow while version1 holds up as a more traditional academic or "just the facts mam" style of writing. Version 2 if I want to be entertained but Version 1 if the audience is some genealogy nerd reading it circa 2125.
Thanks David appreciate you taking the time to both read and comment
I would say a hybrid as both have appeal - my assessment matches that of David Shaw. Interesting that when you started out you too didn't include references - I thought it was just me.
Over the years I have gone back a couple of times and updated older ancestor profiles as new information comes to light creating that hybrid.
In theory I'd love to go back and update all the old profile posts, but am not sure I have time to do so unless new information prompts me to. The tension between revising old work and advancing my research is difficult to balance.
Thanks Theresa I really appreciate your comments. There is a balance between how much time you have to refresh and rewrite earlier blogs as the yearning to research more and discover more stories is always a strong pull. I think you’re right about a hybrid of the two blogs being the way forwards.
I much prefer version 1
I am with you Anne!
Interesting to hear that thanks Anne
It's an interesting question. Version 1 is how many of us used to write. Now, we are learning to apply narrative non-fiction. I couldn't write to save myself, so I chatted my way through many of my older posts over on WordPress. I tended to write with someone in mind that I was directing the article to and may have included too many facts. I've revamped a few, especially those I have more information about and adding them to my archive at http://weare.xyz. Sadly, I've had experiences with school teachers trying to change my voice. Now with AI, which I will use, I still try and make it my voice. I like both versions and I guess it comes down to a time thing. How much time do we have to revamp those old posts?
You’ve hit the nail right on the head @JenealogyScrapbook I have written the life stories of all 8 great-grandparents and all 16 great-grandparents, so to recreate the new style blog would mean rewriting another 23 blogs, no small task! I will have a think and I appreciate your comments which are invaluable. Maybe the solution is to change the style going forwards and leave what I have already written firmly in the past, but it will be interesting to hear the views of others. Thanks again
Most people have covered the main points here, I come rather late to this experiment. But first of all, thank you for asking, Paul. It shows how this community works, asking for feedback—and getting it.
I tend to agree with Jane on somehow preferring version 1, but for different reasons. It is not because I prefer fact over fiction. It's not about me as a reader. It is about William himself. He strikes me as a plain, hardworking man, a labourer. And for this reason I found the embellishment in the second piece seemed to lead me further away from the essence of him. Some of it read like a kind of nostalgia for the good old life which I found hard to swallow, especially given the death of his first child.
For me the search is always for the defining characteristic of the person and how to paint it so the reader feels they got to know him. The style should fit to the man, in my opinion.
Hope my comment is helpful!
Thanks so much Xanthe you raise some extremely valuable points which have not been raised before and something that I had not considered before. Your comments about the style of writing fitting the man really did resonate with me and has given me a lot to think about. Your comments about the story taking you further away from the man makes a lot of sense in the context of the style fitting the man. This feedback is invaluable thank you for taking the time to read both stories and comment it’s greatly appreciated.
Don’t even need to read the two posts. The first line of each tells me that the second one is much better.
You also have a typo in this article hear=here which goes to show we always need to go over our work multiple times.
Thanks Deborah I really appreciate your open and honest feedback. I will certainly take all the points you raised on board. I have never received any tuition or taken any courses in writing ( hardly surprising) - the last time I had any English lessons was over 45 years ago, so I’m a little rusty. My style has evolved and I think it has improved, but to get sharper and move to another level then advice like this is so important. Writing is always subjective, what one person likes another hates so I’m not too hung up on that bit. I will sit down and look at these comments in detail and try to implement them into my natural writing style. Thanks again I do appreciate your comments
You are very welcome! One of the things that I find lacking in the genealogy community is that there haven’t been any real supports for helping us to improve as writers. Most of the classes and institutes teach research techniques and how to write reports, not tell engaging stories. So we have to help each other make that happen!
Totally agree with you
Thanks Deborah I really appreciate your thoughts. I am not an academic in any way, I am first and foremost a family history researcher. Writing about my ancestors has become a natural extension of that and something that I have struggled with in the past and am still struggling with today. Writing doesn’t come naturally to me, my style, for want of a better description has definitely evolved and I would say definitely improved over the years. I cringe when I look at some of my earlier work. At the moment I regard myself as someone who writes, rather than a writer, maybe one day that will change. I would love to hear your thoughts on this story that I wrote sometime ago when you get time.
https://chiddicksfamilytree.com/2024/02/15/adelaide-springett/
Thanks so much Deborah for your comments and I am really interested to hear that you were able to form an opinion so quickly, that’s definitely something to take away. Thanks also for spotting the typo will correct that now, just shows you can read reread something many times and still miss something obvious!
I returned to school three years ago in order to earn an additional teaching certification. In the process I took a few writing courses to improve my writing skills. I’ve really pushed myself to become a better writer, reading several books from experts in the craft along the way. In your first essay, your first sentence begins with the typical academic genealogical wiring…so and so was born. It’s dry and boring, and does not engage the reader. I zone out when I read anything like that at this point. I have been guilty of similar writing because that is what ProGen, BU, ESM, and all the genealogical journals have been teaching us to write for the last decade. Whereas in the second essay, you begin with a description and an active verb. It’s much more enticing to the average reader.
Accidentally deleted my first comment…
My goal as a family historian is to tell stories that hook and interest people. During my coursework I was turned on to the idea of creative nonfiction, telling true stories using the elements of fiction. Two books that helped me in the beginning were Stephen King’s On Writing and John McPhee’s Draft No. 4
I have a few comments for the story you shared.
Too many words. The draft could use revisions. Tighten up the sentences. Also there is research out there that shows that modern readers have been spoiled by the Internet. We lose interest quickly when reading screens. I would break your piece down into smaller bits. If the reader has to scroll down multiple times, they will lose interest. I know this is true for me. I could not finish your piece. Try and limit a piece to 500-1000 words and see what happens. I also find that the photographs break up the narrative too much. When I see a photo mid story, I feel like the piece is done and am surprised when the words continue afterwards so I limit photos to the very beginning and very end.
The biggest pet peeve of one of my writing instructors was sentences that start with gerunds (-ing verbs). She hated them with a passion. Since she was a published author, I followed her advice.
Stephen King recommended eliminating adverbs (-ly). Sometimes they are inescapable, but find a more descriptive way to describe a scene without them.
The third thing I strive for in my writing is to eliminate passive verbs (was, were, is, are, etc.). Find a way to restructure your sentences using active verbs. For example, instead of saying so and so “was born,” switch it up and say so and so “began life.”
Both are very good, Paul, but I do love the context and robust descriptions that you bring to the second version.
And I feel exactly as you do about genealogy: it has become "a journey into the heart of who I am." Bravo!
Thanks so much @Cath Giesbrecht I really do appreciate you taking the time to read both versions and also for taking the time to drop by and leave me your thoughts - thank you
Wow, big difference.
If I were a relative searching for info on my person, say, Polly, I would prefer the first version, where I could find my person more easily. I also like the way your voice comes out in the first version. I like the way the stories about the bike light and the Sunday dinner are in the storyteller's own words.
The second version grounds the family in the history of the time, which is an important facet missing in the first version. I especially like the way the second version points out the closeness that would result from the in-laws being neighbors.
I think the second version has too much generalization. I don't know much British history, so a lot of that went over my head. I would want to know, for example, why there was an economic downturn in the 1920s and why William was worried in the Great War. Were his sons fighting in it? How did the cement industry provide infrastructure? How close were the changes like railways to where the Chiddicks lived? Since men didn't retire, but worked until they died, did William?
Just my thoughts.
Thanks Anne you raise some very important questions which has given me plenty to think about in terms of things to include and equally as important things not to include. Like everything, we will all see things from a different perspective and how we relate or connect to a story will also come from our own background. I think this highlights that the two styles are vastly different from each other, it’s not necessarily about one being better than the other, they are contextually vastly different. But plenty to think about going forwards which was the whole purpose for the rewrite. thanks again for taking the time to read them both and comment
Paul, I’m so excited for you and jealous that you were able to dive in, head first and tackle a rewrite without the extensive amount of overthinking that I seem to do! And on top of that, I admire you putting both versions at our fingertips for comparison which of course started this great dialogue.
Your example has highlighted that rewriting has value—even if just as a conversation starter.
In the matter of preference, I lean strongly towards #2. Your original story is what my daughter would call a “bucket of facts”. They are relevant facts of course, but, for me, they aren’t held together by a narrative thread. As a reader, that can make a story feel disjointed, which makes comprehension more difficult. No matter who your audience is, aiding comprehension is surely a goal.
From the opening paragraphs of your revised telling, I was engaged. You connected us with history in a very impactful way and highlighted your family’s journey along the way.
Thank you for answering the question I posed with gusto!
Thanks so much Kirsi, you are exactly right in what you say. The two go hand in hand you can’t tell the story without the facts. The facts are the foundations of the story, the rest is framed around that. It was definitely a worthwhile exercise and thank you again for providing me with the inspiration and courage to have a go!
Thanks so much @Kirsi Dahl its has been such a worthwhile exercise I have receieved so many different comments and opinions which was the whole purpose of the exercise. This has given me so much to think about going forwards. What I have taken away from the exercise is:
1) There is real value in doing a rewrite, especially if there is a large time gap between the two.
2) There is room for both styles of writing. of course one is more a factual list whereas the other is more of a story based around those very same facts.
3) A hybrid of the two styles os definitely worth considering, taking the best ideas from both.
4) Keeping the original helps to chart my development as a writer.
I am sure there will be any other thoughts in the coming weeks.
I agree with your take-aways. I loved how framed your new version in the monumental changes happening in the world around your ancestors. It helped to explain why the career changes and why they moved around. I suspect as you thought about the world changing, it brought a new understanding to who your ancestors were and why they did what they did. And as you say, there is room for a more academic approach and sometimes maybe starting with just the facts helps us move to the story. You can’t do one without the other in some cases. Brilliant work.
Your post prompted me to think about the question of rewriting.
I was given the challenge about two years ago of printing my posts for a particular branch of my family for a cousin who does not use the internet. What should have been a simple task turned into several month’s work. I did review my work but did not rewrite. I wrestled with the organisation.
The book became a growing log of my family history explorations, not a continuous historical narrative. Where a later entry expanded and corrected earlier material I left the earlier entry in the form it was posted.
Turning a web site into a paper journal comes at a cost: hyperlinks and navigational aids are lost, and the ability to perform casual text searches disappears. In an attempt to compensate, for each branch of the family I provided an index that leads to the posts that mentions its members.
Thanks Anne, you highlight another problem that I have also wrestled with. How do you present or show your work to a relative who does not use the internet. Many years ago I handed my great aunt her branch of the family in a printed format. It was years of work and over 20 pages long, I was immensely proud of what I had achieved. She flicked over the pages and said oh that’s interesting then carried on watching the TV.
I love version 2 as it flows better and provides a richly evocative experience with its enhanced structure and language!
However I think its good practice to keep both versions to show the progression and development of storytelling techniques.
Thanks Carole, I was always going to keep them both but interested to hear what others think about writing style for future blogs.
I love the exploration of different blog writing styles in the field of ancestry! We are telling stories for very sophisticated readers in social media - especially but not exclusively on Substack.
Plus the interactivity between authors and readers is simple here!
Planning to ditch my Wordpress blogging! Staying with Substack and WeAre.xyz
It’s always a good idea to canvas the option of others, there are some really talented writers and also web page designers here and I am by no means an expert myself. We are always learning aren’t we!
I much prefer version 2, 'In the Footsteps of William Chiddicks'. The title suggests a life (or lives) beyond that of William, and from the first paragraph I could see this was a more personal and passionate story. Your narrative adds life and depth to William's story, and the background woven through it is great. In my view, it's much more polished than version 1 (not that there was anything wrong with the earlier version). A great read!
Thanks so much Sue. The research. and factual details remain the same, but I think the second version reads more like a story whereas the first version is more a factual timeline.