Writing a Brief, Finished Piece

Family history research can go on and on, without any obvious ‘output’. Are your relatives tired of hearing about the people you are researching? Are their eyes glazing over? Are they tired of hearing about the story you’ll write ‘soon’. With family history, it is hard to know when to call a halt to your research. Sometimes you need an incentive to finish something and see a result for your efforts.

Writing a 1,000-2,000 word article for publication can be just what you need to stop procrastinating and galvanise yourself to action. Note the operative words provided by the headline. Writing. Brief. Finished. This is your challenge.

The need to tell a good and interesting story within a limited word count provides very good training for any writer, especially a family history writer. The task requires you to: 

• Focus on the story – what is it? 
• Focus on your principal character, with no superfluous digressions about other characters. 
• Organise and shape your work into a coherent structure. 
• Avoid verbosity, by using succinct wording.

There are many potential awards for articles about distinctive individuals or stories within your family. You could choose any one or more of the following:

•       ABR Elizabeth Jolley Short Story Prize, for 2,000-5,000 words

•       Banjo Patterson Writing Awards, for 3,000 words

•       Cancer Council Arts Awards, for 1,000 words

•       Federation of Family History Societies, UK, for 1,000 words

•       Henry Lawson Society Literary Awards, for 1,000 words

•       International Society of Family History Writers & Editors, American award, for 5,000 words

•       Janet Reakes Memorial Award, for 2,000 words

•    Lord Mayor’s Creative Writing Awards, Melbourne, includes awards for 3,000 words (short story) or 10,000 words (narrative non-fiction)

•       Rolf Boldrewood Literary Awards, for 3,000 words

•       Story Writing & Art Competition, for 3,000 words

•       The Stringybark Short Story Award, for 1,500 words

As an example, let’s consider the requirements for the Janet Reakes Memorial Award, which I entered in 2011. The topic was ‘My Most Unusual Ancestor’. The guidelines for that particular competition specified an article presenting an interesting biography, yet also explaining the genealogical steps involved in 'uncovering' the story, all within a maximum of 2,000 words, excluding citations. Articles not fully referenced would be automatically disqualified, making this a competition perfectly suited to the rigorous ‘academic’ standards demanded of a family history writer.

After reviewing all my possible ancestors, I decided to write about a certain Dr George Young, c.1726-1803, the man who established the western hemisphere’s first botanic garden, on the Island of St Vincent in the 1760s. Exploring the history of the Caribbean at this time, I’d compiled research material totalling 15,700 words. Trying to focus on what seemed important in George Young’s story, I culled the material to an article of 7,206 words (Competition Draft No 1).

After further consideration of what was specifically relevant to Young, and the events which moved his personal story forward, Competition Draft No 2 contained 2,039 words. Yet this draft was all about him; it was his short-form biography. I had not explained why I’d chosen him as my most unusual ancestor, and how I’d uncovered his story. In other words, I had not addressed the guidelines for the competition.

To make sufficient space for these issues within the overall word limit, more editing work was needed. Every ‘point’ brought into the story and needing explanation was omitted if not essential. Strict attention was paid to saving words by deleting padding & digressions. Some examples of the culling process follow, where 57 of the words which were deleted from Draft 2 are in bold script:

• Britain’s Seven Years’ War against the French commenced in 1756, soon after George Young graduated as a Master of Arts from the University of Glasgow in 1754. His education proves that his family had money but his name is a ‘common’ one and it’s frustrating that his origins remain unclear, except that he was born around 1726.
• In 1765 Governor Robert Melville visited St Vincent. Melville had also studied medicine and was a member of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce in London.
• The garden had high strategic priority, facilitating the economic development of Britain’s overseas possessions by allowing experiments in acclimatization of basic foodstuffs and medicinal plants to be undertaken in the tropics. Accordingly, its control was entrusted to the Secretary at War in London, to whom regular reports were to be transmitted. (NOTE - There was no need to include this fact in the body of the article as it appears as an endnote, not counted in the word limit.)
• His will also named three children, George, William and Sarah, in that order. The George Young buried on St Vincent on 8 June 1767 may have been a fourth child, placing the surviving George’s birth around 1768 to 1770 but no baptism has been found for George Jnr.

By examining meanings and rewording for more concise expression of the same ideas, many more words were saved. Consider the following paragraph, for example:

•       While British attention was focused on the American War of Independence, the French gained an advantage in the competition for the sugar riches of the Caribbean and recaptured their old possession. Dr George Young was a member of the Council of St Vincent when it capitulated to the French in June 1779. British forces retreated from the island and local farmers began encroaching on the garden, growing cotton and tobacco. A hurricane in October 1780 wreaked further destruction on Young’s creation. He now resided with his wife and family at St Lucia, providing medical services as Physician (a more senior medical role than Surgeon) to both the Windward and Leeward Islands. Late in 1783, after the war ended, Young returned to St Vincent on half-pay, as was customary during peace time. In 1784 he was approaching sixty……..

The 137 word paragraph (above) became the next paragraph, with 91 words:

•       While the British were diverted by the American War of Independence, the French pounced, and Dr George Young was a member of the Council of St Vincent when it capitulated to the French in June 1779. British forces retreated to nearby St Lucia, where Young was on the army payroll as Physician. Local farmers on St Vincent began encroaching on the garden, growing cotton and tobacco. A hurricane in October 1780 wreaked further destruction on Young’s creation. When the war ended the ageing Young returned to St Vincent on half pay……….

The culling process freed up enough space for the extra words needed to satisfy the competition guidelines. The article’s final structure, when analysed, comprised roughly 25% on the ancestor selection process (woven into the story), about 25% on the ancestor search process (also woven into the story), and about 50% on Young himself. The endnotes were quite extensive but were excluded from the word count.

Competition Draft No 3 contained 1,999 words. It was emailed to several people as a check on its clarity of meaning. After I’d culled so much, could they easily follow the resulting story? A few useful suggestions led to several minor adjustments.

Then came the final test: meeting the competition deadline by submitting the entry on time. No more dithering, tweaking or refining could occur. On the day before entries closed, I pressed the ‘send’ button and hoped for the best, feeling grateful that I’d learned a great deal about tightening up the purpose and focus of any piece of writing. The process has value for all writers.

This article, based on a Workshop given by Louise Wilson to the GSV Writers’ Circle on 4 September 2013, was published in Ancestor, Quarterly Journal of The Genealogical Society of Victoria Inc, Vol 32, Issue 1, March 2014, pp 38-9