Writing technique

[GoSeigen]

Some authors of short articles use a pattern in their writing where they will make some sort of pointed comment early in the article and then refer back to it right at the end, thereby rounding off the article and prompting the reader to recall what was said at the beginning. Dave Barry used this technique a lot in his syndicated columns a coupe of decades back. It works well for short articles because you remember what you read 5-10 minutes ago. Probably pointless for a 500 page novel.


DAK what it is called?

GS

[swill453]

Comedians call that self-previous-referential thing a callback, but I don't know if that helps.

Scott.

[Urbandreamer]

I confess that I have not noticed this, but obviously read different things.

However it rings like the old circular argument. Accept this .... and as you have seen (from the first statement) it must be true. Of course if you accept the first statement to continue to see if there is any other arguments, then you will by the end have accepted the initial statement.

XYZ is proved true, because you accepted the first statement as true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

[UncleEbenezer]

I confess that I have not noticed this, but obviously read different things.

However it rings like the old circular argument. Accept this .... and as you have seen (from the first statement) it must be true. Of course if you accept the first statement to continue to see if there is any other arguments, then you will by the end have accepted the initial statement.

XYZ is proved true, because you accepted the first statement as true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Indeed. But I didn't read the OP as that. It's a common form, and the initial statement is, I think, more often something you elaborate, and perhaps challenge, in the remainder of the article. It could be anywhere on a scale from blatant propaganda to well-considered, balanced and interesting.

As an antidote to your idea, how about the all-too-common form of setting up a strawman and knocking it down? Example: I have once in my life heard someone deny the Holocaust, saying it never happened. This was on BBC radio, so right from the start the agenda had to be something different. That was the start of a talk, that turned out to be devoted to how horrendous it was that people should deny the holocaust!

Or there's the form of many of the late, great Alistair Cooke's talks: he would tell us something, then return to it towards the end of his talk after elaborating and giving us background. He was one journalist I'd never have accused of spinning propaganda at us. But sadly I couldn't answer the OP with a name for that form of talk.

[tjh290633]

Some authors of short articles use a pattern in their writing where they will make some sort of pointed comment early in the article and then refer back to it right at the end, thereby rounding off the article and prompting the reader to recall what was said at the beginning. Dave Barry used this technique a lot in his syndicated columns a coupe of decades back. It works well for short articles because you remember what you read 5-10 minutes ago. Probably pointless for a 500 page novel.


DAK what it is called?

GS

Recapitulation?

TJH

[Urbandreamer]

Indeed. But I didn't read the OP as that. It's a common form, and the initial statement is, I think, more often something you elaborate, and perhaps challenge, in the remainder of the article. It could be anywhere on a scale from blatant propaganda to well-considered, balanced and interesting.

Indeed I think that you are right. I was in fact trying to suggest an answer. Possibly a wrong answer, but what I thought.

Without knowing anything about the OP's original reading or an example, it's difficult to have a valid opinion.

I confess that I also have a difficulty with the entire post. I associate the term author with works of fiction. NOT fair, but it is a bias that I must recognise as a fault that I have.

Can we have an example of what we should consider?


ie a link, or many.

[GoSeigen]

Some authors of short articles use a pattern in their writing where they will make some sort of pointed comment early in the article and then refer back to it right at the end, thereby rounding off the article and prompting the reader to recall what was said at the beginning. Dave Barry used this technique a lot in his syndicated columns a coupe of decades back. It works well for short articles because you remember what you read 5-10 minutes ago. Probably pointless for a 500 page novel.


DAK what it is called?

GS

Thanks for the thoughts, Scott is closest so far with

Comedians call that self-previous-referential thing a callback, but I don't know if that helps.

because perhaps this is more common with humour. I most recently noticed it in the following Youtube monologue by John Oliver about Donald Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

At around 2:20 Oliver refers to a Trump tweet "If Jon Stewart is so above it all & legit, why did he change his name from Jonathan Leibowitz? He should be proud of his heritage!" which strikes the listener immediately given the anti-semitic tone but Oliver doesn't pursue the subject immediately: he continues for some 15 minutes dealing with other aspects of Trump before, near the conclusion of the video returning to the subject of the tweet by revealing that in fact Trump's family had changed its own name from "Drumpf" to "Trump" (from 18:00). So the first reference kind of pointed to the later downfall, or the ending rounded off and completed the earlier point.


I'll try to find a Barry example but have to shoot out for now. So in the meantime is Scott's "callback" an apt description of what John Oliver did?

GS

[stewamax]

Similar in many ways to Fichte and Hegel’s ‘Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis’ approach that is widely taught in French schools as a structured way of preparing and documenting an argument.
The antithesis does not aim to negate the thesis but itemises critical arguments against it. The synthesis pulls it all together by reference to the earlier thesis.
Listen to any French government minister – probably a graduate of ENA (the grande école for civil servants and politicians) and who has been remorselessly drilled in framing presentations this way.

[SalvorHardin]

I've never seen a particular name for it, but it's based upon a technique popularised by Dale Carnegie which dates back to Aristotle.

I know it (and use it) as:

"Tell them what you are going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them."

Works brilliantly for articles and reports, but not so well for long books. First paragraph is the opener "Tell them what you are going to tell them", which forces you to keep the rest of the article within the scope of this paragraph. Then finish off with a paragraph in which you "Tell them what you told them".

Putting a key point in your opening and coming back to it in your conclusion seems like a derivative of this technique.

[GoSeigen]

Can we have an example of what we should consider?

ie a link, or many.

Here's a good example of what I mean from Dave Barry:

http://www.davebarry.com/misccol/decaf.htm

The last line "I'm thinking of switching to heroin." in its local context doesn't make much sense. However, as Barry has written about heroin earlier in the article, the reference links back and makes the closing line more amusing.

This is fairly typical of the way he regularly used the technique in his articles. I think his writing was fairly formulaic but still whacky enough to make it worth reading, well back in the 90s it was anyway...


GS

[Breelander]

I think his writing was fairly formulaic but still whacky enough to make it worth reading, well back in the 90s it was anyway...

I think you'll find this graduate thesis well worth a read....

"I am not making this up!": Analyzing Dave Barry's writing his influences and the traits he shares with the past century's newspaper humorists
Nathaniel M. Cerf
The University of Montana

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewco ... ontext=etd (pdf)

[GoSeigen]

Comedians call that self-previous-referential thing a callback, but I don't know if that helps.

Scott.

I've looked up callback now and that's pretty close to what I was thinking of. Thank you Scott. BTW are you the Fool that documented a few years back either here or on TMF how you'd decided to try your hand at stand-up? Or am I thinking of someone else?


GS

[swill453]

Comedians call that self-previous-referential thing a callback, but I don't know if that helps.

I've looked up callback now and that's pretty close to what I was thinking of. Thank you Scott. BTW are you the Fool that documented a few years back either here or on TMF how you'd decided to try your hand at stand-up? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Definitely not me I'm afraid.

Scott.

[didds]

sounds a bit like the journalistic advice I heard several decades ago...

Tell them what they are about to read
Tell them for them to read
Tell them what they just read

[UncleEbenezer]

sounds a bit like the journalistic advice I heard several decades ago...

Tell them what they are about to read
Tell them for them to read
Tell them what they just read

Indeed, that's widely taught and practiced. Goes back to the Athenians, maybe even earlier.

I recollect being told to write like that when I was a researcher writing papers for the conference circuit and publication mill.

[servodude]

sounds a bit like the journalistic advice I heard several decades ago...
Tell them what they are about to read
Tell them for them to read
Tell them what they just read

Given there was this presented a few posts previously:

"Tell them what you are going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them."

Does this thread serve as an example of why this might be good advice?

On the original post:

I'm having a tip of the brain moment as i do think there is a term I have forgotten that represents what's being discussed, beyond callback (and its reciprocal foreshadowing)
- but I might be getting confused with epanalepsis which applies in a much smaller scale

- sd