Word Count

Writers Talk About Writing

The We of Writing

Last fall, Visual Thesaurus editor Ben Zimmer wrote here and in his New York Times column about writers who use a we voice when truly they are I's writing personal opinions. In a few cases, Zimmer wrote, he'd accept using the plural pronoun for the singular, officially called nosism, from nos, we in Latin, but in general he deplored the practice. Using we for I opens writers up to "charges of gutlessness and self-importance," Zimmer wrote; "the we disease...continues to infect many written genres."

In part I agree. Newspaper editorials interest and convince me less than op-ed pieces do, largely because op-ed pieces are signed, individual voices, and editorials are anonymous, groupthink pronouncements. Whenever I hear Queen Victoria's famous "We are not amused," I imagine Lenny Bruce zapping her back: "Maybe you're not amused, Vicky baby, but your ladies-in-waiting are busting their corsets." Trying to hide one's unique self under a presumptuous we is more likely to expose than conceal weaknesses in a writer's thought or style. Every writer is an I, a unique human being; I's stand on their own two feet.

Yet I often use we in my writing, and at times I'll rewrite to increase the number of we's in a piece and decrease the number of I's. I use we not, I believe, to hide or to inflate myself, but to reach out to readers, hoping to find ideas and beliefs that we can agree on wholeheartedly. For example, in a recent column on chronology, I wrote this:

Most important, chronology accords with how we live. No one can jump back to Monday from Tuesday; no one can get to September without sweating through August. We're all stuck with Macbeth's "petty pace from day to day"; we might as well get used to it.

—using those three we's confident that I'd tossed no reader into a we where he or she didn't belong. Every human does live in moment-to-moment time; when I meet someone who lives outside of time, I'll gladly rewrite.

Many fiction writers use we as a tried and true method of bringing their characters to life. Reading fiction, we join a three-way bond between writer, reader, and character. Writer and reader are real, characters are imaginary, but to engage readers, writers must convince them that the characters are as human as real humans. Early in Framley Parsonage, for example, Anthony Trollope paints an ambitious young vicar, Mark Robarts, who gets a flattering invitation to visit a duke in his castle. Robarts knows he should turn down the invitation—his patroness disapproves of the duke's scandalous reputation—but he wants to go:

When Mark went to bed, his mind was still set against going to the duke's; but, nevertheless, he did feel that it was a pity that he should not do so. After all, was it necessary that he should obey Lady Lufton in all things?

Trollope, who knew his Victorian readers well, knows many would think, "Mr. Robarts is a happily married clergyman, he'd be above such temptation," so he turns for a moment away from his tale and talks directly to his readers, trying to convince them that Robarts would be tempted:

It is no doubt very wrong to long after a naughty thing. But nevertheless we all do so....When we confess that we are all sinners, we confess that we all long after naughty things.

With many such asides Trollope convinces me that Mark Robarts and dozens of similar characters are as human as Trollope, me, and you. Because I believe Robarts real, I follow his ups and downs as eagerly as I follow my friends' and neighbors' ups and downs. Yes, I say, looking about myself, Betty, Bob, and I would be just as tempted to go as Robarts was; Betty might hold out, but Bob and I, I'm sure, would give in to temptation and end up going to the duke's—as Robarts does a few pages later.

George Eliot uses we asides as often as Trollope —"It is not true that love makes all things easy; love makes us choose what is difficult" (from Felix Holt)—but she goes far beyond confessing common foibles to embracing her readers in soul-to-soul accord on the beauty and tragedy of unchanging human experience. Romola begins one spring morning in 1492, the sun rising over Italy's plains and cities. The daylight then, Eliot writes, "fell, as now, on the rosy warmth of nestling children; on the haggard waking of sorrow and sickness":

The great river courses which have shaped the lives of men have hardly changed; and those other streams, the life-currents that ebb and flow in human hearts, pulsate to the same great needs, the same great loves and terrors. As our thought follows close in the slow wake of the dawn, we are impressed with the broad sameness of the human lot, which never alters in the main headings of its history—hunger and labor, seed-time and harvest, love and death.

In his piece on we, Ben Zimmer quoted his brother, science writer Carl Zimmer: "All too often, people use [we] to refer to some hazy, ill-defined community that shares some common goal and knowledge." "Hazy and ill-defined"; yes, those are the weaknesses of many we's. No one likes being shoved into a hazy we that feels like a them. Remember Tonto's classic retort to the Lone Ranger's cry, "We're done for, we're surrounded by Indians": "What you mean we, white man?"

Yet a million weak we's don't weaken the construction. In The Language Instinct Stephen Pinker quotes an anthropologist who compiled a long list of human traits from cultures around the world. The list he came up with, shared by what he called the Universal People, can only be read with many a rueful chuckle over our idiocies and imperfections. Here's a sample:

...Punishment. Conflict, which is deplored. Rape. Seeking redress of wrongs. Mediation. In-group/out-group conflicts. Property. Inheritance of property. Sense of right and wrong. Envy. Etiquette. Hospitality. Feasting. Diurnality. Standards of sexual modesty. Sex generally in private. Fondness for sweets. Food taboos. Discreetness in elimination of body wastes. Supernatural beliefs. Magic to sustain and increase life, and to attract the opposite sex. Theories of fortune and misfortune. Explanations of disease and death.

This list means to me that sentences like:

When Bill learned that Joe, his old high school buddy, had become a millionaire with a beautiful wife and four charming children, he envied him, just as we would, dear reader, don't you deny it!

The door flew open, in came the cops, and there were Betty and Bob naked in bed, making love. Ashamed to be seen like this, as we all would be, the couple tried to cover themselves with the blanket.

—have, if not brilliance, basic truth to life. We humans do have many traits in common, and one goal of writing is to observe and define these traits so that others can read of them and be once again amazed, amused, and edified by how much we are like our neighbors, and how much our neighbors are like us.

Rate this article:

Click here to read more articles from Word Count.

Michael Lydon, who has written about popular music since the 1960s, is the author of Writing and Life, published by University Press of New England. He has also published a dozen other essays on literature through his own Franklin Street Press. Lydon teaches "The Music of Writing" at St. John's University and leads seminars for teenage writers through the Connecticut Young Writers program. Click here to read more articles by Michael Lydon.

Join the conversation

Comments from our users:

Friday February 4th 2011, 7:17 AM
Comment by: nannywoo (Wilmington, NC)
I commented on Ben Zimmer's article that "we" seems friendly to me. It seems less arrogant than "I" or the stuffy and evasive "one" and makes me feel as if the writer is putting an arm around my shoulder. But, of course, that's when I agree with the writer and otherwise like the tone. I don't want just anyone's arm around my shoulder. USUALLY, the writer and the reader DO "have many traits in common" and we are drawn together into a relationship and ARE "amazed, amused, and edified" through the give and take of reader response. (I used "we" in the preceding sentence without even thinking about it! But I wonder if it goes over best when we qualify it with "usually" or some other indication that the "we" is not absolute.)
Friday February 4th 2011, 9:50 AM
Comment by: Willis L. (Fredericksburg, VA)
We concur.
Friday February 4th 2011, 11:04 AM
Comment by: Graeme Roberts (Pittsford, NY)
I have a tiny company. I have had as many as three employees, but now I am alone. I still say "we" on the website, however, because what has been may be in future. And it sounds more substantial.
Friday February 4th 2011, 2:20 PM
Comment by: Bob K. (Sun Lakes, AZ)
"... as human as Trollope, me and you." Not trying to be a s____ a___, but shouldn't that be "as human as Trollope, you, and I."?
Saturday February 5th 2011, 9:41 AM
Comment by: John S. (St Peters,MO, MO)
Better than me me me!

Monday February 7th 2011, 12:43 PM
Comment by: christiane P. (paris Afghanistan)
I share the remarks about the use "we" but I think "we" is bettter me or I , why? Me or I in a speech look like a
self-centred person. Unfortunately everybody uses "we" when he writes a letter or something else.
If a manager uses "i" and as I read the comment of Graeme, you are able to think that his business is wrong
he is alone, that is bad to "go" no reference.
As i am French I think "we" is egal to "ON" undifined pronuon.
Monday February 7th 2011, 3:10 PM
Comment by: Jane B. (Winnipeg Canada)Top 10 Commenter
Christine, 'on' would be closer to 'one' as in 'one sees here the...' rather than 'we'. In English, 'we' is specific unless the context makes it not so. (In my way of thinking) 'We' is closer to 'nous' in French.

The use of that 'we' that gets criticized is sometimes referred to as 'the royal we', referring back, I think, to that famous quote of Queen V's, but also to the use of it by any authority figure.

It is that sense of 'we' that Ben and others criticize. It does imply a sort of superiority to those of us who grew up with its use in such phrases as: We don't do that in this... (house, school... finish with appropriate word)

In the positive images cases, the writer intended the meaning to be 'you and I', a collective rather than an authoritarian use of the word.

So both can be used, depending on the tone you want to express or on the actual meaning behind your story or text.

If you are Sister Mary Bernard, establishing the rules we are to live by for that school day, "We do not do that!" is entirely appropriate.

If you are a person saying that Winnipeg has had a good day, you might write, "At least we didn't see snow around here today."

There is a place for both.
Wednesday April 27th 2011, 1:55 PM
Comment by: christiane P. (paris Afghanistan)
Thank you Jane to inform me onto <"WE" . do not confuse "on" in French but in English language someone uses
we or you when he or she speaks . For instance ; on fera cela, you say we or you do that.
Obvious the famous Queen V'slanguague is "you" Madame, votre Majesté. So I never speak with a Queen.
Wednesday April 27th 2011, 9:12 PM
Comment by: Michael Lydon (New York, NY)Visual Thesaurus Contributor
Thanks to all for your comments! I LOVE the dialog with Visual Thesaurus people--smart, strong opinions, open minds!!

I like John S.'s "We is better than me, me me!" So true. Also, yes on the French "on," that is like "we" in English, more so than "one" which, to my American ear, always sounds too formal.

Do you have a comment?

Share it with the Visual Thesaurus community.

Your comments:

Sign in to post a comment!

We're sorry, you must be a subscriber to comment.

Click here to subscribe today.

Already a subscriber? Click here to login.

The Magic of Writing
Michael Lydon explores the power of writing in a workshop for high school students.
Michael muses on the power of translation to "leap language-to-language limit."
Michael takes a look at how narcissism can kill writing.