Relax--it's realtime

[Amanda Leigh]

Okay, yesterday I forced myself to not write verbatim.  It was tough to lay off the repeated words (and the dashes that go with them), to lay off the false starts, to lay off the extra fumbling words and make it a smooth Q and A.  I also forced myself to not try to write in the interruptions of "okay," "uh-huh," et cetera, and also, if one person started talking and I would normally try to get it somewhat close to order spoken, I made myself write them as a whole: the whole Q, the whole A.  I also just got bare bones for colloquy.  "Objection to the form of the question" became "object, form" and even "form."  You know what?  It made it SO MUCH EASIER.  I was not exhausted.  And if someone interrupted someone else, I didn't care--just dashed 'em out of there and didn't look back (whoever I heard more clearly was whoever ended up on the record (and maybe whoever was easiest to write) and didn't get flustered and resisted urge to tell them one at a time or that I didn't get someone on the record--I resigned myself to it is what it is and that they'd have a complete record of all that had been said if they'd done their job right).  

I am thinking I may be on to something with this mind reset, and that is: when writing realtime, don't waste an ounce of energy on the inconsequential.  It's hard not to write all that stuff, all the punctuation, all the repeated words, the false starts.  It helped my writing to write the meat, helped my stamina--and it was much easier on my body.  I think if I can retrain myself to not write verbatim, there's real potential.

[Marge Teilhaber (TILE hobber)]

Very interesting, Amanda!   Thanks for sharing.  

[Amanda Leigh]

Marge - I can see me having a lot less stress (and fear) with this approach.  I still need to work on conflicts and writing shorter.  I wasn't all hunched over, either--more in control.  Of course, it could have just been the participants and the subject matter.  I'll keep analyzing this, but very encouraging! :->

[Martha R]

Sometimes you just have to do that to protect your sanity.  It is much more stressful to write every jot and tittle, every "okay," every half word.  Sometimes the less you have time to think, the better you are off.   Just let it flow through to your fingers. 

Over the past few years I have started to shorten my writing.  I have probably learned 200 or more words that I used to struggle with, now written in one stroke.  It has made a big difference in my accuracy and level of fatigue at the end of the day.  Now that I have covered the most common words,  every job I find a word that is two strokes or more and find a way to write in it one stroke.  Like for example "erroneously."  I had always written that in four strokes (dummy me, for 30 years.)  Now it's ROENL and ROEN for "erroneous."   I am finding they are easier to remember than I thought they would be.

[Amanda Leigh]

Relaxing enough to let it flow through my fingers will be a challenge--at least from the times I've provided realtime.  I must say one attorney commented he had never received such a good feed, but it was probably because it was his second realtime job or something and first go-round was with someone not even close to ready.  I do manage to sit there all day during breaks and clean, clean, clean, global, anything and everything.  Would like to not do that--that stress alone is crippling.  I love writing short.  I incorporate the * for ing and "a" on words that can have a as a word before them but are being used as the a being a part of (like a part and apart--use the asterisk on apart).  I am pretty encouraged by not writing verbatim--I may relax on my transcripts a bit, too (I think I am the most microverbatim reporter I know--lots of room there, lol).

[Kelli Combs (admin)]

I've always written without putting in the false starts.  Of course, when the job is videotaped, then my scopist has to put all that back in again.  If you're doing RT, however, attorneys pay pretty close attention to how accurate you're being on getting the testimony, so you can't miss too much of that stuff even if it seems trivial. 

It also depends how fast the job is too.  That's a whole other story; then I get what I can get and hang on the best I can. 

[Amanda Leigh]

That's good info, Kelli.  I am going to keep honing this skill of not writing verbatim.  I am a pretty good paraphraser when it gets too fast, but I will direct that energy toward the question, with a focus on keeping the answer as close to verbatim as possible (still going to drop the double words, though--I mean, that can't really be necessary).  What will get me is if someone says something like "Madam Reporter did not get...."  At that point, there will most likely be technical difficulties. /(

[Adam Miller]

>>I've always written without putting in the false starts. Of course, when the job is videotaped, then my scopist has to put all that back in again.>>

Why?

adm

[Amanda Leigh]

Why put it all back in again?

[Kelli Combs (admin)]

Because the video, when it's synced with the transcript, it all has to match up perfectly.  That's why.

[Adam Miller]

Our lives will be a lot easier when we free ourselves from that myth!

adm

[Amanda Leigh]

No, I got that.  I was wondering why what.  Actually, the video doesn't have to sync perfectly--that would probably be another eye-roller (lol)--but I do get we like to live safe rather than sorry. ;)

Oh, hey, Adam--exactly!

[Mary Ann Payonk]

The small stuff that we sweat is not even a fart in a whirlwind to 99.9% of our clients.  Take some time to have a beer with an atty or two and explain, quite earnestly, that we have a macro for dashing off lines interrupted by "Right, right" and "Uh-huh" and you'll get either (1) quizzical, puzzled look or (2) huge belly laugh.  The 0.01% of our clients who would stop the proceedings to say the reporter isn't "getting it" (1) don't deserve realtime anyway, and (2) probably have a 12-step procedure for using the bathroom that includes rubber gloves, several paper bags, use of hand sanitizer between each step.

M.A.