Who’s your favorite writer?

It’s something of a dubious question. Isn’t it?

It’s like asking who’s your favorite rock ’n’ roll guitarist. Is it Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton or Mark Knopfler? What about Eddie Van Halen? Or Chuck Berry for heaven’s sake? How about your all-time favorite situation comedy on TV?  “The Honeymooners?” “Friends?” “Seinfeld?” What about “The Simpsons?”

Here’s the problem: There are too many good ones from which to choose to make any kind of intelligent judgment.

I can think of dozens of favorite writers off the top of my head. Edgar Allan Poe, Mark Twain, E.B. White, Ray Bradbury and Robert McCammon to name a few. Harper Lee created some of the best characters — not to mention character names — in American literature in Scout and Atticus Finch. Of course, Stephen King ranks for many readers as the greatest writer of all time. I wouldn’t dare argue based on the quality or prodigious quantity of his work.

For that matter, the eclectic group of writers with whom I’m privileged to meet once a week have become favorites as well. Although I’m envious of their flagrant talents.

As if choosing a favorite writer wasn’t difficult enough, I recently came across a list that takes the debate to another level: Who’s your favorite fictional writer? By fictional, I mean writers who appear in literature, movies and television. Think Jo March in “Little Women,” Jessica Fletcher in “Murder She Wrote” and George McFly in “Back to the Future.”

Emily Temple compiled a list of no less than 50 fictional writers for the Literary Hub website. As Temple points out, writers love to write about writers.

Some of Stephen King’s most popular novels feature writers as prominent characters — Jack Torrance in “The Shining” and Paul Sheldon in “Misery.” King even turns a killer for hire into a writer in “Billy Summers.” Torrance ranks 34th on Temple’s list, by the way. And Sheldon 12th.

As for the top-ranked writer on Temple’s list, it’s Benno von Archimboldi from the novel “2666” by Roberto Bolaño.

I realized as I was writing this blog I’m no less in love with writing about writers in my mystery novels. To wit: Tucker Preston, editor of the White Mountain Mail.

I’m reluctant to believe I’ll ever become someone’s favorite writer. Or Tucker will ever make the list of the top fictional writers. But it’s something to which to aspire. Something to keep me herding words on nights and weekends.

So tell me. Who’s your favorite writer?

My day job as editor of a business journal makes me by necessity a student of language. I deploy language — words on newsprint and a website — to report on businesses and business issues. Nights and weekends I herd still more words into mystery novels. And, I’d like to believe, at least a few well-turned phrases. Consequently, I remain vigilant for the best ways in which to convey information in the most compelling fashion.

As a student of language, I’m also a fan of a William Shakespeare and the remarkable ways in which he conveyed information. There’s an undeniable beauty in Shakespeare’s writing, but even more so the fundamental truths he revealed about the human condition.

Were I but half as clever, I’d try to imitate the Bard of Avon. Although I’m uncertain of how that’d work in a business newspaper. A story, perhaps, about an entrepreneur contemplating a new location for a growing venture? To build, or not to build? That is the question. It would be far easier to emulate Shakespeare in writing mysteries. Imagine the murderer frantic to wash blood-stained hands. Not unlike Lady Macbeth. Out damned spot! Out I say!

At the same time, it’s tempting to make fun of Shakespeare’s Elizabethan English. Bill Watterson did so ingeniously in one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes comic strips. Calvin’s mom catches him as he’s running out the door and inquires: “Wither goest thou young rogue? Can there yet remain some villainy thou has not committed?” Calvin answers: “Thou dost wrong me! Faith, I know not where I wander. Methinks the most capricious zephyr hath more design than I.” The exchange became something of a standing joke whenever I asked my two teen-aged sons where they were headed on a Saturday night.

But here’s the thing — and, at long last, my point. Many common descriptions and phrases come from Shakespeare plays. People imitate Shakespeare every day whether they realize it or not.

A post that appeared on the Mental Floss online magazine enumerated some of them, including fair play, lie low, kill with kindness and good riddance. The Sherlock Holmes catchphrase “the game is afoot” originated with “King Henry V,” not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

But wait, there’s more. If you complain about a wild goose chase or that something confusing is Greek to you, you’re reciting Shakespeare. Even knock, knock jokes originated with the bard.

As envious as I am of Shakespeare’s unmatched abilities, I doubt I’ll try to imitate them as editor of a business journal. Or, for that matter, a mystery novelist.

But as a student of language, I’m no less appreciative. The live long day.

Part of my day job as a newspaper editor is to, well, edit. To review copy for spelling, style and content. And sometimes make long stories short. The same holds true for my other job as a mystery novelist.

It’s a mostly rewarding task. More so when I need only a polishing cloth to make language shine. Less so when a wrecking ball is required to demolish huge chunks of text and rebuild them word by word like brick walls.

The process has turned me into something of a fussbudget, though. Actually, make that curmudgeon aggravated by the least transgression. WHAT? You used further instead of farther? Are you out of your mind? Criminy. What a dolt.

At the beginning of my journalistic career, I expressed my frustrations using the pencil with which I edited typewritten copy. My weapon of choice was a Mirado Black Warrior loaded with No. 2 lead. Not to brag, but I was a young gun who wielded it with deadly proficiency. These days, I pound away at my keyboard to correct mistakes. And grumble loudly enough the nice woman who works next door to the newspaper office probably wonders about my emotional stability. I don’t blame her.

Let me be honest. I appreciate technology and the efficiency it’s brought to newspaper journalism and book publishing. I don’t want to go back to writing with a typewriter and editing with a pencil any more than I’d want to dip a quill into an inkwell. The good old days were anything but.

I remain exasperated, however, by what I contend is another consequence of technology. Despite the very software intended to prevent them, mistakes appear more frequently in the written word. The need for speed has supplanted respect for the language of Shakespeare. Does somebody, anybody, know the differences among their, there and they’re? How about its and it’s? Capitalization has become a popularity contest. If a word looks or sounds important, by all means go ahead and capitalize it.

The problem is nearly ubiquitous in informal communications, especially text messages, but has spread like a virus to infect more formal channels.

Although I’m confident enough to lament the mistakes I detect in spelling and style, I’m less assured about punctuation marks. That’s because even experts must agree to disagree about punctuation marks.

Take the Oxford comma, for example. No. Really. Take it. Please. There are those who love the Oxford comma. I loathe it.

I feel the same way about semicolons. Abraham Lincoln considered the semicolon a “useful little chap.” I side with Kurt Vonnegut and his lesson on writing: “Do not use semicolons. … All they do is show you’ve been to college.”

Don’t even get me started on exclamation points. Perhaps F. Scott Fitzgerald put it best: “An exclamation point is like laughing at your own joke.”

The risk, of course, of writing about editing is a mistake will appear in the very blog I’ve edited. That’s not to mention the sentences I tend to leave incomplete. Entirely on purpose. For all those eagle-eyed readers out there, I welcome you to swoop right in and let me know what you spotted.

In the meantime, I’ll just keep on editing. That’s part of my jobs.

I’d like to believe I bring some skills to the conversations and other interactions in which I engage. If not skills, then at least experience.

As a newspaper journalist, I’ve spent 42 of my nearly 63 years on the planet getting paid to talk to people and listen — really listen — to what they tell me. That’s a lot of practice. While it hasn’t necessarily made me a perfect conversationalist, I’d assert it’s made me better one.

It’s also made me something of an anachronism in an age when people are more connected by technology than ever before, yet struggle to connect personally. It’s perplexing, because I can’t think of a more crucial ability, one that applies to nearly every aspect of life. While many factors go into success, never underestimate the importance of relationships.

I don’t claim to offer any expertise. I’m willing to lay a bet, though, some of what I’ve learned in my career applies to interactions. The next time you’re involved in an interaction — a business meeting, family gathering or just lunch with friends — engage like a journalist.

Here are four tips — call them talking points — to consider:

Be prepared. I never go into an interview without first conducting as much background research as time allows. And then planning not only the questions I’ll pose, but also their order. Think about what you want to talk about. If you need to ask for something, contemplate the reasons why. Even with a script of sorts, I don’t necessarily stick to it. Remain flexible enough to steer in a different direction and discover where that takes you. I conclude interviews by asking if there’s a question I DIDN’T pose. This affords an opportunity to bring up other and perhaps even more important information.

Ask the right questions. I’m interested in finding out not only the who, what, when and where, but also the how and especially the why. Ask people what motivates them and chances are good you’ll gain insights that prove valuable in developing deeper relationships.

Demonstrate your interest. This might be easier for me than others because I really am interested in the people I interview. They’ve got news I want to gather. That attribute extends beyond sources, though. Everyone is a subject matter expert on something. They’ve got fascinating information they’d love to relate if only someone would ask them. You might discover a shared passion that could serve as the beginning of beautiful friendship. 

Above all, listen. Intently and purposefully. My work as a journalist has trained me to listen to what people tell me — not the next opportunity to interject my thoughts. Listen not only to what others say, but also the ways in which they say it. Are they animated, reticent or something in between? Watch, too. Not all communication is verbal. I make it a point to turn off my phone before an interview so I’m not interrupted. Turn off your phone and then listen as if you’d have to subsequently write a story about the conversation.

There are differences between journalism and life, of course. Not every encounter should turn into an interview. But there are also similarities in the opportunities journalism and life afford to glean information and, more important still, establish rapport and build trust.

Want to connect? Really connect? Engage like a journalist.