Timeless Advice from a Master

One of my purposes in blogging is to keep myself in the habit of paying attention to and writing about current events with the ultimate goal of becoming a syndicated columnist. I regard this effort as successful on many levels, but blogging also has some pitfalls for someone with my goal because it is a much less disciplined format, at least as I have been practicing it, than editorial writing.

A hazard for someone like me inherent in the format being less-disciplined is that, unless one either makes each entry much more like an editorial or otherwise explicitly keeps in mind the difference between, say, a good fisking and a good editorial rebuttal, one's editorial writing will suffer.

Why do I bring this up? Earlier in the week, I wrote on a topic very important to me and didn't make this distinction. I sent the fisking (i.e., a point-for point rebuttal -- which several people have let me know is good for what it is) in as a rebuttal. The first thing the editor sent me in reply started off with, basically, "I'd like to use this, but it's too long." I wrangled with it a bit and have almost wrung a decent editorial out of it, but I am fairly certain it will not get used. Bummer. No one piece will make or break a writer, but I would have been thrilled to have gotten this into shape and published.

If my first mistake was fisking (rather than writing an editorial), my second one was not taking a look at a few guest columns before I sent my piece in. This alone might have forced me to cut down the length of the article to something an editor could realistically see being shortened and polished into a good editorial. Nevertheless, had I encountered the following, what I wrote would have been immeasurably superior, and I wouldn't be kicking myself now.

At the "Dollars and Crosses" blog over at Capitalism Magazine is a link to a superb piece by Robert Tracinski on the subject of writing effective editorials. If you are an aspiring editorial writer -- and I know that at least several of my readers are -- read it thoroughly and come back to it from time to time. I have written good editorials in the past, but I have never seen the principles laid out explicitly this effectively before.

The blog quotes from the article, in case the phrase "superb piece by Robert Tracinski on the subject of writing effective editorials" isn't enough to have made you blow this joint by now:

The single greatest error made by beginning writers is that they try to say too much [fisking, for example -- ed]. This error comes from the belief that, in order to be convincing, an argument must be utterly comprehensive, addressing every possible issue that relates to it. But no argument is effective unless it can be absorbed and remembered by the reader. An effective editorial must be essentialized, focusing only on the most important issues and integrating them into one graspable whole.

[...]

The primary goal of one's writing is to be clear: to convey one's conclusion and the evidence for it in a manner that the reader can easily understand. Eloquent phrases, vivid images, and humorous examples are only valuable if they advance that goal.

Yeah, that's a coughing sound you're hearing from my direction! The principles Tracinski discusses are:

1. Focus on a central theme.
2. Know the viewpoint you have to refute.
3. Make inductive arguments.
4. Base moral evaluations on the facts.
5. Rely on the reader's implicit knowledge and values.
6. It is more important to be clear than to be eloquent.
7. End on a call to action.
8. Good writing comes from exhaustive editing.

So, fellow aspiring writers (And you know who you are.) ... Read. And read again. And practice. I'm still mulling over my piece and the larger question of how I can make my blog serve my goal more effectively. The extreme ends are: (1) Write only finished pieces; and (2) Keep blogging merrily along. I suspect some middle course is best. Lest you think I am flaying myself for fisking, I think that doing so can be (and was) a useful exercise in that it provides an opportunity to examine in detail what someone else has said. It can also suggest alternative strategies for writing a rebutting piece. But one thing it isn't: It is not the act of writing an effective editorial aimed at a general audience.

The blog is an interesting medium, for it blends the private activities of a writer -- such as note-taking, practicing, thinking out loud, and experimentation -- with the public aspects of writing that come from interacting with an audience. If much of the above was note-taking and thinking aloud, some was also interacting with my audience.

Many of my readers have complimented me for my writing and have offered helpful advice. Such encouragement means a lot to me, especially from my fellow aspiring writers. It would be remiss of me not to make sure you see what someone far better than I am has to say.

-- CAV