Writing

I can't put a name to my most personal issues, which means I have to find a way to tell you. I've always written stories. To be honest, I'm more of a poetry type of guy, and to be still more honest I'm more of a programmer who writes to vent than a writer who programs because it's hard to make writing pay for gas, but I think this story plus two words accurately sum up what I feel angst over. The two words, two syllables, almost too much to bear. The words: this works.1

2

3

Perhaps I should tell you my theory of why we write. There are many genres of writing, but these are unimportant. The importance is the style of writing, whether you write about Martians or Malcolm X, if you write it a certain way you can catch certain audiences, get certain results. Now this isn't an exact science, but I've always written with certain simple goals in mind, and they each carry with them certain requirements. I don't mean this in your academic sense of introduction, or any real terms, so perhaps it would be best to show you with the guidelines I use, explained as best I can.4

First, you can write for the praise of the general brainwashed populace. When writing for this type of person, say nothing specific, but say it with as many elementary schoolbook literary devices as you possibly can, and with subtle hints suggesting you believe as many things as you can. Extended metaphors are a particular favorite, but anything from alliteration to consonance to the overused list of three things will do the trick. For your message, make sure to never complete your thoughts, let everything trail off so they can decide what you mean, there is no need to genuinely complete a thought. They will compliment you on whatever message they currently want to hear, and be so delighted they recognized basic writing that they will compliment you no matter how badly you mangle things. Note that this is also the strategy to use when writing to teachers, say as little as possible in as textbook a way as possible and you will be complimented, nay, lauded for your creativity.5

Then, at times you must write for the approval a person with a dogma, one who knows what they want to hear. They would view it as dishonest to write what they want, so you are required to write what they think, only disagree on one point, and make the occasional factual error. The one disagreement bit comes in for a very good reason. You might wonder why exactly one argument, why that exact number, but there is a very good reason, and it ties in with the first style of writing. The thing about dogmatic people is that they are invariably by-the-book in their approaches. And how are you taught to write your elementary essays to disprove things? Always an opening paragraph with three main topics, then three paragraphs. If they can't find three qualms, they can't write in their preferred style, creating all sorts of grief. So why not TWO disagreements? Because as you learn in high school, it is no problem to fill in one extra thing and present it as relevant. If you carefully read the paragraph (such as it is), you notice that I wrote about "factual errors". I don't plan on expanding upon that, it just gives my point MORE EMPHASIS, working much in the same way as random capitalization, and makes the paper look fuller. So what does your dogmatic person do? Say "I agree with you, but I don't think horses have eight legs." And you look properly contrite and say "Well, gee golly, I guess you're right." Intellectual Dishonesty (whatever that means)? Intellectual prostitution? Maybe, but from a purely utilitarian perspective it is universally effective.6

Then we come to that most hideous of creatures, the intellectual. The intellectual, as an individual, can be fun to be around, but get them together, and suddenly you have a pack of slavering wolves. So, in this, the most difficult of challenges, I will show you how to write to packs of rabid intellectuals. The key is to find the common thread. What do all human beings share in common? As the democratic process teaches us, what better tools than prejudice, fear, and insecurity. First, you find your bogeyman. Perhaps you want your opponent to want to destroy America. Perhaps he is a menace to ethics, or even (gasp!) a sophist. I don't recommend Nazi or the like, you might be accused of using a "straw man" argument (how dare they!). Now, you write an argument that one would use, i.e. cut the funding for the Defense Department and give it to terrorists directly. Then you look for keywords. Inevitably in the question, a word will come up you can use. Then you say that their argument is what you want, i.e. Mr. Maoba just clearly stated that it should be a universal policy not to offer health care. The loudest people with agree with you, and thus you will have won. The truth, it seems, is quite the democratic system.