Someone Has Already Said It

Good stuff, Mr., Kung. At the moment I’m subscribing to Apple News+ which gives you access to several hundred digital magazines. One that I was browsing the other day is a trade magazine for writers called The Writer.

In the current issue there is an article by Bonnie Hearn Hill (nearly all writers now are women…men have been expunged from the university and spend their time playing video games).

It’s a bit wordy and dramatic, but I think she has some good advice. I read her thoughts and it was often “mea culpa” for me. But part of good writing is being willing to look at one’s faults instead of sticking one’s head in the sand. How can you clearly write about any subject if your mind remains in a cloud of denial, affectation, and hubris?

I’m not sure about the phases and formulas. But I think Bonnie captures an important element:



That is consistent with what I believe about anything. I can train to be a sprinter. I can work out. I can follow all the rules regarding nutrition and legal supplements. But at the end of the day, I’m not likely to break the record for the 100 meter dash.

But then I don’t know that beforehand. Nobody does. Nobody knows the depth of their inborn talent until they train. And the same with writing. I don’t expect I will ever be Thoreau, Twain, or Hawthorne. But then none of these people became who they were simply by rolling out of bed. They worked at it.

I dabble at it. And that’s what Bonnie’s article made clear. If you want to go further with it, one must go further with it. But then there is nothing wrong with motivated amateurs. A relatively few can make their living at writing. In the area of politics, no one can make a good living (or only a scant few) by telling the truth. It’s all fiction of another sort.

And one thing I learned at StubbornThings is that many people want to play at being writers without doing the hard work. Their priority is to have their ego satisfied. But real writers (although they certainly do want to be liked and to be read) are motivated by something other than just vanity.

In the realm of book or TV reviews, the goal should be to communicate clearly. That takes practice. And I rarely will offer a review without reading other reviews first. That’s a great way to see if you’ve missed anything. But it’s also a good way to form your own thoughts. And if I do find an insightful comment from another, I never steal it. I always quote it. I have no interest in being Joe Biden.

Clarity. Brevity. And have a point. I think most writing suffers because it’s often little more than mental masturbation. We live in an era where “expressing yourself” is all the rage. But if I fart in an elevator, I’m certainly expressing myself. But there is more to good writing than just vomiting out whatever happens to be in your mind at the time — at least if one wants to interest others in what you’re writing.

And that last paragraph right there — directly above us — is a bridge too far for many. The tools, techniques, and formulas can all be useful. But I think getting outside the confines of one’s own head is where good writing starts. Good writing is always a description or astute observation. And that is hard to do if you can’t be almost cruelly objective, especially to yourself. When writing becomes little more than ego-boost then it is dull and uninteresting — accept to the person who wrote it. And because all they’re in it for is ego, they never notice this fact.

That’s not to say that writers can’t be flamboyant, egotistical, and self-centered. But then not everyone is Hemingway (or wants to be). There is no formula for a great novel. And many great novels are one-hit-wonders. Not even the authors know how they were produced. Kismet seems to be a factor. But in everyday writing, I think it pays to try to get outside of one’s head and especially to take into account the potential reader. Is one mental masturbating or trying to communicate clearly something that could be of use to another?

Will Durant's history of Rome, "Caesar and Christ" is full of wonderful information. I found the following quote, which is attributed to Cato the Elder, something else which Brad might have considered, particularly the last sentence. It would appear to be happening. 

Similarities between Rome and America have been frequent (a fellow student came up with one in high school).  John Maddox Roberts used that sort of as the basis for his SPQR series of Roman mysteries featuring Decius Metellus, and Pat Frank had a character make a similar observation in Alas, Babylon.  There certainly was a great deal of degeneracy at time, and some political similarities too (including the steady debasement of the currency).

What has happened, in essence, is that women have consumed some good ideas (equality under the law) but are unaware that a Marxist tapeworm parasite was consumed at the same time. This is why they are absolutely powerless in the face of men competing as women.

I believe it was Lincoln who pointed out that sometimes the best way to get rid of a bad law (or custom) is to enforce it rigorously.  This presupposes that people are more concerned with results than with ideology, so I'm not sure if this can work with leftist ideologues.  But those really aren't very numerous, despite being influential far beyond their numbers, so perhaps that would work.