I got into opinion-writing because I thought merely stating an opinion would change a mind. Like that ever worked on me.
I did say I would Rant about this another time. So this is the other time.
In high school I was awarded “Most Prolific Writer” for the school paper because I wrote so dang much. No surprise to you, I’m sure. Like I’ve said before, I have three Rants an hour. I should also mention that I type between 70 and 120 words per minute. In the newspaper class, we had an hour every morning to write articles. That’s where I first discovered the three Rants an hour; just about every day I would compose at least three pieces for the newspaper. Some mornings I had as many as six. And this was all before I discovered coffee. Of course, not all of them could run; but I was getting more articles in than anyone else out of the sheer volume.
(Remember when I said I used to write the entire Dialog by myself? You might see how that might be possible.)
At the time, I assumed—like most opinionated people assume—that all I had to do was present my opinions and people would magically say, “By golly, here’s an article that states an opinion in an entertaining and witty manner, and he expresses it so forcefully. It must be true.” Okay, most people. The exception would be liberals that had somehow been brainwashed by their left-leaning parents; they were impervious to logic. Naรฏvely, I never considered the possibility that I might have been brainwashed by my right-leaning parents—or the fact that I had never studied logic. That’s pretty obvious to anyone who reads my earlier stuff: I never presented reasons for my beliefs. I just presented worst-case scenarios that would happen as a result of not believing as I did. Some of those scenarios definitely weren’t logical, but at the time, in my writings, logic took a back seat to funny.
In college I took a logic class to complete my math requirements, and since space in the college newspaper was limited to 10 inches a week in the Opinion section, I had to keep everything terse. So my opinions were punchier and much more logical, and I quickly learned to drop the silliness because I finally realized that
- most of the people who read the Opinion section have no sense of humor, or at least a really flawed sense, and
- sarcasm doesn’t translate. (Sarcasm is a dramatic convention, not a written one, and if you have to say “I mean that sarcastically” all the time, maybe you shouldn’t bother with it.) In general, politics is a serious business to most people, and most of my nut mail was the result of people taking my silliness too literally.
But I was still working under the misconception that my opinion bits were actually changing people’s minds and influencing them. Even though one of my best friends in college was the guy who wrote the left-wing column—and he was never able to influence me to change my opinions—I still densely believed that I was doing something significant.
The Dixon Newspaper cured me the rest of the way. When I finally got a weekly column, I had a lot of fun with it, but I noticed that most of the positive comments I got were, “Right on! That’s just what I was thinking.” I wasn’t changing minds; I was supporting and confirming minds that were already made up.
And that’s all such pieces do.
Wanna change the world?
Most of the people that get involved in journalism do it because they want to “change the world.” Not report the news; not chronicle history as it happens; not because they like people and want to hear their stories. They want to either write opinion pieces that change the world (like “Common Sense” did back during the Revolution) or expose corruption like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered the details behind the Watergate scandal.
Some of them are fiction writers who figure journalism will help make them more realistic fiction writers. It actually makes them worse. Journalism encourages them to keep to the point, and a lot of good fiction consists of being able to use words to describe the scene—a skill journalism rarely lets you practice.
I got into it because I Rant three times an hour and newspapers were as good an outlet as any. Along the way, I learned to be less self-centered and more focused on the people I was (supposedly) serving. I did actually pick up an appreciation for telling people’s stories for them.
As far as opinion pieces are concerned, I developed the attitude that they’re like armpits. Everyone has one or two, and most of them stink. Sharing them with others usually provokes a negative reaction unless they’re thoughtfully tended (and sometimes even then). Shoving them in other people’s faces always annoys. But there’s nothing wrong with them being there.
But not everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Yes, I did just say that. I don’t care if we do live in a free society, where everyone can express their opinion freely. Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sometimes people should just shut their mouths.
Most people’s opinions are not theirs anyway. These opinions came from all kinds of sources: Parents, teachers, friends, TV programs, books, etc. If an idea appeals to us—whether we think it through or not—we keep it, and then bring it out at the darndest times. But that’s not really an owned idea. It’s just a regurgitated one. Such ideas should only be used to start a discussion, not voiced as if they’re ours.
If it wasn’t thought through—if it’s just a knee-jerk reaction—we need to shut up and think first. Most arguments are the result of such knee-jerk reactions, voiced in an untimely or inappropriate manner. If you ever have such a statement, save it.
The other group who should keep their mouths shut are the people who only want to pick a fight. You know the type: They start a discussion because they want to have an argument. It’s not a profitable argument, either. It helps no one, informs no one, tears up others unnecessarily, and because no one is ever going to “win” such a discussion, it can only end with raw feelings on either side.
There are a lot of dumbasses on Xanga who are big on such things. One guy actually asked on his site (not that he wanted to know; he just wanted to provoke) why someone else was unwilling to argue with him. I responded, but he deleted my response because I think it annoyed him. The jist of it was this: Some of us don’t want to argue for the sake of argument. Some of us seriously believe certain things, and don’t want our closely-held beliefs to become purely academic discussions. Okay, an argument can help clarify things, but the sort of argument this dude gets into clarifies nothing because he’s more interested in winning the argument than in coming to definite conclusions. With such people, I don’t want to waste my time. Others likely agree.
I once got in some minor trouble with an ex-roommate because of this. We were at Mr. Toots in Capitola, drinking coffee, and got into a discussion about Jesus with a
“Are you interested in agreeing with anything I have to say,” I said, “or do you just want a debate?”
He admitted he just wanted the debate.
“Then let’s talk about politics,” I said, “because I take this Jesus stuff seriously.” So we talked about politics until he had to leave.
My roommate was horrified. “You just missed a divine opportunity,” he nearly yelled.
“There was no divine opportunity,” I said. “He doesn’t care enough. And you can’t argue people into the kingdom; they’re too easy to argue back out.”
I’m not big on arguing with argument fans. I consider them an obnoxious waste of my time. To them, opinions are just pawns in a different kind of chess. So they’re not entitled to them.