Ernie: Some observations about language would seem to be in order. Words -word choice, how words are used, double meanings, word play- are not incidental to communication, they are part of the substance of communication. If you don't study words -language- it isn't possible to communicate effectively. This is true across the board, for advertisers, writers, teachers, preachers, politicians, journalists, copy editors, the whole schmeer. Which is why so many scientists are such horrible writers. How many science journals can you say are well written? Damned few. Scientific American is one of the few in this category. Otherwise geology journals, physics journals, even psychoanalytic journals, flunk every test for good writing. Who are your heroes? "Write like they lived" is the best advice I can offer. On my short list are Patton, Admiral Bull Halsey, TR, JFK, Polk, Martin Luther, Henri Saint-Simon, Rommel, Augustus Caesar, Asoka, and so forth. Military in almost all of these cases, including Saint-Simon, who was a captain of French artillery at the battle of Yorktown. In each case the animating thinking was, including Luther, who took an interest in the military: There is a war to fight, we need to win the war, what are the best ways to defeat the enemy and prevail ? Of course, in Asoka's case he was also greatly concerned about the effects of war, even when winning, hence his conversion to Buddhism and dedication to "the good" after his greatest military victory. Still, like Saint-Simon or Teddy Roosevelt, my understanding is that we are best served by winning wars of ideas rather than -while it sometimes is necessary- actual military combat. Regardless, military metaphor is very useful. Which, not at all incidentally, is also the case in politics and marketing, viz, you win when you launch an effective campaign. When you fight for votes or market share. When you have a strong spearhead, when you know how to conduct "trench warfare," when you mobilize your "foot soldiers," and all the rest. Still, to be a good writer you need different kinds of models, too, and hence other heroes to me are people like Aquinas, Dostoevsky, Madison, Walter Kaufmann, Nora Ephron, Louis L'Amor, Freud, etc. This doesn't mean I agree with everything they said, but to speak of effective writing and depth of ideas. And ability to make words sing -or, as in the case of Aquinas, to intone Gregorian chants and te deums. Mark Twain has always been crucial to me. Not that, these days, his style has all that much appeal to me any more, but especially as an impression that hit me as a young man and that has always remained fresh as a sort of "writer's conscience" ever since. Its the whole package with Twain, but especially constant search for new perspectives, keen sense of observation of the real world, real care in crafting use of words and in always selecting the best words to get the job done. It all sounds like impromptu stuff, as if it flowed from his lips while speaking, but, of course, he labored incessantly to get it all to "sound right." There is also a sense of puckishness in Twain that I very much like. You never know when he is going to throw you a curve ball. To mix metaphors, you have to always be on your toes when you read Twain, or always be on the lookout for unusual twists of logic. The logic may be literally wrong but the way he did things you always got the point and it stuck. With Twain there also is controversy, lots of controversy. The question is: Do you thrive on controversy or seek to avoid it like the plague? It isn't an iron clad rule, but it certainly is a respectable generalization that the best writing is controversial. Not for the sake of controversy but because of the principle that "what everyone knows" is usually false. Sure, there are limits to how much controversy is good, but the point is that if there isn't any, then you probably aren't saying anything worth hearing -or reading. One vital lesson I learned from Toffler was to make damned sure you get the title right. A title sells a book, it is worth more than all the other words, combined. My approach has been, as much as this is possible -there are decided limits, of course- give each word in the text as much attention as the words of a title. Make the whole thing memorable. But Nietzsche also teaches this lesson. As does Shakespeare. You've got to be deadly serious about writing. It simply cannot be part time and expect success. It has to be lifelong, based on dedication, and even then there is no guarantee, but this is a necessary condition. Writing has to be felt -it is anything but a form of mathematics or accounting. Writing can make really good use of the scientific approach but it is visceral or it is bad writing. The question is: Do you want to write a phone book or a book that excites everyone who reads it? Excites. Or inspires. For me there has to be new information or it isn't worth the effort. Good writing should educate. And it should communicate truths that matter to people. But it has to be "written in blood," it has to provoke thought and provoke action. In a decent way. Rabble-rousing is unattractive in politics and equally unappealing in writing. There are also cues to good writing in the best music. I sometimes listen to music for ideas for how to write text. With Wagner, for instance, there is effective use of motifs, for Sibelius there is use of surprise as integral to composition, and for Bach there is interweaving of related themes that make relationships of ideas to each other important. Sometimes you can borrow ideas from other forms of music to help in your writing but nothing equals classical for the purpose. And, after all, classical is composed, it is written out, it is a form of writing. I'd recommend to anyone who is serious about writing this simple advice: Take at least one college course on writing, it will make a major difference in your life. Maybe this will be useful to you Billy
-- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
