October 2008 Archives
About seven months ago I read an article online at the Portland Independent Media Center web site, which talked about a local theme here in Portland, Oregon that was very dear to my heart. I couldn't wait to dive into the meat of the matter to see what if any new facts, ideas or interpretations that might be forth coming. It was a long article so I made myself a nice cup of tea and got right down to business. After the initial reading of the opening paragraph I sat at my computer screen in stunned silence. I plodded through the paragraph exactly six more times. It turned into an exhaustive experience. It was so exhausting that I decided that walking through quick sand with a full field pack would be preferable to finishing the article.
Needless to say I never got beyond the opening paragraph. After a total of seven readings of the author's opening effort I was still unsure what he wanted to say on the subject as well as where he might be headed, which are two very critical pieces in any opening statement. Another matter that abruptly brought my interest to a screeching halt was the length of the paragraph. I counted eight-hundred, twenty-two words that had more the appearance of a short essay than a paragraph. I found sixty-seven misspellings, virtually no capitalizations where needed but a plethora of capitalized sentences, many run-on sentences, an embarrassing amount of double negatives, and acronyms that weren't immediately explained or even foot-noted. The end result was a piece of very illogically constructed, sloppy and meaningless writing.
I sent an email to the author of this article and very diplomatically pointed out my concerns about his writing. I expressed that he indeed missed a great opportunity, not only of getting his particular interpretation on the subject at hand to many readers, but also of possibly winning some converts to his way of thinking. He returned my email with a long rambling, reactionary response that made even less sense than his article I had critiqued. His email was a four page mightmare of unruly and choppy grammatical indiscretions. It took a couple of readings before I could glean two of the points he was trying to make. There seemed to be a third point somewhere in the chaos of textual vomit but unfortunately I couldn't figure out what it was. The author of this email hinted at chronic under-employment and poverty which was the fault of people like myself who "are incapable of seeing the world outside the box of capitalist rules."
He accused me of being a "puppet of the mainstream media and everything it stands for." He also found disfavor with the rules of grammer "as a capitalist mind game to keep anarchists and other solidarity workers chained to the wheel of poverty." He further concurred that "in order for workers to be fully liberated they must liberate themselves from the rules of grammar--a capitalist tool." It almost seemed as if he delighted in his anarchistic philosophy of grammar where all the normative rules of communication are tossed out the window. What this person is not owning up to is the fact that his beloved anarchist hero, Rudolf Rocker, who he sited many times in his email, exercised the principles of not only good grammar but overall excellent communication skills with others. Read any of the writings of Rudolf Rocker and you will be provided a scrumptious feast of really good writing, regardless where you stand on the political philosophy of Anarcho-syndicalism.
Progressive writing, or for that matter any writing, is an art form that needs to be developed over time and cared for like a small infant child. Progressive writing, more so than any other form of writing, needs to be rigidly focused on the act of communicating an idea to the audience in a coherent and literate fashion. There are many examples of what I am talking about here. Pick up a book or essay by Thoreau, Lenin, Ghandi, or King, and you will experience writing that is not only beautiful but well constructed. This is why the ideas of these great individuals spread like a wild fire across the globe: they were well written. A teacher I had in 12th grade advanced literature told the class that when we have mastered the rules of good writing then we can break those rules if needed to get a point across. Her examples were T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, William Faulkner, and James Joyce.
I would like to say that my encounter with this anarchist's attempt at writing was an exception to the rule but I can't. It was painfully obvious that the writer had never learned the basic fundamentals of good writing. And too many times, up until recently in fact, when I have attempted to read essays, investigative writings or tracts on Portland Independent Media Center web site, I have encountered writing that is often so sloppy I can't bring myself to finish it. The people behind this kind of slop probably view themselves as cutting edge revolutionaries, investigative journalists and the vanguard of an intellectual-political-cultural elite. Fine! I will let them suffer their delusion while the rest of us progressives who know better, will accept common standards of communication and actually enjoy talking with one another and writing thought provoking articles that others can understand and enjoy reading.
