Write and Wrong
It has been interesting to experience that as my blog gets more attention, there has been correspondingly (and logically) more scrutiny to what I write. This falls into the "Duh File" of mental notes. I include in this scrutiny Facebook, as the same dynamic applies.
When I was writing for two years, and few people were reading, it follows that my words were going uncontested. Probably one of the intrinsic dangers of writing for one's own reasons, besides a larger audience. Although, if one merely wishes to have an on-line diary, it would be better to make it private. Sometimes it is shocking to read what people reveal about themselves on-line.
Now, particularly in the last several weeks, I have been getting much more comments. And, although some of the feedback has been very affirming, a good part of it has been corrective and sometimes even somewhat critique-oriented. I guess everyone wants an audience until someone in the audience starts to boo. The feedback has uniformly been fair and even friendly. But, it has contested something that I have written.
There are different levels of correction. Sometimes it can be a factual correction, where I have been wrong about something. I presumed or assumed the "factuality" about something and I was wrong. As a writer, it is never appropriate to be wrong factually. It will happen at times, but I should never buttress a position of mine, a chain of argument, when one of the links is wrong. When I write, I should also put on my "editing" hat where I ask the objective question, "Am I sure that this is true?" That can come either as I write or as I review. It is not that hard to do with all the resources on the web. Being reasonably intelligent, I should be able to discern fact vs. fiction (and don't go to just one source).
Another level of correction is where I have stated something where probability would suggest, to most of an audience, that I have presumed too much. This is harder to correct in a real way because I am stating an opinion. Opinions do not have to be factual, but it really helps in persuasion, when they are.
I might have the opinion that I am a great writer while others view me a verbose bore. In the court of public opinion, they could be seen as more right and me as more wrong. I could still think myself as a misunderstood genius like those contestants on American Idol who think they can sing and walk out of the audition running their mouths that the judges don't know anything. That history is replete with examples of genius that was never acknowledge while that great talent was alive, sometimes gives false comfort to those who just do not have the gift.
There is another type of correction that is not necessarily factual or opinion. It is more along the lines of "tone" where I might be right about my take on something but wrong attitude-wise. We can hurt people with the truth and take joy in the psychic blood. Especially difficult are things we feel strongly about where we can lash out in anger and a mean spirit. This is endemic is public discourse. And anger is tricky...the line between righteous indignation vs. self-righteousness blurs easily in the heat of the moment, at the point of the conflict.
People are to be respected and treated with grace. Yet, I wonder if we are much too sensitive these days. Our nation should be called the "UWA," the United Whiners of America." Almost everyone seems is aggrieved, offended, and a victim (note: this is a statement of opinion that may or may not be factual, real or imagined, for citizens of the United States). As a preacher wrote recently in an essay for Christians about this very matter, "Brothers and Sisters, buck up."
Free Speech does not mean that we are not allowed to hurt others' feelings, but otherwise can speak our mind. Our age thinks it is the only one where people have strong disagreements. Have you read the conflicts between the Federalists (Hamilton) and the the States Righters (Jefferson)? That got pretty ugly and personal. The white powdered wigs and stuffed shirts came off for sure. Free Speech should operate specifically so people do not take up arms when discussion could have solved the problem. Our words can be hard but they should be measured.
So, with these observations in mind, I have been thinking about how I need to respond. If I am wrong, factually or attitude-wise, apologize. Move on and learn the lesson. Become a wiser writer. Next, if someone contests something I have written, and I don't agree with their critique--after doing some soul-searching--thank them for their comments. If I believe I am essentially correct in what I wrote, then I can decide to continue the conversation--if that person is willing. At some point, it might turn un-constructive, then we can conclude the dialogue.
When I was writing for two years, and few people were reading, it follows that my words were going uncontested. Probably one of the intrinsic dangers of writing for one's own reasons, besides a larger audience. Although, if one merely wishes to have an on-line diary, it would be better to make it private. Sometimes it is shocking to read what people reveal about themselves on-line.
Now, particularly in the last several weeks, I have been getting much more comments. And, although some of the feedback has been very affirming, a good part of it has been corrective and sometimes even somewhat critique-oriented. I guess everyone wants an audience until someone in the audience starts to boo. The feedback has uniformly been fair and even friendly. But, it has contested something that I have written.
There are different levels of correction. Sometimes it can be a factual correction, where I have been wrong about something. I presumed or assumed the "factuality" about something and I was wrong. As a writer, it is never appropriate to be wrong factually. It will happen at times, but I should never buttress a position of mine, a chain of argument, when one of the links is wrong. When I write, I should also put on my "editing" hat where I ask the objective question, "Am I sure that this is true?" That can come either as I write or as I review. It is not that hard to do with all the resources on the web. Being reasonably intelligent, I should be able to discern fact vs. fiction (and don't go to just one source).
Another level of correction is where I have stated something where probability would suggest, to most of an audience, that I have presumed too much. This is harder to correct in a real way because I am stating an opinion. Opinions do not have to be factual, but it really helps in persuasion, when they are.
I might have the opinion that I am a great writer while others view me a verbose bore. In the court of public opinion, they could be seen as more right and me as more wrong. I could still think myself as a misunderstood genius like those contestants on American Idol who think they can sing and walk out of the audition running their mouths that the judges don't know anything. That history is replete with examples of genius that was never acknowledge while that great talent was alive, sometimes gives false comfort to those who just do not have the gift.
There is another type of correction that is not necessarily factual or opinion. It is more along the lines of "tone" where I might be right about my take on something but wrong attitude-wise. We can hurt people with the truth and take joy in the psychic blood. Especially difficult are things we feel strongly about where we can lash out in anger and a mean spirit. This is endemic is public discourse. And anger is tricky...the line between righteous indignation vs. self-righteousness blurs easily in the heat of the moment, at the point of the conflict.
People are to be respected and treated with grace. Yet, I wonder if we are much too sensitive these days. Our nation should be called the "UWA," the United Whiners of America." Almost everyone seems is aggrieved, offended, and a victim (note: this is a statement of opinion that may or may not be factual, real or imagined, for citizens of the United States). As a preacher wrote recently in an essay for Christians about this very matter, "Brothers and Sisters, buck up."
Free Speech does not mean that we are not allowed to hurt others' feelings, but otherwise can speak our mind. Our age thinks it is the only one where people have strong disagreements. Have you read the conflicts between the Federalists (Hamilton) and the the States Righters (Jefferson)? That got pretty ugly and personal. The white powdered wigs and stuffed shirts came off for sure. Free Speech should operate specifically so people do not take up arms when discussion could have solved the problem. Our words can be hard but they should be measured.
So, with these observations in mind, I have been thinking about how I need to respond. If I am wrong, factually or attitude-wise, apologize. Move on and learn the lesson. Become a wiser writer. Next, if someone contests something I have written, and I don't agree with their critique--after doing some soul-searching--thank them for their comments. If I believe I am essentially correct in what I wrote, then I can decide to continue the conversation--if that person is willing. At some point, it might turn un-constructive, then we can conclude the dialogue.
Comments