Subject: Re: your mail
To: [Censored to protect the ignorant]@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:46:12 -0500 (EST)


Dear [Censored],

Thanks for your recent email, in which you were apparently sharing your thoughts on something I once wrote.

I would like to respond to the points you made therein, but to be honest I'd much rather respond to something that hasn't been knackered by so many problems vis a vis style and mechanics. I'm not sure that you're showing off your "A" game with this email.

I, too, was once a young writer just starting to learn the craft, and so I am pleased to "give a little back," so to speak, and offer you the benefit of whatever experience I've accumulated over the years.

Please don't be discouraged by the length and quantity of these corrections. One of the most valuable things you will learn as you begin to commit yourself to the Writer's Life is that building your craft is an ongoing and never-ending process.

Onward:


> Hey Andy, I would like to tell you a few things.

Not a terribly good "grabber," and wordy. How about "Look, Andy," instead.

> First of all, get a f...... life.

(1) Censoring an expletive is traditionally done with asterisks, not ellipses. (2) The desire to censor an expletive within a private email should make you re-think its use. Either you're saying something you don't actually mean -- ie, the censoring sends the message that you yourself think you're stepping over the line -- or you're weakening the impact of its use to begin with. "Get a fucking _life_" would be much better, not just for the use of the obscene gerund, but also the emphasis. Otherwise, if I may be so droll, you leave yourself wide open to witty rejoinders. You've got the reader's attention for a limited amount of time...so focus, focus, _focus_.

> Where do you get off talking about Rosie like that??????

Delete superfluous "?"'s. Or alternatively put little hearts in the dots underneath them; that'll have the same impact as six "?"'s in a row in terms of making a positive impression via the intelligence of your comments.

> You, and all those other people out there in this humorless
> world, need to SHUT UP, and live your own damn lives and
> quit bitching about everybody elses. If you don't like
> something, just don't watch it, eat it, or whatever you're
> suppose to do with it.

Errors: (1) you should use em-dashes instead of commas in that first line ("You -- and all those other" etc.); (2) Grammatically, it should be "damned" and not "damn"; "else's" instead of "elses"; "supposed" instead of "suppose."

Stylistically, you need to be more determined in this paragraph. The last sentence sort of trails off, doesn't it, thus creating the impression of a drunk who forgets what s/he intented to say halfway into actually saying it.

The biggest problem with this graph is that here, you should be making your big punch, but as-is, you're only creating confusion. I've written nearly a thousand articles and columns over the years, you understand; at this point I've really no idea as to which one you're referring. Are you referring to the time I wrote about Rosie's wonderful turn hosting Regis & Kathie Lee? The time three or four months into her show when I wrote about certain elements that I found annoying? Or the column I wrote about a year after that, enthusiastically saying that the show was past its growing-pains and had turned into a unique and classy part of daytime? Or the thing I wrote a couple of months ago, reacting to a Roseanne Barr's appearance on the Greg Kinnear show? Again, focus, focus, _focus_; you have the reader's attention for a limited amount of time so you need to make your play quickly and effectively. This one thing is the key to writing effective letters.

> Good lord, you men these days are making us women look good.
> Men always talk about how women bitch. You men sure do
> your share of it too.

Tactical error: this total digression from your point (as poorly-conceived and executed as it is) makes you appear as a woman with a severe chip on your shoulder and thus any impact you might have had up to this point is completely dissipated. "Oh, it's not about me," the reader concludes. "It's about issues in her personal life," which I'm sure was not your original intent in writing. I also am sure that you didn't intend to imply that women by their nature tend to look _bad_; if this _is_ your implication, then of course I would take umbrage at that. Otherwise, you need to re-work this so that your words aren't quite such a slap-in-the-face to women.

> Rosie seems like a very nice person, a good mother, and
> someone who makes people laugh for at least an hour a day.
> Shut up and get a life.

Again, weak. Remember, you're so angered by something you've read (whatever it is) that you felt duty-bound to rush right in with a reply. "Rosie _is_ a very nice person. She's a good mother and she makes people laugh for at least an hour a day" has more conviction behind it. And it's merely a matter of personal style, but personally I'd also mention the millions of dollars she raises on behalf charities that benefit women's health and children's causes; this is hot stuff and it seems like a shame not to use it.

In general, for future use: remember the "sandwich" rule of writing letters, even letters such as this one. (1) Slice of bread, explaining why you're writing, (2) The "meat," in which you make a cogent and convincing argument, and finally (3) the top slice of bread, in which you get off the stage, quickly underscoring the main point and under-theming your reasons for writing.

Also -- particularly when commenting about Internet material -- you want to create the impression that you've actually read the material in question. You create far greater credibility when you (for instance) quote from the material, or exhibit a familiarity with its contents. Otherwise, the reader gets the sneaking suspicion that you just heard from a friend-of-a-friend that this person wrote something nasty about a celebrity and that you are responding to "what you heard" as opposed to what the person actually wrote. Again, your credibility is _key_, and nothing destroys it so effectively as creating the convincing impression that you're presenting a knee-jerk and ignorant reaction as opposed to a considered reply of material that you've taken the time to read and digest.

I am forwarding your email, along with these comments, to forty or fifty friends of mine, who in the past have proven to enjoy reading emails such as yours. If they offer any additional comments that might prove constructive in the development of your writing skills, I'll be sure to pass them along to you.

If you'd like to take a second whack at this letter, I'd be pleased to read and critique it as well. I shall be following your career with considerable interest.


Thanks For Playing -- Andy Ihnatko.