The “debate” itself is done in quasi-Oxford
style, with no rebuttals; Brian and I never interacted, the whole thing having
been organized remotely by our editor and new pal Emma Smith. And while it is
perhaps inappropriate for me, as an interested party, to venture an opinion as
to winners and losers, I dare say that while Brian’s defense was admirably
succinct, mine was, let’s say, rather more … spirited. Or maybe “excitable” is
a better word. (Hey, like the scorpion in the parable, you knew what I was when
you picked me up.)
It’s an interesting mode for me to write in. As I’ve
mentioned before, I’ve always loved almanacs, books of trivia, factoids. I
recently had the opportunity to do some work for Uncle John’s Bathroom Readers (you can buy that book now, if you're so inclined),
which are very much in that spirit. Bluffer’s has something of the same “hot,”
hyper-compressed style. The articles are all quite short, and
informationally-dense. And they demand a singular discipline.
Here’s a dirty little secret of writing; short articles are much
harder to write than long ones. It’s a relatively simple matter for me to
unload a big bucket o’ hate on Dan Brown, but something else again to boil that
bucket down into five poisonous mouthfuls. They call them “bullet points” — but
with a limit of one hundred words to back up each assertion, any damage you do
must come not from massive kinetic impact, but from precision and incisiveness.
Not a bullet, but a stiletto.
No comments:
Post a Comment