Co-signed of course. For me, a relaxing frame is: it’s okay if I’m wrong because I’m here to advance the conversation. I’ll try to avoid deliberate falsehood. But the conversation grinds to a halt if everyone neurotically attempts to remain unassailable. Someone’s gotta take a risk!
Is there a middle ground here? I actually am hungry for people to tell me things are complicated and nuanced. Especially when it feels like I have two groups screaming contradictory claims in my face all day.
But! I do see the difference between someone saying “when people join the banning books bandwagon, they need to be told that both sides value the safety of their child.” And “it’s possible that some people (not all, of course) who join the banning books bandwagon might be feeling like some people they oppose (who have a wide variety of opinions and don’t always verbalize them all) don’t value the safety of their child in the same way, even if most people probably value safety for most children in some way, but it might not be recognizable to the book banner.” I mean, yikes though, that’s just a terrible sentence. I guess what I’m saying is that I think banning books is wrong, but if I just say that and others repeat it, there are a lot of people who won’t hear an answer to their fear and will persist in their pursuit of curtailing free speech.
I think the long, hedging sentences really want to be paragraphs. Spell out an inner journey step-by-step. Give two separate voices to the shoulder angel and the shoulder devil, and give a voice to the head in the middle that honestly doesn’t know which is which. *That’s* a story.
I had to write a lot in my role as a public health data analyst, and our comms director was finally like, “look, you are not allowed to use parentheses anymore. If it’s worth saying, don’t hide it in parentheses. If it’s not worth saying outside of parentheses, then just cut it.” And often I found that I ended up leaning in and giving those things more space, not less. That feels adjacent to what you’re suggesting.
Thank you for this <3 I think one can *show* in their writing that something is nuanced/ complicated/ whatever -- and do so clearly and well -- but I am advocating for less *telling* the reader about how "nuanced" it is by e.g. hedging and equivocating
That’s absolutely fair! And there is a place where “nuance” is actually just a stand in for feeling unable to say what I actually want to say, or trying to say something meaningful without stepping outside a socially acceptable box. I recognize that’s what you’re talking about more than shying away from something that is actually nuanced.
Also, don't write as though you're worried people on Twitter might miss the nuance in what you're saying: they'll do that even if you're extremely vague, and they'll do that even if you're extremely clear.
This reflects an important thing I've learned about writing as well. When it comes to your hardest and most controversial opinions, the target audience isn't listening anyway.
If you're picking at an idea you find Particularly Bad, well, the people who like that idea are most likely not reading your post anyway. Because those people are not in the self-improvement game, and are not reading blogs from honest and intelligent people.
So yea... you were never going to change their minds anyway. No need to qualify what you're saying. You might as well just assume the audience reasonable and talk to them honestly.
Obligatory objection to the blanket take on Autistic disability: every case presents differently; some Autistic people would really excel at this task, depending on context; etc.
I’m in this category, and I could do a social screening pass for others’ writing much better than I could do one for my own.
There’s an essay rattling around in me about the phenomenology of that…
I always need to check back in with someone that I should even be talking. I know a lot of people are anti-AI. But AI has been a magical aid. Everyone complained I lacked confidence. Boyfriends left me because I lacked confidence. I had a psychotherapist tell me that all I’m in need of is compliments. That’s all, something to build my confidence. The use of Substack and AI at the same time has been an immense eduction. Substack keeps me grounded and now I am getting more confident, speaking to others, mothering, and even going solo and being able to write comments unassisted.
Co-signed of course. For me, a relaxing frame is: it’s okay if I’m wrong because I’m here to advance the conversation. I’ll try to avoid deliberate falsehood. But the conversation grinds to a halt if everyone neurotically attempts to remain unassailable. Someone’s gotta take a risk!
That is such a nice and reasonable way of putting it. It is a service to the conversation to remain assailable
“It is a service to the conversation to remain assailable” is one of my favorite sentences you’ve ever written.
Fuck me. I’ve been writing like I’m trying not to get yelled at by imaginary idiots. Brilliant post, Natalie.
Thank you! Fuck those idiots
Is there a middle ground here? I actually am hungry for people to tell me things are complicated and nuanced. Especially when it feels like I have two groups screaming contradictory claims in my face all day.
But! I do see the difference between someone saying “when people join the banning books bandwagon, they need to be told that both sides value the safety of their child.” And “it’s possible that some people (not all, of course) who join the banning books bandwagon might be feeling like some people they oppose (who have a wide variety of opinions and don’t always verbalize them all) don’t value the safety of their child in the same way, even if most people probably value safety for most children in some way, but it might not be recognizable to the book banner.” I mean, yikes though, that’s just a terrible sentence. I guess what I’m saying is that I think banning books is wrong, but if I just say that and others repeat it, there are a lot of people who won’t hear an answer to their fear and will persist in their pursuit of curtailing free speech.
I think the long, hedging sentences really want to be paragraphs. Spell out an inner journey step-by-step. Give two separate voices to the shoulder angel and the shoulder devil, and give a voice to the head in the middle that honestly doesn’t know which is which. *That’s* a story.
I had to write a lot in my role as a public health data analyst, and our comms director was finally like, “look, you are not allowed to use parentheses anymore. If it’s worth saying, don’t hide it in parentheses. If it’s not worth saying outside of parentheses, then just cut it.” And often I found that I ended up leaning in and giving those things more space, not less. That feels adjacent to what you’re suggesting.
Definitely! Sometimes the things that whisper are the things that deserve louder voices.
Thank you for this <3 I think one can *show* in their writing that something is nuanced/ complicated/ whatever -- and do so clearly and well -- but I am advocating for less *telling* the reader about how "nuanced" it is by e.g. hedging and equivocating
That’s absolutely fair! And there is a place where “nuance” is actually just a stand in for feeling unable to say what I actually want to say, or trying to say something meaningful without stepping outside a socially acceptable box. I recognize that’s what you’re talking about more than shying away from something that is actually nuanced.
Also, don't write as though you're worried people on Twitter might miss the nuance in what you're saying: they'll do that even if you're extremely vague, and they'll do that even if you're extremely clear.
Thank you, I am someone who needs to hear this.
Glad to be of service :D
This reflects an important thing I've learned about writing as well. When it comes to your hardest and most controversial opinions, the target audience isn't listening anyway.
If you're picking at an idea you find Particularly Bad, well, the people who like that idea are most likely not reading your post anyway. Because those people are not in the self-improvement game, and are not reading blogs from honest and intelligent people.
So yea... you were never going to change their minds anyway. No need to qualify what you're saying. You might as well just assume the audience reasonable and talk to them honestly.
Thank you - and agreed!
Reading this essay led me to hit "Publish" on an essay that had been sitting on my desk for four years
Yay!! <3
Excellent
hmmm....
Obligatory objection to the blanket take on Autistic disability: every case presents differently; some Autistic people would really excel at this task, depending on context; etc.
I’m in this category, and I could do a social screening pass for others’ writing much better than I could do one for my own.
There’s an essay rattling around in me about the phenomenology of that…
Thank you! 🙏
I need this tattooed on my brain.
You could just do like forearm??
Nah that would be like putting it on a post-it on the mirror -- just becomes invisible in 24 hours
So true.
I always need to check back in with someone that I should even be talking. I know a lot of people are anti-AI. But AI has been a magical aid. Everyone complained I lacked confidence. Boyfriends left me because I lacked confidence. I had a psychotherapist tell me that all I’m in need of is compliments. That’s all, something to build my confidence. The use of Substack and AI at the same time has been an immense eduction. Substack keeps me grounded and now I am getting more confident, speaking to others, mothering, and even going solo and being able to write comments unassisted.
I really liked your perspective. Thank you.
> You are somewhere on the spectrum (or traumatised)
Is it helpful to identify which one you are? Does it change anything?