Point Lacks a Point

Another PCP That Never Were (Was?)

Whether or not I've ever managed to express it explicitly, I think it's clear that I feel that my weekly PCP columns are lackluster, at least in comparison to my full length articles--whether or not the latter are of substantial quality themselves is another matter. Anyway, my new editor was none too pleased with my recent submission. I'm all for starting off on the right foot:

Like the prevent defense and universal suffrage, PCP is a laudable concept, even if its implementation leaves much to be desired. Our deadline for these things is Monday at noon; thus I email Joel on Sunday night and ask him if he has any ideas for PCP. He seldom does, whereupon I dig through that which masquerades as news to find a topic upon which we can disagree. I almost invariably fail, and one of us is left to wage war half-heartedly in arguing something we care little about.

This makes for embarrassingly bad reading, even by Lode standards. To write a good opinion piece, one must necessarily combine right thinking with effective elucidation, composition of which is largely dependent on one’s audience. But to make for an entertaining read all that one requires is the ability to write tolerably well with a large shot of pathos.

Now it could be argued that no one cares about the other articles I write. This is entirely possible, but ultimately of no concern to me. I can’t pretend to occupy my mind with trivialities which tend to clog lesser minds, but I can suggest that my passion for whatever bizarre topic I choose to discuss makes for an interesting read.

Hence it is paramount that the writer cares about the topic on which he writes. Therein lies the present problem with PCP. If Joel and I were passionate about the same topics, perhaps PCP would work, but as it stands, it seems to me to fail miserably.

Lastly, supposing we do find a topic upon which we vigorously disagree—I think it may have happened once—we are confined to a miserly three hundred words. Such space is scarcely enough to properly conduct an argument. Ironically, this poor attempt at arguing against PCP may be my most successful.

I've been doing these PCP columns for a year, and, to be honest, they've always been far more of a chore than I've ever wanted writing to be. As the sheer volume of the posts, if not quality thereof, will attest to, I have little trouble writing. True, I may hit the same several themes over and over--and over and over--but one must remember that, first, so far as I know, no one who reads the Lode is familiar with this little blog of mine. Second, while the variety of my topics has been less than impressive, it has not been wholly pathetic either. The recent column on home-schooling was a fair example; there was the usual spiel about how government is evil and how we are all screwed, but the topic was singular, at least insofar as my Lode submissions have been concerned.

Thing is, I just can't seem to get over the continual increase in governmental authority. If I saw things differently, I would write about them, but I have always been an infernal pessimist and the facts only seem to deepen the rut from which lay and write. Reading H.L. Mencken and Hilaire Belloc isn't helping.

I guess I'm up for suggestions. What would make Thoughts and Ideas more interesting. More Chesterton? Less Chesterton?--as if. Less we-are-all-going-to-die type rants? I'm always looking to improve the quality of my writing. Whatever the fallout over my incendiary little jab at the paper which employs me--though as they don't pay me, I could argue that I am merely a volunteer--I shall continue to write. And, baring a tremendous change in either the facts or, what is more improbable, my outlook, I shall probably still be an infernal pessimist. It has always struck me that there are far worse things to be.