I’ve been relatively active regarding my writing in the last few weeks, posting my various nonfiction goodies to my blog when I do so. For organization purposes, and to help visitors navigate to the particular flavor of article they prefer to read; I have a list of the five main genres that my articles tend to fall under. However, lately I’ve noticed that I have been categorizing my articles in one area far more frequently than the others. The answer to what type of writer I am showed itself to me the other day; I’m becoming more and more of a society writer.
I’m not sure yet if this is a short-term trend with my writing or a sign of a grander pattern; after all, our brains are pattern recognition machines that can easily run amok. However, I started to notice it more and more as I started combing through my inventory of previous works. My book is literally about a massive-yet-undiscussed problem with society. Many of my articles talk about shortfalls in things like our banking system, our views on money, the constant presence of government and so on. My second book is all about tearing down culturally relevant historical figures. A running thread between all of these topics is the act of me examining and picking apart something about our society that I dislike.
At first, I had some resistance to the mere notion of being a social writer, after all, my critique of pundits is well documented. However, I don’t feel the two are the same (or so I’m about to rationalize). A pundit (eww…pundits) speaks from a place of non-expertise on something they know nothing about. Examples of this include the ESPN talking head who constantly comments on the mood of the locker room, intangibles or some other subjective claim despite the fact they never made it past high school. On the other hand, how does one become an expert on society itself? No seriously, who decides that, and what criteria do they use?
I won’t lie, I love commenting upon what I feel is wrong with society. However, there is an obvious weakness with that; everyone is doing it. Since everyone is doing it, I’ll need to find a way to differentiate myself from the masses. Thankfully, my brain works differently than yours and hence I’m better able to come up with unique ideas such as how much Taylor Swift would make on OnlyFans or how we should be allowed to own landmines. I can promise you that nobody else is writing evidence-based books that state memes are bad for society. However, I have room to improve; The Man Himself recommends writing down ten new ideas per day, every day. I haven’t been following his advice, and as much as I hate to admit it; my naturally unorthodox thought process will only take me so far.
Another way to differentiate myself is to continue to write with a Libertarian political slant. While I agree with a lot of the party views, I don’t want to just be a political writer either. That’s a sure-fire way to get radicalized, and as we’ve established, being the only non-radical in the room is an asset. In fact, I need to keep just the right amount of spice in my writing to keep my canaries chirping, such as how I ended this article. I feel that openly stating my biases would go a long way as well; I don’t pretend to hold views that I disagree with, and I open both of my books blatantly stating how biased I am. I place a high value on being able to sleep at night, so I’m not interested in misleading anyone.
Citing evidence is an important aspect to making my writing work; anyone can stand outside and yell the end is nigh and just spout conspiracies with nothing to back up these claims. It’s another matter entirely to be able to source evidence to support your statements, more so evidence that comes from a legitimate source such as a peer-reviewed study, a true expert’s professional opinion, population-level data, and so on. Essentially, if it fails the litmus tests presented in A Field Guide to Lies, then including it only weakens my case. Making sure my evidence stands up to rigor is what’ll separate me from the talking heads that I love to dunk on. Detractors of my book loved saying that my writing was too aggressive yet nobody was able to say that I was wrong. I’m totally okay with being the aggressive citation-heavy writer.
With all of that said though (and as I’ve mentioned in my books), there is limited utility in only pointing out problems and not having a better idea. Doing that is merely just complaining, and no one likes a complainer. Don’t believe me? Just ask Vice News. Therefore, I’ve made a conscious effort to include a solution or a positive change into whatever I’ve been critiquing. Again, having good data and/or a fallacy-free argument is going to help really drive the point home. Who knows, if I keep up my tear-down-and-rebuild approach, I might just get elected one day!
A sharp pitchfork is a happy pitchfork…
Home Page 