Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Art Works

The triumph of the caveats.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

Whenver someone, myself included, begins a conversation or blog post with a listing of credentials I know what's coming: a "but."

"You know, I'm a conservative who always votes Republican and consistently supports Focus on the Family BUT I love to read dirty books."

::Caveat: This, by the way, is not a description of me. Thank you.::

A similar technique, much shorter but fulfilling the same purpose, starts a diatribe off with a clarification of how the speaker defines himself in relation to what they are about to say; this is so his expertise might not be questioned.

"As an artist, I think Picasso had no talent."

Both methods are a lazy defense, the same way people (again, myself included) use "I think" too much.

"I think Karl Rove is overweight."

Instead of declaring our thoughts and opinions, we hedge them in a protective shield of "I think" or a listing of our credentials. The "I think" allows us, if cornered, to either retract what we said or find a suitable parry. And the credential-listing does two things: it silences those who would question what we say, if they are prone to being silenced; or it signals that we are either unique and not a stereotype and therefore someone to be reckoned with.

"Karl Rove isn't overweight."
"Well, maybe. I just think he is."

A recent example (and I do beg forgiveness for singling out someone for such a reason -- it was not done with nefarious intentions) popped up in a blog post about Brokeback Mountain. After two paragraphs of backpeddling and explaining her conservative roots, we get to the meat of the review. Why did the author feel it was necessary to set up the reader that way?

There are many reasons people do this. I know one reason why I do it, and yes, I do do it far too much: it's to silence the ankle-biters. I'm guessing the author wanted to avoid having people who fit the description she gave of herself from leaving shallow comments like "you pathetic liberal!" and "you left-wing fanatic!" I can understand the desire to avoid this.

::Two words: moderated comments. Oh, how it will free up your writing.::

However, wouldn't our writing be better if we wrote offensively (and I mean this in tactical terms) instead of defensively? I instinctively struggle, when writing on controversial topics, with trying to not offend too much and leave myself plenty of escape hatches every few paragraphs. This is weak and leads to mushy-minded opinions that are too timid to declare themselves in the light of day. Oddly enough, the hot topic I'm getting the email on right now are my two Brokeback Mountain posts. Not popular posts, I'll tell you that, despite being admittedly full of qualifiers and backpeddling. Nevertheless, though the posts are far from excellent writing, they are very much my real opinion declared for all the world. I must not allow the caveats to triumph if my writing is to have strength, if it is to stand on its own legs.

As an artist, I take my writing seriously.