Published September 07, 1999
I find that when I read a columnist�s work for the first time, I usually question their right to be one. I know that statement sounds a little odd, so let me first explain what I do not mean by this.
I do not mean that I question whether the new columnist deserves to have their opinions heard.
Obviously, they have as much right to present their thoughts as any other human being does.
Nor do I mean that I hold their writing ability up to a stylistic standard that I have set in advance and to which I expect all columnists to conform; it would be silly of me to expect everyone to have the same writing style when people are so different.
Nor do I intend to say that I question whether they should have been hired for the position. If I�m not their editor, that really isn�t any of my concern and I have no business thinking it is.
Now that we know what I do not mean, let me explain what I do mean when I say that I usually question a new columnist�s right to be a columnist. It isn�t the statement of their opinions I take issue with as often as it is the pretense that their opinions are fact.
While I understand that a necessary part of being a columnist is stating what you think, I do not like being patronized. I doubt anyone likes it when someone they have no association with chides them from a public soapbox with a moral authority that seems neither obvious nor earned.
It is one thing to explain your opinion to others in the hope they will understand you; it is quite another to demand that everyone agree with you because you are just so much more knowledgeable than they are. This is an easy trap to fall into given the format with which the columnist has to work, and it is one from which I am going to have to try to avoid.
I believe that the purpose of a columnist is to make people think in a new way about issues on which they already have opinions. I hope to be able to do that nearly ever week for the rest of this year, but undoubtedly there will be times when I fail completely.
Sometimes this will be because I have not thought an issue out as well as most of you. Other times it will be because I have yet to earn the respect that is often necessary for a successful messenger of an idea that is very contrary to the public norm. And there will also be many times that I will try to communicate what I think and someone will completely misunderstand what I am saying either because of my poor satirical abilities or my overly wordy writing style.
Hopefully, none of these problems will apply to everyone at the same time or to anyone every time.
For many of you, there will certainly arise those occasions this year when you read my column and suddenly find yourself in total disagreement with me. At those times, I would ask that you at least consider what I am saying without instantly placing me in a comfortable category where you can write off my opinions as extreme or idealistic.
I�m not saying that they won�t be either of those things, but I�d like everyone who reads my words to at least attempt to consider them seriously before dismissing them. I know from my own experience that this is difficult to do with someone with whom you completely disagree, toward whom you have no relationship and whose moral authority you do not recognize.
I hope that you do not find that reading my column is simply not worth your time, because that would be disappointing to know. Instead, I hope that you will find that my column makes you think about things in a different way than you had previously, and that you enjoy reading it every week. Yet what I hope for most is that by the end of the year those of you who are as critical of columnists as I usually am decide that I was worthy to be one, and that I feel the same way about myself.
Faith in Organized Religion
Please try to listen to me
Updated Monday, 06-Sep-1999 23:42:26 EST
OTHER COLUMNS:
Original Letter to the Editor