STH Newsletter

Occasional updates, plus bonus idiotic ramblings. (We've never sent more than one e-mail per month.)

Twelve Guidelines for Objectivist Writers
- with explanation

by Jason Roth

1. Don't include a byline photo of you in your best John Galt pose if your own mother turns away when you enter a room.

   (self-explanatory)

2. Take your Kant quotes from Kant, not from the Objectivist essay recycle bin.

   There are a few problems with reusing the same quotes from any author one is trying to dispute. First, as a writer, you don't learn anything new. It's the easy approach that doesn't require research and yields no additional knowledge about the author. Second, you give the impression that you haven't read the author you're quoting. If you haven't, you should. If you have, you're giving a bad and wrong impression. Third, you may leave out the necessary context to communicate objectively an actual truism about the author. This results in both non-communication (and/or expecting your reader to take you on faith) as well as accusations by an opponent that you are taking quotes out of context to present a straw man version of the author.

   I've used the "make room for faith" quote myself, though in satire that wasn't about Kant. I used it there specifically so people would recognize it.

3. Hold off on the paragraph-long Ayn Rand quotes until you've hinted to your audience that, yes, you've actually thought about what she already said better than you.

   If you do this, it's not necessarily the end of the world. But there is potential for a weakness similar to the above error of dishing out the same, recycled quotes from your opponents. Quoting Rand at length, especially at the beginning of your argument, can be a crutch. You, as a writer, might not be learning anything, and you might be losing the opportunity to say something new.

4. Avoid using an author bio with your article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if your experience in foreign policy consists of a business trip to Canada.

   Yes, sometimes it's interesting to find out that the author of a good political argument is really a Samoan zoologist with a love of knitting. But sometimes, the irrelevant bio is just ridiculous. Let's put it this way: if I were doing a parody of a blog entry, I would make sure the blogger's bio had absolutely no relevant experience.

5. Refrain from humor if your forte is being dry, boring, and monotonous.

   This is just another way of saying: don't not be funny. Objectivists who lack writing skills (and to some extent, new Objectivists just honestly trying to communicate the ideas accurately), are sometimes pretty dry. I don't think this is controversial. What I'm saying here is: the only thing worse than being dry is trying to be funny and failing.

6. If you're going to use facts of history and current events as evidence for your arguments, try to pick something that more than nine out of ten Objectivists don't already use when making the same point you're trying to pretend you're making for the first time.

   Yes, there are key facts of history worth repeating. But making a point that hasn't been made usually requires a unique perspective on history. Comparing some modern politician to Chamberlain for the eighteenth time to point out a policy of appeasement doesn't help anyone to expand one's knowledge. Give a new perspective or use a different example. There is likely one of two flaws involved. If your writing is directed at those who don't yet agree with you, then giving them the same general historical evidence they've encountered before will likely not be persuasive. If your writing is directed towards those who have the same general philosophy, you're boring them by feeding them the same information they've encountered in other essays.

7. Restating everything in other people's articles and then linking to them does not constitute good writing. It's called being a leech with references.

   There is value in a blog that mostly includes links to other articles. What I find annoying is someone who spoils the article for the reader, and takes away the punch intentionally set up by the author. It's like a movie reviewer who reveals the plot. He's either doing it because he's simply incompetent, or because he actually gets enjoyment being the person who communicates (and ruins) the plot twist written by someone else.

8. Either say something that hasn't been said, say it differently, or keep your fucking mouth shut. (Yes, this has been said before, but I don't believe with the word "fucking".)

   (self-explanatory)

9. Address the people whose arguments you are criticizing by name. Nowhere amongst the Objectivist virtues is it stated that being a pussy promotes your values.

   It can be rude to address an argument you've read without mentioning the author. It also deprives your audience of getting the full context of the argument. I think it's a bullshit rationalization to claim that your reason for not mentioning the author is that you don't want to "support" the author. (Like you're playing a game of moral freeze tag and touching someone makes them evil.) Be a man, first of all. And assume others can be men, too. There's no benefit in keeping people ignorant. (In case anyone thinks I'm being a hypocrite, I have mentioned people by name when relevant. I think that's clear in the posting of this entire correspondence.)

10. If you mention a fact because it's controversial, state your source. Don't be an authoritarian asshole. Especially when the authority is you.

    This is another general mistake I've noticed by writers, and of course (like other items on this list) it is not limited to Objectivists. Unusual and controversial facts are great in essays. But journalists unfortunately have established the now accepted practice of not footnoting or referencing such facts. You often see this in op-eds, when writers are trying to change people's minds. Clearly, however, it's ineffective to use disputable evidence. Just include a reference so readers can verify it.

11. If you happen to finish your tirade against environmentalism on the same day a major bridge is obliterated by terrorists, you're not immediately obligated to e-mail it to the New York Times and make the entire Objectivist movement look like a bunch of goddamn wackos.

    ARI seems to do this a lot, specifically with anti-environmentalist op-eds. It's perfectly fine to fight several battles simultaneously, I'm just asking that we adhere to the adage "timing is everything".

12. Don't quote yourself repeatedly, you lazy, pompous prick. That piece of shit you wrote for your political science class wasn't Atlas Shrugged.

    This isn't common, but it happens. When you're a pompous prick like me, you might think you've made the point as good as it can be made. However, if you find that you're quoting yourself a lot, it's probably because you're writing the same goddamn essay over and over again.