(HAND CUPPED AROUND THE EAR, LIKE AN OLDTIME RADIO
ANNOUNCER):
“When we left off
yesterday…”
I was explaining how I was sending
a piece of material I had previously written for my blog (“Arguing Before The
Supreme Court Fantasy”) to a man whose opinion really mattered to me (now second-term Senator Al Franken with whom
I had worked on the short-lived but intermittently inspired sitcom Lateline), and how I had discovered,
upon rereading that piece of material, that it was not as good as I thought it
was.
Yikes!
For numerous reasons, and on
numerous levels of importance.
“Yikes!” – I almost sent a man
whose opinion really matters to me a piece of material that was not as good as
I thought it was.
“Yikes!” – I posted material on my
blog that was not as good as I thought it was.
And the unquestionably biggest
“Yikes!” of them all – and the explanation for the title of yesterday’s
post: “A Slight Case Of Judgment Jostle”
– in the form of a question:
“Is it possible that my
qualitative judgment is not as good
as I thought it was?”
That’s “Yikes!” to an
embarrassingly high power. (If I have
that correct scientifically.)
It was an unsettling
revelation. How, I wondered, could I have
possibly believed a piece of material was ready for public consumption when a
subsequent reading of it undeniably indicated that it wasn’t? I am a professional writer, for heaven’s sake! And it was not like, as Maxwell Smart used to
say, I “Missed it by ‘that much’.”
I missed it by a lot!
At the risk of being annoyingly
repetitive…
Yikes!
As I italicized in yesterday’s
post’s opening line,
“All we have is our own personal judgment.”
I had relied upon mine, and I had failed. “Whoa!” the concern came to mind, “I use that
evaluative arbiter every day when I write.
Is it then therefore possible that man or – God forbid! – all of my blog posts are similarly
deficient, and I was simply unaware of it, because my evaluative arbiter turned
out to be dangerously inaccurate?”
I mean, I write a draft, and I
continue rewriting until I feel viscerally confident that no further
improvements can be made – or as I once amusingly described it to myself, “I
shape it, I shine it…” and then, when my now-questionable personal judgment
tells me it’s ready, “… I ship it.”
In my post entitled, “Arguing
Before The Supreme Court Fantasy”, involving an examination of the Constitution’s
Second Amendment’s guaranteeing a citizen’s right “to keep and bear arms”, I
had put forward two salient questions.
Question One: “Who exactly was endangering the citizens’ right
to keep and bear arms, to the extent that an Amendment to the Constitution was
deemed necessary to prevent them from doing so?”
And Question Two: “Why was it of such great interest to the
government whether citizens were prevented from keeping and bearing arms, or
not?”
In writing “Arguing Before The
Supreme Court Fantasy”, I unequivocally indicated that “Question Two” was more
significant than “Question One.” I then,
inexplicably, proceeded to spend the preponderance of my subsequent argument focusing
on “Question One”, my inappropriate emphasis
taking virtually the entire second half of my blog post in an erroneous
direction.
(I have an opinion concerning why
I fell prey to this unfortunate misstep.
But I believe that deserves a post of its own. Of course, my judgment on these matters has
become questionable, so who knows?)
What a discombobulating
turnaround! Having now spent more than a
week trying to resuscitate it, I am beginning to believe that a piece of
material I once secretly fantasized would be my ticket to respectability, high
praise and unimaginable opportunity, may turn out to be an irredeemable
disaster! (Hence, the indelicate term
“rat shit” in the above title.)
As I consider the now questionable
quality of my efforts over the almost seven years of five-days-a-week
blog-writing might be, I begin to wonder if a significant contributor to these
offences might involve inordinate haste.
Is it possible that I am writing
too much too fast? What if, abandoning
of my current schedule, I instead wrote
one blog post a week? Would the longer time period make the posts I
wrote on a more deliberately schedule better? Of would I continue my pattern of
self-delusion regardless, still embarrassing myself, albeit eighty percent less
often?
So that’s where I am right
now. I sincerely believed that my
“Arguing Before The Supreme Court Fantasy” blog post had been successfully
executed.
And I found out I was wrong.
(HEAVY, REVELATORY SIGH)
Yikes.
No comments:
Post a Comment