Nib #3: Lesson Zero

The first thing to understanding about writing is that it is very hard.

Most people who aspire to careers in politics see themselves as the sort of people who should write well. They’re smart. They get good grades in majors that require lots of papers. They read a lot. They assume writing should come easily to them.

But writing doesn’t come easily to anyone. Human beings aren’t made for reading and writing the way we are for talking and listening. Converting speech into written language is unnatural. It requires a lot of practice, a lot of trial-and-error, a lot of failure.

To get better, young writers have to overcome the painful reality that their writing often stinks. That their word choices are clunky. That their sentences meander. That whole drafts are terrible.

The hurdle here is psychological, not technical. Yes, that thing you just wrote may be a mess. What matters is whether you face the fact with resignation, despair, and frustration — or with defiance, curiosity, and pluck.

So what if writing is hard? Everything worth doing is. Like it or not, struggling to improve is the way to improve.

Until next week… keep writing!

April 25, 2025
Five quick tips for polishing your prose.
April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
More Posts