S. Marty Pantz Writes 1000 Words: Hello

The structural rules for haikus are quite simple: exactly three lines of poetry with the middle line fixed at seven syllables and the first and third lines fixed at five syllables each.  Rhyming is neither required nor expected but neither is it precluded. 

The heart of the haiku is a bit more complicated.  The object of the exercise is to capture, within the constraints of the structure, the essence of something; almost anything.   The subject might be a vision, an emotion, a flower, an attitude, a political position or an experience.  A haiku might relay a message, offer a compliment or even tell a joke.  With strict adherence to the minimal rules, a haiku strives to cleverly employ language to succinctly express a meaningful thought in a subtle fashion.  

So, here is a haiku:

The rules for haiku
are: write, make a point, stop at
seventeen sylla…

In short order, these three lines capture the essence of the haiku, both structurally (write …seventeen sylla[bles]) and functionally (…make a point…).  That it does so with humor adds points from the judges.   

Unlike the haiku, however, there are no such specific rules for the essay.   One might say an essay is a prose discourse of limited length on a single topic.  That is not very specific but who has the authority to make it more so?  Let’s just leave it at that.  

Is any topic acceptable for an essay?  One would think so.  Some topics may be more suitable to the form than others but there is no reason that a topic, per se, would preclude it from being called an essay. 

A generalized concept of the format evokes a limit as to length.  One would be hard pressed to say anything worthy of an essay in less than one hundred words and anything over ten thousand seems de facto too long to be called an essay.   This is hardly the specificity we get with the rules for the haiku.  Nevertheless, at the extreme, let’s just say an essay should have more than one hundred and less than ten thousand words.  We say should precisely because we do not have the authority to say must.  While the French may attempt to officially control their language, there is no recognized — certainly no official– authority which governs English.  This is as it should be.  English seems to evolve on its own with the guidance of an invisible hand, maybe a left hand in counterpoint to the right hand which Adam Smith saw as the guiding force behind markets. 

Practically no one publishes essays qua essays these days.  Thomas Paine and the authors of the Federalist Papers might have been so identified in their day, but who today is known as an essayist?  In fact, however, the form is far from dead.  Today’s essayists are rather called columnists or bloggers.  With the advent of the blogosphere, essayists are actually more prevalent than ever.        

And so, what you have here is the first offering in a new blog in which all entries will be essays of exactly one thousand words. 

Why a thousand words?  Because it is a near-perfect length to present, explore and/or comment on almost any subject.  It is long enough to actually say something and yet short enough to pretty much preclude rambling.  It also is ideal for at least this blogger’s limited attention span and it is short enough to be read in a single visit to the bathroom.  In short, one thousand words is the Goldilocks length for essays — not too short, not too long. 

Why then exactly one thousand words?  Because it is artificially demands discipline.  A limit of 900-1100 words would serve just as well but an exact requirement of one thousand words is fun.  It will assure a consistent graphic and once there are one hundred such essays, surely a major publisher will jump at this ready-made, neatly packaged 300-page book.   Okay, it’s a gimmick.

The very assumption that the amorphous world out there gives a damn about what one has to say is de facto a shameless display of ego.  Only the advent of the internet has allowed this exercise in self publication in such a way that one can indeed reach a substantial audience at a minimal cost affordable by anyone.  There is no need for the approval of those pesky little editors; just sent it out into the ether and see what happens.  Maybe there is an audience for what one has to say; more likely there is not.

Your faithful correspondent here is S. Marty Pantz, an obvious nom de keyboard.  What can you expect from this blog?  In the broadest terms:  pretty much a contrarian point of view on a not-too-limited array of subjects. Marty will try to keep it regularly iconoclastic but minimally bombastic.   Hyperbole will be avoided; humor will not.  Even when a strong position is proffered, it will fail if the message is poorly presented or not very well reasoned.   There will be stress on reason and logic. 

Comments will be welcome. Marty hopes they would be thoughtful and objective but, hey, bring it on.  When appropriate and within reasonable bounds, responses to comments should be forthcoming.  A good dialogue is one of the goals here.  If you would like to join the conversation, however, please try to keep your comments civilized and substantive.  Nothing is more annoying that the guy-in-the-street interview when the guy simply takes one side or the other.   How do you feel about reproductive rights?   Oh, I’m pro-choice. We all know that some people are pro-choice and others are not.  That this particular guy-in-the-street is on one side of the debate rather than the other tells us nothing.  More interesting and valuable would be why the guy holds his position. 

Marty has and will evidence political proclivities.  He will, however, try to avoid rancor or disrespect for the opposing point of view.  What we seek here is well reasoned discourse. 

And so, welcome aboard.