Dear Editor: It has come to my
attention that you do not allow titles on “Letters to the Editor.” I have
learned this through direct experience, having recently submitted several “Letters
to the Editor.” None of the titles were
printed. They all originally had titles, and very good ones, I might add. This
seems rather odd. Peculiar. Dumbfounding. Every article in the Voice has
titles. “Meeks returns as managing editor.” “Chamber, Voice, announce merger. I
mean, award nominations.” “Nalley addresses questions, concerns.” Each is
followed by a story that relies on, plays on, explains, the title. When there
is no title, but only “Letter to the Editor,” it doesn’t sound very
interesting. Why would I write a “Letter to the Editor?” I don’t even know the
editor. I’m writing a letter to address the public. Something I see as unusual.
Alarming. Perhaps a view opposite of the status-quo. A rebuttal. Maybe a plea:
for justice. Fairness. Perhaps just a thought. Maybe a good deed has been done.
Recognition. Thankfulness. Magazine
articles have titles; people have titles; movies have titles; newspaper
articles have titles; books have titles. Most certainly “Letters to the Editor”
should have titles. Something that draws attention. Captures the imagination.
Informs the people in few words (300 is plenty). Something of which the body of
the written work can dance around. Tease. Elevate. At the very least, explain. Clearly, “Letter to the Editor” serves none of
these purposes. I have not, however, let “no title allowed” deter me from my
work, which is to CONSTANTLY STIR THE POT. This may ruffle some feathers. Upset
some. Make people uncomfortable. But it’s all in good fun. A curmudgeons job.
Cantankerous. So please, let us put titles on our “Letters to the Editor”.
Everything has a title. Everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment