I am writing a letter to the editor of a major southern paper about my opinions of the Federal Marriage Amendment. I would greatly appreciate anybody who would read it to make sure it’s factually accurate and generally makes sense. I posted it on a friend’s blog .
It’s extremely long. Only on one or two occasions have I ever had a letter published that was half that length. I’d suggest some serious editing is in order, unless you were asked to write a column. To begin with, I’d trim most of the baroque description of the crime, which, though compelling, is not central to your argument.
Praise first - Fantastic. Really really moved me, in lots of ways, and I would dearly like to see it printed.
Critique:
you really need to cut out the graphic descriptions of the crime. Simply mention the names once, then talk a bit (not in great detail) about what they did, then move on. The graphic descriptions at the very start are comparing apples to oranges, IMO, which doesn’t really have any relevance to your argument.
Both of you are right; I think I’ll revise it and start with a sentence to the effect of “Tex Watson is the happily married father of four” and go from there. Also to go: basically condense the first several paragraphs into one. (I do want to keep the “alike in several ways” blips, but I’ll probably delete a couple and make them a paragraph.)
Hate to join the “long” bandwagon, but it is. Mainly because the first 3/4 of it was talking about crazy murderers, and I thought it was about gay marriage :P. Scale that down a bit, and it’s fine. I had never even thought about the issues at the end… I’ll be using you in my gay marriage “debate” in a few weeks. (More to come… I’ll link to the thread I’m going to start about that.
In addition to the length, as matt_mcl mentioned, you have some sentences that should be broken down into smaller sentences. In the first paragraph:
Tex had a few minutes earlier fired five shots point blank into Steve Parent, a teenager whose only crime was visiting a friend in residence at the property’s guesthouse, and he had helped stab Voytek Frykowski fifty-one times (also breaking his pistol over the man’s head), completed the murder of Abigail Folger begun by other members of their expedition, and mortally wounded Jay Sebring (whom he connected to Sharon by a rope tied around each of their necks).
In fact, the whole first paragraph is somewhat confusing. Some of the details are extraneous, for starters.
My revision of paragraph one:
On the otherwise warm and pleasant night of August 8, 1969, Susan Atkins held down a screaming and terrified Sharon Tate while Charles “Tex” Watson repeatedly plunged a knife into her swollen pregnant belly. As Sharon plead hysterically for the life of her unborn son, Susan (known as Sadie within her “family”) responded with the line “I have no mercy for you bitch!*” while Tex continued stabbing her, sixteen times in all. Only a few minutes earlier Tex had fired five shots point blank into Steve Parent, a teenager whose only crime was visiting a friend in residence at the property’s guesthouse; had helped stab Voytek Frykowski fifty-one times (also breaking his pistol over the man’s head); completed the murder of Abigail Folger begun by other members of their expedition; and mortally wounded Jay Sebring (whom he connected to Sharon by a rope tied around each of their necks). “Sadie” completed the evening’s slaughter by drinking the blood of her pregnant victim, claiming later it gave her an orgasm, and writing with it.
I would eliminate the second and third paragraphs, since they really don’t add to the argument.
And I would combine these three:
All three were followers of Charles Manson. Now all three say “meh, he wasn’t all that… I don’t know what we were thinking”. In fact thirty-five years later all three claim they are filled with remorse (which I hope is true, if only so that they know rotting in a prison cell until they die, hopefully in pain, is a fate a thousand times better than they deserve).
Watson and Atkins are born-again Christians. While always a good career move when seeking parole in the secular courts, I don’t doubt their sincerity: certainly no human within three standard deviations of sanity could or would grant absolution for their deeds, leaving only the supernatural to tell them “all you did was brutally murder an unborn child and a group of completely helpless people with a savagery that would have raised eyebrows at Auschwitz** and made seasoned crime investigators and morgue workers vomit- no sense beating yourself up over it”…
All three destroyed the physical lives of their victims and the emotional lives of their victims’s families (and, for that matter, their own families).
to something more akin to this:
All three were followers of Charles Manson. Now all three say “meh, he wasn’t all that… I don’t know what we were thinking”. Watson and Atkins are born-again Christians, always a good career move when seeking parole in the secular courts. All three destroyed the physical lives of their victims and the emotional lives of their victims’s families (and, for that matter, their own families).
And I would spell “nuclear” properly. Making fun of Bush’s pronunciation won’t win you any points with people. It just comes across as immature.
Watson and Atkins are both supported in their bids for parole, incidentally, by Jan & Paul Crouch and several other conservative Christian ministers who feel that the blood of Baby Jesus trumps that of the other half-Jewish baby whose blood figures so prominently in their life.
I know what point you’re trying to make, but you’ll have a hard time winning points with Christians, since this comes across as slightly mocking to Christianity. You might want to reword it.
OK, assume I’m a reader of this newspaper. I’ve reached this point and I’m wondering, “So where the hell is he going with this?” You’ve waited too long to reach your point, and I’m afraid you’re going to lose most people before you can get to it.
A lot of the details regarding the Manson murders are irrelevant. See if you can make your point in about a quarter of the time. To give you an idea of how much you wrote, it’s 4-5 magazine pages. So unless this is an op-ed piece in Time Magazine, you don’t stand much chance of getting it published.
I think I’ll also take out Beausoleil altogether since his crime wasn’t as famous and needs some explication.
I’ll also keep the long piece up for future reference, but essentially rewrite it completely for inclusion in a paper. How long is generally the longest length you can realistically hope to get published?
Several newspapers I’ve seen with guidelines about letters to the editor ask for a maximum of 200 words – which they’ll waive on very limited circumstances, as for example when the CEO of something responds to an article or letter regarding his firm or agency explaining the complex circumstances under which it must operate. General material from the public is normally held to that limit, though.
Sampiro
October 14, 2004, 3:52pm
10
Why must so much of my life be spent apologizing for excessive length
Actually I might scrap it altogether and go for something more to the point. (I must admit I don’t often read letters to the editor as they tend to get me worked up as if I were watching The 700 Club).
Have to say though, for something I wrote in 30 minutes after the debate last night I rather like it, but all points are extremely well taken and appreciated.
Bill_H
October 14, 2004, 7:30pm
11
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t make it past the first 5 or 6 paragraphs, and had it been in the paper I wouldn’t have made it past the first one. I did scan the bottom, but that was even worse; there are four footnotes, where there should be none, and above that it says “Official conclusion soon”, which sounds to me like you intended to bloat this beast even further.
You claim it’s heading towards a point about gay marriage and I believe you. But if your goal is actual publication, you’ll need to cut way more than the 50% suggested above. I’d suggest cutting it down to 3-5 paragraphs tops. Maybe even less.
Sampiro
October 21, 2004, 7:40pm
12
I’ve condensed this to about 750 words (735 to be precise). Any thoughts?
In August 1969 Susan Atkins held down Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant and pleading for the life of her unborn son, while Charles “Tex” Watson stabbed the actress fifteen times. The same night Atkins and Watson murdered or helped murder six other innocent people; later that week they helped mutilate and murder Leno & Rosemary LaBianca. To this day the “Helter Skelter” murders, unique in their barbarity, still literally cause nightmares. Separate juries assembled in one of the nation’s most liberal states voted unanimously to sentence everyone involved in the crimes to death.
Atkins and Watson are destroyers of life who have contributed nothing to the society that has had to pay millions of dollars to prosecute and confine them. Nevertheless they are, in the estimation of George W. Bush and his supporters, less threatening to the American family than the most law abiding, peaceful and productive individual among the 1,200,000+ Americans members of gay domestic partnerships recorded in the 2000 census.
While their trips down death row were regrettably cut short, Atkins and Watson both made it down the aisle. Atkins married a bogus billionaire whom she divorced upon learning his fortune was as non-existent as her humanity and is now the “stay at home” wife of a Harvard educated attorney twenty years her junior. Watson married in 1981 and through conjugal visits became the father of four children who visit him at Mule Creek Maximum Security Prison. (Other murderers who have married include fellow Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil, “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, both of the Menendez orphans, Texas death house graduate Karla Faye Tucker and serial killer Ted Bundy [who begat a daughter while on death row].)
Whether you approve or disapprove of the right of incarcerated mass murderers to marry is irrelevant; they have it. Their right has been upheld more than once by the Supreme Court who ruled (in Zablocki v. Redhail, when the court was comprised of seven Republican appointees) that “since the right to marry is of fundamental importance” it cannot be denied them. Yet surprisingly the sky hasn’t fallen; law-abiding people still enter into the institution, none of them evidently feeling soiled for having said the same vows as those who could be reasonably deemed the lowest scum of American society. And while a few people have, for whatever odd reason, chosen to marry a convict, nobody has felt compelled to do so and no normal person’s marriage is hurt by it. Marriage therefore is Manson-proof, but not queer-proof.
In February 2004 Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin, partners since 1952 and the taxpaying law abiding authors of two groundbreaking works, became the first same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in California. To the delight of conservative Christians across the nation their marriage was overturned a few months later. In the same state is a woman who began molesting her own baby months before debating whether to cut out the dead fetus inside the actress she had murdered and deliver it as a trophy to the convicted pimp, thief, drug dealer, rapist and murderer she worshipped as a god, a woman who told her horrified victim “I have no mercy for you bitch”, drank her victims’ blood and snickered while the details were recounted in court, and this woman’s marriage is safe, legally recognized in and indissoluble by the governments of the nation and the fifty states. And of the two unions, it is the former that Bush feels so strong a need to protect America from that he is willing to amend the Constitution to do it.
A straight person may not understand how frustrating, humiliating and infuriating it is to be told that their right to legal kinship with the person they love is of less consequence than that of the most heinous killers in American history, or to be told that you so great a danger to the lives and liberties of married couples that the Constitution itself must be amended with the first amendment ever specifically designed to deny a right to a specific group of Americans. I do understand this, and that is why I find in the opportunity against George Bush all of the passion I lack in supporting John Kerry. There are many reasons besides this one that inform my decision, but this one alone is enough; I will not be told that I am less deserving than a Manson.
Sampiro
October 21, 2004, 7:45pm
13
I’ve condensed this to about 750 words (735 to be precise). Any thoughts?
In August 1969 Susan Atkins held down Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant and pleading for the life of her unborn son, while Charles “Tex” Watson stabbed the actress fifteen times. The same night Atkins and Watson murdered or helped murder six other innocent people; later that week they helped mutilate and murder Leno & Rosemary LaBianca. To this day the “Helter Skelter” murders, unique in their barbarity, still literally cause nightmares. Separate juries assembled in one of the nation’s most liberal states voted unanimously to sentence everyone involved in the crimes to death.
Atkins and Watson are destroyers of life who have contributed nothing to the society that has had to pay millions of dollars to prosecute and confine them. Nevertheless they are, in the estimation of George W. Bush and his supporters, less threatening to the American family than the most law abiding, peaceful and productive individual among the 1,200,000+ Americans members of gay domestic partnerships recorded in the 2000 census.
While their trips down death row were regrettably cut short, Atkins and Watson both made it down the aisle. Atkins married a bogus billionaire whom she divorced upon learning his fortune was as non-existent as her humanity and is now the “stay at home” wife of a Harvard educated attorney twenty years her junior. Watson married in 1981 and through conjugal visits became the father of four children who visit him at Mule Creek Maximum Security Prison. (Other murderers who have married include fellow Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil, “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, both of the Menendez orphans, Texas death house graduate Karla Faye Tucker and serial killer Ted Bundy [who begat a daughter while on death row].)
Whether you approve or disapprove of the right of incarcerated mass murderers to marry is irrelevant; they have it. Their right has been upheld more than once by the Supreme Court who ruled (in Zablocki v. Redhail , when the court was comprised of seven Republican appointees) that “since the right to marry is of fundamental importance” it cannot be denied them. Yet surprisingly the sky hasn’t fallen; law-abiding people still enter into the institution, none of them evidently feeling soiled for having said the same vows as those who could be reasonably deemed the lowest scum of American society. And while a few people have, for whatever odd reason, chosen to marry a convict, nobody has felt compelled to do so and no normal person’s marriage is hurt by it. Marriage therefore is Manson-proof, but not queer-proof.
In February 2004 Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin, partners since 1952 and the taxpaying law abiding authors of two groundbreaking works, became the first same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in California. To the delight of conservative Christians across the nation their marriage was overturned a few months later. In the same state is a woman who began molesting her own baby months before debating whether to cut out the dead fetus inside the actress she had murdered and deliver it as a trophy to the convicted pimp, thief, drug dealer, rapist and murderer she worshipped as a god, a woman who told her horrified victim “I have no mercy for you bitch”, drank her victims’ blood and snickered while the details were recounted in court, and this woman’s marriage is safe, legally recognized and indissoluble by the governments of the nation and the fifty states. And of the two unions, it is the former that Bush feels so strong a need to protect America from that he is willing to amend the Constitution to do it.
A straight person may not understand how frustrating, humiliating and infuriating it is to be told that their right to legal kinship with the person they love is of less consequence than that of the most heinous killers in American history, or to be told they are so great a danger to the lives and liberties of married couples that the Constitution itself must be amended with the first amendment ever specifically designed to deny a right to a specific group of law abiding American citizens. I do understand this, and that is why I find in the opportunity to vote against George Bush the passion I lack in supporting John Kerry. There are many reasons besides this one that inform my decision, but this one alone is enough; I will not be told that I am less deserving than a Manson.
I hope you don’t mind a light edit; I work as a copy editor for two college publications and wanted to do what I could:) And of course anyone with an issue over one of my edits is free to raise such here.
In August 1969, Susan Atkins held down Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant and pleading for the life of her unborn son, while Charles “Tex” Watson stabbed the actress fifteen times. That same night, Atkins and Watson murdered or helped to murder six other innocent people; later that week, they helped mutilate and murder Leno & Rosemary LaBianca. To this day, the “Helter Skelter” murders, unique in their barbarity, still literally cause nightmares. Separate juries assembled in one of the nation’s most liberal states voted unanimously to sentence to death everyone involved in these crimes.
Atkins and Watson are destroyers of life who have contributed nothing to the society that has had to pay millions of dollars to prosecute and confine them. Nevertheless they are, in the estimation of George W. Bush and his supporters, less threatening to the American family than the most law-abiding, peaceful and productive individual among the more than 1.2 million Americans members of gay domestic partnerships recorded in the 2000 census.
While their trips down death row were regrettably cut short, Atkins and Watson both made it down that aisle. Atkins married a bogus billionaire whom she divorced upon learning his fortune was as non-existent as her humanity, and is now the “stay at home” wife of a Harvard educated attorney twenty years her junior. Watson married in 1981 and, through conjugal visits, became the father of four children who visit him at Mule Creek Maximum Security Prison. (Other murderers who have married include fellow Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil, “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, both of the Menendez orphans, Texas death house graduate Karla Faye Tucker and serial killer Ted Bundy; Bundy begat a daughter while on death row.)
Whether you approve or disapprove of the right of incarcerated mass murderers to marry is irrelevant; they have it. This right has been upheld more than once by the Supreme Court who ruled (in Zablocki v. Redhail, when the court was comprised of seven Republican appointees) that “since the right to marry is of fundamental importance” it cannot be denied them. Yet, surprisingly, the sky hasn’t fallen; law-abiding people still enter into the institution, none of them evidently feeling soiled for having recited the same vows as those who could be reasonably deemed the lowest scum of American society. And while a few people have, for whatever odd reason, chosen to marry convicts, nobody has felt compelled to do so and no normal person’s marriage is hurt by it. Marriage therefore is Manson-proof, but not queer-proof.
In February 2004, Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin, partners since 1952 and the taxpaying, law-abiding authors of two groundbreaking works, became the first same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in California. To the delight of conservative Christians across the nation, their marriage was overturned a few months later. In the same state lives a woman who began molesting her own baby months before debating whether to cut out the dead fetus inside the actress she had murdered and to deliver it as a trophy to the convicted pimp, thief, drug dealer, rapist and murderer she worshipped as a god, a woman who told her horrified victim “I have no mercy for you, bitch,” drank her victims’ blood and snickered while the details were recounted in court. This woman’s marriage is safe, legally recognized and indissoluble by the governments of the nation and the fifty states. And of the two unions, it is the former that Bush feels so strong a need to protect America from that he is willing to amend the Constitution to do it.
Straight people may not understand how frustrating, humiliating and infuriating it is to be told that their right to legal kinship with the person they love is of less consequence than that of the most heinous killers in American history, or to be told they are so great a danger to the lives and liberties of married couples that the Constitution itself must be amended with the first amendment ever specifically designed to deny a right to a specific group of law-abiding American citizens. I do understand this, and that is why I find in the opportunity to vote against George Bush the passion I lack in supporting John Kerry. There are many reasons beside this one that inform my decision, but this one alone is enough; I will not be told that I am less deserving than a Manson.
GomiBoy
October 22, 2004, 1:17pm
15
One itty bitty edit - and please feel free to accept / reject…
In August 1969, Susan Atkins held down Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant and pleading for the life of her unborn son, while Charles “Tex” Watson stabbed the actress fifteen times. That same night, Atkins and Watson murdered or helped to murder six other innocent people; later that week, they helped mutilate and murder Leno & Rosemary LaBianca. To this day, the “Helter Skelter” murders, unique in their barbarity, still literally cause nightmares. Separate juries assembled in one of the nation’s most liberal states voted unanimously to sentence to death everyone involved in these crimes.
While their trips down death row were regrettably cut short, Atkins and Watson both made it down the aisle. Atkins married a bogus billionaire whom she divorced upon learning his fortune was as non-existent as her humanity, and is now the “stay at home” wife of a Harvard educated attorney twenty years her junior. Watson married in 1981 and, through conjugal visits, became the father of four children who visit him at Mule Creek Maximum Security Prison. (Other murderers who have married include fellow Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil, “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, both of the Menendez orphans, Texas death house graduate Karla Faye Tucker and serial killer Ted Bundy; Bundy begat a daughter while on death row.)
Atkins and Watson are destroyers of life who have contributed nothing to the society that has had to pay millions of dollars to prosecute and confine them. Nevertheless they are, in the estimation of George W. Bush and his supporters, less threatening to the American family than the most law-abiding, peaceful and productive individual among the more than 1.2 million Americans members of gay domestic partnerships recorded in the 2000 census.
Whether you approve or disapprove of the right of incarcerated mass murderers to marry is irrelevant; they have it. This right has been upheld more than once by the Supreme Court who ruled (in Zablocki v. Redhail, when the court was comprised of seven Republican appointees) that “since the right to marry is of fundamental importance” it cannot be denied them. Yet, surprisingly, the sky hasn’t fallen; law-abiding people still enter into the institution, none of them evidently feeling soiled for having recited the same vows as those who could be reasonably deemed the lowest scum of American society. And while a few people have, for whatever odd reason, chosen to marry convicts, nobody has felt compelled to do so and no normal person’s marriage is hurt by it. Marriage therefore is Manson-proof, but not queer-proof.
In February 2004, Phyllis Lyon & Del Martin, partners since 1952 and the taxpaying, law-abiding authors of two groundbreaking works, became the first same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in California. To the delight of conservative Christians across the nation, their marriage was overturned a few months later. It is this union, rather than the unions of murderers, child abusers, and serial rapists, that Bush feels such a strong need to protect America from and that he is willing to amend the Constitution to ensure.
Straight people may not understand how frustrating, humiliating and infuriating it is to be told that their right to legal kinship with the person they love is of less consequence than that of the most heinous killers in American history, or to be told they are so great a danger to the lives and liberties of married couples that the Constitution itself must be amended with the first amendment ever specifically designed to deny a right to a specific group of law-abiding American citizens. I do understand this, and that is why I find in the opportunity to vote against George Bush the passion I lack in supporting John Kerry. There are many reasons beside this one that inform my decision, but this one alone is enough; I will not be told that I am less deserving than a Watson, Bundy, or Tucker.
Well I was going to email you, Sampiro , but your address bounced;)
astro
October 22, 2004, 5:16pm
17
At 700 + words it’s still way, way too long for a typical “letter to the editor”. You’re writing an editorial. You need to cut in half (at least) or ask the paper for an OP-ed response opportunity. I know the issue is very meaningful to you, but you need to focus on communicating in as few words as possible.
Plus, while I respect your intent and sympathize with your cause, your “murderers get to marry, but we don’t” point, is a largely beside the point for most people. Murderer’s don’t lose their heterosexual “inherent right to marry” status because they’re “bad” people, nor do gay people gain it because they are “good” people.
I just don’t think there’s a lot of rhetorical purchase with the “Human scum can marry but we can’t?” postion re gay marriage, unless the attacked argument is taking the position, directly and explicitly, that being being gay=moral failure > no marriage for gays because they are moral failures.
astro:
I just don’t think there’s a lot of rhetorical purchase with the “Human scum can marry but we can’t?” postion re gay marriage, unless the attacked argument is taking the position, directly and explicitly, that being being gay=moral failure > no marriage for gays because they are moral failures.
But a lot of people do believe that gay = moral failure. Maybe at least some of those will go, “Hey, you know, he makes a good point. I may think being gay is wrong, but if I’m not opposed to convicts marrying, what right do I have to prevent others from doing the same?”
I like the edited down version better. Maybe you can find a magazine that you could publish it in if the newspaper isn’t interested. Dan Savage has written articles on gay rights in Playboy.
ouryL
October 22, 2004, 5:59pm
19
I would edit it down to half its length but kept the original available to those who wish to read it.
:eek: :eek:
DeadlyAccurate:
But a lot of people do believe that gay = moral failure. Maybe at least some of those will go, “Hey, you know, he makes a good point. I may think being gay is wrong, but if I’m not opposed to convicts marrying, what right do I have to prevent others from doing the same?”
This gives me a thought, and maybe it’s valid and maybe it isn’t … there are many people who feel that alternatives to heterosexuality are choices; some believe that those in the gay community have been ensnared by the devil or something similar to that.
There are many who believe that the Manson murderers were not mentally ensnared by Manson (that they chose to do as they did) and there are many who believed he hypnotized them or otherwise caused them to lose some ability to distinguish right from wrong. That seems a significant parallel structure and one that might logically appeal to some.
Of course, you’re also going to run into people who don’t think convicts should have any rights at all, but you can’t reach everyone with just one argument.
?