Many writers assume persuasion begins the moment their argument appears on the page. However, it begins much earlier, in how the writer understands the truth they are trying to convey. When writing is treated as a way of proving a point, the tone tends to harden and the sentences become more authoritative, which can create a subtle resistance in the reader. However, when writing is treated as a way of revealing something worth reading, the tone broadens, and the argument unfolds in a way that invites attention instead of demanding it.
This distinction explains why two writers can come to the same subject and produce entirely different results. One creates conflict while the other creates dialogue. A writer must first take the time to wrestle with and understand a topic to determine what needs to be said, and then begin to write. This internal foundation is the sort of writing Scripture commends when it describes words that are “gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).
Rhetoric, the art of speaking or writing effectively, presents an idea so it can be seen clearly and followed without being vague. Effective persuasion depends on a reader’s implicit trust in the writer and that author’s clear and unfettered language. When the writer sounds credible, the argument develops naturally, and the words flow freely.
Let my life be an example
of that which I know to be true,
and let my writing be a sample
that I might present to you
that reflects the Risen Saviour,
the bright axis of my days
in whose Heart I have found favour,
and for whom I live in praise.
When you hear me do not see me
for my voice is not my own,
but only a thin transparency
through which the Gospel maybe sown
the smallest seeds, eager to grow
to the tallest trees you’ll know.
A word fitly spoken! Blessed are the peacemakers!
Looking forward to the next 6 parts. L
Good observation. Clear writing flows from clear thinking.
But how can a writer master clear thinking? Of more importance, how can a writer accurately assess how clear their thinking is? And how much better it could be?
Most of us learned to write and think in school. But how well?
Novice writers assume school writing skills suffice. Good writers know better. They work to become good writers.
Most people assume school thinking skills suffice. Good thinkers know better. They work to become good thinkers.
Many bestsellers contain dubious content and ideas. Often, few readers notice. I’ve seen respected professionals in the Christian publishing world present dubious content based on such best sellers—and watch novice writers applaud with great enthusiasm.
Decades in applied R&D and analytics forced me to develop two skill sets. First, distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable ones. Second, gaining insight into fundamental principles without getting lost in the details. Deadlines and real-world consequences drive such skill development. You don’t last long without it.
In other words, I learned to find good information and to figure out what it means.
To begin gaining these skills, practice asking and answering questions about content. What are the original sources? Are quotations taken in context? Are references reliable or unreliable? Is information complete or cherry picked? What does this sentence (or paragraph or section) actually say? What assumptions are being made? And these are just a start. Once you apply them to books you read, it becomes easier to apply to your own content. Once you see problems in books you read, it’s easier to see those problems in your own.
It takes effort to gain good skills in research and thinking. Just like it takes effort to move beyond school level essay writing to good writing.
I self-published a novella called In Plain Sight on Amazon 2 weeks ago. Its purpose is to create dialogue on difficult subjects. After reading your blog post, I hope I accomplish that with an inviting tone as opposed to authoritative.
Excellent. Thank you. I’ve been struggling with the argument vs. dialog issue for months. You’ve coached me through it!