Ever since I took a call from the letters Editor at The Times in March 1999, I’ve fallen into writing about environmental stuff. Usually on topics many might seek to avoid or ignore.
OK, let’s dive in. Hedgehogs, horsemeat, sea eagles, badgers, raptors, deer, fungi, little owl, wildfire, invasive species, conifers, ducks, urban foxes, stoats, National Parks, indoor livestock, pesticides, flooding, ash dieback (five), midges, bees…(that’s enough Ed, there’s more here)
Pithy works
Short letters are hard to write. Keeping them pithy, pertinent and peculiar is key to being published. As my subjects are often primary ‘industries’ – farming, forestry, wildlife conservation etc – complexity does not convert easily to reductionism. Spotting a different angle on the subject – as I tipped to this farming magazine – is one thing, providing context almost nigh impossible: as this short thread on twitterX shows re my latest letter.
Especially as pragmatic suggestions may not lean in towards photogenic or ‘iconic’ wildlife (see below).
Long gone are a telephone call from the Letters Editor. It’s a faster world. A more fickle readership. Perhaps also editors further from the environmental frontline. There’s less time to be curious, inquisitive or check information so it’s just easier to publish and be damned – and hopefully trigger a response!
Curiously skeptical
Are we afraid today of putting our heads above the parapet? Do we fear being perceived as a skeptic? Too inconveniently inquisitive? Perhaps too disruptive of a popular narrative? Perceived to break ranks from the ‘usual voices’? Dare to question groupthink?
Printed newspaper letters are a safe haven compared to keyboard faceless social media interactions.
Mind you, if “a newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier” (H L Mencken), there’s always optimism in seeking honesty on land use trade-offs – as in this Guardian letter.
Bravely to the keyboard
Be brave. Be curious. Be glad newspapers still insist on a name and address though, fear not, they don’t publish your full details. They might contact you to check details and exact meaning or even spelling, as in this anaerobic (not aerobic) digestif below (here).
Unaffiliated freethinking
After 25 years of scribbling, I note the subjects come around again. Some of my past letters make me gulp (see addendum below), but in the spirit of Aldo Leopold, who critically revised his opinions, I’m open to changing my mind as part of seeking fresh ways to broker dialogue.
Our lifespans are no more than a shifting baseline of recurring and new thoughts. Make some of yours count: go write a letter!
“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
Albert Einstein
ps I’m delighted this wildlife conservation scientist was inspired to pen a letter on a controversial subject!
Addendum: In case you wondering what I’ve said, I’m publishing all 135 of my Times letters to date (via TwitterX hashtag #blackgullview) in a ‘warts and all’ retrospective.
Keep it coming. It’s refreshing.
Best
James
Gather them all together and make a pdf of them. I’ve only had half your number published, but it makes a fascinating text of how one’s thinking moves with time.
They’ve not published any of mine in the last 5 years – must be under a new letters editor!
I’ve noticed the new letters Ed is wary of my persistence! Or perhaps the readership has shifted. Who knows. Just keep writing!
Rob – great piece, thank you! Will read all your letters avidly…
Rob, I find your take on some of these issues fascinating. I’d like to stick a bottle between us and go much further, I don’t think we’d agree but we’d find a path.