On Writing a Polemic

Writing the personality driven polemic was very hard because it inherently betrays emotion. In order to write about affirmative action angrily, I have to be angry. I have to be shrill and hysterical if I am to pretend that I am "a voice in the wilderness," as Cathy my professor says. Polemics are biased, providing only one view because they argue against the held "universal wisdom," and it is taken that the opposition already speaks for itself, everyday.

Polemics also lets me be judged in a different way than a normal piece of writing would. In a polemic, the reader can (rightfully) be annoyed at my whiny tone or wild tone or enraged tone, hate my personality, and then stop reading solely on that. There are not as many facts to disagree with (in the personality driven polemic), and the thought of someone attacking my personality (ad hominem!) as a critique is painful to acknowledge. Writers like to hide behind "the speaker" "the narrator" "Oh it's not really me." A polemic strips away that barrier, oh hell yes the writer is you, these are your feelings, these are your thoughts.

Now anyone can read my polemic and laugh at the fact that I'm some over-achieving Asian that failed to get into Harvard, or that I am some whiny bitch that couldn't make it. But polemics are meant to raise attention to the issue, not convince the reader. I'm supposed to have "won" if someone merely has a reaction to my piece. And that's my sole consolace for putting myself out there.