Last week at the Indiana Genealogical Society gatherings, newsletter editor Linda Herrick Swisher and quarterly editor Rachel Popma made multiple pleas for additional contributions, so that they can publish news and articles -- rather than indexes and the like that were once staples of genealogy publication, but now belong in on-line databases. When I got home, the spring issue of the Ohio Genealogical Society Quarterly had arrived, containing a similar request from editor Susan Dunlap Lee.
Why do they even have to ask?
Writing is one of the best ways to think through a tough problem, or to see what research options we've overlooked. It's also the best way to explain our research to others and to preserve its results, with both on-line and print options. The Board for the Certification of Genealogists specifies that no genealogical statement can be considered proven without "a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion," although obviously some will be longer than others.
So why do they even have to ask?
Partly it's because we're perfectionists -- there's always one more resource, one more road trip that might make our narrative tree even better.
Partly it's because we enjoy starting new projects more than the endless detail work required to actually complete the old ones.
Partly it's because writing is rarely as well or thoroughly taught as dribbling a round ball or throwing a pointy one. It's easier to go to extremes -- pretending either that anything put on paper is a valuable self-expression on one hand, or that it's important to follow all the rules (including bogus ones like never splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition) on the other.
Partly it's because writing does force us to think about what we have done, and whether it really makes sense. (Just as I suspect that folks are reluctant to cite their sources,not out of fear of the comma police, but because citation requires us to understand the source we're looking at instead of briskly moving on to the next one.)
In order to fulfill our potential as genealogists, we have to overcome these obstacles, some of them larger than others for different ones of us, but all present to some degree. There's no substitute for practice and coaching, whether by a group of peers or by a stern but compassionate editor. And there's no substitute for reading good writing either.
But mainly, even if you're only writing blog posts, there's no substitute for thinking. Cogent thoughts poorly expressed are relatively easy to fix. Confused thoughts, no matter how elegantly expressed, are more difficult to deal with. Of course, writing them out in plain language will help de-confuse them, so it's all good.
And our state editors are going to be so happy to see us!
Susan Dunlap Lee, "Immediate Need for Articles," Ohio Genealogical Society Quarterly 52, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 52.
Harold Henderson, "Why We Don't Write," Midwestern Microhistory: A Genealogy Blog, posted 6 May 2012 (http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com : accessed [access date]). [Please feel free to link to the specific post if you prefer.]
