(Brent Schwert)
You know what this paper needs? More columns about themselves.
It seems to me that you had a perfect opportunity with that “Column column” that was running a few weeks ago. Sure, it was heavy on form and light on content, but that just lent it to versatility. For example: That column would have probably been just at home in the Letters to the Editor section as it was under its own title.
You could think of it as the cockroach of printed material. A situation where there were no more interesting stories would mean an end for all other articles, columns, and any other media, really, but not that column. That column could have probably run forever without the input of any new material.
I’m sure that’s the kind of thing that gives editors nightmares, comparable to printing an incomplete headline or something. Honestly, though, it would be pretty exciting to see how long a writer could keep that up.
I wish I could write like that. I’ve tried, but I usually run out of ideas at about 181 words or so.
Actually, you should probably just bring that column back. I don’t think anybody else is willing to spend so much time to say nothing, at least not so obviously.
You could even keep the column that actually won the contest and just print the other one next to it. I know you’ve got the space to spare for this kind of nonsense.
I’d be willing to bet anything that what’s-his-name would jump at the chance to write a real column again. Heck, you wouldn’t even need to contact him – running this letter would probably be enough to give him the hint.
What’ve you got to lose, really? The worst-case scenario is that the column runs out of ideas and stops being printed (actually, the worst case scenario is that its content is bigoted and inflammatory, and that would only be a problem because of its redundancy on the Op/Ed page).
I say, give this meta-column one more chance. It seems almost certain that the joke could’ve been stretched a little further.
Almost.Drew Baumgartner
