Relationship Gondolas (Part 1)

For my inaugural post, I am eviscerating an article that I found on the web that purports to give tips on how to build a better gay relationship. My problem with the article is not the topic, rather, my problem is with the lack of clarity and editing. Writing is not an easy task, as it requires a critical eye and countless sessions of editing and rewrites. I, more than anyone, know how difficult and anxiety-inducing putting the written word out in public view can be (I write a lot on Facebook and have received my own fair-share of critiques based on the ideas I have shared and how I expressed those ideas). One thing remains true about writing: no matter how appropriate a topic is, it cannot be taken seriously if it is poorly written. Reading should not be an exercise in frustration.

There will be multiple entries for this particular article, so you will need to read these entries in reverse, working bottom to top.

So, without further ado, here is the beginning of a very painful read.

Article: Here Is What's Missing From Gay Romance Today

Problem #1: The Opening Paragraph

I didn't realize that you can get seasick from a gondola metaphor

The best way I can describe the opening to this article is that it is similar to driving roads in Ohio after this past winter--it was a very bumpy ride. I lurched from sentence to sentence, trying to mentally rewrite it into something more readable. The only way this could have been worse would have been if it started out with 'It was a dark and stormy night...'

A better way to have written the opening might be:

Think of a relationship as a gondola ride: the gondola is the relationship, love is the water upon which the gondola floats, and romance is the oar which propels the gondola forward. A relationship without love and romance is like a gondola in a canal without water and an oar to propel it; the gondola exists, but has no ability to progress. 

In my view, the edit above is a stronger opening when compared with the choppiness written by the author. The author's opening also makes it painfully apparent that he doesn't truly know how a gondola is propelled, as he makes reference to both wind and "ore" (Do gondolas typically use canvas or nylon sails? I wonder if one type of ore is better than another when used to propel a gondola?). One good rule to follow is that if you are going to use an analogy or metaphor, make sure you understand the subject of your analogy or metaphor before using it.

Along similar lines, it is important for an author to understand the context in which a word is used, as context drives an author's diction. Unfortunately for this author, it would appear that an or is an ore is an oar. Based on this first paragraph, all I can now see in my mind's eye is a gondolier throwing large chunks of undetermined ore behind a gondola in order to create waves to help propel the 'love boat' forward. However, if the winds are favorable in Venice, or in the Venetian Casino and Resort in Las Vegas for that matter, the gondolier can choose to hoist a sail instead.

Once recovered from the seasickness of the opening gondola ride, the author decides to throw a car metaphor at us in order to really drive home his point (pun intended here). Is there a need for this? I'm going to have to go with a resounding NO. Had the author opened his paragraph better, there would be no need to add additional information to explain his viewpoint. If the author added this because he wasn't sure his readership would understand what a gondola was, the author shouldn't have used the gondola in the first place.

Here is the first Captain Picard facepalm to sum up my feelings about the opening paragraph: