Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2008/08/11/blitzing_by_the_book.php
Monday, August 11, 2008
How does one begin to explain what Blitz is? The best explanation I’ve heard offered is that Blitz is the bastard child of email and instant messaging, combining important elements of both while lacking enough of the crucial elements of either to put it firmly in one camp or the other. As to the hybridization of email and instant messaging into blitz, it’s reflected well by the lack of a set of understood standards in the typical blitz. Even the most eloquent email writer dumbs down his writing for a blitz; who hasn’t felt that the use of proper capitalization leads to an unnecessarily formal blitz? And even the most gregarious chatter feels the need for an obligatory waiting period before blitzing someone back, so as not to seem desperate, or without a better alternative (exceptions are made however for finals period).
David Shipley and Will Schwalbe attack the problem of good email head-on in their recent book Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home. Utilizing a slew of actual examples from their own lives, those of their friends, and the news stories highlighting examples of email that should never have been sent (e.g. Alberto Gonzalez), they create a humorous narrative that provides a road-map to navigating email.
The most important lesson Shipley and Schwalbe give is when not to write an email at all. More often than not email is not the appropriate way to communicate. If you’re scheduling plans, then blitz serves just fine, but when you’re trying to meet up with someone or make a last minute adjustment to a meeting, dinner plans, pong date, etc., then that’s something probably better handled by a phone call. Dartmouth probably encourages this a bit too much with the proliferation of blitz terminals all over campus—who hasn’t waited in the Thayer lobby checking blitz every five minutes instead of humiliating himself by making a call? This trends seems to be dissipating as time goes on though—you can finally call a friend to tell them you’re holding table without harassment (unless you stumble into Phi Delt). Unfortunately, the pea-green freshmen do seem to have adopted the phone too much as anyone who has ever tried to schedule a meeting with them can attest, for they seem to check blitz about once a day. Clearly, moderation is needed.
Similarly, a problem can be exacerbated by sending a blitz instead of handling it more directly, most obviously apologies. Though everyone’s familiar with the high-art form that is the apology blitz, sometimes it would be both easier and better in the long run to make that apology in person (or god forbid, a call)—not to mention it does prevent the recipient from showing or forwarding it to friends. Blitzes are sent off too frequently and easily for anyone to think much emotion went into the apology anyway, while a face-to-face conversation can better express the regret you have about hosing someone’s room.
Beyond this, Shipley and Schwalbe warn about the pitfalls of having that permanent record of correspondence readily available, which can transform even the most innocent message into something incriminating down the line. We’ve all sent an insulting blitz to a friend about a mutual acquaintance, which at the time seems forgettable and a chance to prove how funny we think we are. However, deniability disappears if that friend forwards the offending message to that acquaintance. Don’t take this to be an endorsement of gossiping, but rather a suggestion that if you do gossip do try and avoid liability.
Speaking of liability, some good advice is to never send anything you don’t want the authorities to find out about. In the wider world it’s a bad idea to send a blitz like: “did we work out that illegal stuff?”; “did you buy that stuff?”; or “the intern’s in Rock Creek Park.” There are plenty of blitzes you don’t want to send, ones that implicate you in cheating, drug use, underage drinking, hazing, conservative cabals, and the like. Those blitzes seem to have a higher likelihood of reappearing in the most inconvenient places, and there seems to be enough evidence to not discount the chance that the College can intercept and review your blitzes. This isn’t to say they should or shouldn’t, but you just might not want to organize that math cheating ring through blitz.
Another landmine that we fall into they call the “Emotional [Blitz];” for Dartmouth’s purposes I think you can break it into three types: the Emotional Blitz, the Drunk Blitz, and the Emotional Drunk Blitz. The emotional blitz is exactly what it sounds like—it’s when you send off that angry or desperate blitz that makes dealing with a problem harder in the long run, or makes you look like an idiot later. Some people find it cathartic to write out a blitz and then delete it, but just as many people find it cathartic to intend to delete the blitz but hit the wrong key stroke, and voilà, you just told your professor what you really think about him. Drunk blitzing usually follows the same idea, but with the caveat that it is infinitely more entertaining, tragic, or both. As a rule I say avoid the drunk blitz—it’s a bad habit to get into—but if you’re that guy, don’t quit while you’re ahead, you just have to own it at this point. Sending out an emotional blitz while drunk should always be avoided; I’ve yet to meet anyone who didn’t regret sending that blitz to an ex after six games.
Beyond simply enumerating the pitfalls of blitzing, there are plenty of pieces of good advice that we should heed. First off, the importance of the subject line. I’ll readily admit to not really understanding its purpose and frequently leaving it blank or with an obligatory “hey,” which while not a great offence is really a waste of a great tool. To all of you who start a blitz about studying with a subject line “why don’t we…” and then finish the thought in the body of the blitz, think of what a waste that is. Rather, use the subject line to say “study” and having properly set up the subject of the message, address the logistics in the body, or even better don’t put anything in the message just say “Study in Novak @ 9?” Much simpler, no?
As for etiquette, once you’ve reached the body of the blitz, there are a few things to look out for. One, capitals are fine to use, but always avoid caps-lock, it makes you look like an idiot. Also, mind the grammar you use, it can it make you look like you’re being short with someone, or conversely pretentious. The structure of your writing gives the blitz a voice. A good way to see it is by examining the over- and under-utilized exclamation mark, if you get a blitz that says, “good job, mike”, it might be sarcastic, where as “good job, mike!!!” actually seems sincere. Don’t be afraid to use the exclamation point when praising, chances are people will appreciate it. You pretty much can’t go wrong if you just remember that emotion is conveyed by the structure of your writing and people will project their own feelings on something that’s not obvious; thus, your goal should be clarity and writing that seems appropriate for your recipient (don’t blitz President Wright and call him “bro”, and don’t blitz someone in your seminar “Dear John”).
A final note on sign-offs: sincerely is immensely cold. You can get away with it on a cover letter, but it’s a little frigid in any blitz; stick with “best” or “cheers,” which are vapid but safe.