F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” Objectivity is a vital aspect of writing. When readers are able to hold opposed ideas in mind, as Fitzgerald stated, they retain more information, which leads to a broader perspective. The idea of objective writing has been prominent in the world of literature since ancient days, when philosophy, writing, and many other elements of education were being born and formulated. Sophocles himself declared that, “Reason is God's crowning gift to man.” Possessing the ability to reason with two or more different points of view always strengthens the idea as a whole, because the understanding is greater.
There are certain types of mystery novels that are published in which the author chooses to present a different character's point of view in each chapter. Instead of the reader following the story from one angle, they are able to see what is going on all sides of the story. This allows the readers to think for themselves, gather more information, and analyze the facts independently, rather than relying on one source to solve the mystery. So it is with objectivity. With multiple arguments and facts presented, the reader is granted more freedom to be informed and come to their own conclusion. This idea also promotes a great deal of critical thinking. It's easy to read a one sided argument that only leaves you with the option of agreeing or disagreeing, but why have one slice of the pie when you can have the whole thing? Objectivity allows more room for critical thinking and analyzingbecause both reader and writer are made to see the facts (not fact) of an argument, and think for themselves.
Although society has been greatly impacted by subjective writers such as Mark Twain, Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, and many others, objective writing broadens perspective because it presents more information, thus leading to a wider range of viewpoints. This is not to say that objectivity is the one and only way to truth, or that subjectivity is wrong. There are many writers, both past and present, who have impacted the world in great and powerful ways by their subjective writing. Although their writing by itself is indeed subjective, when both their writing and the changes that their writing evoked are analyzed, the idea as a whole may be viewed as being objective. Each presented a different opinion than that of popular belief. These brilliant writers contributed missing pieces of the puzzle that were needed in order to see the bigger picture. This is what objectivity is all about, seeing the whole picture and understanding the truth. In the book Objectivity, author Tibor R. Machan echoes this principle when he states that “If we cannot know how things really are, we cannot confidently distinguish between the quacks and bona fide authorities.” Although their writings were opinionated and one sided, subjective writers brought some objectivity into the world by making others see what the “quacks,” media, and/or popular opinions withheld.
According to Webster's New World Dictionary, subjectivity means “of or resulting from the feelings of the person thinking.” Most journalists believe that in order to present the facts in the clearest way possible, you have to be opinionated. They believe that if both sides of a story, argument, or opinion are presented, the readers will respond passively, and not care about finding out the actual truth. This idea is reinforced by Brett Cunningham, a journalist for Columbia Journalism Review, when he states that objectivity makes readers “passive recipients of news, rather than aggressive analyzers and explainers of it.” Objectivity, although defined by some as the “fair” way of writing, can definitely be viewed as being “sugar coated,” or “beating around the bush.” If the readers do not know a lot about the subject, how can they be expected to choose which side of the story is correct? Subjective writing is beneficial because it is straightforward and concise.
Subjectivity has played an aggressive role in the world of literature. There have been subjective writers in our past that have changed the world. Their gripping literature was exactly what the world needed to hear in times of dishonesty, scandal, and confusion. To choose just one example, consider Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle, a book that was written subjectively to evoke a strong change. He wrote The Jungle to illustrate the horrible and unsanitary, even deathly, conditions of the meat packaging industries in a time of severe economic conditions. Sinclair wrote this book to prove a point, not two points. He wanted to make a statement that would force the readers to understand exactly what was going on behind their backs. Had Sinclair chosen to defend both the rights of the consumers and the positive qualities of the meat packaging industry, it is likely that he would not have gotten the strong and effective reaction that took place due to his book. He had a point to prove, and he got the truth out. This, in turn, changed the standards of food production, and even led to laws being enacted about pure food and drug that are still in practice today. As aforementioned, this is merely one example out of hundreds of others. Many of the greatest and most effective writers in the history of literature have been subjective. This writing tactic has proved to carry enough power in a well-written essay, book, poem, or other form of literature, that has literally changed the world and the way people think.
