Nib #36 — Hide the Poetry in the Alpo

You know the trick of getting a dog to take medicine by hiding the pill in his food?


There is a lesson in that for writers (like me!) with a weakness for quoting poetry, inspirational adages, and the words of Great Men in their work.


Don’t get me wrong. People cite the Bible and Shakespeare and Nelson Mandela and Abraham Lincoln for a reason. Good quotes can add depth, humor, or force to any piece of writing. It’s a club every writer needs in his or her bag.


On the other hand, gonging open a sentence with, “As the poet Maya Angelou once wrote…” or “In the words of Winston Churchill…” risks breaking the delicate mental communion between writer and audience. 


Many a good speech, oped, and academic paper has been derailed by an inapt, ostentatious cameo from Whitman, Orwell, or the Psalms.


So how can a writer know whether a given quote adds or detracts from his draft?


Here is a three-part test to help decide. 


First, does the quote contribute to the argument or story you’re writing? Is it “on the way” or more of a detour?


Second, can the quote be grafted seamlessly into your text, or does it require extra explanation and context? The more you’re writing about the quote, the more the quote needs to be worth it.


Third — and this is often the hardest part — are you using the quote to persuade and clarify, or just to impress? If it’s the latter, murder that darling.


The goal here is not to excise quotes from your writing, but to avoid “quotiness.” Don’t draw attention to your quotes unless you’re sure it serves the larger goal of the piece. Instead, weave the quotes into your arguments, stories, and reports so naturally and subtly that the readers — happily concentrating on the content of your writing — hardly notice.

Hide the poetry in the alpo.


Until next week… keep writing!

April 18, 2025
A good poem for Good Friday.
April 11, 2025
James Michael Curley's list of must-haves for public speakers (and speechwriters).
April 4, 2025
Two essays point to a generational opportunity for young writers.
March 28, 2025
Honest Abe was a great writer -- especially the one time he wasn't.
March 21, 2025
Not today, Satan.
March 14, 2025
The official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s big speech before Congress last week offered the country not only a contrast of political visions, but of rhetorical strategies. Trump’s address was defined by — and indeed, succeeded on — the strength of its concrete details: specific programs cut, specific heroes lauded, specific private-sector investments announced (See Nib #61 ). Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin’s nationally televised speech immediately following Trump was, too. But not obviously. Most of the specific details of the speech were biographical, in the first 100 words. After that, Slotkin glazed over issues with airbrushed generalities: “We need to bring down the price of things we spend the most money on…” “… change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe…” “Today’s world is deeply interconnected…” “We are a nation of strivers.” The climax of Slotkin’s speech was almost a parody of homogenized political banalities. The two things we need to overcome today’s challenges, according to Slotkin and her speechwriters: “Engaged citizens and principled leaders.” Woof. On the other hand, Democrats know this poll-tested pap won’t move the needle. So what’s really going on here? The most likely answer is what boxers call the “rope-a-dope.” That is, Slotkin’s — and by extension her party’s — plan here is to put up perfunctory, superficial resistance to bait Trump into overreaching or punching himself out. This is what Muhammed Ali famously did to George Foreman in 1974.
March 7, 2025
Tuesday night's address was a speechwriting masterclass in the power of specific detail.
February 28, 2025
How to use, and not use, intensifiers.
February 21, 2025
Why an old-school writing exercise may be more valuable than ever.
February 14, 2025
Three reasons why Republican politicians should write short press releases.
More Posts