Chat

No offense taken!

While the summary brings up most of the salient points (it totally misses that I've written editorials, which is the strongest selling point I have in this version), it does not convey any sort of intent or vocabulary past middle school.

Interestingly, this was my first draft and is roughly half the length of a later version that reflected edits and suggestions from a colleague of a decade.

Your feedback is helpful for considering the expectations of my intended audience. The problem I faced in writing this is that I have two functional writing voices: the informal, breezy version used for this post (which is how I speak short of dependent clauses in the predicate usually hanging off the verb instead of as far back as they end up in writing), and (for lack of a better term) the Voice of God used for the serious shit.

While the latter is what I am attempting to return to careerwise, I fear selling myself with that voice (already a tough ask in the third person) would fare far worse. When you are reading a publication, a fair amount of self-selection on tone and authority level has already happened on the part of both the org and the reader. A random post on the internet does not come with that built in, so punchy declarative sentences with sparse dependent clauses and thesis reiteration would make me end up sounding like a pretentious asshole to nearly everyone.

On balance, this feels the lesser of the issues. And while a less ... flourished take might get more nibbles, it's false advertising to attempt a voice I don't use, to say nothing of how bad I think the results would turn out.

Over and over again in life, both personally and professionally, there's been an aside, a turn of phrase, a throwaway line that gets me the interview or the date. It's never the boilerplate, because writing ability is table stakes; being able to connect through the serendipity of personality in the rest has been the winning strategy.