In a time when the quality of journalism is often equated to the number of shares an article receives on social media, it would seem that you have struck upon the golden formula. Now, I am speaking not to the political activists such Fouad Ben Ahmed who write open letters to their governments, but rather those who pen open letters to people that have had a significant impact on their life such as former significant others or college roommates. These open letters focus on universal experiences that are oh so very relatable to most of the millennial target audience and are therefore very share-able, the standard for success in online journalism.

However, in order to remain relatable, these letters tend to follow a certain formula. The letters must be just a touch vague. Part of the success of these letters in my view is that they are devoid of details that would be too specific and alienate readers. The writer must build a skeleton based on emotion and let their reader supply the meat. For instance, if we look at articles that are open letters to the person with whom the writer’s significant other cheated on the writer, the writer may leave out details on the exact relationship between the letter’s target and their significant other or perhaps how exactly they discovered that their partner was cheating. Penning an open letter to that coworker he knew from high school that he claimed wasn’t a threat because he isn’t interested in redheads is a bit too specific and would keep the reader from relating and feeling close to the writer. In a sense, the lack of details can help the writer remain anonymous, but they also allow their reader to put in those details, or rather the details from their own experience of having a cheating significant other or whatever the topic may be. The writer includes all the raw emotion needed to stir up the same feelings the reader experienced while the actual events may differ completely. The share button is clicked with a feeling of kinship.

The formula follows a second part as well: the article must maintain some sense of the writer (and thus the reader who relates strongly to them) being the protagonist of their story, a hero despite flaws. If the letter takes the form of an apology, the writer will focus on how they have realized the flaws in their previous actions and have now grown. This allows the reader to feel that they will also become a better person if they have made mistakes in their past. If the letter instead is like our previous example of being an open letter to a cheating partner, the writer may choose to focus on how through all the pain they have realized that they are a stronger person with too much self-esteem to take back a significant other who chose another over them. Even in genuine flaw, the writer may place a positive spin. We do not want to be emotionally distant and have issues with empathy; we want to be the “alpha” who is learning not to put up with the behavior of those around us. We all want to be on our hero’s journey with emotional growth through times of hardship. The reader will refuse to relate to an article that paints the writer with whom they share similar experiences as the antagonist in another’s life; that would make them a villain as well. No, the share button is clicked with a feeling of self-righteousness.

With all this in mind, I am not here to criticize you, the writers of open letters. This formula results in a successful article for you, but it can also help your readers feel less alone. I have shared many an article with the feeling that I don’t have to be ashamed of my past actions or the actions of others towards me. If someone was open enough to share that experience, even the vague version that places them in the hero’s role, I can certainly be a hero in my own right. Thank you, writers of open letters, for creating a formula to help start dialogues.