Many are the nights where I struggle with each fleeting hour to inscribe my passing thoughts. Writing, even in a short column for Odyssey, can become a labor of love.
I find it somewhat insulting, then, that so many of my peers bear ill will toward Odyssey. Some of the jabs are subtle, others not even thinly veiled, but to me it is surprising that the resistance to a millennial social content site should be so vocal.
Those who demean Odyssey are frequently dismissive, generally unfair, and simply quite wrong. In my final piece for this publication, I believe the time has come to break my silence and respond to our critics.
These critics focus, for the most part, on two broad "issues" with our work: critiques of style, and critiques of substance.
Of style, the critics argue that Odyssey has none. They say our work is disorganized, poorly edited, and poorly written. They say that a writer for Odyssey is a glorified blogger.
They say they have never read a well-written article in Odyssey.
I have heard this from casual acquaintances and from close friends. I take this as an affront, because I may logically conclude that my social circle either does not respect or does not bother to read my work. If they choose not to read, they can hardly have an opinion; if they read my work and say this, they should have the courage to disrespect my writing to my face.
I never cease to marvel at the things people will say when they do not expect protest.
I notice many journalism and arts students tend to criticize the quality of writing in Odyssey articles, presumably because they consider their quality of writing superior. I would have thought those same students would understand the value of constructive rather than confrontational criticism.
This is to say nothing of the assault on our content itself. Odyssey writers are dismissed as hive-minded, vapid Greeks, and our substance ignored.
This is a dismissive stereotype. It is absurd enough that I could nearly spare myself offense - nearly.
Yes, many Odyssey writers write listicles, and yes, many Odyssey writers write about similar content areas. Finally, yes, many Odyssey writers are members of Greek organizations.
There is a method to all of this. Odyssey writers write listicles emphasizing common experiences because these are the articles millennial audiences are most likely to read.
I assure you that I would know. For a year, I wrote extensive sports and entertainment content; I wrote thorough political coverage; I eulogized luminaries such as Prince. Perhaps a handful of interested friends read these pieces.
If Odyssey articles lack substance, it is not because Odyssey writers lack substance. It is because many of the same readers who demean its lack of substance continue to prefer digestible listicles over op-eds; writers are merely meeting the demands of the clicking audience.
Furthermore, why should members of Greek life not have their say? I am not a member of a Greek organization; I think I can safely consider myself a neutral party. Given the proliferation of content hostile to fraternities and sororities in mainstream media, it hardly seems unreasonable that members of these organizations should seek their own voice.
Why should members of Greek life not write about the things that interest them, that make them happy? Surely most other writers do the same. Why should only college students in fraternal organizations be told their interests are too shallow for journalism?
Furthermore, an organization created as a mouthpiece for Greek life chose to extend a platform to uncounted non-Greeks such as myself across the country. Simply because we had ideas and a will to be heard, Odyssey gave us voice.
Is this the act of a shallow publication, or of one that respects pluralism?
Criticism of Odyssey writing is increasingly an act of personal judgment and anti-Greek sentiment. As I close this final piece, I hope any audience that sees fit to read this also sees fit to end the bashing of a content platform that has my respect and gratitude.
My thanks to Odyssey for giving me a chance.
