Erstwhile Sound Politics commenter Scott St. Clair "Piper Scott" took time away from his bagpipes - and baiting emotionally handicapped trolls on HA - to pen a eulogy about William F. Buckley's passing; explaining how the founder of National Review and former Firing Line host transformed the Kirkland consultant's political philosophy and identity.

Since no one reads Crosscut and its articles on Portland's mass transit system, low-talent local artists or futile complaints about mixed-use developments the odds are fair you missed the column.

St. Clair's piece is linked here.

It was a bit of a surprise that no one here at Sound Politics commented on the conservative icon's passing; either on the main page or especially the Public Blog. Not sure what to chalk this up to.

For me, unlike the majority of conservative commentators, Buckley was not at all an influence to my political worldview. That comes, no doubt, from being a Gen-Xer. I began reading the editorial page in the 1990s and never found Buckley's work to be particularly relevant or interesting or hip to the times. It seemed like he was trying too hard to use a $20 dollar word in order to peddle a three-for-a-buck idea to even bother expending effort in engaging the reader.

That's a critique of writing style and not the man.

Obviously for older conservatives Buckley must have been like finding a natural well after wandering the Mohave on foot. With the exception perhaps of Sen. Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley was probably the most influential individual in shaping the modern conservative movement in the past half-century.

Few can boast of similar accomplishments.

One up: I had a hunch that I'd draw some response with this post although, to be frank, I thought there'd be more outrage.

Shrug.

Once again my critique is of writing style; not the man or his message. I suppose it would be easier to lie and make up a story about how after reading National Review (which I don't) transformed my life and all the stars aligned. Well. That didn't happen. Go to Piper Scott's piece at Crosscut in order to get that story.

After all the stereotypical pieces penned by conservatives isn't it good to get a bit of honesty from someone who wasn't influenced by the man? Isn't it indicative of a significant demographic shift how an idol worshipped by one generation is not important to the next?

Or do you want the same old rah-rah Buckley-was-the-best-conservative-writer-ever-and-no-one-can-match-him-again? Because I can do both. But won't.

My opinion is in text above and there is a reason for it.

The trick of a good writer is learning the power to draw in a reader so they consume and digest the idea you are attempting to convey. Louis L'Amour sums up the matter in some of his novels. To paraphrase, he wrote that it is better to tell a tale that is recounted around campfires for a hundred years than to put together a book that gathers dust on the shelves of some academic's library.

One can mime Cassiopeia, reclining on a throne and admiring her own beauty. You can quote Virgil and Plutarch and Cicero and show how very clever you are. But there's always the danger of becoming trapped by the appearance of strength and reliance on your own literary devices to the point where you end up like Darius' chariots at the Battle of Gaugamela.

There is a beauty in conveying great ideas in a simple and natural format free from unnecessary embellishments and clutter. My training is as a journalist and my writing reflects the need to get to a point and state the facts as they are; quick like rabbit.

Most English professors at any college or university have a marvelous grasp of language. Do you want to read their writings? Of course not. They invest more resources discussing the whys and wherefores of what they're attempting to convey instead of just coming out and saying it.

Viewing the various vignettes written about the voluminous verbiage of Buckley's vocabulary you notice each article's author is compelled to comment on his extravagant multisyllabic musings.

Some of those leaving comments below suggest that there is a streak of envy in my critique. Hardly. One must be content with the strengths in your possession while being cognizant of flaws. Even if you are better read and have a greater grasp of general history than most members of your generation it is the height of arrogance to assume that another's knowledge doesn't surpass your meager understanding of the world.

So after laboriously pushing this boulder up a hill, it is time to let it roll back down again by stating that I was never a fan of Buckley's writing style. Too much garnish for my humble palate. And I'm sure the great man would be the first to defend my right to have this opinion.

Two-fer: Here's another statement which may shock readers. Ayn Rand. Not a good novelist.

Heresy! Leper, outcast, unclean! Stone him, stone him!

As a conservative are you not allowed to say this?

It is difficult to convey the feelings of being gypped and cheated after reading "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead". These works may be viewed by Rand disciples as quintessential tales of personal responsibility and cutting criticisms of collectivism.

The books would be put to better use as door stops or as something to smash spiders with. The week of my life that was lost reading the two novels in high school was the intellectual equivalent of being forcibly raped by Howard Roark.

Maybe it was Rand's upbringing or the fact that she was Russian, but the woman didn't know how to develop a plot. Her characters are emotional cripples whom the reader is unable to care about or develop an attachment for. There's only so much time that can be spent bashing the New Deal before you find yourself not giving a fig about John Galt or the secret of his life.

This was a flaw of many Russian novelists, who wrote for an audience which is snow-bound seven months a year. Tolstoy or Dostoevsky felt compelled to describe every stick of furniture or the comparable fashion tastes of all the tertiary characters in a ballroom from tiara to toes because both were being paid by the word. This is why you can read the abridged version of "War and Peace" and not really lose any of the story's flavor; even though the novel is cut in half.

Similarly with Shrugged or the Fountainhead the reader is jolted every time they become engaged with a character. Do you feel sorry for Peter Keating or despise him? Doesn't matter because Rand just wandered off on a four page political diatribe against trade unions.

Three Strikes: After tossing caltrops in front of two of the signature figures of the modern conservative movement it would be best to mention what are some of my influences.

First off I don't read modern political works. There is nothing more banal than flipping through pages of rehashed radio talking points penned by Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity or whomever. Not when there's work by Dickens, Kipling, Walter Scott, or Cooper yet to be devoured.

When I want to read about politics I'll pick up a biography about Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman.

I'm a voracious reader of history which began, probably, when I was in the fifth grade reading books on the Civil War. Rather than listing off each period of history that I've familiarized myself it would probably be easier to tick off the gaps. Don't know as much about the ancient Khmer culture, the Seleucid Empire or, amazingly enough, the Peloponnesian War than I care to publicly admit.

Currently I'm rounding off my knowledge of the American Revolution and the Vietnam "Conflict" so any good titles you can pass along would be appreciated.

It is an understanding of history and not and adherence to politics that defines the philosophy of this hicktown reporter.