A PIECE OF MY MIND

 

Jerry Harkins

 

 

 

Every day, millions of citizens sit down to write nasty letters to corporate executives,  newspaper editors, politicians and religious leaders, all of whom have more important things to do than to read the pathetic musings of disgruntled, uninformed constituents.  These are called “crackpot letters” because they cannot be answered with the truth for any number of reasons.  For example, the truth often creates a legal liability resulting in a multiyear vacation at the expense of the state.  Or it may give offense resulting in public shaming or involve trafficking in trade secrets which may result in a visit from uneducated knuckle-draggers.  Of course, it may simply be nobody’s damn business.  Truth is a highly overrated virtue yet these letters must be answered.

 

In days of yore, the brightest, most bushy-tailed IBM recruits were assigned as Administrative Assistants to Tom Watson's office specifically to gain high level experience by answering what they routinely referred to as "fuck you" letters.  It was assumed –– correctly –– that anyone who was dissatisfied with any of IBM's products, services or policies was a knave, a fool or worse and could not be persuaded by logic, evidence or reasoning.  Thus, the response had to be polite, solicitous and sympathetic without, however, admitting liability or costing IBM additional money or bother.  A further requirement was that the response had to be as close as humanly possible to The Standard Answer, a collection of sentences and phrases drafted by the Legal Department and designed to fit almost any problem.  After all, answering crackpot letters would otherwise have been prohibitively time-consuming and expensive.  Finally, it was widely known that the young man who could find an answer to the most difficult letters had his dossier flagged as a fast tracker.  Here is an almost perfect generic IBM response to a generic complaint:

 

Mr. Watson has received your letter of the 9th and asked me to reply in his absence.  IBM takes customer service very seriously, so he was distressed to learn of your recent experience.  He wants to assure you personally that steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of even the most minor faults in this area.  He also asked me to reiterate how highly he values the relationship IBM has enjoyed with you and looks forward to a renewed sense of partnership between us.

 

Note that, except for the date of complainant’s letter, every single word, phrase and sentence is straight out of The Standard Answer.  The writer did not spend much time, if any, actually reading the complaint.  A quick scan was sufficient.  The genius of this letter is its use of the actual date of the incoming missive, the magic word personally and the flattering phrase sense of partnership.  It leaves the reader with a feeling of completion but also a vague sense of guilt for causing distress to such a busy executive as Mr. W.  The customer easily reads between the lines that heads are going to roll and so is satisfied.  He can tell his wife, his mistress and his golfing buddies that not even IBM can fuck around with him.  You can almost hear him, “Yeah, as Tom said to me, ‘Fred, you know how hard it is to find decent people.’”  Listeners would assume this observation was made at the Nineteenth Hole after Fred and Tom had played a bracing round of golf.

 

Of course, it is rare that a satisfactory reply can be made without some minimal  reference to the specific complaint of the writer.  This does not have to be a major burden even if it does mean actually reading the complaint.  Here is an example taken from historical archives:

 

Dear Mr. Job:

 

God has received your letter of the 9th and has asked me to reply in his absence.  As you know, we take justice and mercy very seriously up here so he was quite distressed to learn of your dissatisfaction with some of his recent decisions.  He wants to assure you personally that steps will be taken to restore any 

property you may have lost, to include cattle and sheep, through inadvertent actions on his part.  You understand, of course, that even God cannot restore your old family after such an extended period of time.  If his review concludes that your family was destroyed unfairly, he will provide you with a new, improved model wife and children at no cost to you.  He wants to assure you that he greatly values the relationship he has enjoyed with you and all the Uzians and looks forward to a renewed sense of worship within your community.

 

The score for this letter is 73.5% and, as you can see, by substituting the word Sodomites for Uzians, the same letter could have been sent to Lot.  There are some nice touches here including the exculpatory phrase inadvertent actions.  Again, you see that marvelous word personally.  Of necessity, partnership must be sacrificed but relationship is almost as good.  Note that the writer says that God will provide a new family at no cost to you.  It must have been tempting to add except for shipping and handling but the decision was that that might have been perceived as tacky.  You may think it was unnecessary to forego the added revenue but your balance sheet is probably not as impressive as God’s.  The stick in this letter is the call for a renewed sense of worship but it is so delicate that even the most sensitive complainant would be hard pressed to take more than mild umbrage.  Nit pickers will point out that the complaint required the admission that there is something that God cannot do but, overall, this is a very solid effort.

 

There is, of course, no escaping the reality that many crackpot letters require a more adversarial reply.  The rules still apply, although in a somewhat watered down form.  Avoid the truth.  Admit nothing.  Never lose a viable customer even if retaining him involves more stick than carrot.  And remember, subtlety is your most valuable tool in gaining closure.  Among our collection in the Hall of Fame is this superb example:

 

Your recent letter to Don Vincenzo “Mad Dog” Gigante regarding your unfortunate kneecapping incident has been forwarded to me for reply.  As I am sure you know, the Don is discommoded at present and is likely to remain so for the next 10 to 15 years.  He has, however, taken an active personal interest in your situation.  While he wishes you a full and speedy recovery, he is mildly taken aback by your suggestion that violence was not called for.  “Is it possible,” he asked me, “that the father of my godson does not realize the extent of his folly?  Or that his actions required me to illustrate that folly to other members of my family?”  Of course I reassured him on both these concerns (which, needless to say, puts my knees on the line for you).  I also told him how grateful you are that your crown jewels were spared, and he asked me to convey his best wishes to your lovely wife.

 

With due allowance for the fact that the writer did not have the advantages of a liberal arts education, it must be admitted that the letter contains an elegant balance of concern for a valued employee with just the right touch of putting the fear of God into his thick head.  It is not always possible to respond with such warmth.  For example:

 

Dear Dr. Lewinsky:

 

Your recent letter to former President Clinton has been referred to this desk for reply.  Please be advised that the Secret Service takes an active interest in all letters containing references to attorneys, press representatives and the like.  After scanning them for biological and chemical agents, the Service routinely undertakes a full psychological profile of the sender and conducts an in-depth investigation of his or her personal, financial and sexual histories.  This is being brought to your attention because you may have forgotten that in this age of email and wireless communications, your privacy may not be as private as it once was.  The President asked this office to convey his fondest regards to you, Mrs. Lewinsky and your friend, the well endowed Ms. LaRue.

 

There is nothing in this letter that could be construed as an explicit threat but the use of the third person “this desk” establishes the required storm warning tone.  The casual mention of several kinds of “in-depth investigations” is worthy of the finest Italian hand.  The reference to “Ms. LaRue” immediately after the reference to Mrs. Lewinsky is an earnest regarding the suggestion contained in the preceding sentence.  Note that the writer does not claim to be a member of the Secret Service, nor does he identify exactly what “this desk” represents.

 

Many complaints are handwritten and, whether printed or cursive, are indecipherable.  No problem! Remember, it is not necessary that you actually read these letters, much less reply with an intelligent and relevant answer.  Merely make some assumptions about the age and intelligence of the writer as did this masterful young assistant:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Senator Clinton has read your recent email protesting against various of her positions.  She was truly surprised to note such an impressive  vocabulary in a 9-year old, and she has taken steps to have your contribution published in The Congressional Record, a copy of which will be mailed to your proud parents and to your local newspaper.  I apologize for all the “expletives deleteds” but the Record insists on adhering to an almost Victorian standard of family values.

 

The day you begin your assignment, you should obtain a copy of the Manual of Reply Letters published by the IRS and written by an obscure but highly experienced Assistant Deputy Commissioner.  This naturally requires Top Secret clearance but it can be revealed that it was developed with the assistance of the IBM Marketing Department.  Illicit copies are easy to obtain because the Manual has been widely distributed within the bureaucracy.  Simply inquire at your local office of the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Forest Service depending on your location.  The masterpiece of this collection is:

 

To Taxpayer 000-00-000:

 

No.

 

Sincerely,

OX4372,

Asst Reg Dir, SecXR40

 

cc:  Terminal Resolutions Agency

 

The “OX4372” signature line was hand-signed in red ink to add a personal touch.  Another way to do this is to add a note of levity:

 

Dear Taxpayer:

 

I almost regret the necessity of informing you that you cannot deduct the $5,000 you paid for Ms. LaRue’s necklace.  However, all our agents got a really good belly laugh out of your request.  We must, of course, report your purchase to our colleagues in your state tax bureau but we will probably not inform Mrs. Taxpayer of your indiscretion.

 

We hope these suggestions will prove helpful.  However, pease note:

 

The advice contained in this essay is not guaranteed and the writer assumes no responsibility for any adverse experience the reader encounters as a result of it use.