This example of editorial opinion writing begins with an excerpt extracted from a letter written by the first titular figure of the piece: eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon. In other words, this is literally a literary work that commences with a letter to the editor. In this case, to an editor of the Sun, a popular New York City newspaper of the time. The except boils down the essentials of Virginia’s inquiry and is transformed into a question which the editorial will seek to answer: does Santa Claus exist?
Before getting to that question, however, Virginia supplies a little context for her wonderment: several of her younger friends have expressed skepticism. It is from this point that the editorial writer commences his answer by first directly advising Virginia to disregard her friends by explicitly telling her they are wrong. He then explains that their doubt about the existence of Santa Claus is part of a larger movement going on in America at the time in what he casts as a new age of skepticism. (This is actually ironic since one of the leading voices at the vanguard of this new age of skepticism in New York has been the editorial writer himself.) The writer then goes on to compare man to an insect relative to his knowledge of the mysterious ways of the unknown universe.
The second paragraph repeats the title and asserts beyond all question the existence of Santa Claus. Having seemed to answer Virginia’s question in the affirmative, however, he immediately begins playing word games and hedging hit bets. From this point forward, the very literal and singularly humanoid nature of the Santa which Virginia is inquiring about is transformed into pure metaphorical symbol. In asserting that there is a Santa Claus, the writer explains that his existence as real as love or generosity. He makes a direct appeal to Virginia’s ego by suggesting that a world without Santa would be as dreary as a world without Virginia, though the application of logical reasoning fails miserably in that digression. Immediately, however, he gets back on track by once again transforming Santa from person to symbol, comparing his existence to poetry and romance and childhood wonder and innocence.
By the third paragraph even the most tenuous connection to rational argument or logical thought disappears completely. In fact, it is at this point that one who is equipped with the knowledge that the writer’s previous editorials overflow with skepticism toward religious faith to the point of comparing it to belief in superstitions might be moved to suspect this is a work of satirical irony. What else is one to make of arguments supporting the existence of Santa Claus like “The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.” Not being able to see Santa Claus is compared to not being able to see fairies and from this scenario is drawn the flabbergasting conclusion this state of affairs is “no proof that they are not there.”
The fourth paragraph begins with what is arguably the writer’s biggest stretch in terms of literary imagery and symbolism as he compares not knowing what make the noise inside a baby’s rattle with the “veil” of ignorance experienced by mankind in regard to all those things which the species has not yet figured out by symbolically taking the rattle apart to look inside. His argument comes to a very odd conclusion by choosing four very strange and random things which—alone—have the power to rip that veil off so that we might, in fact, peer inside the rattle: poetry, love, romance and, in the ultimate irony considering the writer’s history, faith.
The piece comes to a conclusion with a very short final paragraph in which the author reassures Virginia once again that not only does Santa exist, but he is immortal and will continue to exist 10,000 years into the future.
