The Art Of Nonfiction: A Guide For Writers And Readers Part 8

Acquiring Ideas for Writing

There remains one point to discuss: how to condition yourself to get good ideas for writing in the middle range. It should be clear why I waited until the end to discuss this topic. Implied in much of what I have said so far are the main premises required to get ideas for articles and books.

Let me begin with what to avoid. avoid.

There is one great enemy of mental activity: repression. Repression, and any premise of unearned self-doubt, blocks many minds. Self-doubt may be appropriate in your psychological thinking or in your sessions with a psychologist, but not in action, particularly not when you are trying to stimulate your mind for writing. In regard to getting ideas, you must do what I recommended [in chapter 6] for actual writing, namely, trust your subconscious. Let your mind be free to wander around a subject and to judge it. Do not set artificial constraints-such as telling yourself that this morning you will produce ideas for ten articles. Instead, a.s.sume that you are able and willing to judge reality-to judge events, people, trends, and news stories-and that although you may have difficulties later in writing a given article, at the beginning you are problem-free. If you do not censor your mind with regard to getting ideas, you can acquire a fertile, creative imagination.

Not every idea you get will be right. Some might even be preposterous. But that is what your critical judgment is for. Just as you can edit your writing, so you can later decide that an idea for an article is not interesting, or too narrow, or too broad, etc. But do not then become self-critical and conclude that your subconscious is bad and does not give you good ideas. Permit yourself to range freely over what you observe and to form ideas. You will discard some of them, but you will find others worth pursuing.

On the positive side, the main point is that to write an interesting article, you must have a theme-i.e., you must have something to say. But there is no way to find something interesting to say unless it comes from a wider premise, wider than the subject you want to discuss. The principle is that you must have some premise of more abstract interest than the particular news item or event you are writing about. And that kind of premise comes from your philosophical convictions.

Since every adult has some philosophy-some conscious convictions on its issues-the question is how to use your philosophy to get ideas for writing. (Of course, if your philosophy is Objectivism, it will help you much more, since it is consistent and can be applied to any aspect of the culture.) You must have an active interest in some aspect of philosophy (not philosophy in the academic sense, but philosophy as it applies to life). Merely to say "I would like to write an article from the Objectivist viewpoint" is to say nothing. It does not yet contain any specific lead or incentive to get you started on writing.

You get ideas according to the standing orders you have established in your mind. For instance, since I am interested in the application of Objectivism to life, and since every aspect of philosophy-from esthetics to epistemology and metaphysics-interests me, almost anything I hear or read is of great interest to me. I do not want merely to discover the right ethics and stop there. If I did, I would not get many ideas for writing. The application of my philosophy to life is a constant standing order to myself, which leads me to observe how various ideas, good and bad, work on the culture. Thus, almost anything I read is material for my writing.

You need to be an intellectual detective. You must look at a certain statement you encounter and work forward and backward: ask yourself what are the implications of that statement and, more important, what are the premises behind it? I love doing that, and I would love to train you to do it. It would save me from feeling, every time I read something terrible, that I should write an article exposing it-which I cannot do, because there are just too many such occasions.

You need not be a professional philosopher. If you want to get good ideas for articles on topics that interest you, and at the same time enlarge your perspective on your own profession, be on the lookout for ideas that pertain to your profession. If you want to be, not a narrow professional, but one with a wider philosophical foundation, consider the interests of your own profession from a broader viewpoint. Your best lead will be any issue that pleases or displeases you.

For instance, take the physical sciences. How can a scientist tie his profession to philosophy? If he wants to write about abortion, for example, he may start from a scientific or medical viewpoint (e.g., by focusing on a test for abnormalities in fetuses) and then branch out into the wider, philosophical issues. With the advance of the physical sciences and the retrogression of the humanities, we are in a dreadful state. A scientist will feel nothing but disgust for the philosophical ideas of his colleagues and the general state of the culture. He should ask himself what makes him disgusted and indignant and why. If he observes a trend he thinks threatens his profession, he should ask himself why he thinks so, and what are its consequences. He would thereby get several ideas for articles every time he reads a newspaper.

This is even truer in the humanities. A rational person in the humanities need not go outside his own profession to feel frustrated indignation. This is a gold mine for articles if, instead of merely suffering or repressing what you feel, you identify your reaction conceptually. If you are disgusted with your profession, do not simply note that it is in a terrible state. Ask: "What is irrational about my colleagues? What about their ideas makes me indignant?" You will find more to write about (unfortunately) than you will ever be able to use. ("Unfortunately," because the culture is so rich in negatives.) I am not advocating a "John Birch Society" approach, where you start by defining what you are against. But if you want to write in the middle range, you will unfortunately find it easier to start with negative articles. Since such is the state of the culture, that is what a person must do if he wants to lead a philosophical life and apply his philosophy to what he sees around him.

Of course, if you find something good in the culture, and above all in your profession, that that should be acknowledged. That will make for a much better theme, because there are so few occasions for it today. Whether it is someone's new idea or a resolution pa.s.sed or a policy adopted, if you approve of it, then instead of merely sensing that it is on the right track, identify why you find it good and what implications it has for your profession and for society. Right there, you will get more ideas for articles than you can handle at any one time (not because there are so many good occasions, but because there is so much that can be identified on such issues). should be acknowledged. That will make for a much better theme, because there are so few occasions for it today. Whether it is someone's new idea or a resolution pa.s.sed or a policy adopted, if you approve of it, then instead of merely sensing that it is on the right track, identify why you find it good and what implications it has for your profession and for society. Right there, you will get more ideas for articles than you can handle at any one time (not because there are so many good occasions, but because there is so much that can be identified on such issues).

I am not saying everyone must must use his profession as a springboard. But if you want to write and do not know where to begin, the most fertile field is your profession. That is your central concern, and any issue corollary to it will interest you much more than if you arbitrarily decide to write about, say, deep-sea diving, which does not interest you. But obviously you have more than professional interests, so if some other issue attracts you-because it is important, and you can demonstrate use his profession as a springboard. But if you want to write and do not know where to begin, the most fertile field is your profession. That is your central concern, and any issue corollary to it will interest you much more than if you arbitrarily decide to write about, say, deep-sea diving, which does not interest you. But obviously you have more than professional interests, so if some other issue attracts you-because it is important, and you can demonstrate why why-thattoo is a good source of ideas.

Incidentally, the desire for an ever-deeper understanding of your profession is a standing order you must carry throughout life anyway. At no point should you say, "I understand my profession, I am successful, so I no longer have to think about it." That att.i.tude would be your downfall. We cannot stand still in life. We either move forward or we deteriorate. Therefore, always seek to enlarge your understanding. If you want to be creative in your profession, and not merely a hack-if you want to be young regardless of your age, so that you will be a real "personality," and not merely a mildly competent pract.i.tioner-then you need the same premise that is necessary to get ideas for writing.

Never think you know enough. I do not mean that you must doubt the knowledge you have, but that you need to enlarge it. n.o.body is in the position today-and I do not know in what society one would be-of being completely satisfied with everything he can do in his profession, and with the performance of everybody around him. And that does not even take into account one's personal life. There are always personal matters that need attention, correction, and progress; and even if everything is ideal in your life, the more you know, the more avenues are open to you to go on to more complex, abstract knowledge. I am not advising an eternal treadmill, where you are never allowed to tell yourself that you know enough. Rather, you should be on the premise that you do know enough and that what you know is valid, but that you want to go further. Not only will this active standing order enlarge your professional abilities and interests, it will also give you all the ideas for writing that you can possibly use.

As an example, take the profession of teaching. If you are a competent teacher, you can tell how successfully your students learn. Some learn well, some are bright but slow, and some seem hopeless. Where would that knowledge lead you? If you want to be a good teacher, you would ask yourself: What do I know about young people's methods of learning? How do I explain the fact that some are fast and others are not? What incentive do the good students have? Have I provided such incentives, or do they bring it to cla.s.s themselves? Why are the others so bad? Can I stimulate them? Up to what point is it my responsibility? At what point is it theirs? Also, I see in my colleagues' cla.s.ses that some teachers are good and others are not. Why do I think so? What mistakes do the bad teachers make? What good premises do the others have?

You could not fully fully answer all of these questions in a lifetime, yet they are all important. Like all teachers, you know that you do answer these questions, though not explicitly. You make certain observations and decisions, and after a while you discover, for instance, that you can tell by his first words what a student will do or say. But if you were asked how you learned it, you would not know. You would say you can simply tell, which means you have acquired many valuable automatized premises, but never paused on the wider meaning of what you were discovering and applying. That is, you are conscious of the fact that you are improving, but not answer all of these questions in a lifetime, yet they are all important. Like all teachers, you know that you do answer these questions, though not explicitly. You make certain observations and decisions, and after a while you discover, for instance, that you can tell by his first words what a student will do or say. But if you were asked how you learned it, you would not know. You would say you can simply tell, which means you have acquired many valuable automatized premises, but never paused on the wider meaning of what you were discovering and applying. That is, you are conscious of the fact that you are improving, but not self self-conscious-i.e., you do not monitor yourself.

Make yourself self-conscious in regard to your own progress. You will be surprised how much you will discover and how much you will stimulate your mind. For example, if you do not properly monitor some observations you make about certain students, you may decide, "When I see students yawning, I must be boring them, so I should cut this subject short." That does not lead you far, though perhaps next time you will know, by "instinct," how to present the subject more clearly or in a more interesting way. Unfortunately, for most people this is the extent of their development. You will be surprised how much you will discover and how much you will stimulate your mind. For example, if you do not properly monitor some observations you make about certain students, you may decide, "When I see students yawning, I must be boring them, so I should cut this subject short." That does not lead you far, though perhaps next time you will know, by "instinct," how to present the subject more clearly or in a more interesting way. Unfortunately, for most people this is the extent of their development.

The better approach would be to identify the problem and then ask the wider questions: "If I made a mistake and went on too long, why? I thought my cla.s.s was slow, you might answer, and I did not know what was enough for them, so I overexplained. How can I devise a method of better judging their level of intelligence? Also, I notice that sometimes they are interested and sometimes they are not. Are they on the right premise? What is their motivation? Can I discover, from what interests them, something about the basic philosophy of the majority of my students?"

Every one of these questions requires thinking, though probably not very difficult thinking, because as a teacher you have more observations than you have consciously identified. If you constantly ask yourself wider questions-if instead of asking, "How do I get through my next lesson?" you ask, "What is the principle by which I intend to get through my next lesson?"-you are putting yourself on a philosophical premise; you are deriving wider principles from concrete events. In this way, you will get ideas from every minor incident in cla.s.s. Some dunce asking stupid questions might be the cause of an important pedagogical discovery. You might discover the wider principle of why he functions as he does: perhaps he was showing off or is a neurotic or is simply stupid and does not belong in your cla.s.s. Whatever it is, you are learning something from the least inspiring incident. Similarly, if something good happens in cla.s.s, do not think: "For once I got a marvelous student, but too bad it is only for this semester." Instead try to identify why you like the student's intellectual performance, whether there is some way to communicate it to other students, etc. Not only will you function better, but each question is itself enough for an interesting article.

This is how one applies wider abstractions to one's own life and, therefore, to middle-range articles and books. This, in essence, is how you should condition your mind to be active and to get ideas automatically. Like everything else in the mind that seems automatic, this process must be started consciously consciously. Once you condition your subconscious properly, it throws you ideas unexpectedly. It may feel as if the ideas come to you spontaneously, but to mention once again that good line from How to Think Creatively How to Think Creatively: accidents happen only to those who deserve them. So give yourself this standing order: "I am interested in certain subjects, and I am on the lookout for any relevant event, trend, statement, or theory-which I then want to understand and evaluate." Do this, and you will condition your mind in a truly productive way.

Let me conclude this course by telling you about an incident which made a big impression on me. It is particularly relevant to the difference between an active psycho-epistemology and a conforming one. It pertains to the whole issue of how one learns something new.

When I began my first job as a screenwriter, I had some idea of how to write a script. But I did not know the technical terminology. When I arrived at Warner Brothers to work on the movie of The The Fountainhead, Fountainhead, I asked for a sample script, and was given one. I was also given a secretary to provide me with any help I needed. I never had to ask her a question. I simply looked at the sample and figured out what was meant by "close-up," "dissolve," "fade-out," etc. For example, I observed that "fade-out" referred to the end of a sequence. I asked for a sample script, and was given one. I was also given a secretary to provide me with any help I needed. I never had to ask her a question. I simply looked at the sample and figured out what was meant by "close-up," "dissolve," "fade-out," etc. For example, I observed that "fade-out" referred to the end of a sequence.

Now, fade-out to a few years later. I am working for Hal Wallis at Paramount.

Wallis had bought an original story, which was intelligent and had good dialogue. But, he told me, he was disappointed in the screenwriter (who had also written the story) because although the story was good, the screenplay was a mess. He asked me to take a look at it.

I did, and could not understand the screenplay. It had a close-up where the action did not necessitate one; there was a long shot when only one person was in the room; and so on. None of the technical directions matched the action of the story. I asked the screenwriter how he decided where to use a particular direction. He said he had asked for a sample script to see how it was done-and then he followed it exactly. If the sample opened with a close-up, he opened with a close-up. If two pages later there was a long shot, he marked a long shot two pages later, etc. Ultimately, I had to make a great many changes and rewrite some sequences, and so I received part credit. If the sample opened with a close-up, he opened with a close-up. If two pages later there was a long shot, he marked a long shot two pages later, etc. Ultimately, I had to make a great many changes and rewrite some sequences, and so I received part credit.

This incident impressed me, because on my first job, I too had asked for a sample script. But I I looked for the abstract format and knew that I had to fit that abstraction to my own story. He took the format of his sample literally. He was a conformist. He never asked himself looked for the abstract format and knew that I had to fit that abstraction to my own story. He took the format of his sample literally. He was a conformist. He never asked himself why why there were certain technical indications at specific points. He never observed that the close-ups, long-shots, and dissolves followed a certain pattern. He was a ritualist, and followed the sample dogmatically, on blind faith. there were certain technical indications at specific points. He never observed that the close-ups, long-shots, and dissolves followed a certain pattern. He was a ritualist, and followed the sample dogmatically, on blind faith.

I do not think this person ever wrote anything else, although he had made a promising start.

Do not think that this writer was the first person to make this mistake. It was the same one that the Cla.s.sicists made in literature. They thought that the way to make a good play was to look at Greek tragedies, for example, then reduce them to a set of rules: a good play had to have so many acts, so many characters, etc. The essential error here is concrete-bound conformity, based on the premise that someone else someone else understands why a script or play is written a certain way, and therefore the writer does not have to understand. It is the reliance on other people that is responsible for this error. understands why a script or play is written a certain way, and therefore the writer does not have to understand. It is the reliance on other people that is responsible for this error.

The psycho-epistemological point to remember is that you must think on your own. In some situations, you may find no particular guidance, philosophical or otherwise, and yet you need to learn something new. To be innovative when you are up against a new problem, you have to approach it abstractly. That is why I stress principles. Never a.s.sume that any leads you have from others must be followed to the letter. Never a.s.sume that the concretes are absolutes for your instruction. Concretes are merely concretes.

Of course, as I said [in chapter 4], all reality is concrete. There are no such things things as abstractions. But abstraction is the human method of cla.s.sifying, integrating, and identifying concretes. Therefore, whenever you start on a problem, ask yourself whether you are being concrete-bound. Take a step back intellectually. Take a look at what abstraction is applicable. If you examine a given concrete-whether a script, an event, a situation, a news story, or a person-always draw the wider abstraction from the concretes of the case. That is the only way to learn, and the only way to be independent. as abstractions. But abstraction is the human method of cla.s.sifying, integrating, and identifying concretes. Therefore, whenever you start on a problem, ask yourself whether you are being concrete-bound. Take a step back intellectually. Take a look at what abstraction is applicable. If you examine a given concrete-whether a script, an event, a situation, a news story, or a person-always draw the wider abstraction from the concretes of the case. That is the only way to learn, and the only way to be independent.

My story serves as a good concrete example of a proper abstraction. Use all that you have learned in this course, not as rigid rules, but as abstract principles to be applied by your independent thinking to your particular problems.

Follow my my method, not the conformist writer's-and best premises to you in your future careers as writers. method, not the conformist writer's-and best premises to you in your future careers as writers.

APPENDIX

Selected Outlines Used by Ayn Rand in Writing Articles Editor's Note: During the course, Ayn Rand asked the cla.s.s to outline several of her articles, with the aim of improving their skill in creating outlines. She then compared the results with the outlines she had used to write the articles. Because of the informal nature of these discussions, I could not include them all in the book. Ayn Rand's outline for her article "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" and her discussion of it are included in chapter 5. But I thought I should include the remaining outlines as an appendix. During the course, Ayn Rand asked the cla.s.s to outline several of her articles, with the aim of improving their skill in creating outlines. She then compared the results with the outlines she had used to write the articles. Because of the informal nature of these discussions, I could not include them all in the book. Ayn Rand's outline for her article "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?" and her discussion of it are included in chapter 5. But I thought I should include the remaining outlines as an appendix.

"Altruism as Appeas.e.m.e.nt" (in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought)Subject: The psychological motives behind the intellectuals' The psychological motives behind the intellectuals'

acceptance of altruism.Theme: The evil and destructiveness of these motives. The evil and destructiveness of these motives.1. Letter from young student about the motives of college liberals. The statement of a distinguished historian. (These set the subject of article.)2. The psychological pattern of an intelligent boy, from childhood through college, and his subconscious acceptance of altruism in exchange for "permission" to use his mind to be an intellectual.3. The malevolent universe as the result. Examples: young scientist, elderly businessman. The psychological meaning and source of such views. Corollary symptom: the elite premise.4. Consequences in politics. The liberal's sympathy for dictators.h.i.+ps. The conservative's attempt to appeal to the people through emotions, not reason. The belief of both in the practicality of dictators.h.i.+ps.5. The enormously evil consequences in ethics. The belief that the more evil a person or party, the more powerful. The attempts to seek the favor of the evil and to blacken the nature of the good.6. The influence of moral appeasers in the field of modem art.7. The gradual erosion of a moral appeaser's sense of values. His ultimate turning into one of the boys and becoming anti-intellectual.8. The nature and fate of the average man. The proper course for an intellectual to take."America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business" (in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) (in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)Subject: Ant.i.trust. Ant.i.trust.Theme: The moral and political evil of ant.i.trust. The moral and political evil of ant.i.trust.1. Introduction. Convey the moral-psychological mood and meaning of dictators.h.i.+p. This is the position of businessmen under ant.i.trust laws.2. The origin of ant.i.trust laws. The present situation, the contradictions and non.o.bjectivity.3. Brief examples, showing the trend getting worse.4. The real meaning: the penalizing of ability.5. Who profits by ant.i.trust? The incompetent businessman and the power-l.u.s.ting bureaucrat, whose tool is fear.6. The General Electric case. Its result: terrorization.7. Recommendation: Re-examine and eventually abolish ant.i.trust. Businessmen as representatives of freedom."Argument from Intimidation" (i (in The Virtue of Selfishness)Subject: Identification of a new logical fallacy: the argument Identification of a new logical fallacy: the argument from intimidation.

Theme: The moral evil of that argument. The moral evil of that argument.1. Description and definition of argument from intimidation.2. Psychological root of argument: reliance on moral self-doubt. Story of the Emperor's New Clothes as example of the basic pattern.3. Examples of argument in today's public and private life.4. Causes of argument's success: mysticism and social metaphysics.5. Examples in college cla.s.srooms and in politics.6. Weapon against argument: moral certainty. Proper and improper use of moral judgment in intellectual issues.7. Proper att.i.tude: Patrick Henry quote."Bootleg Romanticism" (in The Romantic Manifesto; The Romantic Manifesto; outline refers to the original version of the article in outline refers to the original version of the article in The Objectivist Newsletter The Objectivist Newsletter [January 1965]) [January 1965])Subject : Humorous detective stories. : Humorous detective stories.Theme: The moral evil of apologetic romanticism. The moral evil of apologetic romanticism.1. The relations.h.i.+p of art to a culture, generally.2. The composite picture of man that emerges from today's art. The psycho-epistemological motives of such art leading to the cult of depravity.3. A still lower step, morally, is found in cheap thrillers. Description of thrillers as primitive form and remnants of romanticism.4. The meaning of humor. The two types of moral cowardice.5. The humorous thrillers are laughing at values and at man the hero. They are apologizing to the gutter school of literature.6. The popularity of Spillane and Fleming as examples of people's need of romanticism and of heroes.7. The gulf between the people and the intellectual elite. Example: The Avengers. The Avengers. 8. a.n.a.lysis of 8. a.n.a.lysis of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. 9. The motive and the performance of the producers of the James Bond movies. The immorality of the Maibaum interview. 9. The motive and the performance of the producers of the James Bond movies. The immorality of the Maibaum interview.10. The irrelevance of the naturalistic arguments of the thriller's enemies.11. The real psychological meaning of thrillers and their heroes.Comparison to naturalism. Example: Marty. Marty.12. The moral guilt of producers and public in treating romanticism as bootleg merchandise."The 'Inexpttcabte 'Inexpttcabte Personal Alchemy' Personal Alchemy' " " (in (in Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution)Subject: Kamm's news story about young Russian rebels. Kamm's news story about young Russian rebels.Theme: The psychology of the Russian rebels as contrasted with the young rebels in America. The psychology of the Russian rebels as contrasted with the young rebels in America.1. Reasons why the news story impressed me (literarily and personally).2. The nature of the "personal alchemy." The conviction that ideas matter. The inability to believe in the power of evil.3. The young rebels' nonconformity and probable socialistic "idealism." (The reason why a dictators.h.i.+p has to keep destroying the best among its subjects.)4. The young rebels' good will as the cause of their arguing with Secret Police. Example: the statements of three of the rebels on trial.5. The meaning of "abroad" to a young Russian idealist. A symbol of justice.6. As contrast, what is "abroad" today? The nature and psychology of today's American young rebels. The young Russians are fighting for the freedom of the mind. The young Americans are rebelling against the tyranny of the mind.7. The cultural destruction of the American idealists. Both East and West are dedicated culturally and educationally to the destruction of the mind.8. Practical recommendation: The only way to help Russian rebels is by ostracism of the Soviet government and all of its sympathizers."The Psycho-epistemology of Art" (in (in The Romantic Manifesto The Romantic Manifesto)Subject: Art. Art.Theme: Definition of the nature, purpose, and source of art. Definition of the nature, purpose, and source of art.1. Introduction: The cognitive position of art. Its surrender to mysticism.2. Art answers a need of man's consciousness. To understand this, we have to know the nature of concepts, and then the nature of cognitive and normative abstractions.3. Metaphysical value judgments. The need of metaphysical base-and its difficulty psycho-epistemologically. This This is the field of art. is the field of art.4. Definition of art. The psycho-epistemological function of art. (Ill.u.s.tration: art and religion.)5. Example of the process: Babbitt.6. Art and ethics: The need to concretize normative abstractions. Example: Roark.7. Mention of didactic values and literal transcriptions in art. Romanticism and naturalism.8. Existential consequences of art. Examples: Greece and the Middle Ages.9. Introduction of need of further discussion, such as sense of life.