At this point I would come out in the open: Since we know their philosophy is pragmatism, it is clear that pragmatism does not work. What they need are principles. And I would add that in social issues, the first such principle is the noninitiation of force.
Observe that I do not bring in Objectivist propaganda, I merely raise certain questions and evaluate certain events. Only at the end, when the events have demonstrated it, do I say pragmatism does not work.
If you did write about the same subject in the way Reston does, i.e., evaluating the events, ascribing motives, and prescribing policies, it would be a strong article. And it would would sell Objectivism, but only by indirection-which is all a middle-range article should do. Just give your audience the facts from the Objectivist viewpoint, and let their minds do the rest. A rational reader who has never heard of Objectivism will think: "Yes, force should not be used. In fact, no social issue is more important than that. If you resort to force, there can be no discussion, no rights, no principles." If he draws only that conclusion, his mind will do the rest if he is mentally active. You have given him a lead to further thinking. sell Objectivism, but only by indirection-which is all a middle-range article should do. Just give your audience the facts from the Objectivist viewpoint, and let their minds do the rest. A rational reader who has never heard of Objectivism will think: "Yes, force should not be used. In fact, no social issue is more important than that. If you resort to force, there can be no discussion, no rights, no principles." If he draws only that conclusion, his mind will do the rest if he is mentally active. You have given him a lead to further thinking.
To sum up: the purpose of a middle-range article is to evaluate a given concrete from the point of view of your philosophy-i.e., holding your philosophy as a frame of reference and taking it as a given-but not to preach it or prove that it is right. Never try to prove your philosophy as a side issue in an article dealing with some narrow subject. If you feel that there is some aspect of your philosophy which requires proof, then write a theoretical article on it.
5
Creating an Outline
No beginner should write without an outline. If I could enforce this as an absolute, I would. Most writing problems-the psychological barriers, setbacks, discouragements-come from the absence of a proper outline. One reason for the dreadful articles in our media is that they are written without outlines, and thus fall apart structurally.
Good articles (regardless of whether you agree with them) are done from written outlines. Experienced professionals can work from mental outlines (if the article is brief enough), but that is a stage few writers ever reach, and beginners should not try it. If you do, you will only discourage yourself and end up wondering why you cannot write.
If you properly delimit your subject and theme, you have the base for your outline.
An outline is a plan of mental action. All human action requires a plan-an abstract projection. People tend to be aware of this in the physical realm. But because they believe that writing is an innate talent, they think it does not require an objective plan. They think writing is inspirational. Yet trying to write without an outline is even more difficult than attempting some physical action without a plan.
You would be surprised how often you make the equivalent of an outline in your mind for daily activities. You select a goal and the key steps that will take you there, and then you determine the details for each step.
For example, a.s.sume you have decided to make a dress and have determined what kind of dress it will be. That is the equivalent of selecting your subject and theme. You then take the measurements and devise a pattern, which is your outline. Then you cut the material, you sew it, and, finally, you embroider it. Now suppose a beginner started cutting and embroidering at the same time, without having chosen the type of dress or the material to be used. He would surely get into trouble. In principle, the process is exactly the same for writing (and for any other job).
The basic pattern of an outline is that of a theorem of Euclidean geometry: state what you are going to demonstrate, demonstrate it, and then announce the conclusion. An outline, however, involves more steps and details. Also, since this basic pattern does not yet tell you how to organize the concretes of your particular subject, there are many options. (For example, you do not have have to start an article by announcing, "I am going to prove that...") But broadly speaking, you should, in your outline, state your subject, set up the logical progression of arguments, and in conclusion state the climax. to start an article by announcing, "I am going to prove that...") But broadly speaking, you should, in your outline, state your subject, set up the logical progression of arguments, and in conclusion state the climax.
In the beginning of an article, but not necessarily in the first paragraph, you must let the reader know what your article is about. (You could call this the introduction.) You need not explicitly name what you are going to prove, because that would produce an anticlimax. But let the reader know where you are taking him. Incidentally, by "introduction," I mean introductory remarks-a good opening paragraph or so in which you indicate what your subject is. Do not make a special production of this. Introductions as such really pertain to books [see chapter 9]. As a rule, you do not need to write a formal introduction to an article, as some writing courses claim. That is completely artificial.
The "climax" in a nonfiction article is the point at which you demonstrate what you set out to demonstrate. It might require a single paragraph or several pages. There are no rules here. But in preparing the outline, you must keep in mind where you start from (i.e., your subject) and where you want to go (i.e., your theme-the conclusion you want your reader to reach). These two terminal points determine how you will get from one to the other. In good fiction, the climax-which you must know in advance-determines what events you need in order to bring the story to that point. In nonfiction too, your conclusion gives you a lead to the steps needed to bring the reader to the climax.
The guiding question in this process is: What does the reader need to know in order to agree with the conclusion? That determines what to include. Select the essentials of what you need in order to convince the reader-keeping in mind the context of your subject. You are not starting from a tabula rasa. tabula rasa. If you were, your reader would not know how to read English, but you could not teach him that while writing on a more advanced subject. When you ask yourself what the reader needs to know, you ask it only in regard to your specific subject, not in regard to his general knowledge. If you were, your reader would not know how to read English, but you could not teach him that while writing on a more advanced subject. When you ask yourself what the reader needs to know, you ask it only in regard to your specific subject, not in regard to his general knowledge.
You must also keep in mind the scale of your article. This might be difficult at first, but with experience it becomes easier to project how much how much you can cover. In the beginning, the tendency is to try to cover too much. For example, as you begin to write from your outline, you may find that you have used over half the s.p.a.ce intended for your article on just the first of ten points. This happens to every writer who attempts ambitious themes, because there is always something to add. You discover that you actually have three articles contained in your outline, instead of one. But with a few properly written articles (i.e., written from a proper outline), the process of gauging the size of your work becomes almost automatic. you can cover. In the beginning, the tendency is to try to cover too much. For example, as you begin to write from your outline, you may find that you have used over half the s.p.a.ce intended for your article on just the first of ten points. This happens to every writer who attempts ambitious themes, because there is always something to add. You discover that you actually have three articles contained in your outline, instead of one. But with a few properly written articles (i.e., written from a proper outline), the process of gauging the size of your work becomes almost automatic.
I do not mean you can judge, to the last page, the length of your article. But you must have some idea as to whether you are writing a one-page article, a six-page article, or an indeterminate volume. You have to adjust the projection of your theme to a certain size-for example, no smaller than five pages and no bigger than eight. These are not absolute figures, but an approximation. So set yourself a minimum length you can do it in and a maximum over which you must not go. This gives you a standard for judging how detailed to make your article, what points are essential, and what points are dispensable subcategories or sidelines.
It is crucial to state your theme properly to yourself. For example, the theme of "The "Inexplicable Personal Alchemy" " is: the horrible destruction of the best among the young people in Russia and in America, and the comparison between the two. Stated that way, it entails too many things. My next step was to decide what the key points of the subject are which convey this theme. I then listed all such points, then selected the essential ones and omitted the others. This determined what I would have to say to demonstrate my theme.
The theme is the standard by which you judge whether to include or omit some point. Suppose you are tempted to include an interesting sideline. Ask yourself whether the point is necessary to demonstrate your theme. And conversely, before omitting something, ask yourself whether your case will be fully demonstrated if you omit this point. This is all part of the process of deciding on your outline-deciding what is needed to demonstrate your theme.
The logical order of presentation is also determined by the theme. After you decide on your theme and write down the steps that will convince your reader of it, you will see that there are some options about which steps should precede which. (This is still in the pre-outline stage.) But to discover the overall logical continuity, look for causal connections among the steps of your argument. If you retrace what you had to know to arrive at a conclusion, and then what the reader needs to know to arrive at it, you will see that some some of the steps are the logical consequences of earlier ones. The nearest to a rule of logical continuity is: observe the law of causality-i.e., observe which of your points depend on which. of the steps are the logical consequences of earlier ones. The nearest to a rule of logical continuity is: observe the law of causality-i.e., observe which of your points depend on which.
There are no rules about how long or detailed an outline should be. It depends on each individual: you you must judge how detailed a plan of action you need for what you have undertaken. must judge how detailed a plan of action you need for what you have undertaken.
The outline"s level of detail depends on how clear the subject is in your mind, and how complex the article is. I suggest the following test. If in making an outline you feel vaguely that some point is difficult to formulate, though you "kind of" know what you mean, then you need more detail. On the other hand, if you begin to feel bored-if all you need are a few lines on some point but you are writing a volume-then you are being too detailed. As in all mental activity, you are the only judge.
It may help to work in layers. First make a brief outline, then, before you start writing, elaborate on certain points and make something between a first draft and a bare outline. Be honest with yourself. Decide how much of a general map you need to make the content of your article fully clear to you, in essentials and in an orderly form, before you start writing. When in doubt, remember the purpose of the outline. It is your blueprint. Only you can tell to what extent you should expand it and what you can leave to logical implication.
Some people think an outline should be so detailed that it is almost as long as the future article. Nothing could be worse. That is not an outline, but a first draft. A first draft is a long, detailed piece in which you omit the polishing of your sentences and the fancier elaborations; but it is not an outline. If that is what you have written, you have skipped the outline stage. It is easier-except in the consequences-to sit down and write a long outline; it is much harder to make a properly organized and condensed one.
I do not mean that you must write your outline in "headline" style (i.e., without complete sentences). That style is more appropriate to an experienced writer or to someone very familiar with his subject. But it can be deceptive. You may think you have clearly stated what you intend to write, and then find yourself departing from your outline because it was not precise enough. On the other hand, making an overly detailed outline is as bad as writing without one. So I urge beginners to write a brief outline, but in grammatical sentences.
When you make an outline, do not write: "Introduction. Progression. Conclusion." That is far too abstract and thus useless. You need something many levels less abstract than that. Say you are writing an article critical of the Nixon administration. If you put in your outline: "Introduction of my subject," that is too broad. Instead write, as Point 1: "Introduction-express general reasons why I am dissatisfied and puzzled by Nixon"s behavior so far." That is a very generalized statement, which you could not use in an article, but it is specific enough for your own guidance (and it is grammatical). Then list, on a separate piece of paper, the main points you want to cover concerning your dissatisfaction. a.s.sume you are dissatisfied with his stands on Vietnam, welfare, and taxes. Say you decide that the most crucial of these three-i.e., the worst-is his welfare policy. So you list it last, for dramatic progression. (If you list your most important objection first, you will produce an anticlimax.) Thus, you write under Point 2: "Nixon"s tax policy: I shall indicate how this represents a broken campaign promise, and why it is dangerous to pursue the same tax policy as that of the Johnson administration." These are connected sentences, not headlines. They are just specific enough for you to know what to present fully in that part of the article.
Then under Point 3, write something like: "Nixon"s Vietnam policy: Briefly cover the essence of what was wrong with the Johnson policy. Indicate in what way Nixon seems to be continuing the same policy. Mention what indication he has given that he has no new approach." This is abstract, but it will delimit what you say about his Vietnam policy. Finally, you come to the climax: his continuation of the welfare state. Write under Point 4: "Welfare: He is reshuffling the various agencies without eliminating the improper services. He is vacillating with his "war on poverty" and his constant welfare-state promises." You might even include here: "I shall quote, for ill.u.s.tration, certain points." You proceed to list the facts that show his welfare policy to be dubious. Finally, you come to Point 5, your conclusion. Since it is a critical article, you draw some kind of conclusion in order not to leave your reader hanging. So you might write (if this is what you have proven): "Conclusion: I think we can give him more time; I am not yet sure that his administration will be bad, though I have serious doubts." Or: "I think he has indicated enough to make me conclude that nothing is to be expected of his administration. He is a variant of Johnson."
You should have your conclusion in mind from the start (though not necessarily verbatim). Know the point of your article, whether cautious optimism or wary doubts or total pessimism, before you decide to write. Then, as you make your outline, write down your conclusion as explicitly as you can (though not necessarily in detail), so that it is clear to you. That sets up a standing order in your mind, which helps in the actual process of writing. It serves as a reference point whenever you are in doubt during the writing, particularly about side issues or elaborations. It tells you whether a point you are about to include is necessary or not.
The conclusion-the theme-is your best criterion for composing the outline; make it explicit. explicit. Some of the greatest troubles here come from mental approximation, when you "sort of" know what you want to say. The fact is you do not know, in the full epistemological sense, until your thought is conceptualized in grammatical form. Until then, you have only the material which you can organize into knowledge. In this sense, an outline is also helpful in formalizing and, therefore, in firming up, your knowledge. Some of the greatest troubles here come from mental approximation, when you "sort of" know what you want to say. The fact is you do not know, in the full epistemological sense, until your thought is conceptualized in grammatical form. Until then, you have only the material which you can organize into knowledge. In this sense, an outline is also helpful in formalizing and, therefore, in firming up, your knowledge.
A proper outline is so dependent on the nature of your theme that it is impossible to make many absolute rules about it. A rule such as: "Give three paragraphs to your introduction, ten to the development, and one to the conclusion" is a kind of cla.s.sicism (which I discuss and condemn in "What is Romanticism?"18). It is the subst.i.tution of concretes for abstractions, and it becomes an artificial straitjacket into which you are forced to fit your material. General principles can be stated and followed, but there are no rules for the application of these principles to the concretes of a given article.
What I have given you so far is positive advice. I next want to mention some common problems to be avoided in making an outline.
The Temptation to Include Sidelines By "sidelines" I mean (1) issues which are connected to your subject and theme, but are not a necessary part of them, or (2) ill.u.s.trations or applications from completely new areas. This danger is particularly great with middle-range articles. For example, you are discussing politics arid you see brilliant sidelines in physics or psychology or esthetics, and want to squeeze them in. That can destroy your article.
The wider and more integrated your knowledge, the more you will be tempted to include sidelines. This temptation comes from a good psycho-epistemology, because you should should make connections with everything you learn. Writing articles, however, is not learning, but communicating knowledge. For that, you must break up your integrations and judge, as you make your outline, which points are essential and which are merely interesting sidelines. If they are sidelines, omit them (especially if you are a beginner). make connections with everything you learn. Writing articles, however, is not learning, but communicating knowledge. For that, you must break up your integrations and judge, as you make your outline, which points are essential and which are merely interesting sidelines. If they are sidelines, omit them (especially if you are a beginner).
The Platonic Approach to Logical Order There is a dangerous misconception about outlines, namely, that there is only one one possible logical order of presentation. possible logical order of presentation.
In the sense in which an outline is like a geometric theorem, there is only one order. But when you write an article, you do not confine yourself to three large abstractions, like a syllogism: premise A, premise B, and the conclusion. An article does follow that broad pattern, but under each of these basic divisions there are many details from which you must choose. Only a very simple article with a very simple theme would have only one possible order of presentation. No worthwhile subject is so simple that there is only one logical order-the one order which would determine every paragraph. one order which would determine every paragraph.
Suppose the subject is politics. An author might think there is only one logical order which, if he knew it, would make him discuss elections first, taxes second, and the welfare state third. But then he starts to wonder: "Or is it in reverse? Or maybe the second point is first and the third point second?" Etc. Many people approach this with a Platonic outlook, which holds that there is only one "ideal" order; and too often they conclude that since they do not know what it is, they will write without any order.
The principles behind determining the order of an outline are abstractions subsuming a vast number of concretes. You can establish rules about these principles, but not about the use of concretes. No set of principles can give you the one one logical order. logical order.
The Concrete-Bound Approach to Logical Order Many people are concrete-bound in regard to their outline, and this approach affects the structure of their articles. Such writers see an article as a series of separate points. For example, Point 1 may lead logically to Point 2, but Point 2 has no relation to Point 3. Point 3 may be connected to Points 4 and 5, but one does not know why Point 6 is included. Consequently, logical connections might be made from paragraph to paragraph, or from one sequence to another, but the total is not well integrated. When you read the whole article, you are not sure what the author"s theme is-i.e., the article does not seem to be centered on any particular issue.
This is an error not of knowledge or content, but of writing without a proper outline. While a writer should concentrate on the particular sentence or paragraph he is working on, the concrete-bound author has a totally nearsighted view. He loses sight of the article as a whole. He does not keep in mind the continuity of the total, i.e., the relationship between each sequence and all the others.
A well-integrated article requires an outline that is detailed enough to be clear, but not so detailed that it fails to isolate the essentials. The essentials are needed for you to retain that abstract integration during the entire writing process.
Mistaking Relevance for Logical Continuity Some beginners write the outline as if they were throwing disconnected pieces of thought down on paper. For example, an author decides to write on capitalism. He has a wide context of relevant ideas, and begins to write almost inspirationally. His only sense of continuity is some loose relevance to capitalism. He thinks that somehow all the pieces will integrate into a coherent point. There is nothing wrong with mulling over a subject in this loose way-if you are thinking thinking about it and not yet writing. But never take that process as the equivalent of an outline, because it is the opposite. about it and not yet writing. But never take that process as the equivalent of an outline, because it is the opposite.
I would like to suggest the following exercise. I will present a brief article of mine. Your a.s.signment is to make an outline of it in a form sufficient for you to write from. My purpose is to help you learn how to a.n.a.lyze or reconstruct something already written, so that you can then reverse the procedure and make an outline on your own. (Afterwards, I will provide the outline I used in writing it.) In my outlines I use a headline style, rather than full grammatical sentences. After much experience, you can use a shorthand too and know its exact meaning. But at the beginning, in order to automatize the outline-article relationship, use full sentences.
As you read the following article, write down its essentials. This enables you to see the overall logical order of the presentation, and to avoid being confused about why one paragraph follows another.
Here is the article: "Doesn"t Life Require Compromise?"19A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer offer each other. And each other. And this this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal. means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one"s product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one"s demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one"s product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one"s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender-the recognition of his right right to one"s property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? And once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest. As an example of this process, observe the present [1962] foreign policy of the United States. to one"s property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? And once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest. As an example of this process, observe the present [1962] foreign policy of the United States.There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to subst.i.tute for it the principle of government"s unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement. As an example of this process, observe the present domestic policy of the United States.There can be no compromise on basic principles or on fundamental issues. What would you regard as a "compromise" between life and death? Or between truth and falsehood? Or between reason and irrationality?Today, however, when people speak of "compromise," what they mean is not a legitimate mutual concession or a trade, but precisely the betrayal of one"s principles-the unilateral surrender to any groundless, irrational claim. The root of that doctrine is ethical subjectivism ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or a whim whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is ent.i.tled to any desire he might feel like a.s.serting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine. is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is ent.i.tled to any desire he might feel like a.s.serting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine.The immorality of this doctrine-and the reason why the term "compromise" implies, in today"s general usage, an act of moral treason-lies in the fact that it requires men to accept ethical subjectivism as the basic principle superseding all principles in human relationships and to sacrifice anything as a concession to one another"s whims.The question "Doesn"t life require compromise?" is usually asked by those who fail to differentiate between a basic principle and some concrete, specific wish. Accepting a lesser job than one had wanted is not a "compromise." Taking orders from one"s employer on how to do the work for which one is hired, is not a "compromise." Failing to have a cake after one has eaten it, is not a "compromise."Integrity does not consist of loyalty to one"s subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles. A "compromise" (in the unprincipled sense of that word) is not a breach of one"s comfort, but a breach of one"s convictions. A "compromise" does not consist of doing something one dislikes, but of doing something one knows to be evil. Accompanying one"s husband or wife to a concert, when one does not care for music, is not not a "compromise"; surrendering to his or her irrational demands for social conformity, for pretended religious observance or for generosity toward boorish in-laws, is. Working for an employer who does not share one"s ideas, is not a "compromise"; pretending to share his ideas, a "compromise"; surrendering to his or her irrational demands for social conformity, for pretended religious observance or for generosity toward boorish in-laws, is. Working for an employer who does not share one"s ideas, is not a "compromise"; pretending to share his ideas, is is. Accepting a publisher"s suggestions to make changes in one"s ma.n.u.script, when one sees the rational validity of his suggestions, is not not a "compromise"; making such changes in order to please him or to please "the public," against one"s own judgment and standards, is. a "compromise"; making such changes in order to please him or to please "the public," against one"s own judgment and standards, is.The excuse, given in all such cases, is that the "compromise" is only temporary and that one will reclaim one"s integrity at some indeterminate future date. But one cannot correct a husband"s or wife"s irrationality by giving in to it and encouraging it to grow. One cannot achieve the victory of one"s ideas by helping propagate their opposite. One cannot offer a literary masterpiece, "when one has become rich and famous," to a following one has acquired by writing trash. If one found it difficult to maintain one"s loyalty to one"s own convictions at the start, a succession of betrayals-which helped to augment the power of the evil one lacked the courage to fight-will not make it easier at a later date, but will make it virtually impossible.There can be no compromise on moral principles. "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." ( "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." (Atlas Shrugged.) The next time you are tempted to ask: "Doesn"t life require compromise?" translate that question into its actual meaning : "Doesn"t life require the surrender of that which is true and good to that which is false and evil?" The answer is that that that precisely is what life forbids-if one wishes to achieve anything but a stretch of tortured years spent in progressive self-destruction. precisely is what life forbids-if one wishes to achieve anything but a stretch of tortured years spent in progressive self-destruction.
Here is the outline I used in writing the article:
Subject: the moral meaning of compromise.Theme: the evil of compromise.1. Definition of compromise. Need of basic principle as ground for proper compromise.2. Impropriety of compromise on basic principles.3. Modem view: ethical subjectivism. All desires are equally valid.4. Cause of confusion is failure to differentiate between abstract basic principles and concrete wishes. Examples of what does and does not represent compromise.5. The metaphysical meaning of compromise on moral principles.
This is not the way a beginner should construct an outline, because it is not detailed enough. But it is easy to follow, and it is necessary for organizing the details. It will be easier on you if you first establish such a broad outline, and then fill in the necessary details. Otherwise, you could miss some of them or put them in the wrong place.
Sometimes an author becomes too abstract because he has not quite decided what details he will use to ill.u.s.trate something, and so he begins to a.s.sert the arbitrary. On the other hand, a writer can add good details but in such a disordered way that they do not integrate into one structure. The broad outline protects against both errors.
Here is how a beginner might expand the outline I used. He could, for example, include the actual definition of "compromise" in Point 1, as well as what underlies it. For instance: 1. Definition of compromise: an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions.a. Need of basic principle as ground for proper compromise.b. Presuppositions of a valid compromise:i. Both sides have some valid claim and some value to offer.ii. Both parties agree on an underlying principle.iii. The subject of the compromise is a concrete, not a principle.
Or you could expand Point 5: 5. The metaphysical meaning of compromise on moral principles. The question "Doesn"t life require compromise?" is the same as "Doesn"t life require the surrender of good to evil?"-which is precisely what life forbids.
[Editor"s note: The appendix contains more of Ayn Rand"s outlines.]
I shall conclude my discussion of outlines with two methodological points.
The most important one is what I call the "crow "crow epistemology." epistemology."20 The purpose of an outline is to present your future article in a form you can grasp The purpose of an outline is to present your future article in a form you can grasp as a unified whole. as a unified whole. This is why I stress that each person should make his outline to suit his own purposes. The exact form of your outline will depend on the subject and theme, and on how detailed or how abstract This is why I stress that each person should make his outline to suit his own purposes. The exact form of your outline will depend on the subject and theme, and on how detailed or how abstract you you need the outline to be in order to hold it all in your mind. So first make it abstract enough so that you can hold the total in your mind, and then, before you start writing, expand it by adding the necessary details. This way, you grasp the connections between the overall structure of your article and the more concrete outline from which you will write. need the outline to be in order to hold it all in your mind. So first make it abstract enough so that you can hold the total in your mind, and then, before you start writing, expand it by adding the necessary details. This way, you grasp the connections between the overall structure of your article and the more concrete outline from which you will write.
Never start an article without knowing whether your structure is clear, organized, and properly delimited. If the abstract structure is not clear in your mind, you cannot hold in mind the overall view of your article or decide what belongs in it, so problems will arise. For example, you will be tempted to go into sidelines-and the article will fall apart.
Whenever you have a mental outline that is too narrow and detailed, tell yourself: "This is my subject. This is my material. Now, what exactly am I going to do?" Step back and look at the total. To "step back" means to look at the next level of abstraction. In effect, you condense your material, by essentials, as you ask yourself: "What am I actually doing?" You step back and look more abstractly at the same content-as abstractly as necessary in order to hold the overall view in your mind. When you reach that stage, you are in control.
This is actually the pre-outline stage. You start from scratch with a certain subject and theme, and a lot of material which is not yet organized in your mind. You then make the abstract outline, followed by the more detailed one. If you cannot do it this way, make a detailed outline first and then abstract to the general one. When you have both outlines-an overall view and a detailed skeleton-you can start the actual writing.
The second methodological point is the Aristotelian concept of final causation. Among Aristotle"s four causes, the two that play a constant role in our lives are final causation and efficient causation. The latter operates at the level of inanimate matter: a certain cause is enacted and it has certain effects. Final causation, however, pertains only to consciousness. (Aristotle believed it also applies to nature, but that is a different issue.) By final causation, Aristotle meant that a purpose is set in advance, and then the steps required to achieve it are determined. This This is the process of causation that operates in human consciousness. To do anything, you must know what you want to achieve. For instance, if you decide to drive to Chicago, the roads you select, the amount of gas, etc., will be determined by that goal. But to get there, you will have to start a process of efficient causation, which includes filling the gas tank, starting the car, steering, etc. You will be following the laws of inanimate matter. But the whole process will be a chain of actions you have selected in order to achieve a certain purpose, namely, to get to Chicago. is the process of causation that operates in human consciousness. To do anything, you must know what you want to achieve. For instance, if you decide to drive to Chicago, the roads you select, the amount of gas, etc., will be determined by that goal. But to get there, you will have to start a process of efficient causation, which includes filling the gas tank, starting the car, steering, etc. You will be following the laws of inanimate matter. But the whole process will be a chain of actions you have selected in order to achieve a certain purpose, namely, to get to Chicago.
In no human activity is final causation more important than in creative work, particularly in writing. In order to have a good outline, and later a good article, you must initiate a process of final causation. When in doubt about your outline, that is the test. You set yourself a definite purpose-i.e., you name explicitly your subject and theme-and that determines what material to choose in order to end up with an article that that satisfies your purpose. It is final causation that determines what to include both in your outline and in your article. satisfies your purpose. It is final causation that determines what to include both in your outline and in your article.
To sum up, what you need most to make a proper outline are: (1) the concept of an essence-and the ability to distinguish essentials from details; and (2) the concept of causality-and the ability to establish cause-and-effect relations in the presentation of an idea. With these as your most important guidelines, your outline will probably be good.
6
Writing the Draft: The Primacy of the Subconscious
Writing involves both your conscious mind and your subconscious. This is an important psycho-epistemological fact affecting every stage of writing. Without the use of your subconscious, you cannot write (or speak). While complete knowledge of the role of the subconscious does not yet exist, there are helpful principles.
In general, writing problems come from not knowing when to use your conscious mind and when to rely on your subconscious. Of course, we use both elements all the time: a conscious mind cannot function without the storage house of the subconscious, and n.o.body can write using his subconscious alone (unless he is sleepwalking). But the distinction is that when you prepare an outline and when you edit, you function predominantly by means of your conscious mind. Naturally, you draw on your subconscious knowledge of the subject and on any subconscious integrations that give you inspirational ideas-but your conscious mind directs the process. When it comes to actually writing the draft, however, your subconscious must be in the driver"s seat. Your conscious mind ensures that you are in focus, know what you are writing about, and are driving in the right direction. But for the execution execution of your purpose, you rely on your subconscious. of your purpose, you rely on your subconscious.
You cannot write by a fully conscious process. By "fully conscious" I mean that you make decisions according to your fully focused awareness. If you tried, you could not write a single sentence. If you tried to select every word by conscious decision, it would take years, because you would have to study a thesaurus for each one. Moreover, by the time you selected a couple of words, you would have forgotten what you wanted to say.
As an experiment, make yourself self-conscious and try to tell someone what you did this morning. Focus on what you are saying-on whether you are selecting the right words, the proper sentence structure, etc. You will stutter helplessly and be unable to finish a sentence. The same happens if you write by such overfocused, over-conscious means. To speak or write, you must rely on your subconscious, automatized integrations.
When we speak, it feels as if the words come automatically-as if the words and thoughts come simultaneously. Of course, they do not. If you observe children learning to speak, or yourself learning a foreign language, you discover that language is not innate and automatic, but an acquired skill. It is so well integrated at the adult level, however, that the transition from the thought you want to express to the words you use to express it is automatic.
In writing, you need to establish the same kind of connection between your subconscious and the words you put on paper. Since any subject involves many complexities, the connection will never be quite so automatic or perfect. That is why editing is required. But while you are writing, do not act as an editor at the same time. Do not be self-conscious while writing. When you begin to write your first draft, let the words come automatically. Do not think over your sentences in advance and do not censor yourself.
If you want your overall style to be natural and consistent, do not be artificially stylized in the process of writing. Write directly from your subconscious, as the words come to you. Your writing might be primitive or even ungrammatical, but that can be corrected later.
Your outline sets the direction, and thus the standing orders, for your subconscious. You know your subject and what you want to say about it. But when it comes to how you are going to say it, you must trust your subconscious as it is. as it is.
It is a contradiction to think you can do better than your own mind, yet that is what the overcritical approach amounts to. No matter what the state of your subconscious-whether or not you have the requisite writing skill and knowledge of the subject-it is your only tool. So do not demand the impossible of yourself. Do not set a preconceived standard of what to expect from your subcon, scious. You can apply editorial principles consciously, later; but if you do it in the process of writing, it will be torture and you will achieve nothing. When you edit, you can conclude that your subconscious was not functioning well, and even arrive at principles for self-improvement. But while you are writing, you must adopt the premise: my subconscious, right or wrong. You must let your automatic connections function, because you have no others.
The subconscious is not an ent.i.ty with a mind of its own. It is like a computer and will do what you consciously order it, within the limits of its knowledge and training. In the process of writing, you will discover (if you introspect well) how sensitive your subconscious is and how careful you must be in using it. For instance, your subconscious will reflect exactly what your greatest concern is. If you focus on whether people will like your article, what it will do to your self-esteem, whether it is beautiful, etc., you will not squeeze out a sentence an hour, and will wonder why your thoughts do not flow freely. The reason is that your subconscious is obeying you. If you are concerned with an estimate ahead of the facts, it will obey and will not be interested in writing. It will be busy with self-esteem problems (e.g., whether your writing reveals talent) or editorial problems (e.g., whether you write beautifully). As a result, you will be paralyzed.
When you write, be as conceited as you can be-"conceit" is not the right word, but I want to overstate the point. You must have total self-esteem. Leave your self-doubts behind when you sit down to write-and pick them up again, if you wish, during the process of editing. Sometimes your writing will give you reason to feel some self-doubt afterward (but this should be temporary, if you are disappointed in what you read the next day). But while you are writing, you must be G.o.d"s perfect creature (if there were a G.o.d). Regard yourself as an absolute, sovereign consciousness. Forget that man is fallible and that you might make mistakes. That is true, but it is for the next day, when you edit.
Trust your subconscious by writing as if everything that comes out of it is right. This is an advance vote of self-confidence. It is not self-delusion, because it is true in this respect: the freer your mind, the more clearly you will see its exact capacity and knowledge on a given issue. If you rely on your subconscious without repression or self-doubt, you will discover the best your subconscious can do. For the purpose of your writing, in fact, there is nothing other than the process of your own creative subconscious, and you must trust it. You cannot do any better spontaneously. You can do better when you edit, but when writing, keep going without looking back.
Your conscious mind while writing should be concerned with your subject. You must focus, with full confidence in your ability to say something important, on the subject and theme-and let your subconscious provide the words to express exactly what you want to say. The decisions concerning what you want to say and in what order have been made beforehand, in your outline-and any doubts you have should be reserved for the outline. But since an outline is very abstract, you cannot know in advance exactly exactly what you will say. That comes only during the process of writing. To perform that process effectively, make your subject clear to yourself as you write-as clear as possible without pausing on every sentence. what you will say. That comes only during the process of writing. To perform that process effectively, make your subject clear to yourself as you write-as clear as possible without pausing on every sentence.
This is what it means to trust your subconscious. Give your subconscious the standing order that you are concerned only with your subject and the clearest presentation of it possible, and let that be the absolute directing your writing. If something bothers you on the periphery of your consciousness-some distraction or self-doubt-ignore it; if it is serious, stop writing. But do not attempt to write with half your mind on the subject and the other half on irrelevant problems.
The simplest sentence requires your subconscious connections-and thus a clear knowledge of the subject. To write even a short article, you must know much more than you put on paper. For a book, you must know the equivalent of ten books, so that you can exercise selectivity and be sure about what you say. But if you tell your subconscious: "I sort of know my subject, and while writing I"ll figure out what"s unclear when I come to it," you will never come to it. Your subconscious will stop, because it will not know what to tell you.
Someone asked me the following question: Should you have all your ideas thought out before you begin the first draft, or can you learn as you are writing? And my answer is that you can sometimes do the second accidentally-but G.o.d help you if you attempt to do it deliberately. Do not try to do your thinking and your writing at the same time. Do not try to do your thinking and your writing at the same time. A clear outline helps you avoid this problem. While you are writing, it allows you to focus your attention exclusively on conveying your thoughts in an objective, grammatical form. A clear outline helps you avoid this problem. While you are writing, it allows you to focus your attention exclusively on conveying your thoughts in an objective, grammatical form.
These are two separate jobs: the job of thinking and the job of expressing your thoughts. And they cannot be done together. If you try, it will take you much longer, and be much more painful, than if you did each one separately-because you are giving your subconscious contradictory orders. You are saying: "I have to express something-but I do not know what."
It is true that you might start writing with a full understanding of your subject, and some new aspect suddenly occurs to you. You might put down a certain formulation, which then raises a question you never faced before. That is a normal process. And it would be perfectly appropriate to stop writing and think this question over. Or you might even inspirationally get the answer right away. But never start start with a question mark in your mind. with a question mark in your mind.
In the process of writing, it is crucial not to stop for too long (and preferably not at all). For instance, if you have two hours a.s.signed to writing, write during that time without stopping. (No one besides a hack can write for much more than two hours straight, except when there is unusual inspiration at the end of a work.) If you can write continuously, chances are that your work will require the least editing. But if you pause after every sentence to reread and rewrite it, you will have a lot of trouble in editing. One of the deadliest obstacles to good writing is critical overconscientiousness exercised during during the process of writing. the process of writing.
If, as you write something, a better way of saying it spontaneously occurs to you, make the change. That is still a subconscious process: your subconscious gave you preliminary data and then fed you more refined data. But if the change requires a switch to a conscious state, do not do it. it.
I find the best way to write is not sentence by sentence (more on that error shortly), but sequence by sequence. By "sequence" I mean a subdivision of your outline. Since an outline is broken up into sequences, each point of an outline stands for a certain progression of thought. The best way to write is by such sequences, unless a given point is too lengthy.
Take a look at your outline before you start, and then do not stop yourself-do not edit, and do not look at your outline-until you finish that sequence. For example, suppose the first sequence of your outline, Point 1, is called "Presentation of the General Subject," and you know what you want to say. Start writing and do not stop until you are ready for Point 2. Then you can look at your outline and see what the second sequence is, etc.
This suggestion is not an absolute. If you find yourself confused or stymied-for example, because you went off on a sideline-then you may need to stop and check your outline. But short of such necessity, for rapid and well-integrated writing do not look at your outline too closely. Train yourself to write from an abstraction. If you constantly consult the same point in your outline, you will find your words stilted; after repeating the generalized sentence from your outline., you will have nothing more to say. The reason is that you have given your subconscious the order to say only what you wrote in your outline.
Your outline sets the direction. Keep that direction firmly in mind, but leave yourself free to express each point fully.
I cannot literally teach you to write. I can provide only a set of shortcuts that are helpful as general principles. These shortcuts will save you from bewilderment and from having to discover them slowly by yourself. To this end, there are a few errors or problems I want to warn you against, all involving the role of the subconscious in writing.