In These Dark Times, the question of whether you’re with us or them can be a crude tool of categorization. But that usage is for simple minds. By turning the divisive equation into a question and using the answer not as a conclusion but as a premise, we can all build more powerful extended arguments.
To persuade means to move, and the force required to move something depends on the weight of that which must be moved. We apply a different force when an argument is pitched to us than we apply when it’s pitched to them.
When we pitch to us, we pitch to the people who already agree with us. It’s not that we don’t need to move these readers, it’s that we don’t need to move these readers to understand that a problem is a problem. They already understand the problem exists. Instead, we need to persuade these readers of the merits of our proposed solution–we need to move these readers toward our answer.
When we write for them, however, we write for the readers who haven’t yet identified the problem as a problem, or haven’t yet identified its relevance to them. We can’t yet move these readers toward our solution–that’s too big a step. Instead, we need to persuade them that the problem is a problem that’s significant to them.
In this way, the answer to whether our argument is for us or for them determines its development. For us, we focus on identifying, describing, and explaining the solutions. For them, we focus on defining, describing, and supporting our identification of the problems.
A few examples make the difference clear. First, a manifesto, the ur book for us: The Lightmaker’s Manifesto: How to Work for Change without Losing Your Joy. From the title we know that Karen Walrond writes not for them, for readers who don’t know that a lightmaker is an activist and that activism is hard to sustain. The book is for us, for lightmaking readers who seek real solutions to the problem of burnout they already know they face.
Books for them look a lot more like Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction or Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. As their titles indicate, the pages of these books are devoted to naming, describing, arguing, and supporting the identification of a new (or newly articulated, or newly relevant) problem. The books seek to persuade readers that these problems exist and are significant to them.
Answering the question of us or them can guide the earliest stages of argument development. But it can also act as a useful intervention. If you’re stuck, blocked, uninspired, or lost and confused about what you’re even arguing, ask yourself: Am I mostly identifying a problem and arguing for its relevance to people who don’t yet understand it? Or am I mostly suggesting a solution for people who understand the problem and are willing and ready to make change?
In other words, am I writing for them or for us?
When the Answer is No
It’s hard to hear no. It’s hard when the stakes are low–like when your neighborhood restaurant is out of your favorite dish, when you can’t get an appointment on your one day off, or when your child refuses to eat what you thought was their favorite dish.
It’s a lot harder when the stakes are high. Our health, our loved ones, our jobs: On these subjects, a no can unmoor us–emotionally and practically–from our sense of security, or even from our sense of ourselves.
Recently, an unmoored author wanted to better understand what motivated the collective no she’d received. She’d pitched a manuscript on an important subject with which she had deeply personal experience. Confused by repeated rejections and conflicting feedback, she wanted to know the real reasons behind the no: Was it the quality of her writing? The organization? Was the no motivated by something more personal?
Naturally, it’s a lot easier to receive a no when it’s given alongside a good–as in, sensible, rational–reason. Logic can (sometimes) keep us from spinning our more emotionally driven wheels. Publishers don’t usually have the time to supply a good reason. But I sometimes can.
In my experience, almost every no is impersonal. Indeed, this is part of the pain we experience upon hearing it. A manuscript, even if it isn’t explicitly based on life experience, is always abstractly informed by our–very personal–life experience.
Rejections fail to recognize this because they’re typically the result of larger mismatch–between an ms and timing; between an ms and a publisher’s acquisitions or marketing priorities; between an ms and available personnel; between an ms and money.
Writing and organization, regardless of their strengths, can’t usually overcome these kinds of mismatches. Then, too, a word like “mismatch”–or more often, “misalignment”–is a fluid word that can be hard to practically define. It’s a the-vibes-are-off sentiment, which may explain why authors often receive different, conflicting reasons for rejections.
Writers can’t always reposition their work to overcome misalignment. However, it can be useful to put aside a project after receiving numerous rejections, at least temporarily. We often need distance to draw useful insight from conflicting information. Further, not all nos are forever. Sometimes, as Harvard Professor Frances Frei points out, no simply means not yet.
You’d Have to Stop the World Just to Stop the Feeling
Chappell Roan gives listeners evocative lyrics and a hooky chorus, but it’s the particularity of a universal sentiment that makes “Good Luck, Babe” such a bop.
Who hasn’t felt a feeling so big, so strong, that the only way to stop it is to stop the world from spinning? Probably only people who haven’t felt it yet.
For writers, the sentiment might apply to our unfinished work. This project, well, it’s our Everest, our Holy Grail, our transcendent point of universal harmonic resonance. It’s the project that we can’t ever seem to finish but that calls us back again and again. And again.
Like a love affair, the project can be the source of life-giving focus. It can also be a logistical disaster that forces existential questions along the lines of, what am I even doing here?
At one or one hundred points, we’ve probably sworn to give it up, have locked it into the (proverbial) desk drawer and tried to lose the key. Later, when that familiar feeling of desire returns, we might pick the lock, open the drawer, and unfold and uncrease the crumpled pages, to start again. And again.
Lots of us fight this feeling. The drive to return feels pointless, and also, why can’t we just let go and move on?
But what is Roan’s song if not a warning that letting go and moving on are not always reliable ways to staunch desire. It’s not always possible to stop wanting–it’s also not always advisable.
To mix metaphors a bit, when it comes to an unfinished writing project, the goal isn’t always to “be done.” It’s not as though any project is ever really done, anyway. The point of an unfinished project might be to function as the motivation we need to keep going.
Writing, for writers, is an infinite game, after all. Finishing may be as futile as trying to stop the world from spinning. Good luck, babe.
Depersonalize the Process
In life as in art, our point of view is our primary lens. We may seek objectivity, but we can’t always (can’t hardly ever) escape the limits of our vision.
The myopia can impede progress in very personal ways. In this post, I discuss the problem of personalization and offer suggestions for finding the space to expand your vision.
Writing a book requires an externalization of interiority. It’s hard work, and it provokes some epic, though predictable, struggles. There’s the grating irritation we might feel when our ambition scrapes uncomfortably against our ability. There’s the painful friction the results when an imagined product rubs up up against practical progress.
For writers who can’t not write, surrender is not an option. We must cope instead. Sometimes (or often), we do so by personalizing our challenges: I’m not smart enough or good enough to say what I want to say; I don’t know enough to have an opinion; I’m not qualified to have an opinion; or, Readers don’t get what I’m going for; People aren’t ready for my insights.
In other words, we personalize the difficulties that are typical of the process. As a result, we remain locked inside our interiority and blocked.
If you can’t see beyond your struggle, you need some space. Get it through depersonalization. First, ground yourself: Notice the struggle that you feel. Let yourself feel it. Then, remind yourself that this is just the uncanny byproduct of the work. There’s no solution–not for you, and not for anyone else.
Next, identify a handful of very simple, project-adjacent tasks that you want to and can easily complete. You might reformat a section. Or you might create and complete a personality questionnaire for a character. Or you might tell a friend which three sources you’re going to summarize over the next few days.
These and other simple interventions can offer a very gentle way to insert some space between you and your work. This space creates the distance you may need to depersonalize your struggle and engage in the process a bit more comfortably.
Attending to the Work
A famous line from the Jewish text, Chapters of Our Fathers, speaks to the spiritual necessity of interminable effort: We do not need to finish the work, but neither are we free to abandon it.
“The work” is both the effort, and the object of the effort. It’s the energy we put into manifesting any complex, intangible good–justice, peace, love, art–and it’s the intangible good, too. Justice, peace, love, and art are ongoing processes requiring endless renewal.
“The work” is necessary, and it’s also impossible. Each individual is compelled, in some way, to return to it, again and again, somehow in pursuit not of perfection but of progress.
We can engage with this work in many ways, by attempting it, undertaking it, toiling at it, grinding away at it, trudging toward it, struggling through it, forcing it.
Or we can attend to it. We can stretch toward the work, direct our mind or observant faculties to it, listen to it work, apply ourselves to it, watch over it, minister to it, follow it, frequent it, wait for it, wait upon it, await it, expect it.
Attend is the operative word. As a transitive and an intransitive verb–as both an action complete unto itself and an action that must be directed toward something–it reminds us that we need not complete the work. We cannot complete the work. But we can attend to it.
Ask New Questions
When you’re feeling stuck in your work, stagnant in your thoughts, or bored in your writing, it’s easy to feel like the inner spring has run dry, or there’s no well of ideas to tap.
Boredom is frequently considered a prerequisite to creativity, maybe because, for some of us, boredom is so uncomfortable we’re willing to go to inventive extremes to sidestep it. The British Psychological Society points out that boredom provokes at least as much pain as does effort, and maybe more.
But to push past boredom’s dead-end, we don’t really have to get that inventive. We can instead approach it as a cue to formulate new questions about old ideas. When we feel its telltale signs–restlessness, disinterest, and a sense we’ve become flat and featureless, we can pause and ask:
Questions can be useful interventions because they direct us toward answers. They contain a provocation that pushes us toward places we aren’t. Just by asking the questions, we can generate the movement that makes effort seem less like a choice than an imperative. How else will we find our answers?
You’re Too Close
Like a middle-aged patron holding a menu at arm’s length, writers must manipulate the distance to make their thoughts legible.
But it’s hard to hold our own thoughts far away, much less figure out the relative success of our efforts. How do we know if we’ve explained ourselves sufficiently? How can we be sure we’ve rendered our internal monologue into something externally meaningful?
It’s not easy–making the internal external is challenging enough without bothering about the answer to the question of to whom readability refers.
But it’s also necessary if we want our thoughts to be understood. As with other intimacies, when we’re too close, our view is obscured.
To gain more distance, we can practice the arts of alienation. Alienate can help us, etymologically, at least (ali-us is other/another, and -ēn-us is to see), establish the distance required to see an/other.
In contemporary usage, the word is negative–alienating something or someone suggests a hard push into an otherness so radical that the other can no longer be seen. But this usage is mostly only expedient for political ideologies that seek to hide the friction of distance and difference beyond the horizon.
The rest of us know that distance and difference are also opporunities. When we identify them for what they are, we can decide how and where to build bridges of common understanding.
Somewhat similarly, when we make our writing distant and different, we gain a perspective we can’t otherwise take.
We can do this in a number of ways: We can take time and space from a project, separating ourselves from and forgetting for a while our prior closeness. We can also use tools that make our work strange. Interrogative outlines are useful for this purpose. So, too, are AIs, which can make our writing so different and distant that we must work hard to build that bridge of understanding.
Wherever we’re standing in terms of our writing, it’s probably too close. By holding it out further, much further away, we may see opportunities to create common understanding.
Loosening the Hold
The challenges writers face that feel so insurmountable are often habits of thought based on mistaken premises.
One of strongest and most hidden beliefs we hold is that writing is a linear process. It’s not. It’s iterative.
To loosen our hold on this strong opinion, we have to first see that we’re holding it.
Then, we can confront it.
Us…or Them
In These Dark Times, the question of whether you’re with us or them can be a crude tool of categorization. But that usage is for simple minds. By turning the divisive equation into a question and using the answer not as a conclusion but as a premise, we can all build more powerful extended arguments.
To persuade means to move, and the force required to move something depends on the weight of that which must be moved. We apply a different force when an argument is pitched to us than we apply when it’s pitched to them.
When we pitch to us, we pitch to the people who already agree with us. It’s not that we don’t need to move these readers, it’s that we don’t need to move these readers to understand that a problem is a problem. They already understand the problem exists. Instead, we need to persuade these readers of the merits of our proposed solution–we need to move these readers toward our answer.
When we write for them, however, we write for the readers who haven’t yet identified the problem as a problem, or haven’t yet identified its relevance to them. We can’t yet move these readers toward our solution–that’s too big a step. Instead, we need to persuade them that the problem is a problem that’s significant to them.
In this way, the answer to whether our argument is for us or for them determines its development. For us, we focus on identifying, describing, and explaining the solutions. For them, we focus on defining, describing, and supporting our identification of the problems.
A few examples make the difference clear. First, a manifesto, the ur book for us: The Lightmaker’s Manifesto: How to Work for Change without Losing Your Joy. From the title we know that Karen Walrond writes not for them, for readers who don’t know that a lightmaker is an activist and that activism is hard to sustain. The book is for us, for lightmaking readers who seek real solutions to the problem of burnout they already know they face.
Books for them look a lot more like Elizabeth Kolbert’s The Sixth Extinction or Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. As their titles indicate, the pages of these books are devoted to naming, describing, arguing, and supporting the identification of a new (or newly articulated, or newly relevant) problem. The books seek to persuade readers that these problems exist and are significant to them.
Answering the question of us or them can guide the earliest stages of argument development. But it can also act as a useful intervention. If you’re stuck, blocked, uninspired, or lost and confused about what you’re even arguing, ask yourself: Am I mostly identifying a problem and arguing for its relevance to people who don’t yet understand it? Or am I mostly suggesting a solution for people who understand the problem and are willing and ready to make change?
In other words, am I writing for them or for us?
Book, Pen, Notebook: The Use of Transitional Objects
Notes apps, voice memos, and–obviously–keyboards and screens are great ways to capture your thoughts. But sometimes a pen and a notebook can help turn those thoughts into a more resonant conversation.
Slate movie critic Dana Stevens suggested this when she noted that she always watches movies with a pen and notebook in hand. She described them as her “transitional objects”–evoking Donald Winnicott and his use of the term. For Winnicott, a baby’s beloved and ever-present transitional object–a lovey, instance–helps them negotiate their subjective experiences and the objective world.
Transitional objects aren’t just for babies. Many of us rely at least a little bit on talismans to mediate between our inner life and the world’s objective insistences.
Like Stevens, I prefer a pen and notebook. I want to write down nearly everything I hear, and many things I see. I do this to stay focused in the present, to keep from daydreaming, to keep my roving mind in line, literally on the line.
It’s a medium-useful habit for life–that issue of focus, which the habit both fosters and divides–definitely requires further analysis.
It’s a maximally useful habit for work, however. When it comes to making books, a pen and notebook can make for an incredibly useful intermediary intervention.
You don’t need to use pen and notebook to write (unless you want to). Instead, you need to use them when you run into trouble. For example, when your sense of your argument diminishes in proportion to your growing pile of pages, take out a pen and notebook. Then:
The most powerful argument is (usually) the one that resonates most strongly. When it asserts itself, use it as a throughline to join your loose sentences into something tighter. This means:
A pen and paper can help to mediate between our instinctive (internal) knowledge and our readers’ (external) needs. Though the merits of assimilation and the ideal balance between subjective and objective experiences must still be determined, transitional objects can help us expand beyond ourselves.
Future Failure, or Esprit de L’Escalier
“[O]ne has only learnt to get the better of words for the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which one is no longer disposed to say it” —T.S. Eliot
The doing and thinking required to write and revise means that writers are constantly calculating the output of their subtractions and additions.
We’re counting on precision, but there is no exact answer. We can’t use perfect words; we can only use words that serve the moment. But, blink, and, as Eliot points out, that particular moment has passed. Those words, “shabby equipment always deteriorating,” which were so apt, are already wrong.
The attempt to fix moments in time, with words, frequently feels impossible and pointless. This discomfort can coalesce into an unmovable obstacle, encountered by some as writer’s block.
Writer’s block does not mean that you’ve failed. It means that you’ve stumbled onto the failure of words.
Such failure is constitutive of language because language is not commensurate with meaning. Our words always say less (and sometimes more) than what we mean. We can never really say just what we want to say–first because we don’t always know exactly what it is we mean, and second, because if we do, we don’t usually have the just-right words to convey it.
In other words, our thoughts and words can’t coordinate precisely. Writing lets us pretend otherwise by offering itself as a tool for facilitating closer connection. But its mechanism merely extends the variable of time, which magnifies imprecision.
There’s a solution to this problem, but it’s not without remainder. We must free ourselves from the tyranny of exactness by acknowledging our future failure. It’s not a personal shortcoming: It’s a consequence of communication, which is only approximate.
Similarly, esprit de l’espalier. is linguistic melancholy. The perfect words–like the perfect comeback–often only arrive (if they arrive at all) when the moment has passed.
We can still write, we just have to tolerate that it’s almost always wrong.