No Ideas But in Things: On Writing about Politics

September 10, 2018 § 12 Comments

zz_amosBy Peter Amos

No ideas but in things. Over the last two months, I’ve made my first real push for publication. Prominent magazines and journals often accept a fraction of one percent of submissions. There are thousands of others that accept between five and ten percent. The point being that, by virtue of submitting my own work, I’ve read gobs of essays from a slew of journals.

Coming at anything as an outsider can be fascinating. Everyone is an insider somewhere. I talk about Star Wars with my best friend from elementary school in a shorthand that culls outsiders quickly. With that in mind, I’ve noticed two things about magazines and journals, one related to the other.

The first is that essays are overwhelmingly narrative and skew wildly toward memoir. All people who strive to be better at things tend to over-learn the lessons of their mistakes. No ideas but in things. Write what you know. I hear both phrases floated to support a narrative style grounded in objects, people, events, and action. I’m not sure they mean what I always think.

No ideas but in things –

I twist this phrase frequently to avoid abstraction rather than to suggest ways in which it can be expressed. Nevermind that the phrase is ripped from a beautifully cryptic and meandering sentence. Even in its common usage among aspiring writers, it’s a challenge rather than a crutch. Ideas are better concrete, but the point at which I trust the reader to take my meaning is dangerously close to the point at which I avoid entirely having to have one.

Write what you know –

Writing stems from experience and perspective. But writers don’t only write from what they know, they strive tirelessly to know the thing about which they are curious. You know what you write.

The second thing I’ve noticed about magazines and journals is that the overwhelming majority explicitly forbid the submission of political opinion. I understand immediately. Politics can be divisive and, either way, many journals and magazines are simply working toward a different aesthetic. But that disappoints me.

Writers are notorious radicals in the truest sense. Saul Bellow wrote of great art that “its departure from tradition is the result not of caprice or policy but of an inner necessity.” Writers push against things, poke them with sticks, prick the surfaces to see if they pop, swim over to the deep end of the pool and trawl the floor for pennies. When the world demands lock-step conformity and passive voice, simply walking in the other direction can be transgressive.

George Orwell wrote that political writing is bad writing. He’s also the strongest evidence to the contrary. In context, Orwell argued not against political writing and social criticism, but against dogmatic writing of any kind.

No ideas but in things –

In politics, the phrase is perverted: No things, but in ideas. Political punditry is riddled with euphemism and distant language, but politics are fundamentally about people. No one is better equipped to humanize an idea than a writer. For Orwell to write of his life and his community and his world without engaging the politics of the time would have been dishonest. I’m inclined to think the same of most other lives and communities and worlds and times.

Engaging abstraction – untangling the yarn inside one’s own head – is the first step. Joan Didion wrote powerful stories and pieces of investigative journalism, but also breathtaking and funny contemplations of ideas: “On Keeping a Notebook” or “On Self-Respect.”

Aversion to politics or social criticism, I think, stems from an aversion to being wrong, or fear of being taken as arrogant. But is the confidence to write boldly about an idea more arrogant than a paralyzing fear of turning out to be wrong?

Two more things Saul Bellow wrote:

“There is grandeur in cursing the heavens, but when we curse our socks we should not expect to be taken seriously.”

… and …

“ … there is only the pitiful obstinacy of a ‘position,’ that marvelous dishonesty of modern politics.”

Write about big things or small. Weigh them appropriately. Curse the heavens, but roll my eyes at the socks. Write about them both. Positions are things I occupy in opposition to something else rather than vantage points upon which I look to improve. The “marvelous dishonesty” is not the location, but rather the manufactured opposition or permanence it implies.

I got back into writing by writing about politics and do so almost constantly. In the first months of 2016, I began a piece by saying that “I try not to write about politics but …” I wrote countless other things about which I later changed my mind. E.L. Doctorow, in his first essay for The Nation, laid out what writing about an idea or developing a fiction really means. He writes not because he has a profound thought to express, but because he needs to figure out what he thinks in the first place. He feels deeply about something and begins to explore it. The idea emerges along with the words:

“That is why ideologically committed writers, brilliant political persons, engaged artists, often write material that is born dead. Their ideas are stamped out on their work, cutting and forming it according to needs exterior to it.”

Talking is how ideas spill out.  Writing is how one sifts through the bog that’s left over and examines everything for value.

Most political writing is bad writing. But I wish writers wouldn’t abandon politics to ideologues – for the simple reason that writers write well. When the language of solid things, of humanity and action and emotion, occupy themselves elsewhere, the machinery of the world is left to empty words and dishonesty. Writers are radicals in the truest sense. Radical in their uncertainty and desire to humanize every idea, to bring things close and look them in the eye. That’s a valuable perspective in any field, politics most of all.

Peter Amos is a native of rural Virginia.  The son of an English teacher and a librarian, he studied music in college and moved to New York City where he works, performs, explores, and writes about it.

Tagged: , , ,

§ 12 Responses to No Ideas But in Things: On Writing about Politics

  • ccbarr says:

    “No ideas but in things”
    At first I thought my coffee hadn’t kicked in yet. That I was still fuzzy headed.
    But the more he kept using the phrase the more it sounds like gobbldegook. I understand his rather lengthy piece-have you ever heard a short winded politcal piece.
    Please Mr. For us dummies what does that phrase mean?

  • clpauwels says:

    Reblogged this on CL Pauwels at Large and commented:
    I’ve been largely avoiding writing while I’m on the campaign trail for a variety of reasons (Don’t cross the streams!), but maybe I need to reconsider:

    “Most political writing is bad writing. But I wish writers wouldn’t abandon politics to ideologues – for the simple reason that writers write well. When the language of solid things, of humanity and action and emotion, occupy themselves elsewhere, the machinery of the world is left to empty words and dishonesty.”

  • philipparees says:

    Excellent probing piece.’You know what you write’ I entirely endorse. In fact you don’t know at all until you write, as you don’t know until you speak.

    George Eliot put it as ‘no fiction should wrap a sermon’ ( or words to that effect) and books that did as ‘silly women’s novels’ the preachy too- certain- before- it- writes books of messaging. The one work in which she broke her own edict Daniel Deronda is , I submit, her least engaging, too intent upon addressing antisemitism that the character of Mordecai has a uni dimensional quality unlike all her other richly diverse and humanly contradictory characters so brilliant in all her others.

  • “You know what you write.” Yes! There is that foolish line from Forster: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?” but I have often found that writing about something is the best way to figure it out.

    • Peter says:

      Maybe whimsical is more the word and not foolish at all! If you get something out of it, it can’t be but so foolish.

      • I always assumed Forster meant her to appear rather foolish, but perhaps you are right. “Another distinguished critic has agreed with Gide–that old lady in the anecdote who was accused by her niece of being illogical. For some time she could not be brought to understand what logic was, and when she grasped its true nature she was not so much angry as contemptuous. ‘Logic! Good gracious! What rubbish!’ she exclaimed. ‘How can I tell what I think till I see what I say?’ Her nieces, educated young women, thought that she was passée; she was really more up-to-date than they were.”—E.M. Forster, from “Aspects of the Novel” (from Chapter V: The Plot)

  • kperrymn says:

    “Most political writing is bad writing.” I hate to think that’s true, But I have to admit that I haven’t explored that idea or even thought about it until I read this article. But I love the rest of the the last paragraph. “But writers write well…” As skilled tradespeople are called to help build houses for those who need them, we writers feel compelled to add clarity and perspective to current political discourse. Let’s not hold back.

    • Peter says:

      Most, but not all. There are a handful of wonderful political writers at big publications and a few exceptional ones floating around on the margins. But the vast majority is newspaper editorial pages or ideological or partisan orthodoxy.

      But again, not to say there’s nothing good out there. That’s also all obviously a wild flight of personal opinion. Do with it what you will.

      And thank you so much for reading!

  • epmjd says:

    We also need political leaders who understand language. Obama was one. But where is our next Churchill?

  • Lani says:

    What a meaty and thoughtful piece. I think we are going to see a continuation of politics being swept aside in writing because America (heck, the world) has become so polarizing. But you brought up a good point, writing helps us to sift through the noise and it’s a shame that we can no longer do that openly. Or if that’s too strong to say, that folks aren’t interested in cultivating that kind of conversation.

    As far as the other types of submissions, I feel like everyone is interested in fiction! But I understand what you are saying, that there is this “type” that magazines want, and much like the art world, I would agree. Although you could argue that we’ve always lived in these kinds of times where tastes of curators run in a particular direction, and it’s hard to be different.
    Here’s to being different.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading No Ideas But in Things: On Writing about Politics at BREVITY's Nonfiction Blog.


%d bloggers like this: