Pretentious Argument

As part of my Creative Nonfiction course at Duke, I was asked to write whether or not I agreed with the following statement; an excerpt from If You Want to Write, by Brenda Ueland:

This is why these smart, energetic, do-it-now, pushing people so often say: “I am not creative.” They are, but they should be idle, limp and alone for much of the time, as lazy as men fishing on a levee, and quietly looking and thinking, not willing all the time. This quiet looking and thinking is the imagination; it is letting in ideas. Willing is doing something you know already, something you have been told by somebody else… Great artists dare to be idle, i.e., not to be pressed and duty-driven all the time… What you write today is the result of some span of idling yesterday, some fairly long period of protection from talking and busyness.

The fact that I emphatically disagree with the idea behind this notwithstanding, this is a great example of how not to conduct an argument. Ueland’s claim is based, at best anecdotal information from her own personal experience (and writing is an intensely personal project). Worse, she relies on pretentious language to bully the reader into submitting to her point of view. This is the kind of language I see all too often in fashion writing, artistic and literary criticism, and it just reflects poorly on the content of the argument or criticism.

My response (for the class) is below:
–
–
–
I disagree with the excerpt from If You Want to Write by Brenda Ueland; her argument is spurious and attempts to use pretentious language and implied expertise to coerce the reader into agreement.

Ueland’s claim that idleness engenders creativity, while activity prevents it, relies on a schema that ideas form under some spontaneous generation. She claims that being alone is “letting in ideas,” but does not seem to consider where the ideas come from. Certainly, there is a kernel of truth here in that we can not expect to collect our thoughts without some respite from engaging in experiences and pursing goals. However, Ueland seems to claim that ideas will come from actively avoiding experiences, the atoms which combine, often mysteriously, to form ideas. This seems to be a misconception due to perspective. Ideas often arise unexpectedly during periods of idleness, but their appearance is not necessarily caused by the idleness.

While I find this concept hard to believe, I would have been convinced if presented with some evidence of its veracity. Given that writing is such a personal process, even with anecdotal evidence we would be unable to extrapolate Ueland’s success with this method to ourselves. As such, I would be surprised if the advice here applies to a majority, let alone universally.

Finally, the argument is deflated by the bullying language which portrays an illusion that “great artists” follow this doctrine. To claim this method has worked personally is perfectly reasonable. To claim that people “should be idle”, and that successful artists “dare to be idle,” is unjustified and pretentious.

-Barry