The Implicit and the Imponderable
Parallelism and power
Part 1: Background
The following paragraph comes to us from J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the scientists charged with creating the world’s first atomic bomb:
The problem of doing justice to the implicit, the imponderable, and the unknown is of course not unique in politics. It is always with us in science, it is with us in the most trivial of personal affairs, and it is one of the great problems of writing and of all forms of art. The means by which it is solved is sometimes called style. It is style which complements affirmation with limitation and with humility; it is style which makes it possible to act effectively, but not absolutely; it is style which, in the domain of foreign policy, enables us to find harmony between the pursuit of ends essential to us, and the regard for the views, the sensibilities, the aspirations of those to whom the problem may appear in another light; it is style which is the deference that action pays to uncertainty; it is above all style through which power defers to reason.
Oppenheimer was a student of history and something of a poet; at the moment of the first successful detonation, he was reminded of a line from the Bhagavad-Gita: “I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” To Oppenheimer, power wasn’t an abstract concept. Twenty years after the Trinity test, his memories still moved him deeply:
The paragraph is from The Open Mind, a speech published around 1949, when Oppenheimer was one of the most prominent physicists in America. It is a definitional argument in miniature, offering a series of assertions about the word style. There is also a problem that this kind of style solves: “[t]he problem of doing justice to the implicit, the imponderable, and the unknown.” For Oppenheimer, that problem was at the heart of the physical sciences.
Part 2: Walking the Line
Writing has more in common with the physical sciences than you might think, which is one reason to invoke Oppenheimer here. And of all the elements of composition, arrangement is perhaps the most physical. It’s a kinetic act — the literal movement of words and phrases around on the page.
A little more than a year ago, this course invoked another scientist (albeit a fictional one who becomes a meth kingpin) to talk about arrangement:
This is all part of the iterative process of developing grade abatement, which continues to this day and bleeds into a student’s emulation-through-analysis work. In this case, we should analyze Oppenheimer’s paragraph in order to emulate it — not as a turgid exercise in prescriptive writing, but in order to say something meaningful in a stylistic way.
So we walk a line: We need a granular understanding of what he’s done in order to reverse-engineer what is effective about it, but we need to use that blueprint to say something authentic and purposeful. Walking that line keeps the analysis from becoming pedantic. It keeps us in this frame of mind:
Considering that we’re studying the man who literally split the atom, we can afford to be scientific and incremental in our analysis.
Part 3: Deconstructing Oppenheimer’s Paragraph
We start at the beginning:
The problem of doing justice to the implicit, the imponderable, and the unknown is of course not unique in politics.
The first sentence presents a problem and offers us the context that it is “not unique in politics.” This implies that the solution to the problem, while applicable to politics, could also be applied elsewhere. Notice that Oppenheimer uses no active verbs here; this focuses us on the complex ideas introduced, from what it means to do justice to the distinction between implicit, imponderable, and unknown.
It is always with us in science, it is with us in the most trivial of personal affairs, and it is one of the great problems of writing and of all forms of art.
The second sentence contextualizes the problem, offering three fields in which it must be solved: science, our personal affairs, and “writing and all forms of art.” These assertions could be said to add gravity to the problem, and therefore to its solution. Notice also that Oppenheimer has juxtaposed science with “the most trivial of personal affairs,” and those quotidian concerns with the lofty ideals of literature and art. Juxtaposition like this is often called antithesis, but even without those extremes, it is a technique worth cultivating.
The means by which it is solved is sometimes called style.
A simple sentence that moves us into a definition of style. Notice that “style” is the only word here with any new or significant meaning; the others serve merely to direct us toward the next sentence. The qualifier (“sometimes”) avoids absolute language, which is language that conveys no possibility of error — words like never and always.
We should break down the next sentence clause by clause, since the parallel construction of each clause focuses us on different aspects of the definition of style. Before we do that, however, you need to be certain you understand what a clause is. Start with the accompanying image; then click on the image to visit the Online Writing Lab at Purdue University.
It is style which complements affirmation with limitation and with humility;
We start with abstract concepts and a subtle verb (“complements”) that connects them. Oppenheimer suggests that style manifests itself as limitation and humility; in other words, style prevents us from seeming arrogant or cruel in victory. It’s the opposite of overkill. The noun he uses (“affirmation”) is also interesting, because it implies that the user of this style is already aware of his/her/its power.
One reason this paragraph can be difficult to understand is its use of abstract language — affirmation, style, humility, power, and so on. In fact, it never uses concrete details of any kind. It’s the opposite of this strip by Gary Larson:
(You can quickly learn the difference between abstract and concrete details in your writing by watching this video.)
it is style which makes it possible to act effectively, but not absolutely;
Again, style is defined as a way of tempering an action. Effective actions are contrasted with absolute ones, with several ways to interpret the latter adjective: unrestrained, unchecked, implacable, obliterating, and so on. There’s much to be said about recognizing that domination isn’t always the most effective path forward.
it is style which, in the domain of foreign policy, enables us to find harmony between the pursuit of ends essential to us, and the regard for the views, the sensibilities, the aspirations of those to whom the problem may appear in another light;
A longer clause like this prevents parallelism from becoming repetitive. Parallelism in general can sound too contrived if it isn’t unbalanced in some way, That’s one of the keys: Use enough variety to make your choices matter.
Notice that the construction of the first two clauses (“it is style which [verb]“) is broken up by an adverbial phrase (“in the domain of foreign policy”) that grounds us. The abstract ideas of the first two clauses are now given context: international relationships and policies. Notice also that Oppenheimer uses an asyndeton to suggest the countless ways in which we differ from foreign nations and individuals (“the views, the sensibilities, the aspirations”). That list builds, too, which is evidence of how carefully he chose each word.
it is style which is the deference that action pays to uncertainty;
The penultimate clause sets up the final one by suggesting that, in the context of politics and foreign policy, we should be more uncertain — less swift to act and more willing to debate our motivations. Consider this idea in the context of the last few decades of world politics, where rationality and reasoned debate are at war with impatience and immediacy. Oppenheimer would probably say that we have stopped respecting the power of uncertainty out of fear that inaction equals failure and ignorance equals stupidity.
In other words:
Take the time to read Leitch’s essay. It will be relevant as long as the Internet is around to make it relevant, but it should resonate even more while we’re in the midst of an election cycle.
it is above all style through which power defers to reason.
The last phrase (“above all”) tells us that we’ve arrived at the most important definition of style and the most important purpose it serves. The previous ideas of uncertainty and harmony fit under this last one, and the switch from a noun (“deference”) in the penultimate clause to a verb (“defers”) here emphasizes the need for respect. It’s a nice echo in language, and one that’s tough to pull off cleanly.
This last clause is the crux of the miniature argument: that our actions on the world’s stage can break harmony and balance if we lack the style that permits uncertainty and reason. Style doesn’t prevent power; it tempers it through humility and nuance.
Remember that this is one of the scientists who gave the world the power to destroy cities and kill a hundred thousand people in an instant. This paragraph is abstract in many ways, but it deals with the practical and political realities of the atomic age.
