So, as you can see, this post is ridiculously late. I was under the impression that I had posted my blog on the designated Sunday. I woke up on Sunday, wrote a short passage, copied it to the blog typing space thingy, and...well I am not sure what I did. I am assuming that I did not hit post, but instead just hit the red x in the corner of the web browser and went on to do whatever it is I do with my time. Until today, when I decided to do some "productive procrastination" by reading the blog, I thought my post was up for all to see. Little did I know that when Laura said "a few of you had forgotten to post" she was referring to me. Well, here is my post, for whatever it is worth:
After reading Kolln's chapter 9, I decided to evaluate my use of adverbial prepositional phrases. As Kolln points out, my use of prepositional phrases is sometimes unnecessary and confusing.
Old Version:
The fictional autobiography aims to have an immediate impact on the reader by dealing with a real person in a fictional disguise. The proletarian initiation novel takes a naïve protagonist into the utopian world of communism that is preferrrable. Proletarian social novels delineate both labor woes of the common worker and shows how the lowest classes of society lives in a day to day basis.
In this version, my use of prepositonal phrases obscure the focus of the sentences and makes my writing difficult to understand. In order to alleviate this problem, I replaced these phrases with prenoun modifiers.
New Version:
The fictional autobiography aims to immediately impact the reader by dealing with a fictionally disguised real person. The proletarian initiation novel takes a naive protagonist into the prefferable communist utopian world. Proletarain social novels delineate both labor woes of the common worker and reveals the day to day lives of the lowest class of society.
Changing the prepositional phrases to prenoun modifiers makes my writing a little more focused and a lot less confusing.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Fashionably late.
Sorry for the tardiness, again. As this is the last go round, I can say with 100% confidence that it won't happen again. This is from the opening to a paper on Coleridge, which I think is much better with appositives.
Original:
Samuel Taylor Coleridge died on July 25th, 1834, and was interred in a family vault at London's Highgate cemetery. This cemetery features other literary and philosophical superstars such as George Eliot and Karl Marx. Coleridge's remains were kept in this company until the 6th of June, 1961, when they were transferred into the crypt of the nearby Parish Church of St Michael’s.
Now containing appositive-y goodness:
Following hus death on July 25th, 1834, Samuel Taylor Coleridge was interred in a family vault at the Highgate cemetery in London--a cemetery that in the following half-century would see the addition of such other notable figures as George Eliot and Karl Marx. This eclectic triumvirate of entombed literary and philosophical superstars was broken up on the 6th of June, 1961, when Coleridge’s remains were transferred into the crypt of the nearby Parish Church of St Michael’s.
Original:
Samuel Taylor Coleridge died on July 25th, 1834, and was interred in a family vault at London's Highgate cemetery. This cemetery features other literary and philosophical superstars such as George Eliot and Karl Marx. Coleridge's remains were kept in this company until the 6th of June, 1961, when they were transferred into the crypt of the nearby Parish Church of St Michael’s.
Now containing appositive-y goodness:
Following hus death on July 25th, 1834, Samuel Taylor Coleridge was interred in a family vault at the Highgate cemetery in London--a cemetery that in the following half-century would see the addition of such other notable figures as George Eliot and Karl Marx. This eclectic triumvirate of entombed literary and philosophical superstars was broken up on the 6th of June, 1961, when Coleridge’s remains were transferred into the crypt of the nearby Parish Church of St Michael’s.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Oops. I forgot, too.
BEFORE: The period spanning the Victorian Era and the early part of the Jazz Age was brief in historic terms: roughly eighty years. These decades represent, however, an epic shift in women’s self-perception: from that of passive dependents who responded and adapted to events in life, to strong beings who seized opportunities and set events into motion. Considering that America is a “self-made” country, it is fitting that this shift to a more “Self-Made” Woman took place on American soil, with inspiration coming from vastly different women: as different as Irish domestic workers and upper middle-class “New Women.” …
The first sentence shows the proper use of a colon in following a complete sentence. Considering that I use three colons in this paragraph, however, the first sentence begs for revision. This sentence also contains a pronoun modifier that is modified with an –ly adverb. I’ve used these modifiers properly—without a hyphen—but the sentence is clumsy. The second sentence also poses a problem by containing nine prepositional phrases that obscure the focus of the paragraph. Kolln suggests turning some of these prepositional phrases into pronoun modifiers or more precise words.
AFTER: Women’s self-perception dramatically shifted during the period spanning the Victorian Era and the early part of the Jazz Age. During this time, passive and reactive women embraced opportunities for self-motivated action. These “Self-Made” Women were as diverse as the American melting pot: as different as Irish domestic workers and upper middle-class “New Women.” …
The first sentence shows the proper use of a colon in following a complete sentence. Considering that I use three colons in this paragraph, however, the first sentence begs for revision. This sentence also contains a pronoun modifier that is modified with an –ly adverb. I’ve used these modifiers properly—without a hyphen—but the sentence is clumsy. The second sentence also poses a problem by containing nine prepositional phrases that obscure the focus of the paragraph. Kolln suggests turning some of these prepositional phrases into pronoun modifiers or more precise words.
AFTER: Women’s self-perception dramatically shifted during the period spanning the Victorian Era and the early part of the Jazz Age. During this time, passive and reactive women embraced opportunities for self-motivated action. These “Self-Made” Women were as diverse as the American melting pot: as different as Irish domestic workers and upper middle-class “New Women.” …
Sunday, May 31, 2009
For my blog today, I'm playing with the movable participle. Here are some changes:
OLD
Researchers have studied ballads and haint tales, poetry and belief statements to find conventions and trends which lead to better understandings of Appalachian culture.
NEW
Through studying haint tales and belief statements, researchers have developed better understandings of Appalachian culture.
OLD
The ways such narratives take shape in Appalachia is as diverse as its geography and its people.
NEW
Shaping Appalachia are its narratives, which are as diverse as its geography and its people.
I'm playing particular attention to how the NEW sentences change the focus/attention of the line. Although they seem less natural (maybe because they are new to me, or maybe because they defy traditional structure), moving the participle does seem to allow you to re-focus your reader's attention.
OLD
Researchers have studied ballads and haint tales, poetry and belief statements to find conventions and trends which lead to better understandings of Appalachian culture.
NEW
Through studying haint tales and belief statements, researchers have developed better understandings of Appalachian culture.
OLD
The ways such narratives take shape in Appalachia is as diverse as its geography and its people.
NEW
Shaping Appalachia are its narratives, which are as diverse as its geography and its people.
I'm playing particular attention to how the NEW sentences change the focus/attention of the line. Although they seem less natural (maybe because they are new to me, or maybe because they defy traditional structure), moving the participle does seem to allow you to re-focus your reader's attention.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
a starship captain must have nerves of steel, good interpersonal skills, and the ability to use superfluous commas
Indoctrinated early in my schooling with the casual rule that a comma goes where you would naturally pause or take a breath, I need only confess that I became an avid Star Trek fan at age 7 for you to imagine the havoc wreaked by this well-intended advice. I have written papers that William Shatner would have delivered with glee. In the "Punctuation of Phrases and Clauses" section of Kolln, I experienced a sharp and unpleasant desire to find and double-check the worksheet I made for my students about the usage of commas and semicolons. To my great relief, the examples I gave them do not betray my weakness. With this exception:
My brother, Zachary, a barista, doesn’t like his coworkers.
I wanted to make sure they understood that when I said a comma sets off inessential (or nonrestrictive) information, I meant from the sentence’s perspective and not theirs. However, this sentence stands alone. Who knows how many brothers the writer has? Especially in a sentence used to illustrate something, I feel like the extra comma just clutters things up and encourages extra commas.
My brother Zachary, a barista, doesn’t like his coworkers.
Not the prettiest sentence, but cleaner. If I *am* just dying to have that third comma in there, it might look something like this:
One of my brothers, Zachary, who works as a barista, doesn’t like his coworkers.
BONUS!
Far more upsetting that steering a bunch of freshmen –who probably ignored me anyway- slightly wrong, was this sentence that I included in a paper I delivered at the Louisville Conference (Nick, can you ever forgive me?):
Old: Even after Florence dies, Dowell is not unhappy, free of his invalid wife, and looking forward to the possibility of remarrying.
New: Even after Florence dies, Dowell is not unhappy; free of his invalid wife, he looks forward to the possibility of remarrying.
A Final Reading from the Book of John
I have always had a tendency to be longwinded, especially in my writing. My sentences tend to have lots of clauses so that what could have been two or three short sentences often gets crammed into one. (In part, I blame my addiction to the semi-colon, which lets me get away with this much more than commas do.) Below we find two sentences of particularly massive proportions.
Fielding’s ire is particularly aroused by those writers (particularly stage dramatists), who in the final act of a play will spontaneously reform characters who have hitherto been “notorious Rogues” and “abandoned Jades” with no other reason than that the end of the play is approaching (307-308). It might be argued that Tom Jones himself is reformed over the course of the novel, but Fielding is at pains to make the transformation as gradual as possible so that although the Tom Jones of Book II and the Tom Jones of Book XVIII differ, we do not witness any shift from notorious rogue (if that title can appropriately be bestowed on Tom) to noble gentleman.
First, there's a bone-headed comma mistake in the first sentence. I blame the parantheses for not making me notice it right away. Second, I have a relative clause within a relative clause, which is just plain ridiculous. The second sentence seems to be in good shape but is overly long because I've linked two theoretically independent sentences with a "so that."
Fielding’s ire is particularly aroused by those writers (particularly stage dramatists) who in the final act of a play will spontaneously reform “notorious Rogues” and “abandoned Jades," justifying it only by the approaching end of the play (307-308). It might be argued that Tom Jones himself is reformed over the course of the novel, but Fielding is at pains to make the transformation as gradual as possible. Although the Tom Jones of Book II and the Tom Jones of Book XVIII differ, we do not witness any shift from notorious rogue (if that title can appropriately be bestowed on Tom) to noble gentleman.
I fixed the comma mistake and ditched the "who have hitherto been," thus turning what was a relative clause within a relative clause into a single relative clause. In the interests of economy, I have also used a participle phrase at the end of the sentence to tighten up the structure at the end. I've also chopped up that second sentence into two sentences, which makes it easier to digest than it would be in one big chunk.
I think that these changes make the text flow better. In the future, I'm going to try to avoid cramming so much stuff into each individual sentence. One major step will be breaking my addiction to semi-colons; although I didn't use any in this selection, they lead me unconsciously towards large, unwieldy sentences. (And yes, I am well aware of the irony of using a semi-colon in a sentence about not using semi-colons. It worked well there.)
Friday, May 29, 2009
I Heart the Dash-- Ruth
Ruth, an intuitive grammarian, had trouble coalescing what she learned from Ch. 9. A red pencil, a pile of crossed out sentences, a few beads of sweat upon her brow—the detritus of a grammar exercise.
Old:
In contrast to male bodies, the female body seeps, weeps, often overflowing its container. It is both an open void that can be penetrated and a dangerous boundarilessness which threatens to engulf everything.
New:
The female body, in contrast to the male body, often overflows its container. Both an open void capable of being penetrated and a dangerous boundarilessness—the female body threatens to engulf everything.
Notes:
Picking up one of Kolln’s earlier points about using sentence subject placement effectively, I revised the first sentence to place the female body as the primary subject rather than the male body. It seems entirely appropriate in a paper discussing the feminist grotesque that the female body would be the focal subject.
Though Kolln did not discuss the proliferation of useless verbs in Ch. 9, she did make a similar point about the proliferation of modifier nouns. In the spirit of this injunction, I cut seeps and weeps seeing as the verb “overflowing” captures both of these ideas. This makes this sentence much tighter to read.
Though I am a big lover of the dash, I most often use it in pairs to offset information in the middle of a sentence. I decided I’d experiment with using the dash to offset a sentence appositive. I didn’t actually realize that the end of this sentence “engulfs” the meaning of the first part of the sentence, but I believe it does. Off-setting with a dash served to greatly emphasize the female body’s power of permeability.
Old:
In contrast to male bodies, the female body seeps, weeps, often overflowing its container. It is both an open void that can be penetrated and a dangerous boundarilessness which threatens to engulf everything.
New:
The female body, in contrast to the male body, often overflows its container. Both an open void capable of being penetrated and a dangerous boundarilessness—the female body threatens to engulf everything.
Notes:
Picking up one of Kolln’s earlier points about using sentence subject placement effectively, I revised the first sentence to place the female body as the primary subject rather than the male body. It seems entirely appropriate in a paper discussing the feminist grotesque that the female body would be the focal subject.
Though Kolln did not discuss the proliferation of useless verbs in Ch. 9, she did make a similar point about the proliferation of modifier nouns. In the spirit of this injunction, I cut seeps and weeps seeing as the verb “overflowing” captures both of these ideas. This makes this sentence much tighter to read.
Though I am a big lover of the dash, I most often use it in pairs to offset information in the middle of a sentence. I decided I’d experiment with using the dash to offset a sentence appositive. I didn’t actually realize that the end of this sentence “engulfs” the meaning of the first part of the sentence, but I believe it does. Off-setting with a dash served to greatly emphasize the female body’s power of permeability.
Ch. 9: Choosing Adjectivals
Adjectival-a modifier of a noun, referring to function.
Participle phrases sound a little odd to me, but I’d like to try one by replacing one a previously used sentence in the paper. The movable participle seems to best pertain to the various ways the following sentence can be constructed (I’m going to change it because there’s a lack of information).
Original: The cover song is the offspring of artistic influence
Alteration #1: As an offspring of artistic influence, the cover song often maintains many movements made in the original.
Alteration #2: By repeating many of the movements made in the original, the cover song becomes the offspring of artistic influence.
I came across the section about sentence appositives during this reading, which I love using in my writing in general. I looked through my paper to see what I could find (some are simpler than others):
• Harvey claims that each encounter has the ability to subconsciously change the identity of culture. This implicates that the members of the given culture must operate similarly—thereby rendering meaning utterly subjective
• When the cover is written, further cultural residue has amassed around the occurrences that may (or may not) have driven the original song to be conceived—instead it is a response, a retort even.
However I have other uses of M-dashes, which I believe I see more frequently, that add information to the sentence rather than summing it up: “The second version came about in 1988 when former member of The Velvet Underground, John Cale, heard the song and asked Cohen to see the collection of verses—of which Cohen chose to send him only 15.”
Adjectival-a modifier of a noun, referring to function.
Participle phrases sound a little odd to me, but I’d like to try one by replacing one a previously used sentence in the paper. The movable participle seems to best pertain to the various ways the following sentence can be constructed (I’m going to change it because there’s a lack of information).
Original: The cover song is the offspring of artistic influence
Alteration #1: As an offspring of artistic influence, the cover song often maintains many movements made in the original.
Alteration #2: By repeating many of the movements made in the original, the cover song becomes the offspring of artistic influence.
I came across the section about sentence appositives during this reading, which I love using in my writing in general. I looked through my paper to see what I could find (some are simpler than others):
• Harvey claims that each encounter has the ability to subconsciously change the identity of culture. This implicates that the members of the given culture must operate similarly—thereby rendering meaning utterly subjective
• When the cover is written, further cultural residue has amassed around the occurrences that may (or may not) have driven the original song to be conceived—instead it is a response, a retort even.
However I have other uses of M-dashes, which I believe I see more frequently, that add information to the sentence rather than summing it up: “The second version came about in 1988 when former member of The Velvet Underground, John Cale, heard the song and asked Cohen to see the collection of verses—of which Cohen chose to send him only 15.”
Tessa's Chapter 9 Post
I took a passage from my critical writing paper, which seemed a bit clunky and bland and unsophisticated, and tried out a bunch of Kolln’s chapter 9 strategies. Vote for the one you like best. Sorry, the period for voting by cell phone has ended, so you must respond via blog.
- OLD: Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language. Slavin isn’t the only writer to utilize this strategy. Aimee Bender, Stacy Richter, and Judy Budnitz, among other contemporary magical realists, have done the same in their own fiction.
- NEW: Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language. She isn’t the only writer to utilize this strategy. Aimee Bender, Judy Budnitz, Stacy Richter—they all have entered strange realms through the magical keyhole of metaphor. (As Kolln says, an opening appositive series is certainly dramatic, and who doesn’t love drama (201)?) (What do you do to parenthesis within parenthesis? It seems like the English language should have a rule to deal with that.)
- NEW: Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language. She isn’t the only writer to utilize this strategy. Entering strange realms by passing through metaphor’s looking glass, Aimee Bender, Judy Budnitz, and Stacey Richter join Slavin on the magical realist, illness narrative train. (hmm. I think I’m mixing my metaphors here; plus the end of that sentence is a bit of a mouthful
- NEW: Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language. Joining her in use of this strategy, Aimee Bender, Judy Budnitz, and Stacy Richter also enter strange realms in their own illness narratives through the use of metaphor. (hmm. The end of this sentence, with its ending prepositional phrase, also sounds clunky.)
- NEW: Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language. Other contemporary magical realists—Aimee Bender, Judy Budnitz, Stacy Richter—also utilize the strategy of metaphor to great effect in illness narratives of their own.
I’m voting for the orange sentence. It doesn’t have the dramatic flourish of some of the other sentences, but it seems the cleanest and clearest of these four options. What do others think? Would it really be terrible to let that looking glass metaphor go? I mean, how can you beat a sentence talking about use of metaphor that actually itself is using a metaphor?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
5/30 Chapter 9—Choosing Adjectivals
Here is a sentence from my most recent draft that has a lot of commas [that] I’m not sure are working correctly.
(Is the above sentence a case where I don’t need “that”? I’ll rewrite it this way: “I’m not sure that the many commas in this sentence from my most recent draft are correct.” Well, this change doesn’t lead with the introduction of the thing/the sentence, so the prepositional phrase “from my most recent draft” makes the sentence a little clunky. Looking back at Kolln, I see that she says {I just started that phrase with SHE, but realized that I am the one looking back} that “that” can be omitted if it doesn’t cause any confusion (197)).
Anyways, back to this sentence!:
OLD: “For this study then, I focus on the rhetorical strategies, or perhaps more appropriately the rhetorical peculiarities of History of a Six Weeks’ Tour, as it was published.”
NEW: “For this study then, I focus on the rhetorical strategies—or perhaps more appropriately, the rhetorical peculiarities—of the crafted, published version of History.”
In this change, I wanted to emphasize the rephrasing of “rhetorical strategies” to “peculiarities”, so I set off this appositive (is that what we’d call it? Peculiarities modifies or further defines the object “strategies”) with a dash instead. Kolln says that the dash or colon puts emphasis on the appositive, which is what I wanted to do here. As for that last phrase—“as it was published”—I’m not sure if it would need to be set off with that comma, but I’m thinking it doesn’t. However, I wanted to change it because in the old version, this is where the emphasis lands. Since I am trying to move past readings of History that don’t use the published version, setting off that phrase keeps it too separated. So I moved the adjective published before the noun and added "crafted" (for emphasis and repetition I’m trying to weave into the paper throughout) and set them off with a comma so it’s clear that they both are independently modifying “version.” I like this change quite a bit, though I’m not sure if I need that comma between “appropriately” and “the.”
***I found this chapter to be difficult to read; I thought there was no chance I would be able to spot this stuff in my writing without pouring over the chapter. It's crazy that in writing the first sentence of this post that I was suddenly aware of the way it was going together and questioning automatically if it was 'right' or the most effective it could be. Sweet.
(Is the above sentence a case where I don’t need “that”? I’ll rewrite it this way: “I’m not sure that the many commas in this sentence from my most recent draft are correct.” Well, this change doesn’t lead with the introduction of the thing/the sentence, so the prepositional phrase “from my most recent draft” makes the sentence a little clunky. Looking back at Kolln, I see that she says {I just started that phrase with SHE, but realized that I am the one looking back} that “that” can be omitted if it doesn’t cause any confusion (197)).
Anyways, back to this sentence!:
OLD: “For this study then, I focus on the rhetorical strategies, or perhaps more appropriately the rhetorical peculiarities of History of a Six Weeks’ Tour, as it was published.”
NEW: “For this study then, I focus on the rhetorical strategies—or perhaps more appropriately, the rhetorical peculiarities—of the crafted, published version of History.”
In this change, I wanted to emphasize the rephrasing of “rhetorical strategies” to “peculiarities”, so I set off this appositive (is that what we’d call it? Peculiarities modifies or further defines the object “strategies”) with a dash instead. Kolln says that the dash or colon puts emphasis on the appositive, which is what I wanted to do here. As for that last phrase—“as it was published”—I’m not sure if it would need to be set off with that comma, but I’m thinking it doesn’t. However, I wanted to change it because in the old version, this is where the emphasis lands. Since I am trying to move past readings of History that don’t use the published version, setting off that phrase keeps it too separated. So I moved the adjective published before the noun and added "crafted" (for emphasis and repetition I’m trying to weave into the paper throughout) and set them off with a comma so it’s clear that they both are independently modifying “version.” I like this change quite a bit, though I’m not sure if I need that comma between “appropriately” and “the.”
***I found this chapter to be difficult to read; I thought there was no chance I would be able to spot this stuff in my writing without pouring over the chapter. It's crazy that in writing the first sentence of this post that I was suddenly aware of the way it was going together and questioning automatically if it was 'right' or the most effective it could be. Sweet.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Bad Sentence Habits
Old:
Weimann also brings in an interesting post-colonial perspective to the idea of identification of the other; he asserts, via Cheyfutz, that instruction is colonization, colonization instruction (53). He refers specifically to the direction given to Adam and Eve by the angels before they leave Eden, but I think this reading is also relevant to Eve as the Other to Adam. Walker points out that Eve is unaware of the gendered terms which we recognize as feminine (being post-Fall humans); she is instructed, indoctrinated into understanding her role by God (519). Instruction is given freely throughout Paradise Lost, but is most powerful when teaching Eve her identity within the hierarchy of the Garden.
New:
Weimann introduces an interesting post-colonial perspective to the theory of Other-ing. He asserts, via Cheyfutz, that instruction is colonization, colonization instruction (53). Although Weimann refers specifically to the angels’ directions to the fallen couple upon their dismissal from Eden, this reading is relevant to Eve as the Other to Adam. Instructed and indoctrinated in understanding her role by God, Eve is unaware of the gendered terms that we recognize as feminine (Walker, 519). Given freely throughout Paradise Lost, instruction is powerful when teaching Eve the details of her identity within the hierarchy of the Garden.
Commentary:
I usually have some misgivings about my personal punctuation system. This is mostly because I am prone to concocting long sentences abounding with proliferating prepositional phrases and adverbials/adjectival phrases. First, I tried to identify strangely yoked sentences, highlighted in pink. The structure of this paragraph was striking once I had done my highlighting; the paragraph involves four sentences, 1 and 3 are linked together with a semi-colon and 2 and 4 are linked with a comma and then the conjunction but. I started by putting a period at the end of the sentence in place of the semi-colon because the following information could stand alone more effectively. In sentence 3, I noticed another which phrase, and changed the vague which to the determiner that. I also used a movable adjectival phrase to replace the semi-colon that I would normally have used. The most useful revisions were done in sentences 2 and 4, where I tried to emphasize my point about Adam and Eve with the use of the first person. After our discussion yesterday in class, I have become more aware my pronoun use affects my authority, so I changed the but-plus-I sentence to use the passive voice and tried to break up some of the prepositional phrases. I’m not sure this reads the way I want yet, although substituting a few referents helped. I also tried to apply some power verbs from our last reading, but couldn’t think of a way to change all of those is linking verbs. Again, I love this book.
Weimann also brings in an interesting post-colonial perspective to the idea of identification of the other; he asserts, via Cheyfutz, that instruction is colonization, colonization instruction (53). He refers specifically to the direction given to Adam and Eve by the angels before they leave Eden, but I think this reading is also relevant to Eve as the Other to Adam. Walker points out that Eve is unaware of the gendered terms which we recognize as feminine (being post-Fall humans); she is instructed, indoctrinated into understanding her role by God (519). Instruction is given freely throughout Paradise Lost, but is most powerful when teaching Eve her identity within the hierarchy of the Garden.
New:
Weimann introduces an interesting post-colonial perspective to the theory of Other-ing. He asserts, via Cheyfutz, that instruction is colonization, colonization instruction (53). Although Weimann refers specifically to the angels’ directions to the fallen couple upon their dismissal from Eden, this reading is relevant to Eve as the Other to Adam. Instructed and indoctrinated in understanding her role by God, Eve is unaware of the gendered terms that we recognize as feminine (Walker, 519). Given freely throughout Paradise Lost, instruction is powerful when teaching Eve the details of her identity within the hierarchy of the Garden.
Commentary:
I usually have some misgivings about my personal punctuation system. This is mostly because I am prone to concocting long sentences abounding with proliferating prepositional phrases and adverbials/adjectival phrases. First, I tried to identify strangely yoked sentences, highlighted in pink. The structure of this paragraph was striking once I had done my highlighting; the paragraph involves four sentences, 1 and 3 are linked together with a semi-colon and 2 and 4 are linked with a comma and then the conjunction but. I started by putting a period at the end of the sentence in place of the semi-colon because the following information could stand alone more effectively. In sentence 3, I noticed another which phrase, and changed the vague which to the determiner that. I also used a movable adjectival phrase to replace the semi-colon that I would normally have used. The most useful revisions were done in sentences 2 and 4, where I tried to emphasize my point about Adam and Eve with the use of the first person. After our discussion yesterday in class, I have become more aware my pronoun use affects my authority, so I changed the but-plus-I sentence to use the passive voice and tried to break up some of the prepositional phrases. I’m not sure this reads the way I want yet, although substituting a few referents helped. I also tried to apply some power verbs from our last reading, but couldn’t think of a way to change all of those is linking verbs. Again, I love this book.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Nick's Second.
So with the holiday and all, I totally forgot to do this on time. Sorry.
This is from the intro to an essay I wrote last year. The instructor told me I used too many prepositions, and to prove this, circled every one on the first page. I was then advised not to use so many. I'm trying to sum up and expand on something that Margaret Atwood told me once in a Q&A after a reading.
Original: That is to say, it seems to me, that the great cultural works of the past not only influence the structure of the present moment, but that also the present moment, informed by the confluence of multiple traditional texts, dynamically alters how individual traditional texts are interpreted. An understanding of this perspective of influence is extremely useful when considering Atwood's own body of work, which can be characterized by nothing if not by her overt intertextual references to, it seems at times, the entire Western canon.
Revised: Because Atwood's body of work seems to intertextually reference most of the Western canon, understanding her perspective on influence greatly informs examinations of her body of work. Her response implies a reciprocal relationship between the present moment and the texts through which that moment is read. Our understanding of the present, naturally, is influenced by the texts we have read, but the meaning we take from texts is also influenced by our present experience.
I started a sentence with 'because,' because I'm usually very hesitant about that, and tried to break up the long strings of subordinate and prepositional clauses. I also used the first-person, which I am usually hesitant about as well. In addition, I reordered some parts so that the end of sentences emphasize my main points, and so that the information has better coherence (because I still remember last week's lessons).
This is from the intro to an essay I wrote last year. The instructor told me I used too many prepositions, and to prove this, circled every one on the first page. I was then advised not to use so many. I'm trying to sum up and expand on something that Margaret Atwood told me once in a Q&A after a reading.
Original: That is to say, it seems to me, that the great cultural works of the past not only influence the structure of the present moment, but that also the present moment, informed by the confluence of multiple traditional texts, dynamically alters how individual traditional texts are interpreted. An understanding of this perspective of influence is extremely useful when considering Atwood's own body of work, which can be characterized by nothing if not by her overt intertextual references to, it seems at times, the entire Western canon.
Revised: Because Atwood's body of work seems to intertextually reference most of the Western canon, understanding her perspective on influence greatly informs examinations of her body of work. Her response implies a reciprocal relationship between the present moment and the texts through which that moment is read. Our understanding of the present, naturally, is influenced by the texts we have read, but the meaning we take from texts is also influenced by our present experience.
I started a sentence with 'because,' because I'm usually very hesitant about that, and tried to break up the long strings of subordinate and prepositional clauses. I also used the first-person, which I am usually hesitant about as well. In addition, I reordered some parts so that the end of sentences emphasize my main points, and so that the information has better coherence (because I still remember last week's lessons).
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Here is a passage from the critical writing draft I submitted last week. It comes right after the interview quote from Slavin.
Old: These comments make the rationale for Slavin’s authorial decisions abundantly clear. Because metaphor was able to capture the emotional pain of dealing with a loved one’s illness most clearly and aptly, Slavin literalized the metaphor through a magical twisting of reality in order to translate her experience into language.
After reading Kolln, I paid close attention to my verb choice. Kolln says that a “well-chosen verb not only heightens the drama of a sentence and makes its meaning clear, it also sends a message to the reader that the writer has crafted the sentence carefully, that the idea matters” (145). The verb in the first sentence “make clear” seems wimpy. In fact, the whole construction of the first sentence seems clunky and verbose. In the second sentence, I’ve got that pesky “to be” construction that Kolln warns us not to overuse. And the prepositional phrase “in order to” gives the second sentence what Kolln calls an “ungraceful rhythm” and a “lack of focus” (153). Here’s how I reworked those two sentences.
New: Slavin’s comments elucidate her authorial decisions manifestly. Since metaphor
captures the painful experience of enduring a loved one’s illness so aptly, Slavin exploits the power of metaphor, literalizing it through a magical twisting of reality. Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language.
Old: These comments make the rationale for Slavin’s authorial decisions abundantly clear. Because metaphor was able to capture the emotional pain of dealing with a loved one’s illness most clearly and aptly, Slavin literalized the metaphor through a magical twisting of reality in order to translate her experience into language.
After reading Kolln, I paid close attention to my verb choice. Kolln says that a “well-chosen verb not only heightens the drama of a sentence and makes its meaning clear, it also sends a message to the reader that the writer has crafted the sentence carefully, that the idea matters” (145). The verb in the first sentence “make clear” seems wimpy. In fact, the whole construction of the first sentence seems clunky and verbose. In the second sentence, I’ve got that pesky “to be” construction that Kolln warns us not to overuse. And the prepositional phrase “in order to” gives the second sentence what Kolln calls an “ungraceful rhythm” and a “lack of focus” (153). Here’s how I reworked those two sentences.
New: Slavin’s comments elucidate her authorial decisions manifestly. Since metaphor
captures the painful experience of enduring a loved one’s illness so aptly, Slavin exploits the power of metaphor, literalizing it through a magical twisting of reality. Slavin thus transforms what seems inexpressible into language.
Verb Usage and Voice
I am glad I am not the only person who realizes that they do not always "practice what they preach." I also constantly mark up my students' papers with comments such as "poor word choice" and "remove passive voice." In my own writing, however, I find myself using passive voice much too often and picking verbs that do not produce the strong impact that I really want in my papers. Here is an excerpt from my first draft I submitted for workshop as an example:
Proletarian literature uses the focus of the destitute and desperate to show the failings of a capitalist society. One major recurring motif of proletarian literature is violence. Violence is oftentimes used to marshal in a new world, a world that sheds the negative effects of capitalism.
In this passage, I use the same verb twice in three sentences and the second and third sentences slip into the passive voice for some unknown reason. After reading chapter seven in Kolln, I revised these sentences by picking better verbs and placing the second and third sentences in the active voice. Here is my revision:
Proletarian literature utilizes the focus on the destitute and the desperate in order to demonstrate the failings of a capitalist society. The motif of violence recurs throughout proletarian literature. Proletarian literature often employs violence to marshal in a new world, a world that sheds the negative effects of capitalism.
In my humble opinion, simply picking more specific verbs and changing the last two sentences into active voice make the passage more focused and more interesting to read.
Proletarian literature uses the focus of the destitute and desperate to show the failings of a capitalist society. One major recurring motif of proletarian literature is violence. Violence is oftentimes used to marshal in a new world, a world that sheds the negative effects of capitalism.
In this passage, I use the same verb twice in three sentences and the second and third sentences slip into the passive voice for some unknown reason. After reading chapter seven in Kolln, I revised these sentences by picking better verbs and placing the second and third sentences in the active voice. Here is my revision:
Proletarian literature utilizes the focus on the destitute and the desperate in order to demonstrate the failings of a capitalist society. The motif of violence recurs throughout proletarian literature. Proletarian literature often employs violence to marshal in a new world, a world that sheds the negative effects of capitalism.
In my humble opinion, simply picking more specific verbs and changing the last two sentences into active voice make the passage more focused and more interesting to read.
a...of prepositional phrases
"Awkwardness is not the only problem--nor is it the most serious. The sentence that ends with a long string of prepositional phrases often loses its focus" (Kolln 153).
Chapter Eight was incredibly enlightening to me because I very seldom think about adverbs. Inspired by the epigraph above, I am playing with Kolln's concept of "the proliferating prepositional phrase." I am most guilty of proliferation when writing about theory (dun, dun, dun). I hereby declare war of the word: of. Let's see this in action!
OLD
Walker’s poem, in its dual reliance on a collective Appalachian identity and a rejection of racial limits on that identity, relies on both a collective conception of Appalachian identity and a disruption of that concept.
In its redundancy, the focus of the sentence is lost. Kolln suggests that we pay close attention to which words/phrases are stressed in order to better understand what information is extraneous. Here, I am looking specifically at my repeated use of “of”: “a rejection of racial limits”… “a collective conception of Appalachian identity”… “a disruption of that concept.” First, how else might these phrases be phrased?
NEW
A rejection of racial limits… rejects racial limits
A collective conception of Appalachian identity… relies on the idea that Appalachian identity is collective and singular
A disruption of that concept… disrupts that concept
Not surprisingly, my revisions rely on strong verbs rather than “a…of” phrases.
NEW
Walker’s poem simultaneously reinforces and rejects the idea that Appalachian identity is collective and singular.
Of course, now I need a follow-up sentence which justifies that claim more thoroughly!
Chapter Eight was incredibly enlightening to me because I very seldom think about adverbs. Inspired by the epigraph above, I am playing with Kolln's concept of "the proliferating prepositional phrase." I am most guilty of proliferation when writing about theory (dun, dun, dun). I hereby declare war of the word: of. Let's see this in action!
OLD
Walker’s poem, in its dual reliance on a collective Appalachian identity and a rejection of racial limits on that identity, relies on both a collective conception of Appalachian identity and a disruption of that concept.
In its redundancy, the focus of the sentence is lost. Kolln suggests that we pay close attention to which words/phrases are stressed in order to better understand what information is extraneous. Here, I am looking specifically at my repeated use of “of”: “a rejection of racial limits”… “a collective conception of Appalachian identity”… “a disruption of that concept.” First, how else might these phrases be phrased?
NEW
A rejection of racial limits… rejects racial limits
A collective conception of Appalachian identity… relies on the idea that Appalachian identity is collective and singular
A disruption of that concept… disrupts that concept
Not surprisingly, my revisions rely on strong verbs rather than “a…of” phrases.
NEW
Walker’s poem simultaneously reinforces and rejects the idea that Appalachian identity is collective and singular.
Of course, now I need a follow-up sentence which justifies that claim more thoroughly!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A Second Reading from the Book of John
My proposal for this class attempted to outline a thesis of sorts, much the way I might have written it during a rough draft. I didn't copy-paste it into my original paper but I might have, which makes the errors in it more appalling. (My actual paper, thankfully, does not seem to have this type of mistakes in it.)
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether his claims are justified, it brings up the question of how “a new Province of Writing” might be founded. The majority of genre scholarship that I have been able to find so far focuses on the use and adaptation of pre-existing genres; my interest at present is focused instead on the origins of new genres. Fielding’s Tom Jones can serve as an interesting case study not merely because he stands near the beginning of the English novel, but because he frequently interrupts the plot of his novel with musings on the nature of writing, both in general and specifically with respect to genre.
The paragraph is servicable but slips into the passive voice at times when it really doesn't need to. I also sometimes use two words where one would do, saying that "my interest at present is focused" instead of simply saying that "I am interested"; this careless wordiness stems from the fact that I was letting my verbs get lazy, as it were. Worse, the first sentence includes an obscure agent.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether his claims are justified, the question arises just how “a new Province of Writing” might be founded. The majority of genre scholarship that I have found so far focuses on the use and adaptation of pre-existing genres; I am interested in the origins of new genres. Fielding’s Tom Jones serves as an interesting case study because Fielding frequently interrupts his novel with musings on the nature of writing, both in general and specifically with respect to genre.
In addition to the corrections outlined above – which generally make the text tighter – I've also ditched the bit about Fielding's historical situation near the origins of the English novel because I feel that it disrupts the flow of the sentence and is probably not really all that necessary anyway.
why do girls always go for the bad verbs?
Like Sue, I complain bitterly to students about word choice, highlighting 16 instances of "is" in a paragraph and commenting briefly on "strong verbs." Or something equally hypocritical. This fall, writing my personal statement(s), I beat my wordy head against the wall of 500-700 word limits, and usually lost. Some of my excesses are style, but quite a few of them result from poor verb choice. For this exercise, I dug out the very first draft of a statement I abandoned entirely, and tried to reduce a couple sentences by way of using more precise verbs.
OLD: It was obvious in the resulting silence that both of us were thinking the same embarrassed thought: “I thought I was talking to someone like me.” (26 words)
NEW: The resulting embarrassed silence revealed the thought in both our minds: “I thought I was talking to someone like me.” (20 words)
Cutting six words doesn't seem like a lot, but they add up. I don't need "was" or "were," and using a more explicit verb like "revealed" makes "obvious" superfluous. I toyed with leaving "same" in there, but I think the sentiment still comes through without it.
OLD: There’s always a drive to focus on what is not work in our lives, to identify myself as a feminist, as a student, as an intellectual, as a dabbler in fiction, as anything and everything except the one thing which is absolutely necessary to my survival. (46 words)
NEW: I felt pushed to identify myself as a feminist, student, intellectual, or writer; as anything but the identity enabling all the others –my identity as a worker. (27 words)
Nineteen words is a lot. It helped that I made this statement apply directly to me, rather than everyone (who do I think I am, anyway, speaking for everyone?). Aside from that change, though, I don't need "there is" or "the one thing which is," both of which invite me to use six more words to elaborate.
Ch.7: Choosing Verbs
• Base form (infinitive)
• Present tense
• Past tense (-ed)
• Past participle (-en)
• Present Participle (-ing)
I always have trouble with passive voice, so I’d like to focus on that section of chapter 7. However being alerted to my overuse in the past has caused me to notice it more frequently when I’m writing. While reviewing my paper, I found several:
Passive: “According to Bakhtin and Harvey, it has become clear that the reader (listener) is not a static entity.”
Corrected: “According to Bakhtin and Harvey, the reader (listener) is not a static entity.”
The second sentence is much clearer and to the point. Reducing the crowded meaning and length of the sentence allows for a smoother sentence that is much easier on the reader and still gets the same point across.
Passive: “The song was first performed in 1984, however Cohen had been struggling to write the song for at least two years beforehand”
Corrected: “The song was first performed in 1984, however Cohen struggled to write the song for at least two years beforehand”
Just changing the clause in question from passive voice to a simple past tense construction makes the sentence flow better.
Ch. 8: Choosing Adverbials
Adverbial-the term that names function in a sentence.
I use the opening adverbial several times in my paper:
• In order to deconstruct this affect…
• Let’s get back to the…
• In order to further dissect this concept…
I feel that at this stage of writing, using opening adverbials not only helps to guide the reader but it helps to keep me on track as well. It also reminds me where I’ve been and where I’m headed.
I’d like to experiment with the movability of subordinate clauses.
Example: In order to deconstruct this affect [influence], it is necessary to examine some of the ways influence can be established.
Alteration #1: It is necessary to examine some of the ways influence can be established in order to deconstruct this affect.
Alteration #2: By examining some of the ways influence is established, this affect can be deconstructed.
I’m not really too fond of these changes, but there are a great deal of other options I didn’t try. Unfortunately, without the preceding sentence, most of the alterations create dangling modifiers.
• Base form (infinitive)
• Present tense
• Past tense (-ed)
• Past participle (-en)
• Present Participle (-ing)
I always have trouble with passive voice, so I’d like to focus on that section of chapter 7. However being alerted to my overuse in the past has caused me to notice it more frequently when I’m writing. While reviewing my paper, I found several:
Passive: “According to Bakhtin and Harvey, it has become clear that the reader (listener) is not a static entity.”
Corrected: “According to Bakhtin and Harvey, the reader (listener) is not a static entity.”
The second sentence is much clearer and to the point. Reducing the crowded meaning and length of the sentence allows for a smoother sentence that is much easier on the reader and still gets the same point across.
Passive: “The song was first performed in 1984, however Cohen had been struggling to write the song for at least two years beforehand”
Corrected: “The song was first performed in 1984, however Cohen struggled to write the song for at least two years beforehand”
Just changing the clause in question from passive voice to a simple past tense construction makes the sentence flow better.
Ch. 8: Choosing Adverbials
Adverbial-the term that names function in a sentence.
I use the opening adverbial several times in my paper:
• In order to deconstruct this affect…
• Let’s get back to the…
• In order to further dissect this concept…
I feel that at this stage of writing, using opening adverbials not only helps to guide the reader but it helps to keep me on track as well. It also reminds me where I’ve been and where I’m headed.
I’d like to experiment with the movability of subordinate clauses.
Example: In order to deconstruct this affect [influence], it is necessary to examine some of the ways influence can be established.
Alteration #1: It is necessary to examine some of the ways influence can be established in order to deconstruct this affect.
Alteration #2: By examining some of the ways influence is established, this affect can be deconstructed.
I’m not really too fond of these changes, but there are a great deal of other options I didn’t try. Unfortunately, without the preceding sentence, most of the alterations create dangling modifiers.
Friday, May 22, 2009
It IS! It IS! Alright, already!
This is embarrassing. I scold my students to use strong verbs and to avoid the dreaded IS in their writing. In my own writing, however, I use a veritable plethora of ISes! In addition, the first sentence in my Old paragraph below contains enough prepositional phrases to stretch that sentence beyond all comprehensibility. I count eight. In one sentence. With an IS verb. I rewrote this paragraph by first highlighting all the criminal words and phrases and then found stronger verbs for the ISes. The proliferation of prepositional phrases posed a greater problem since they contain necessary information. Rewording and paying more attention to the rhythm of the sentences helped me better manage the prepositions.
OLD: Perhaps the staunchest argument against inclusion of women writers in the canon is the matter of recognizing general, historical significance in the works of those who were prevented from interacting in wide public spheres. Women’s lives were private, small, and domestic. If a woman dared to write, she was restricted to topics of household concerns and wifely duty. Aemilia Lanyer disregarded these restrictions.
NEW: The traditional literary canon refuses inclusion of women writers based on the private, historically insignificant sphere of women’s lives. If a woman before the 1960s dared to write, she adhered to topics of household concerns and wifely duties. Aemilia Lanyer disregarded these restrictions.
OLD: Perhaps the staunchest argument against inclusion of women writers in the canon is the matter of recognizing general, historical significance in the works of those who were prevented from interacting in wide public spheres. Women’s lives were private, small, and domestic. If a woman dared to write, she was restricted to topics of household concerns and wifely duty. Aemilia Lanyer disregarded these restrictions.
NEW: The traditional literary canon refuses inclusion of women writers based on the private, historically insignificant sphere of women’s lives. If a woman before the 1960s dared to write, she adhered to topics of household concerns and wifely duties. Aemilia Lanyer disregarded these restrictions.
Getting rid of 'which' adverbials and finding new verbs.
Old:
The questions which arise on the mat—and consequently on the page—are questions which make me examine exactly how my ideas are constructed. The preconceptions and misconceptions which determine what I have to say and how I say it are at the forefront of both my writing and yoga practices. In other words, my identity is under fire when I practice (either writing or yoga). It’s become common practice in the academy to think of identity as constructed; the work of Foucault, Butler and Bhabha play an especially powerful role in establishing identity as something which is not innately given, not natural, but constructed.
New:
The questions which arise on the mat—and consequently on the page— make me examine the construction of my ideas. Preconceptions and misconceptions determine what I have to say and how I say it. Thus, when I practice either yoga or writing, my identity is targeted. It has become common practice in the academy to think of identity as constructed; Foucault, Bhabha and Butler powerfully establish identity as performance, rather than innately given individuality.
Commentary:
Kollns' advice for choosing powerful verbs and adverbials is much needed in my yoga paper--I tend to use 'which' phrases constantly as well as linking verbs. I followed Exercise 19 on page 134 of Kolln to revise the above passage. First, I highlighted all of my be verbs in pink, to think of replacements later (there are some exceptions, because there are a few cases where is was the best verb). Most of these were also in linking verb phrases and two-or-three word idioms, so I highlighted those in pink too. Next, I looked through my sentences for known/new info--the preceeding paragraph consists of my personal experience of the questioning which occurs in doing yoga, so the first sentence here refers to that known information. I'm still not happy with the second sentence; I think I was trying to say too much with extra adverbial clauses, so I took one out. Sentence three tries to make the connection between identity construction and yoga--I felt I needed to say this to keep the concepts of identity, yoga and writing at the forefront of my reader's minds. The last sentence reminds the reader of the theoretical conceptions of identity construction, which I go into more throughout the rest of the paragraph in Level 4/5 sentences. I wanted to work with the first few sentences of this paragraph here because I'm still not sure what I think about it. My words are much more concise--I replaced linking verb constructions with concrete verbs and changed some of the word choice around with the help of my Thesaurus. I couldn't think of a replacement for make in the first sentence--I don't like it, but nothing else seemed grammatically correct. Again, I'm not sure if this is better writing, but it seems more efficient.
The questions which arise on the mat—and consequently on the page—are questions which make me examine exactly how my ideas are constructed. The preconceptions and misconceptions which determine what I have to say and how I say it are at the forefront of both my writing and yoga practices. In other words, my identity is under fire when I practice (either writing or yoga). It’s become common practice in the academy to think of identity as constructed; the work of Foucault, Butler and Bhabha play an especially powerful role in establishing identity as something which is not innately given, not natural, but constructed.
New:
The questions which arise on the mat—and consequently on the page— make me examine the construction of my ideas. Preconceptions and misconceptions determine what I have to say and how I say it. Thus, when I practice either yoga or writing, my identity is targeted. It has become common practice in the academy to think of identity as constructed; Foucault, Bhabha and Butler powerfully establish identity as performance, rather than innately given individuality.
Commentary:
Kollns' advice for choosing powerful verbs and adverbials is much needed in my yoga paper--I tend to use 'which' phrases constantly as well as linking verbs. I followed Exercise 19 on page 134 of Kolln to revise the above passage. First, I highlighted all of my be verbs in pink, to think of replacements later (there are some exceptions, because there are a few cases where is was the best verb). Most of these were also in linking verb phrases and two-or-three word idioms, so I highlighted those in pink too. Next, I looked through my sentences for known/new info--the preceeding paragraph consists of my personal experience of the questioning which occurs in doing yoga, so the first sentence here refers to that known information. I'm still not happy with the second sentence; I think I was trying to say too much with extra adverbial clauses, so I took one out. Sentence three tries to make the connection between identity construction and yoga--I felt I needed to say this to keep the concepts of identity, yoga and writing at the forefront of my reader's minds. The last sentence reminds the reader of the theoretical conceptions of identity construction, which I go into more throughout the rest of the paragraph in Level 4/5 sentences. I wanted to work with the first few sentences of this paragraph here because I'm still not sure what I think about it. My words are much more concise--I replaced linking verb constructions with concrete verbs and changed some of the word choice around with the help of my Thesaurus. I couldn't think of a replacement for make in the first sentence--I don't like it, but nothing else seemed grammatically correct. Again, I'm not sure if this is better writing, but it seems more efficient.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Hedging & Proliferating by Ruth
Below is an example of confusing prepositional phrases that are, as Kolln says, “proliferating awkwardly” (153) as well as an example of “hedging” (134).
Old:
1. There is a sense of self-recognition happening in this example that gets at the way in which ideology compels the individual to become subjectified; ideology presents a narrative which seems to mirror the individual’s own inner narrative of their self.
2. While I have not been able to find specific research on this Hebrew tradition, the nature of it as it is depicted by the Wilson’s seems to clearly suggest that the box represents the “value” of the woman’s virginity being passed from her father to her husband who will subsequently “break” her box.
Revision:
1. In this example, ideology compels the individual’s subjectification through self-recognition; the ideological narrative seems to mirror the individual’s narrative of self.
2. As depicted by the Wilsons, this ritual conflates the “value” of the young woman’s virginity with the box. Thus, as the box passes from the woman’s father to her husband, he receives the father’s permission to take the daughter’s value by breaking her box.
Reflection:
1. Here I moved the prepositional phrase to the front of the sentence to change the focus to the action of ideology, rather than self-recognition. This emphasizes the proper actor of the sentence rather than stating the actor-less action first. I toyed with cutting the word “seem” here, thinking it might be an example of a modal auxiliary; however, since I later claim that this mirror image is false, I decided “seem” should stay.
2. In the past, I have had a nervous tick in writing where I included the word “seem” much more than necessary. While Kolln didn’t list “seem” in her modal auxiliaries section, I imagine it would fit in there. I removed the “seem” to make this a stronger, less “hedged” claim. I realized in this example, I didn’t need to state that I hadn’t found research about this actual tradition. I was only interested in speaking about the Wilson’s version of this tradition. While it would have been great if I had been able to find information on the Hebrew tradition, I could not; thus, my focus should have remained only on the Wilson’s claims about this tradition. Instead, this sentence locates the fault for this lack of information solely on me, rather than the Wilson’s possible misrepresentation or creation of this “tradition.”
Old:
1. There is a sense of self-recognition happening in this example that gets at the way in which ideology compels the individual to become subjectified; ideology presents a narrative which seems to mirror the individual’s own inner narrative of their self.
2. While I have not been able to find specific research on this Hebrew tradition, the nature of it as it is depicted by the Wilson’s seems to clearly suggest that the box represents the “value” of the woman’s virginity being passed from her father to her husband who will subsequently “break” her box.
Revision:
1. In this example, ideology compels the individual’s subjectification through self-recognition; the ideological narrative seems to mirror the individual’s narrative of self.
2. As depicted by the Wilsons, this ritual conflates the “value” of the young woman’s virginity with the box. Thus, as the box passes from the woman’s father to her husband, he receives the father’s permission to take the daughter’s value by breaking her box.
Reflection:
1. Here I moved the prepositional phrase to the front of the sentence to change the focus to the action of ideology, rather than self-recognition. This emphasizes the proper actor of the sentence rather than stating the actor-less action first. I toyed with cutting the word “seem” here, thinking it might be an example of a modal auxiliary; however, since I later claim that this mirror image is false, I decided “seem” should stay.
2. In the past, I have had a nervous tick in writing where I included the word “seem” much more than necessary. While Kolln didn’t list “seem” in her modal auxiliaries section, I imagine it would fit in there. I removed the “seem” to make this a stronger, less “hedged” claim. I realized in this example, I didn’t need to state that I hadn’t found research about this actual tradition. I was only interested in speaking about the Wilson’s version of this tradition. While it would have been great if I had been able to find information on the Hebrew tradition, I could not; thus, my focus should have remained only on the Wilson’s claims about this tradition. Instead, this sentence locates the fault for this lack of information solely on me, rather than the Wilson’s possible misrepresentation or creation of this “tradition.”
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
5/23 Qualifiers, Absolute Meanings, Modal Auxiliaries, Or The Hedging Academic by Hannah
These chapters made me want to respond by raising a question of the effect of qualifiers, absolute meanings, and modal auxiliaries, or what Kolln also calls hedging and the conditional mood. These elements are interesting because it’s so hard to tell if you’re using them effectively or not.
When earlier in the quarter we were writing about enacting genre, I said: “…thinking a lot about how I demarcate and often delimit my claims….These phrases most often, however, come out of me uncontrollably. It’s like pure genre is coming out. Most of the time though, these phrases (‘it seems to me’ or ‘it seems that’) make a sentence awkward and weak. Yet, they are powerful markers of genre that just keep spilling out of me. This is a strange automatic compulsion that almost every time needs editing.”
In addition to the written word, academic speak is riddled with qualifying language; we hear “it’s like this kind of X…” or “it’s this sort of X” all the time. This sort of language is part of the discourse and as I say above I think these phrases are conventional and familiar and, thus when we find ourselves saying them, probably unconscious. But they also do some work, as Kolln notes that the condition raises doubts and “thus connect[s]” readers and writers to share doubt (134). But when do you want to raise doubt? When is raising doubt or demonstrating a lack of certainty effective and when is it not?
ONE: OLD, with modal auxiliary:
“Though I only have a few examples as yet to demonstrate this, it is my sense that in this turn to more “artistic” travelogues emerges the composite of genres in the travel volume.”
POSSIBLE New (actually very close to the next sentence in the proposal):
“Travel literature at the end of the eighteenth century and beginning of the nineteenth century is marked by composite genres and [deleted: IT SEEMS] that History of a Six Weeks’ Tour exemplifies this trend.” [here I am pretty certain that HSWT stands on its own as an example of composite genres—that I would assert. But this larger claim does really function as a tentative one, so I guess I like the work of both of these sentences]
TWO: OLD:
“It is often difficult to tell the difference between the mode of reportage and description in the journal/“History” section of History, which may be symptomatic of the rather indistinct way these genres were considered in the eighteenth century…”
POSSIBLE New:
It is difficult to tell the difference between the mode of reportage and description in the journal section of History as it is symptomatic of the indistinct way these genres were considered in the eighteenth century…
This hedging for me marks out a claim that I didn’t really believe; I let the quotation that follows this excerpt SUGGEST to me that such was the case in History. Perhaps then, (perhaps!!) attention should be paid to overly conditional or hedging statements and probed for certainty. In other words, what is certain should be marked as such. Unfortunately though, I think that rules about these verbs and adverbs stop there. It’s difficult to puzzle out when you should qualify and when you should be “strong” and certain, as both can come across effectively.
When earlier in the quarter we were writing about enacting genre, I said: “…thinking a lot about how I demarcate and often delimit my claims….These phrases most often, however, come out of me uncontrollably. It’s like pure genre is coming out. Most of the time though, these phrases (‘it seems to me’ or ‘it seems that’) make a sentence awkward and weak. Yet, they are powerful markers of genre that just keep spilling out of me. This is a strange automatic compulsion that almost every time needs editing.”
In addition to the written word, academic speak is riddled with qualifying language; we hear “it’s like this kind of X…” or “it’s this sort of X” all the time. This sort of language is part of the discourse and as I say above I think these phrases are conventional and familiar and, thus when we find ourselves saying them, probably unconscious. But they also do some work, as Kolln notes that the condition raises doubts and “thus connect[s]” readers and writers to share doubt (134). But when do you want to raise doubt? When is raising doubt or demonstrating a lack of certainty effective and when is it not?
ONE: OLD, with modal auxiliary:
“Though I only have a few examples as yet to demonstrate this, it is my sense that in this turn to more “artistic” travelogues emerges the composite of genres in the travel volume.”
POSSIBLE New (actually very close to the next sentence in the proposal):
“Travel literature at the end of the eighteenth century and beginning of the nineteenth century is marked by composite genres and [deleted: IT SEEMS] that History of a Six Weeks’ Tour exemplifies this trend.” [here I am pretty certain that HSWT stands on its own as an example of composite genres—that I would assert. But this larger claim does really function as a tentative one, so I guess I like the work of both of these sentences]
TWO: OLD:
“It is often difficult to tell the difference between the mode of reportage and description in the journal/“History” section of History, which may be symptomatic of the rather indistinct way these genres were considered in the eighteenth century…”
POSSIBLE New:
It is difficult to tell the difference between the mode of reportage and description in the journal section of History as it is symptomatic of the indistinct way these genres were considered in the eighteenth century…
This hedging for me marks out a claim that I didn’t really believe; I let the quotation that follows this excerpt SUGGEST to me that such was the case in History. Perhaps then, (perhaps!!) attention should be paid to overly conditional or hedging statements and probed for certainty. In other words, what is certain should be marked as such. Unfortunately though, I think that rules about these verbs and adverbs stop there. It’s difficult to puzzle out when you should qualify and when you should be “strong” and certain, as both can come across effectively.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Making Hannah's Sentence do MORE
This is from a paper I just wrote for Victorian Lit. The NEW paragraph features change commentary in italics. In general, I was surprised how the awareness of the elements Kolln presents brought to bear on this small excerpt really fairly drastically changed each one.
OLD:
Indeed, Maggie repeatedly identifies this principle as the one motive for her actions. When Steven begins to put on the pressure for marriage, Maggie says to him, “Many things are difficult and dark to me—but I see one thing quite clearly—that I must not, cannot seek my own happiness by sacrificing others” (469). And as the narrative progresses, adherence to this singular principle begins to seem almost absurd. This is perhaps most exemplified in the scene in which Steven and Maggie end up on the boat together. Given her adherence to this principle, it is likely that she allowed herself to get on the boat simply because Steven wanted her to. In fact, when then commence to leave on the boat, Maggie is described as moving as though unconscious, compelled “by this stronger presence that seemed to bear her along without any act of her own will” (484).
NEW:
Maggie, indeed repeatedly, identifies this principle as the singular motive for her actions [moved the metadiscourse signal to emphasize the repetition]. When Stephen begins to put on the pressure for marriage, for example, Maggie says to him, “Many things are difficult and dark to me—but I see one thing quite clearly—that I must not, cannot seek my own happiness by sacrificing others” (469) [added metadiscourse signal to emphasize that this is just one time Maggie says this type of thing]. And as the narrative progresses, adherence to this singular principle begins to seem absurd [no change, but “adherence” is a repetition of “repeatedly”]. This absurdity [known-new contract, clearing up antecedent reference] is perhaps most exemplified in the scene in which Stephen and Maggie end up on the boat alone together, a climatic scene in which the question of Maggie’s will is most on display [tried a kind of parallelism here, repeating “a scene in which”—not sure if this one is effective or not. It may be a bit to wordy and lacking good repetition]. Given Maggie’s adherence to the principle of doing for others, it is likely that she gets on the boat simply because Stephen wants her to. Certainly, she is not asserting her own will; in fact, when they commence to leave on the boat, Maggie is described as moving as though unconscious…[again, by clearing up what “this” referred to, I offered the reader the repetition of the main focus through the paragraph. With the addition of the phrase that begins “Certainly…” I am able to generalize first and then specify with the quotation. Overall I liked the way this Kolln reading made me consider the work each sentence was doing. Focusing on the moves from sentence to sentence gave me a different impression about how cohesive my writing actually is].
OLD:
Indeed, Maggie repeatedly identifies this principle as the one motive for her actions. When Steven begins to put on the pressure for marriage, Maggie says to him, “Many things are difficult and dark to me—but I see one thing quite clearly—that I must not, cannot seek my own happiness by sacrificing others” (469). And as the narrative progresses, adherence to this singular principle begins to seem almost absurd. This is perhaps most exemplified in the scene in which Steven and Maggie end up on the boat together. Given her adherence to this principle, it is likely that she allowed herself to get on the boat simply because Steven wanted her to. In fact, when then commence to leave on the boat, Maggie is described as moving as though unconscious, compelled “by this stronger presence that seemed to bear her along without any act of her own will” (484).
NEW:
Maggie, indeed repeatedly, identifies this principle as the singular motive for her actions [moved the metadiscourse signal to emphasize the repetition]. When Stephen begins to put on the pressure for marriage, for example, Maggie says to him, “Many things are difficult and dark to me—but I see one thing quite clearly—that I must not, cannot seek my own happiness by sacrificing others” (469) [added metadiscourse signal to emphasize that this is just one time Maggie says this type of thing]. And as the narrative progresses, adherence to this singular principle begins to seem absurd [no change, but “adherence” is a repetition of “repeatedly”]. This absurdity [known-new contract, clearing up antecedent reference] is perhaps most exemplified in the scene in which Stephen and Maggie end up on the boat alone together, a climatic scene in which the question of Maggie’s will is most on display [tried a kind of parallelism here, repeating “a scene in which”—not sure if this one is effective or not. It may be a bit to wordy and lacking good repetition]. Given Maggie’s adherence to the principle of doing for others, it is likely that she gets on the boat simply because Stephen wants her to. Certainly, she is not asserting her own will; in fact, when they commence to leave on the boat, Maggie is described as moving as though unconscious…[again, by clearing up what “this” referred to, I offered the reader the repetition of the main focus through the paragraph. With the addition of the phrase that begins “Certainly…” I am able to generalize first and then specify with the quotation. Overall I liked the way this Kolln reading made me consider the work each sentence was doing. Focusing on the moves from sentence to sentence gave me a different impression about how cohesive my writing actually is].
This is from last year's Ropes course (yes I managed to write about Homer in a class about post 9/11 lit) and is some of my more turgid prose. The known-new contract was particularly useful in helping me decide where to end sentences (at one new point, not after several). Also really useful were the it/what clefts, which helped to emphasize the most important bits. I also made more of an effort to repeat key terms.
Original passage:
Odysseus has many honorifics in Homeric verse: “many-minded,” “much-enduring,” “cunning,” “resourceful,” “great-hearted,” but one of the least common, and most interesting, especially considering where it appears in the Odyssey, is “sacker of cities.” This epitaph is used far less frequently than any other, yet it is the one that Odysseus himself chooses to use when he reveals his true identity to the Cyclops: “'Cyclops, if any mortal man ever asks you who it was / that inflicted upon your eye this shameful blinding, / tell them that you were blinded by Odysseus, sacker of cities. / Laertes is his father, and he makes his home in Ithaca'” (9.502-4). This is a reminder that the Odyssey is not so much a text about cunning over force as it is a text about the proper marriage of cunning and force for the inscription of order. Odysseus imposes his will where he can, as when he without remorse sacks the Trojan-allied city of the Ciconians, where he and his men “killed their people, / and out of their city taking their wives and many possessions / we shared them out, so none might go cheated of his proper / portion,” and wisely retreats from where he cannot, namely every event that occurs between this sacking and the symbolic simultaneous sacking and restoration of Ithaca from the usurping suitors (9.40-3).
Revised passage:
Odysseus has many commonly repeated honorifics in Homeric verse, such as “many-minded,” “much-enduring,” “cunning,” “resourceful,” and “great-hearted.” However, the most interesting of his honorifics, because of where it appears, is the infrequently used "sacker of cities." Odysseus himself uses this rare epitaph while revealing his true identity to the Cyclops: “'Cyclops, if any mortal man ever asks you who it was / that inflicted upon your eye this shameful blinding, / tell them that you were blinded by Odysseus, sacker of cities. / Laertes is his father, and he makes his home in Ithaca'” (9.502-4). This warlike epitaph is a reminder that the Odyssey is not merely a text that elevates cunning over force. What it demonstrates is the importance of knowing whether cunning or force is most appropriate for the situation. Both cunning and force are necessary because the Odyssey is a series of encounters where both factions attempt to impose their will over the other. Odysseus does not hesitate to use force in the rare occasions in the Odyssey when force alone is sufficient to impose his will, such as when he remorselessly sacks the Trojan-allied city of the Ciconians, where he and his men “killed their people, / and out of their city taking their wives and many possessions / we shared them out, so none might go cheated of his proper / portion” (9.40-3). However, when force alone is inadequate, such as in every situation Odysseus encounters between the sacking of the Ciconians and the slaying of the suitors, he instead uses his cunning to escape before an other's will is imposed upon him.
Original passage:
Odysseus has many honorifics in Homeric verse: “many-minded,” “much-enduring,” “cunning,” “resourceful,” “great-hearted,” but one of the least common, and most interesting, especially considering where it appears in the Odyssey, is “sacker of cities.” This epitaph is used far less frequently than any other, yet it is the one that Odysseus himself chooses to use when he reveals his true identity to the Cyclops: “'Cyclops, if any mortal man ever asks you who it was / that inflicted upon your eye this shameful blinding, / tell them that you were blinded by Odysseus, sacker of cities. / Laertes is his father, and he makes his home in Ithaca'” (9.502-4). This is a reminder that the Odyssey is not so much a text about cunning over force as it is a text about the proper marriage of cunning and force for the inscription of order. Odysseus imposes his will where he can, as when he without remorse sacks the Trojan-allied city of the Ciconians, where he and his men “killed their people, / and out of their city taking their wives and many possessions / we shared them out, so none might go cheated of his proper / portion,” and wisely retreats from where he cannot, namely every event that occurs between this sacking and the symbolic simultaneous sacking and restoration of Ithaca from the usurping suitors (9.40-3).
Revised passage:
Odysseus has many commonly repeated honorifics in Homeric verse, such as “many-minded,” “much-enduring,” “cunning,” “resourceful,” and “great-hearted.” However, the most interesting of his honorifics, because of where it appears, is the infrequently used "sacker of cities." Odysseus himself uses this rare epitaph while revealing his true identity to the Cyclops: “'Cyclops, if any mortal man ever asks you who it was / that inflicted upon your eye this shameful blinding, / tell them that you were blinded by Odysseus, sacker of cities. / Laertes is his father, and he makes his home in Ithaca'” (9.502-4). This warlike epitaph is a reminder that the Odyssey is not merely a text that elevates cunning over force. What it demonstrates is the importance of knowing whether cunning or force is most appropriate for the situation. Both cunning and force are necessary because the Odyssey is a series of encounters where both factions attempt to impose their will over the other. Odysseus does not hesitate to use force in the rare occasions in the Odyssey when force alone is sufficient to impose his will, such as when he remorselessly sacks the Trojan-allied city of the Ciconians, where he and his men “killed their people, / and out of their city taking their wives and many possessions / we shared them out, so none might go cheated of his proper / portion” (9.40-3). However, when force alone is inadequate, such as in every situation Odysseus encounters between the sacking of the Ciconians and the slaying of the suitors, he instead uses his cunning to escape before an other's will is imposed upon him.
Reader Expectation and the Known-New Contract
After reading chapter four in Kolln's Rhetorical Grammar I now realize that I have not always performed my obligations as a writer to uphold the Known-New Contract of sentence structure and paragraph organization, which I believe leads to a failure to fulfill my readers' expectations. To illustrate this point, here is a short piece from a paper I wrote about Ian McEwan's Saturday:
Only Daisy is subject to this scrutinization of talent. Theo’s talents are well established throughout the novel. With the first introduction of Theo’s character, his talent is introduced and substantiated by the statement that in the “gossipy world of British blues, Theo is spoken of as a man of promise, already mature in his grasp of the idiom, who might one day walk with the gods” (McEwan 26). Not only can Henry say through his own evaluation that Theo is a talented blues musician, but he recalls the opinions of those in the British blues circle to solidify his own judgments.
When my readers begin to read this paragraph, they would probably expect to read in the next sentence something about Daisy's talent being scrutinized. Instead, I move to talk about another character. This is probably awkward for my reader, especially since I have not established any known information in this second sentence. I make this same mistake again when I Do not mention that it is yet another character, Henry, that I am referring as the scrutinizer. Henry's name just appears in the last sentence with no real explanation and certainly no known information. I think a better way to write this passage would be:
Though Daisy's talent is subject to scrutiny throughout the novel, her brother Theo's talent is never questioned. Theo's talents are well established throughout the novel through both the musings of his father Henry and the opinions of members of the British blues community. With the first introduction of Theo’s character, his talent is introduced and substantiated by the statement that in the “gossipy world of British blues, Theo is spoken of as a man of promise, already mature in his grasp of the idiom, who might one day walk with the gods” (McEwan 26). The positive opinions about Theo in the blues community allows Henry to conclude that his son is indeed a great talent, saving Theo from a scrutinizing of his musical talent.
In this version of the passage, I think it is much clearer what I am trying to convey to my readers. Because I have fulfilled the Known-New Contract more completely in the revision, the passage is less awkward and more cohesive.
Only Daisy is subject to this scrutinization of talent. Theo’s talents are well established throughout the novel. With the first introduction of Theo’s character, his talent is introduced and substantiated by the statement that in the “gossipy world of British blues, Theo is spoken of as a man of promise, already mature in his grasp of the idiom, who might one day walk with the gods” (McEwan 26). Not only can Henry say through his own evaluation that Theo is a talented blues musician, but he recalls the opinions of those in the British blues circle to solidify his own judgments.
When my readers begin to read this paragraph, they would probably expect to read in the next sentence something about Daisy's talent being scrutinized. Instead, I move to talk about another character. This is probably awkward for my reader, especially since I have not established any known information in this second sentence. I make this same mistake again when I Do not mention that it is yet another character, Henry, that I am referring as the scrutinizer. Henry's name just appears in the last sentence with no real explanation and certainly no known information. I think a better way to write this passage would be:
Though Daisy's talent is subject to scrutiny throughout the novel, her brother Theo's talent is never questioned. Theo's talents are well established throughout the novel through both the musings of his father Henry and the opinions of members of the British blues community. With the first introduction of Theo’s character, his talent is introduced and substantiated by the statement that in the “gossipy world of British blues, Theo is spoken of as a man of promise, already mature in his grasp of the idiom, who might one day walk with the gods” (McEwan 26). The positive opinions about Theo in the blues community allows Henry to conclude that his son is indeed a great talent, saving Theo from a scrutinizing of his musical talent.
In this version of the passage, I think it is much clearer what I am trying to convey to my readers. Because I have fulfilled the Known-New Contract more completely in the revision, the passage is less awkward and more cohesive.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
four sentences that are not holding hands
Kolln’s discussion of the new-known contract succeeded in giving me a concrete reason to work on transitions and topic sentences. I often neglect them in my writing, largely because being told “do this because this is how we do it” seldom makes a dent in my perversity. Duly chastised, I revisited a paper I wrote for a Linguistics class last fall. In this section, I have written four sentences that just happen to be standing next to each other.
Unraveling the meaning behind terms specific to SA took longer, as they’re unlikely to turn up in a dictionary or even in Wikipedia. Any term or phrase used with regularity on the forums is defined in the SAclopedia, usually by a host of goons. What appeals to me most about this style of reference material is that the words are not simply assigned an agreed-upon, neutral definition; users adding to the entries bring their own impressions about the history, usage, connotations, and politics of words to the discussion, making definition more about how words mean than what they mean.
I’d already talked about finding some terms in online dictionaries and Wikipedia much earlier in the paper, so that had to go. But, more importantly, while you can’t tell from the snippet I’ve posted, this paragraph follows one explaining some more-or-less universal terms used in internet forums. There’s no transition to speak of, and this first sentence makes it sound like I want to talk about how I went about gathering data, which doesn’t help me lead into talking about how I see the terms operating. So it becomes the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, which lets me carry over talking about forum users in general, and narrow in specifically on *these* forum users. It’s also often unclear what I’m referencing. This section still feels clumsy to me, in part because it’s hard to get the context around it out of my head, but I tried to keep both the new-known contract and end focus in mind when playing with it.
…Terms like these, while undoubtedly familiar to some Internet users, and common to most forum communities, represent only some of the vocabulary used in the SA forums.
What establishes the language used on SA as a dialect is not the presence of terms used by most forum users, but language defined and used specifically by goons to communicate with other goons. Terms and phrases used regularly on the forums are defined in the SAclopedia, usually by multiple goons, who are able to comment on, extend, correct, or affirm one another’s definitions. What appeals to me most about this collaborative reference material is that the words are not simply assigned agreed-upon, neutral definitions; users adding to an entry bring their own impressions of the word’s history, usage, connotations, and politics to bear on the work of defining it. Definition becomes more about how words mean than about what they mean.
Unraveling the meaning behind terms specific to SA took longer, as they’re unlikely to turn up in a dictionary or even in Wikipedia. Any term or phrase used with regularity on the forums is defined in the SAclopedia, usually by a host of goons. What appeals to me most about this style of reference material is that the words are not simply assigned an agreed-upon, neutral definition; users adding to the entries bring their own impressions about the history, usage, connotations, and politics of words to the discussion, making definition more about how words mean than what they mean.
I’d already talked about finding some terms in online dictionaries and Wikipedia much earlier in the paper, so that had to go. But, more importantly, while you can’t tell from the snippet I’ve posted, this paragraph follows one explaining some more-or-less universal terms used in internet forums. There’s no transition to speak of, and this first sentence makes it sound like I want to talk about how I went about gathering data, which doesn’t help me lead into talking about how I see the terms operating. So it becomes the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, which lets me carry over talking about forum users in general, and narrow in specifically on *these* forum users. It’s also often unclear what I’m referencing. This section still feels clumsy to me, in part because it’s hard to get the context around it out of my head, but I tried to keep both the new-known contract and end focus in mind when playing with it.
…Terms like these, while undoubtedly familiar to some Internet users, and common to most forum communities, represent only some of the vocabulary used in the SA forums.
What establishes the language used on SA as a dialect is not the presence of terms used by most forum users, but language defined and used specifically by goons to communicate with other goons. Terms and phrases used regularly on the forums are defined in the SAclopedia, usually by multiple goons, who are able to comment on, extend, correct, or affirm one another’s definitions. What appeals to me most about this collaborative reference material is that the words are not simply assigned agreed-upon, neutral definitions; users adding to an entry bring their own impressions of the word’s history, usage, connotations, and politics to bear on the work of defining it. Definition becomes more about how words mean than about what they mean.
Kolln Ch. 4-5
Applying the Kolln principles
Ch. 4 illustrates cohesion via repetition (or lexical cohesion), the know-new contract, metadiscourse, and parallelism.
Original opening sentence, part II of critical paper:
“Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the dyad of the signifier and the signified in one of his general linguistics courses around 1911. This theory was later used scholars such as…”
New opening sentence, part II:
(All of the following is preceded by my introductory paragraphs, which attempt to explain the theories that support all the upcoming conjectures I’m about to make)
“Let’s get back to the relationship between the cover and the original [Repetition]. We’ve established that the cover song is the love child of artistic influence, and that bringing new meaning to preexisting material is accomplished via distinct individual experience (and therefore interpretation) [Know-New Contract/Parallelism]. In order to further dissect this concept, language as a structure of experience must be applied to the rhetorical situation of the cover song [New part of Know-new contract]. Therefore we must look at one of the inherent qualities of language: that of the signifier and signified, which can be scrutinized in terms of the cover song [Metadiscourse].
Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the dyad of the signifier and the signified in one of his general linguistics courses around 1911. This theory was later used scholars such as…”[This was the sentence that I originally had in the paper stood with no transition, I tried to add something less shocking to the reader than just shoving the theory in their face]
Ch. 5
I liked this chapter. Since I’ve been listening to a slew of various “Hallelujah”s for this paper, I completely understand the profound effect slight changes in intonation pattern, wording, end focus, various modes of placing emphasis, etc. can have on a piece—cover songs are distinct from their originals because of these elements.
One of the reasons Jeff Buckley’s version of Hallelujah received so much acclaim was because of its changes in intonation, “It was Buckley's version on his 1994 album Grace that took the song into the canon. It was arguably the highlight of the album. Injecting the emotion of his trembling multi-octave vocals, the build-up to the line ‘Love is not a victory march/ It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah’ is devastating” (Bray, The Independent). This is interesting because while Kolln examines where the focus is by rearranging words (91-2), we can look at the cover song as rearranging focus through emphasis (since the words don’t change much, and the end focus does not switch as a result of wording).
Ch. 4 illustrates cohesion via repetition (or lexical cohesion), the know-new contract, metadiscourse, and parallelism.
Original opening sentence, part II of critical paper:
“Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the dyad of the signifier and the signified in one of his general linguistics courses around 1911. This theory was later used scholars such as…”
New opening sentence, part II:
(All of the following is preceded by my introductory paragraphs, which attempt to explain the theories that support all the upcoming conjectures I’m about to make)
“Let’s get back to the relationship between the cover and the original [Repetition]. We’ve established that the cover song is the love child of artistic influence, and that bringing new meaning to preexisting material is accomplished via distinct individual experience (and therefore interpretation) [Know-New Contract/Parallelism]. In order to further dissect this concept, language as a structure of experience must be applied to the rhetorical situation of the cover song [New part of Know-new contract]. Therefore we must look at one of the inherent qualities of language: that of the signifier and signified, which can be scrutinized in terms of the cover song [Metadiscourse].
Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the dyad of the signifier and the signified in one of his general linguistics courses around 1911. This theory was later used scholars such as…”[This was the sentence that I originally had in the paper stood with no transition, I tried to add something less shocking to the reader than just shoving the theory in their face]
Ch. 5
I liked this chapter. Since I’ve been listening to a slew of various “Hallelujah”s for this paper, I completely understand the profound effect slight changes in intonation pattern, wording, end focus, various modes of placing emphasis, etc. can have on a piece—cover songs are distinct from their originals because of these elements.
One of the reasons Jeff Buckley’s version of Hallelujah received so much acclaim was because of its changes in intonation, “It was Buckley's version on his 1994 album Grace that took the song into the canon. It was arguably the highlight of the album. Injecting the emotion of his trembling multi-octave vocals, the build-up to the line ‘Love is not a victory march/ It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah’ is devastating” (Bray, The Independent). This is interesting because while Kolln examines where the focus is by rearranging words (91-2), we can look at the cover song as rearranging focus through emphasis (since the words don’t change much, and the end focus does not switch as a result of wording).
A Reading from the Book of John
Since I am going to revisit my intro to theory (and then revisit it again) to, among other things, bring in more of Fielding, I've decided to focus this revision on my introduction. I originally wrote:
Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones is subdivided into eighteen books. The first chapter of each book does not move the plot forwards but consists instead of the author addressing the reader directly, cheerfully discussing recent happenings in the novel, making cutting remarks about potential critics of his work and so forth. By the last book, the reader may very well feel as though he or she and Fielding have indeed been “Fellow-Travelers in a Stage-Coach, who have passed several Days in the Company of each other” (Fielding 706-707), with Fielding acting as an unusually chatty traveling companion, irritating at times and charming at other times.I follow the known-new contract pretty well in this, but I think that there were some issues with levels of generality here. The first sentence is clearly a level 1, with the second sentence consisting of level 2 (the first half) and level 3 (the details on how Fielding addresses the audience. The third sentence I quote here seems to be somewhere between 3 (describing the chapters) and 4 (describing my reaction to Fielding). I've therefore rewritten it as follows:
Each of Tom Jones’ eighteen books is introduced by a chapter where instead of continuing his story, Fielding addresses his readers directly. By the end, the reader may indeed feel as though he or she and Fielding have been “Fellow-Travelers in a Stage-Coach, who have passed several Days in the Company of each other” (Fielding 706-707). As a traveling companion, Fielding is irritating at times and charming at others as he cheerfully interrupts his novel to comment on recent plot twists, to mock literary critics and to discourse at length about the act of reading as he understands it.
The first sentence is a level 1 sentence, as before. I've moved that final sentence up into the second position, however, establishing it as a level 2 sentence. The new last sentence has become a level 2 sentence as well – it provides further detail on the first sentence with reference to the metaphor introduced in the second sentence.
I think examining the generality levels of my sentences was useful since it made me stop and work out just what each sentence was about, specifically. The paragraph flows better now (at least, I think it does) because it has been rearranged to allow for a clearer relationship between the ideas advanced in each sentence.
Reader Expectations
BEFORE: Madness was a hot topic in nineteenth-century America. Social perceptions were a mish-mosh of superstitions left over from the Dark Ages, religious fears of demonic possession, Enlightenment views of man as a biological machine, and innovative approaches from—and twisted interpretations of—the Moral Treatment Movement just then crossing the ocean from Europe. Terminology changed. Science advanced then broke into brittle facades of prejudice and cruelty. Cures—despite rigorous treatments—were rare.
AFTER: Madness was a hot topic in nineteenth-century America. At that time, whispered conversations were a mish-mosh of competing factors: superstitions left over from the Dark Ages, religious fears of demonic possession, and Enlightenment views of man as a biological machine. In addition, the Moral Treatment Movement was just then crossing the ocean from Europe to challenge perceptions from the past. New ideas, along with new terminology and treatments competed for dominance, but often broke into brittle facades of prejudice and cruelty. In the midst of this perceptual muddle, actual cures were rare.
Kolln’s explanation of reader expectations put a nebulous idea into words for me. In the Before paragraph, I considered cohesive flow to be achieved through a, more or less, instinctual process. Kolln very simply proved me wrong. In considering how the previous sentence logically sets up expectations for the next sentence, I believe my paragraph is easier to read and comprehend. For instance, in the Before paragraph, even though I use the term “hot topic,” my second sentence fails to connect by mentioning conversations, discourse, reports, or other examples of people talking to each other. The second sentence in the After paragraph flows more cohesively by mentioning “whispered conversations,” which not only connects to the first sentence, but uses power words to allude to the pervasive attitude that mental illness is shameful or scary and should not be spoken of.
AFTER: Madness was a hot topic in nineteenth-century America. At that time, whispered conversations were a mish-mosh of competing factors: superstitions left over from the Dark Ages, religious fears of demonic possession, and Enlightenment views of man as a biological machine. In addition, the Moral Treatment Movement was just then crossing the ocean from Europe to challenge perceptions from the past. New ideas, along with new terminology and treatments competed for dominance, but often broke into brittle facades of prejudice and cruelty. In the midst of this perceptual muddle, actual cures were rare.
Kolln’s explanation of reader expectations put a nebulous idea into words for me. In the Before paragraph, I considered cohesive flow to be achieved through a, more or less, instinctual process. Kolln very simply proved me wrong. In considering how the previous sentence logically sets up expectations for the next sentence, I believe my paragraph is easier to read and comprehend. For instance, in the Before paragraph, even though I use the term “hot topic,” my second sentence fails to connect by mentioning conversations, discourse, reports, or other examples of people talking to each other. The second sentence in the After paragraph flows more cohesively by mentioning “whispered conversations,” which not only connects to the first sentence, but uses power words to allude to the pervasive attitude that mental illness is shameful or scary and should not be spoken of.
I thought I knew how to start paragraphs...
Before: I will of course need to define what I mean by yoga, and what I mean by yoga use in the classroom. Skeptical readers will undoubtedly bring some important concerns to this piece about the applicability of yoga in the actual classroom; logistics, student resistance, administrative misgivings, cultural conceptions (and misconceptions) of yoga all present problems to a yoga-based writing pedagogy. This paper will address a few of these concerns and problems, although admittedly I will not be able to answer all of them.
After: Skeptical readers will undoubtedly bring some important concerns to this piece about the applicability of yoga in the actual classroom. Logistics, student resistance, administrative misgivings, and the cultural conceptions (and misconceptions) of yoga all present strong oppositions to a yoga-based writing pedagogy. This paper will address a few of these concerns and problems, although admittedly I will not be able to answer all of them.
Commentary: Like the student I helped with paragraphs yesterday, I am including too much in this paragraph, and in the wrong order. This original was an awkward spot, where I confuse my poor reader’s expectations. I jump from talking about how I will need to define yoga to an anticipation of my reader’s skepticism. What I have here is a level 1/2 sentence, then a confusing level 1 sentence which uses a subordinate clause as a level 2 sentence, then I have a sentence that tries to get me back to level 1 before I move onto the real meaty level 3, 4 and 5 sentences in which I begin describing theory in the remainder of the paragraph (I didn't work with them here, for the sake of brevity). I took out the sentence about defining yoga; my reader will be able to read this early in the next section. I also worked with the rhythm of the sentences by breaking up the first long sentence and let an adverbial of emphasis (all) take over the rhythm reins of the second level 2 sentence. My third sentence is an attempt at some meta-discourse to guide my reader back to the problem at hand; it tells my reader that I am aware of where they want me to go, and I will do my best to get us there. The rest of the paragraph gives them the game plan for approaching and arguing within that skepticism (ie. with sound theory to back up these assertions).
After: Skeptical readers will undoubtedly bring some important concerns to this piece about the applicability of yoga in the actual classroom. Logistics, student resistance, administrative misgivings, and the cultural conceptions (and misconceptions) of yoga all present strong oppositions to a yoga-based writing pedagogy. This paper will address a few of these concerns and problems, although admittedly I will not be able to answer all of them.
Commentary: Like the student I helped with paragraphs yesterday, I am including too much in this paragraph, and in the wrong order. This original was an awkward spot, where I confuse my poor reader’s expectations. I jump from talking about how I will need to define yoga to an anticipation of my reader’s skepticism. What I have here is a level 1/2 sentence, then a confusing level 1 sentence which uses a subordinate clause as a level 2 sentence, then I have a sentence that tries to get me back to level 1 before I move onto the real meaty level 3, 4 and 5 sentences in which I begin describing theory in the remainder of the paragraph (I didn't work with them here, for the sake of brevity). I took out the sentence about defining yoga; my reader will be able to read this early in the next section. I also worked with the rhythm of the sentences by breaking up the first long sentence and let an adverbial of emphasis (all) take over the rhythm reins of the second level 2 sentence. My third sentence is an attempt at some meta-discourse to guide my reader back to the problem at hand; it tells my reader that I am aware of where they want me to go, and I will do my best to get us there. The rest of the paragraph gives them the game plan for approaching and arguing within that skepticism (ie. with sound theory to back up these assertions).
Friday, May 15, 2009
Excising and Re-orienting: Ruth's Post
These sentences are from the second half of a paragraph from a paper I wrote on Haraway's cyborg and Anzaldua's mestiza.
Old:
One must be one or the Other; there is no third category where one might display a mixed identity or an identity that lies completely outside the binary. These border dwellers are identified as monstrous others, beyond the limits of social definition by those in power, as well as those who are not. Anzaldúa’s continued self-critique of Chicano culture makes it clear that she does not isolate the despotism of duality to only those cultures which are dominant; the penchant to organize socially around binaries is a cross-cultural phenomenon.
New:
One must be one or the “Other”; no third category exists. There is no space where one might display a mixed identity which lies completely beyond the binary. Border dwellers, then, become monstrous others who defy definition. The ultimate outsiders, they live in transgression of the social definitions imposed upon them, not only by those who possess power, but also by those who do not. As Anzaldúa’s continued critique of Chicano culture suggests, this despotism of duality is not isolated to those cultures which are dominant; rather, the penchant to organize around binaries is a cross-cultural, cross-racial, cross-class phenomenon.
Reflect:
I went for a mélange approach and tried to incorporate several of Kolln’s tactics. First, I tried the “there transformation.” I generally avoid these constructions, but in my second sentence it lent a really nice emphasis to the words “no space.” I like how the “there” serves as a subtle emphasis on a phrase (“no space”) that resonates with the main message of the paragraph. In the next few sentences, I experimented with rhythm modulation. I especially liked using the comma interruption in the middle of a sentence to push the emphasis back on the subject of my paragraph (border dwellers and their extreme boarder-ness). You’ll also notice I toyed with a back-to-back set up of “power words” in the second and third sentences. I think this worked well, again, as a set-up to my explanation of the excessive marginalization of these already marginalized people. Finally, I added some parallelism in the final sentence to illustrate the way in which border dwellers are oppressed both by the “oppressors” as well as the “oppressed.”
After reading Kolln, I found myself cutting lengthy sentences into smaller pieces by excising words and reorienting the sentence order. I realized I don’t generally use short sentences much in my papers. I should. These short (shorter) sentences lend more weight to their subjects and give a much needed clarity to my often over-wrought prose.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)