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.