« Writing Rules | Main | Expect the Expected AND the Unexpected: In Israel and the West Bank »
March 16, 2006
Evidence and Style
Cathy Tio, '06, is writing an honors thesis in International Relations. She comments on the "writing rules" and style, responding to the ideas of Prof. Karl and Rev. McLennan
As someone accustomed to writing position papers for professors, I have adopted a tried-and-true method of writing that has served me rather well. This method lets the evidence speak for itself, minimizing the presence of my own voice. However, now that I am writing an honors thesis, I find myself wanting to speak more.
Professor Karl and Professor McLennan’s writing rules touch upon aspects of writing that I almost never think about. This is probably because their rules pertain to how they write rather than how they present. The writing rule that I adhere to is distinct from theirs, largely in that mine is procedural. Let me call it the Diver’s Method. When it comes to writing a research paper, I plunge right into the material, hoping to swim back up into rational coherent thought. These steps are designed to escape writer’s block, that hesitation a diver feels right before she springs into the air. I am never at a lack of words because I am literally flailing in a sea of them. Having conducted my research, with only a general topic area in mind, I usually write down all the significant arguments that various authors have made (in sentence form), separate them into various themes, and further separate them into arguments. Then, I bring order to the incoherent mess that will form the meat of my paper. By first ordering sentences within arguments into logical progression, arguments within themes, and then themes within the topic, I have written the bulk of a paper without using any of my own thoughts.
At this point in time, I have largely weakened the prospects of writer’s block because I merely have to make sense of the information that I have assembled. Only at the end, when I include a unifying thesis and cognitive transitions do I insert my own voice into the original mess. How can I increasingly incorporate my own voice into analytical writing? Will I have to abandon my favorite rule for a more top-down approach that involves establishing my thesis and then establishing the facts? If that is the case, will I be able to speak as effectively as the scholars that I so often cite? These are all questions that I am in the midst of tackling.
Posted by hilton at March 16, 2006 02:11 PM