Scribd
Upload

Understanding Rhetoric Chapter 4

138 views12 pages

Uploaded by

Wilted Auroras
CHAPTER FOUR WRITING AN ANALYTICAL ESSAY nnhor essay “Teaching Writing as Process” (2002), Davida Charney rotes that even though “academic writing Is seldom easy and there is no one right way to write, some approaches are more reliable than others. Many students who have serious problems with analytical writing rely on overly-rigid processes, ones that focus attention on low-level concerns at inapproprate tes. Nothing is wrong with the approaches in-and-of-hemselves, except that they hhave beon transformed from helpful hints (or heuristics) into what com: position scholar Mike Rose has termed "gid rues.” " Charney cites three of the most common false-starts in her classroom. In her words: = Some students adopt a “perfect fst draft strategy,” believing that the text must emerge grammatically and in order from fst sentence to last. They paralyze themselves agonizing over the first sentence ‘or paragraph and then pull an al-nighter before the paper is due. If they ar tired and desperate enough, sometimes the muse appears, and several pages spill ou. Because the text finally lows easily" it syst be good. = Some students strain to make their essays conform to some idea ized structure (e.g. “the five-paragraph essay"), leaving out ideas that dont ft and adding filer if they don't have three text-based ‘examples to round out this pre-fabricated mold. When thoughts are Poured into mold Ike this, the writing often turns to cardboard: predictable, bland, and charactertess. = Some students treat the texts they read as absolutely authoritative ‘and understand thelr ole to be a mere compile and reporter on this received wisdom. If they find confcting accounts in their reading, they artificially harmonize them rather than engaging in interpret- ation or crtique. When asked to defend a position to an audience that might disagree with them, they find it dificult to establish shared values orto treat alternative values as legitimate, Charney’s essay articulates something that most student-writers, already knows the two biggest concerns at the heart of writing ~ sober to say and fow to say it~ are tough intellectual work. Reading rhet- corcally, a sk covered in the previous three chapters, isa tried-and- true means of invention that addresses the former, The situation that cals forth a text (exigence), the interaction between speaker, subject, ‘and audionce (the rhetorical triangle), the way writer establishes tone ‘and credibility (ethos), the tex's pattern of development (logos), the ‘arousal of feelings in the hearts ofthe audience (pathos), word choice (diction), and sentence structure (syntax) are all generative places to kick of the eventual essay you plan to write. But once you've figured of wr to say (vention), you must now consider Jw you are going to say it (arrangement). This chapter's method folows from what's known 2s the Stage-Model theory, a dominant concept of writing that breaks the composing process into sequential stages: prewriting, writing, = ‘writing. Having dominated the composition classroom since the 1960s, its simple, three-part schema is accessible to bath novice and experts alike, while stil open-ended enough to remain adaptable fora variety cof writing tasks. The chapter's running example llustrates these vitues by highighting the crosswalks between the receptive (reading) and pro- ‘ductive (rting) processes that are so essential to college-level writing. Invention for an Analytical Essay ‘Any rhetorical analysis essay worth reading must be underwritten by ‘three foundational questions: enact Ee » G7 Whatever process of pre-wriing takes place (Knee-Jerk passages from Jonathan Edwards's “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry ‘God! (1741) and James Van Tholen’s “Surprised by Death” from Sie «all Hope Lies (2008). In each, the speaker outlines his relationship to- ‘wards God and how their respective congregations can come to gain ‘spictual Knowledge and sei-understanding through his personal ex- Periences. As you road, see how each author uses rhetorical strategies [Link] thelr respective understanding of God while noting the dramatically citferent effect ofthese strategies on the audience. “Sinnersin the Hands of an Angry God" Jonathan Edwards, 1741 ne use may be of avatening to soconvened pasos inthis congie Jaton ms thatyourave herd she ease of everyone ofyouthat are out or Ct, hat wo of misery that ake of turing brmstoneis extended abroad under you Ter she dead pr ofthe sowing Rares of he wath or cod: te shells wee gaping out cpen and you have nothing stander, nr anything to takehold Jor theres nothing between you snd a br he ats ent the power and ere please of Go tha holds you You probably are ot sonst of ns:youtedyouaeheptcutcthe ut dor se the hand of Gad in, ook ates rings. 25 he good state or sour body cersttution your cae af our i and te means you vse oryour own pesenaton autindoed nse things ae nothing God should ancan his han, they ould ava no noce 0 keep yu fom ang, han he “Surprised by Death” from Where AllHope Lies James Van Tholen, 2003, is isa strange day—forall ous os of you know thac today mans yrecun oth pupae seven rons f dealing th an aggresive and eoay form fence Now with tne cancer vacationing oa whi, am back eect cous, malas be back. canthep fee haw sronge ts doy especialy because I wanttognore my absence and want pretend everbody hasforoo tenth reson fr utwecant dott wecant anor what has happened We can se above wecanlve though but we eantignorei Fe ignore she thest of death 00 treo ak about then the test ws, Then we ate oe wheimed byt andourfath doesit sop 01 Ard hac hppens. we se hope We wanttowochip Godin this erurch ano or worship tobe ie doesnt have tobe fun and it does have obegultiden Butit does hove tobe hones and toes have tohope in God. Wehave tbe honest iin ato hci up a person that sus" pended int ‘ourwctednessmakesyou as wer heawy asad ant ered down wads wth eat weet and pressure wards hand # God shoud et ou g0, you woud medal sink sr say deicend ancphinge ito the bottoms gui and your heathy constitution, and your own cre and prudence, and best contivance and atyoursohteousness wouldhave no moreinfuence 1 uphold you and kecoyou out ofl han spiders eb woul haveto stop ling ok Were tect that so the sovereign easue cf God the eath would not bear yeusone moment fr you rea burcen 0 tthe eaten groans youthe ceo sade subject to ne bondage of your [Link] iting; th sun dont willingly shine upon youto ge you ight 10 save in anc Satan the acto ingly eld herincese ro sats yours nor isitwiinglya tage fr your wickedness tobe acted upon the ait dont wing serve youterbaath to manta te ae fen your ta, se you spend your ie nthe sence or cos enemies Gods creates re god, and were made formento sere Goa vith andor wilingysutsrve [stout a werd of viclence and pain, 2 ors hascoms fh andsmashes hope and reburslove Weravetobe honest about he worl and hanes bout he dicate of ath tint dod then we sti have to hopein Got Set meta with the honesty ne rth that er seven months have been seared Not ofthe cance, rot ealy Not ven of death. Dying nother mater how ang wil iake and how tl go Dying scares me Bur wen say that have been Saved, doit mean that my thoughts hve certeredon yng, My al fear has centred somenhere ake Stange as tay sound have been Scare of 2cting God. How could ths be 0? How could have beiedin the God of race and shave creagedta meet him? iy aid standin ths pulp an prech race to you over and over, and then, wien mye needed the graceso rich why did dscovereor where the graeshould have been? God comesto us before we 900 him John Timmer use to ay ha hi ie Goes hab Gc came to Abraham wan here vas nothing to comet, Just ancl man at dead ena icy other purpose and groan when ney ae stused to purposely onary to therratue and end ‘Ad he wold would pe you out were not forthe sovrelgn hand oth wh hath subjected hope her are the bick-louds of Gas arth cow hanging directly over your beac fllof the creat sem and big wth thunder and werent for re resaning hand of Ga would recite bust fin upon you The sovereign pease of Ga forthe pe sentys his ough wk otherwise fe would come wth ay. and your de- scion would come thea whivin, and you would be the thecat othe umtar testing foo ‘The wath of God he aeat tere that re cammed forthe pre senthey increase more nd mere, and ie higher andigher lan ote sien. andthe longer he steams sopped, the mre repid and mighty scours, when once et lode Ts ove tht judgment ait youre wos has ot been exeutd thet, re Roads oF Gods vengeance have een wines butyour ulin the meantime corstantyinceasins ond ou are every dy teasuing up more rat the waters ate contra ring thats od foryou Tat the way Gods to werk Hecomes to od men and te fatto sinvrsandto losers Tars race, and asermen wi outs sermon atl ‘we ted preach grace, 10 it my sermons up wth race, to persuadeyourbeivein ace And es wonder werkt have that to sand here and preach erace to people actin this pulpit and talked about wr anahonosenaty and dhorce 1 raked about death before knew what eat reaty was And tie to bing the gospel of racetotheseaeas when preached sald that God goes to people now hat God eceves People in toute that Goda God who getsinso trouble because of his ace, est what our Heidelberg Cat echsm sayshat our ony comorin ie arcin death that we ect our ben but belong ro ur fat Savio, esis Crest, Isaidallthose things and meant nem Bur nat was bore faced death vel Sonow have asl tng to ci doi think! ever ele the shocking ad aka nature of Gods orace even sl preached I An he reason it getit where races concerned nk tha assumed [ae waxing more and more mighty. and there snothing but the mere ease of God hatha the waters backtha ae unin abe stopped or press to 90 forward God shoul ony witherawhis hand from ne Roedoate would immediately open aa the fer foods ofthe ecenes and wrath of God would rsorth with inconcevable fy. and cul come upon you vith eripo- tere power an your srenath were ten thousand tines rater hans, eaten thousand ines ester than ine senathaf the outst suedest devin el two be nothing to ihstand or enue, “Thusate alyou that never passed ders great change of hey the righty power af te Spit of God on yoursulsathat were never eam again, and made new crests, snd ed rom being dead insinto state fnew and before together nespenenced igh and ile however sou may have feed youre in mary tings and may have a reigious afecions and may kaep up storm often your famlies an cosets and inthe house of Gd, and maybe stein, you ae thsin tbe hands ofan angry Gods nothingbut hs mere pesure that heepsyou rm isi ad about ty years Forty [cing this moment swaiowed up in| yeas to unesn my bachabts Forty eveiasingdestuction yeast ety sinsthin down ara “hats the gipel and can sake rie ont must. And 0 mus yo ocrmntenrenrcaet | Serangoon rims and pickup neighbor mail orthem when they wenton action ‘This frst stop answers the question of “ars the author writing So pease dont be susie when about?” ne dys head dont takabout ry Each author essentially writes about the same subject, God, lancer very often etal apart my sry today because itsemed ight to onthe ist ay back te seven nt. at hate must tk about hee norm cannot be our focus yet the understanding of and relationship towards this shared ‘subject Is fundamentally aifeent for each speaker in almost ‘very regard. The God of Edwards's sermion mates out justice to the hard-hearted sinners of his congregation in typical Great Fencetiacaac eat estate ‘Awakening, “fre-and-brimstone” fashion. The grim, oppressive sory isthat the grace fess Christ ‘majesty of this God is presented in the most inventive con- aries us beyond every cance every ccevable way ~ Edwards is not working from any type of trad wore evry sn every rouble that tion but rather generates these pathos-aden images trom some comes to us The hestiangospelisthe well deep within his own imagination. James Van Tholen paints Sea quite a diferent picture. His God is not wrathful, but loving: nsead of shone:maybe preach for sever months, and maybe for abit more. Butta dying know and hae ane i ohne yt But ther hope unwavering hope have hope natin something vecone,some] Sip. 2: owe dacs he ampli tt putty Iemantained of ome setmon Ine [Link] in God the Gos mercy of God. ‘ot transcendent, but imi Im dying Maybe wit take longer It is through his own brush-with-death nt; not punitive, but enlightening. ‘an aggressive course (of chemotherapy for cancer in his chest wall ~ that Van Tholen ‘comes to understand the fragity of life and the transcendent This second step addresses the question of "Whe in the text {does the author support his purpose’ who eaches ut foran enemy, aves war's highly charged message is delivered through sev= soe estore weak ral metorical moves: at the begining of successive phrases or clauses) to drive home the central ideas: ' Paragraph 9: "And the reason I didn't get it where grace is concerned, | think, Is that | assumed | stil had about ‘forty years left. Forty years to unlearn my bad habits Fory years to let my sine thin down and blow away. Forty years to be good to animals and pick up my neighbors’ mail for them when they went on vacation." + Abstract and concrete diction: Van Tholen’s sermon transitions, between abstract reflections and concrete experiences sig- naled by the coordinating conjunction “but” * Paragraph 1: “But | can't help feeling how strange this day ig especially because I want to ignore my absence, and | want to pretend everybody has forgotten the reason fort.” + Paragraph 2: “But we can't do that. We can't ignore what has happened. * Paragraph 8: “I said all those things, and | meant them. But ‘that was before | faced death mysolt.” ‘This third step addresses the question of “Hew do these rhet- corical choices create an effect’ ‘The folowing observations drive at the “why” and “how” Concerns of the observations above, moving the intellectual work ‘rom a realm of identification to one of analysis and commentary. + Ethos: Coercive and aggressive in his delivery, Edwards does not borrow from the "shared plight” angle of Van Tholen but instead establishes himself as an unquestionable authority (on the subject of God's wrath. By repeatedly referring to his audience as *you," he sets himself outside of his indictments, thereby annihilating the “everyman” ethos that Van Tholen so heavily relies upon. Van Tholen’s soft-spoken and humble tone is due in large part to the way he handles the speaker- audience relationship. Through the use of plural pronouns, Van Tholen ilustrates the wider implications of his direct ex- Perience to that of the congregation, thus joining their ex- perience with his own. Jonathan Edwards also speaks with passion, but one that is markedly diferent from Van Thoten's. + Repetition: Edwards uses repetition to stress the urgency of his message. His syntax ~ specifically in the alternations of “tha,” “there,” "you" clauses ~ calls up an immediate vision of holland its proximity to the unconverted. God is wrathtl yes, but not merciless. In fact, Edwards repeated references to God's mercy ("you find you are kept out of hel, but don't 826 the hand of God in it” and “the sovereign pleasure of God for the present stays his rough wind: otherwise it would come to fury”) stresses the urgency of his message of repent- ‘ance, Van Tholen's repetition also suggests urgency, but to @ ‘much different end. He admits to quasi-hypoctsy in his pre- cancer life ~ through the anaphoric repetitions of “forty years” in paragraph 3 - of why he didn't understand the urgency of ‘making oneself right with God because he had “forty years” todo it (a kind of I-take-the-trash-out-lter” attitude). nthe biblical traction, “forty” typically signifies a period of testing and probation .. The Jews wandering in the desert for forty years; Jesus's temptation in the desert for forty days}. Van Tholen taps the energy of this allusion to suggest that his own Introspection in the face of death must happen al ofthe sud- den without a period of tribulation to make graclual sense oft all. nthe process, he synthesizes his personal story with fa- rmilar schemas found in seriptue, + Diction: Edwards's assuredness of his audience's transgres- sions is writen on the back of the various forms of the auxiliary verb “is,” His syntax is definite, leaving no room {or possiblities of ‘might and ‘maybe’. “That lake of burn- ing brimstone” and “the dreadful pit” av there, and they are ‘waiting forthe unrepentant. Such isthe image of Edwards's God, a wrathful and angry being who wil exact brutal reprisal upon those who do not conform to His wil. The abstractions In Van Tholen’s sermon are often juxtaposed with quick and abrupt transitions, specifically the coordinating conjunction but" The word “but” appears in every paragraph and isthe {ulcrum upon wiich Van Tholen propels his discussions from Ignorance about God's grace to a position of understanding it Even on the day of his sermon, Van Tholen hasnt ost what experience has taught him. He speaks with poise and pa- tence about what his battle with cancer has revealed to him about human life, all couched in qualified statements which acknowledge a merciful God who understands and accepts human fol, For more visual pre-writers, organizing these observations into shorthand graphic is useful ‘As Sharon Crowley argues in Teaching Ineenton (2002), “invention is perhaps the most dificult part of metoric to teach. Novice writers are ‘generally unaware that professional writing isa product of many drat. Modern students typicaly do not understand that good arguments must be searched for, that finding arguments appropriate to a given situation Is hard intellectual work. Nor do they see the need to produce ‘more arguments than they plan to use on a given assignment. Indeed, students typically use arrangement as their sole means of Invention, ‘thinking in terms of composing an introduction, a thesis statement, proofs, and a coneluslon-in that orden." Thus far inthis chapter, we've ‘sen how rhetorical reading propels the intial stages of invention. We" how consider how invention works hand-in-hand with arrangement to help writers produce reader-riendly,logle-driven analyses, 4 li i a Pes ee ‘The role of arrangement in the writing process is sometimes misun- derstood. Most students are taught that good writers wil frst invent, ‘then arrange, and folow up with style — always in that order. This linear approach is problematic fortwo reasons. For one, each act of writing operates under a unique set of rhetorical conditions. The purpose, the audience, the author's experience and background, the medium of publication, are just a few of the conditions which shit from one “writing project to the next. One-size-its-all patterns of arrangement (.e. the “ive-paragraph-essay’) tend to overwhelm novice writers and encumber mature ones since they prescribe that the reading-based Insights must fit into predetermined slots. Students and teachers alike ‘often see the five-paragraph-essay as the ideal form (and often the only form), though this type of writing rarely appears in contexts outside Englsh classrooms. It's a “form” of sors, but its rote instruction as, writing dagma often does more harm than good inthe long run for de- ‘veloping writers. Its greatest damage to students is done by inhibiting the growth of what composition scholars refer to as “form conscious ress,” an awareness that diffrent ¢hetorical situations call for some variation in an essay's structure. Inthe five-paragraph-essay myopia, writers don't see arrangement so much as a choice to made but as an ‘obligation to be met. Second, i's important to remember that invention and arrangement are not mutually exclusive. The best critical readers annotate with an eye to how the insights wil eventually coalesce, con- sciously (or unconsciously) understanding invention and arrangement to be part of the same problem-solving process, Where invention an- swers the question of "ha: am I going to write about,” arrangement makes the writer consider “Hw am | going to write about it?" Tink of ‘what follows as a general set of strategies ~ adaptable to your specific ireumstances as a writer to be used as you see fit. In other words, these suggestions will help get things off the ground, but once the paper is up and running, you must take the controls. The best essays are generally considered to be “whole” or “ur fied,” an idea traceable back to Aristotle's Paris (895 B.C): “A whole Is that which has a beginning, a middle, and an end.” Though Astotle largely applied this now-obvious insight to drama and poetry in Pst, this marks the earliest record ofa theoretical stance on arrangement in the Western tradition. Aristotle adapted his dramatic theory to contexts (of speach and argument in Tie dv of Rétori (4% Century B.C) in large part to counter the free-flowing, shape-shiting rhetoric of the Sophists ‘Aristotle's recommendations, both highly structured and easly learned, caught on in the academy, and students foreverafter have used Aris totelian patterns of arrangement for nearly all modes of writing, save narration and description. Sometimes relerred to as the “three-part- structure” in contemporary composition, Aistotle recommends that ‘any piece of writing worth reading should adhere to a basic structure: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion The engine ofthe intoduction isthe thesis statement, and Aristotle recognized its primacy in spoken discourse in Ther of Rito: "The ‘most essential function and distinctive property ofthe introduction is to show what the aim of the speech is.” Though Aristotle was more Concerned with speech than writing, nearly all hetoricians who have handled the idea of the written thesis did not sway far from Avistotl's| (oneral idea of the role it should play. Hugh Blair (1718-1800), a ‘Scottish rhetercian most known for his theorizing on written chetori, provided a famous take on Aristotle's insistence on the controling role played by the thesis in Laure on Réstoric and Belles Lettre (1789) ‘Adopted as the standard writing textbook at Yale (1785), Harvard (1788), and Dartmouth (1822), Blai's ideas laid the groundwork forthe ‘modem thesis statement whose traits we all recognize. It should be ‘explicit, outline the main argument, and (ypon recommendation of the ‘twentieth century author Sheridan Baker) appear toward the end of the Introduction for emphasis. The thesis must not be vague, nor should itbe just a topic. Its insutficient to write, “This paper is about Henry David Thoreau and Transcendentalism in Halden." That isa statement of case, but itis not sharp, not explicit. The thesis isthe rational element inthe argument, and it governs the entire paper. Alvays remember that a thesis, ke a sword, should have an edge and come toa point. ‘Avistotle recognized that the thesis cant doit al it must be paired ‘with developmental sections which deliver on the promises made in the introduction. Body paragraphs have two distinctive features: a con ‘roling idea and supporting details. Though Aristotle acknowledged the necessity of supporting detal in public oration, Te At of Rétorie had surprisingly litle to say on the topic. Classical rhetoric, which was largely composed and delivered orally, placed litle emphasis on such matters as “controling ideas," but current-radtional retoric recognizes the centrality of organization ineffective written discourse, Most of what we know about the modern body paragraph comes ‘rom English Compesiton and Ritori (1868) written by Scottish logician and educator Alexander Bain (1818-1903). Bain’ “organic paragraph" ‘model - the heart of neary all American composition courses ~is the prevaling structure of how ideas should be ordered and arranged in “writing. Bain fet s0 strongly about paragraph level coherence that he recorded “seven laws" fr effective body paragraphs in his 1866 work: 4. Distribution into Sentences: The consideration of the Unity of the Individual Sentence leads up to the structure of the Paragraph, as ‘composed of sentences properly parted of 2. Explicit Reference: The bearing of each sentence ofa Paragraph on the sentences preceding needs to be exp. ‘3 Parallel Construction: When several consecutive sentences iterate or illustrate the same idea, they should, as far as possible, be formed ake, 4, Indication of the Theme: The opering sentence, unless obviously preparatory, i expected to indicate the scope of the paragraph, 5, Unity: Unity ina Paragraph implies a sustained purpose and forbids emphasize just how clamatcally his near with God alc him. Head rst as hypoctsy nis pee- es hiscscusions fom ignorance about God grace toa postion of undesanding Ie Even on the dy of ie sermon, an Thoen hae lot what experience has aught him He speaks with pose and patence about what his bate wih cancer has re vealed ta him about human if all couched in quae statements which acne lege a mec God who unestands and acepts human ly Jonathan Edvard as speaks wih pasion, but one that is marly rent from Van Tholers. Cereve and anges in hs elven Edvards does nt boron from the shared plight angle of Van Thaler but rather establishes mse as an unquestionable aut onthe subject of Gos ath, Recah, ands sts ist outs ofhisoum congregation trough the use of econ person pronouns (5 not-war its you to cast judgement on those in flont of hi, Edvard ye ~ specie in the ateraton of thatthe you clauses cals up an immediate vision ofl ands proximity tothe unconverted Noreove by epee fering to his uence as"you he sete hm outside of his incite thereby an lang the everyman ethos that Van Tole so hes lis pon. And whe the ‘hetrical reo on Thole sourced nis coogi styl Edvard speech es is energy a8 pathos den trade an ivectve aginst a congegition presented ‘wth almost no qualifications whascever. Edwards assuednes of his aucences transgressions writen onthe back the vt His syntax definite, eving no ‘oom or posites of might and maybe! ale of burning binstone’ andthe ‘respite, an they ave warn forthe urepesant Such isthe age of wards God, an insrtal force wh wil exact rat rept upon those ho o not conform ro His wl od is wath ys though He snot mecless. hn fact yard repeated references to Gods mercy (you find you are kept cut of ell but dort ee the hand of Godin andthe sovereign pleasure of Gd forthe present ‘ye hisrough winds otervie kt euld come tofuy) tess the urgency afi mer ‘29¢ of epentancein ways nox unlike Von Tok Semon ‘he language sed by each preachers deeply elective of haw each under: stands trerown God Van Tole language dealin specicsandishighl concrete, a svategy which allows alistenet eas accesso the nage af his God he’ commu cating in hs son, Te evencayness of is lnguage contbues othe univer salty of hismesage weal confront our awn maging somewhere inven Thaler story Yn Tole nites to deny with hs pight and veal alongside hi, that Ged though not alvays wih the strutting ad rating of Edwards God is eer resent in everday fas. ead anguage contain vy few concete moments 2d the lave of bsracton in he diction ~ presented in a sting of magiathe rmetaphers~aptlyconesponds to Ewa God whois himsl abstract. anscend cnt and empresnble oly an imaginative eve teary, se. ard can tak about Ged rect he only has recourse o these powerful metaphors, butte fantasia images of éreaeul pit ofthe glowing flames ane bow of Gods wrath werk every ‘tat much an etering ausience aan Toler peeonal tay Though each ake ferent paths one thing s cena fo beth men. ll etal choles lead 1 the same destination: Ge 1f prewriting” and “writing” equate to Aristotle's “beginning and, “middle,” then “rewrting” isthe “end” that brings ultimate unity to the essay. Rewriting, oF revision, divides into two broad categories: “local” revision which focusas on santence-leval concerns (diction, syntax, ‘grammar, mechanics, and so forth) and “glabat" revision which exam- ines a texts structural features (organization, development of ideas, tone, styl, and so forth). Students tnd to place an outsized emphasis (on “local” revision - the type of stuff speling and grammar software will each ~ Hkely because it doesn't involve much guesswork, “Local” revision has its value but reducing rewriting to sentence-evel correc tions shortchanges the full generative value of revision. “Global” revi- sion presents greater challenges to the novice writer since it requires 2 rigorous examination of the internal processes of how prewriting and iting occurs. Sometimes refered to as the Recursive and Cognitive- Process theory this rewriting strategy asks you to revisit the three parts of the Stage-Model theory (prewriting, writing, rewriting) but this time ‘asa hetorical reader of your own work to determine its overall efficacy It may seem counterntultve, but once the intial writing has concluded ‘there stil remains an ongoing role of incenton to offer solutions to ‘discovered problems in the essay. Consider Table 1 as you revist your ‘work along the lines of global and local concerns. able Qtr er Gnbland aca Revie esis Gb Fein poset ‘ass sree bare ame sh Delany prada wpa cen iimietionmnnchneeanenaanesnie opti Diieeavantagprgehliyaianedaeares! em pe > bumantgpatepcnatestyteetignet enka vaca frauds omen sarin esr wie veri = Revising is more than fixing a paper for mere grammatical corract- ness; each round of revision should bring you, the writer, to higher levels of articulation and understanding through a sustained process of inquiry. Through revision, you develop a stronger understanding of how to see a writing project atthe college level and to how to make a ‘mark with your writing, Be sure that your revisions reflect substantive ‘changes tothe content: claiying ideas, tightening wordiness, drawing ‘more explicit connections, expicating a quote mare fully, or sometimes. ‘2 complete overhaul ofboth words and ideas. After al to “revise” Iter= ally means to “re-see.

You might also like