Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing

The initial focus is on distinguishing academic writing from mere summarization. The core argument is that unless explicitly instructed to summarize, academic assignments typically demand analysis and argumentation. The text emphasizes that professors generally expect close reading, thorough research, and the construction of a well-supported argument demonstrating comprehension and application of course concepts. The implicit expectation of analysis, even when not explicitly stated, is highlighted. The piece stresses the importance of understanding the instructor's expectations beyond the surface-level instructions, recognizing that often unstated assumptions about research depth, critical engagement, and argumentative skill are integral to the assessment.

This section delves into the mechanics of analytical essay writing. Analysis, the text explains, involves breaking down a subject—be it an advertisement, short story, or character—into its component parts. The goal is to then show how these parts interact to create meaning or a larger effect. The student's interpretation of these relationships forms the basis of their thesis statement, which they must then defend through a well-structured argument. The advice given is to avoid solely mental analysis; instead, writers are encouraged to record their findings on paper, allowing patterns to emerge through a systematic process of observation and connection. The section reinforces that rigorous analysis, like critical reading, is a fundamental skill in college-level writing. Examples provided are broad, such as analyzing American identity in the 21st century or contrasting themes in Pride and Prejudice, illustrating the range of subjects suitable for analytical essays.

The challenge of defining appropriate scope in academic writing is addressed. The section cautions against overly ambitious essay topics that would require book-length treatment. The analogy of a well-tended garden versus a large, weedy one is used to emphasize the importance of focusing on a manageable topic. The text provides the example of a student initially planning to address four aspects of Virgil's role in The Inferno but then narrowing it to a close analysis of Cantos I and II. This illustrates how refining the focus can transform an unwieldy topic into a concise and well-supported argument. The central point is that a more limited, thoroughly developed thesis is significantly more effective than a broad, superficial one. The importance of appropriately tailoring the scope of an analytical essay to the available resources and time constraints is thus emphasized.

This section opens by vividly depicting the anxiety many students experience when faced with a writing assignment. The immediate, visceral reaction—described as a 'vomit-inducing fireball'—serves to highlight the intensity of writing-related stress for some. This anxiety often leads to procrastination, a behavior the text examines as a response to academic pressure or a learned coping mechanism. However, the text strongly cautions against this strategy, emphasizing the risks involved in last-minute work, including unforeseen technical issues (printer malfunctions, software crashes, internet outages), resource unavailability (missing books, inaccessible research), and emergency situations. The consequences of procrastination are highlighted; even if completed, rushed assignments poorly represent the student's actual knowledge and abilities. Therefore, the section emphasizes the importance of starting assignments early to mitigate these risks and leave ample time for unforeseen circumstances.

The section emphasizes the importance of understanding the instructor's goals for an assignment, clarifying that it extends beyond simply assessing factual knowledge. While demonstrating knowledge is one aim, the assignment frequently also tests critical thinking, application of concepts, ability to summarize complex information, capacity for creative application of ideas, research management skills, and the ability to construct sound arguments. The text illustrates this with examples, noting that instructors might evaluate how students synthesize diverse expert opinions or build credible arguments instead of simply presenting personal opinions. The text explores the challenges posed by ambiguous directive verbs in assignments. The example of the word 'explain' is used to illustrate how a seemingly simple instruction can be interpreted differently, either as a request for summarization or a demand for a well-supported argument. The advice given is to look for further clues in the assignment instructions and, if still uncertain, to directly ask the instructor for clarification.

This section tackles the common struggle of finding a suitable topic for a writing assignment. It emphasizes the connection between personal identity, purpose, and the selection of a topic, suggesting that writers draw on their own interests and experiences to generate ideas. Strategies for reducing writing anxiety, including physical activity, sound, intentional distraction, role-playing, journaling, prayer, and meditation, are presented as ways to facilitate the invention process. The use of electronic media—email, messaging, texting, and presentation software—is also suggested as a means of idea generation. The overarching goal is to bridge the gap between personally meaningful ideas and the demands of academic writing, promoting a more satisfying and less stressful writing experience. The section also addresses how standardized testing may limit students' opportunities to develop their own unique writing topics.

This section explores a range of practical invention strategies and techniques for generating ideas. The importance of developing a consistent writing process, rather than relying on fleeting inspiration, is highlighted. The text contrasts writers who produce 'good enough' first drafts without adequate pre-writing with those who engage more thoroughly in the invention process. It mentions various methods, including freewriting, clustering, and even using Facebook quizzes for idea generation, cautioning that these methods may be helpful occasionally but are not sustainable long-term strategies. The piece advocates for writers to trust their own ability to generate meaningful topics, suggesting prompts like, "What do you care about?" or "What makes you mad?" It emphasizes that engaging in the invention process is about discovering and creating—discovering personal interests and then creating a topic that aligns those interests with the demands of the assignment. This process is shown to be highly personal and varied across individuals.

This section discusses the role of collaborative invention. A group brainstorming activity is described, illustrating how peer interaction can stimulate idea generation and refine broad topics. Students' contributions are examined as examples; one student's interest in celiac disease was enhanced by another student offering information about their mother's experience with the condition, leading to a potential interview. The example of a student focusing on animal rights illustrates how group feedback can help to narrow a vastly broad topic into a more manageable and engaging one—in this case, focusing on the treatment of captive wild animals in zoos and circuses. The text uses the analogy of an engineer's workshop (filled with diverse tools) to compare the many invention tools available to writers, emphasizing that writers need to select the most effective techniques for their individual needs and writing contexts. The section underscores that first-year college writing courses should equip students with a diverse repertoire of invention strategies, fostering comfort, clarity, and creativity in approaching writing assignments.

This section underscores the importance of collaborative learning and feedback in the writing process. It highlights examples from writing centers at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Loyola University in Baltimore, showcasing how consultations with tutors can significantly improve student writing. At Indiana University of Pennsylvania, a student initially seeking help with identifying logos, ethos, and pathos in a rhetorical analysis ultimately refined his thesis with the tutor's guidance, focusing on the overlap of these rhetorical appeals. This demonstrates how collaborative feedback can lead to more sophisticated and insightful arguments. At Loyola University, a writing center consultant emphasizes building student confidence by focusing on their strengths before addressing weaknesses. This approach empowers students to see their own potential and grow as writers. The overall message emphasizes that seeking feedback and working collaboratively enhances the writing process, leading to stronger and more effective essays.

This section critiques the common perception of argumentation as war, highlighting the limitations of this metaphor. The authors argue that this framing creates a false opposition between argument (action) and peace (inaction), neglecting the collaborative and constructive aspects of argument. They suggest alternative metaphors like 'argument as dance', emphasizing the dynamic and interactive nature of effective argumentation. The text cites examples of prominent peace advocates like Jane Addams, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr., whose powerful arguments, far from being passive, utilized strategies like civil disobedience. This challenges the assumption that effective argumentation requires antagonism. The section promotes viewing argument as collaboration, dialogue, and deliberation—cornerstone concepts in American democracy. The text aims to encourage a less confrontational and more collaborative approach to building strong, ethical arguments.

The section focuses on the ethical considerations involved in constructing arguments. It examines fallacious reasoning, distinguishing between purposeful fallacies—which represent ethical problems—and unintentional errors. The example of ad hominem attacks (attacking the person rather than the argument) illustrates unethical and lazy argumentation. Other examples include straw man arguments (misrepresenting an opponent's position) and appeals to pity (over-relying on emotional appeals). While some fallacies may be rhetorically effective, the text stresses the importance of striving for logical and ethical arguments. It draws upon Quintilian's classical rhetoric, highlighting his view that a perfect orator is inherently a good person. The section concludes by reiterating that while avoiding fallacies is important for ethical reasoning, the text still acknowledges that sometimes fallacies, while logically unsound, can be surprisingly persuasive.

This section addresses the complexities of using 'I' in academic writing. While the common practice is to avoid first-person pronouns to maintain objectivity, the section argues that this isn't always the best approach. It introduces the concept of the 'observer effect' from physics, illustrating that the act of observation can influence the observed system. This principle is applied to research, suggesting that the researcher's presence and perspective are integral to the research process and should be acknowledged. Therefore, using first-person pronouns can, in some contexts, enhance objectivity and intellectual integrity by providing a more complete and truthful account. The text suggests that using 'I' can also aid in structuring complex arguments and clarifying the writer's intentions, as using first-person allows for more direct and clear transitions between different sections and ideas in an essay.

This section uses the case of the Dionne quintuplets, born in Canada in 1934, to illustrate the historical exploitation of multiple births. The text describes how, shortly after their birth, the quintuplets were taken from their parents and placed in a nursery built on their family's property, essentially becoming a public spectacle. Their father even contracted to move them to Chicago as an exhibit for the Century of Progress Exposition. The Ontario government intervened, suspending the parents' parental rights, citing the children's well-being as a higher priority than profit. Ironically, the government then built a small theme park, Quintland, around the children. The exploitation continued until the quintuplets reached the age of eighteen. Even after their return to their parents, the long-term effects of this exploitation were severe, including emotional and physical discord within the family, and leading to estrangement from their parents and lasting psychological harm. In their adult lives, they sued the government of Ontario, eventually receiving a multi-million dollar settlement. The case underscores the lasting, devastating consequences of exploiting children for commercial gain.

The section contrasts the exploitation of the Dionne quintuplets with more contemporary examples. It discusses the Gosselin sextuplets and their parents, Jon and Kate Gosselin, whose family life was heavily documented by a reality TV show. Even after the parents' public divorce and Jon's admitted adultery, the show continued, broadcasting the children's emotional distress. The author suggests that children of divorce would not likely consent to such media intrusion. Nadya Suleman's octuplets are also discussed; she contracted to participate in a reality show soon after their birth, further highlighting the continuing pattern of exploiting multiple births for media attention and financial gain. The text notes that, in both instances, the media narrative sometimes minimized the children's distress and framed difficult family situations as normal occurrences. These case studies emphasize the ethical issues surrounding the public and media exploitation of children.

The concluding section focuses on analyzing the underlying motivations and predicting the long-term implications of the media’s exploitation of these multiple births. The case of Nadya Suleman and her fourteen children is examined in detail; her financial situation and her stated refusal of welfare, coupled with her pursuit of lucrative media deals, are used to illustrate the financial motivations behind the exploitation. The text quotes a psychoanalyst who views Suleman's actions as acceptable, suggesting that the public’s willingness to accept the monetization of children’s experiences normalizes such behavior. The author highlights Suleman’s admission of a dysfunctional childhood as possibly indicating an unpreparedness to raise her large family, which could be worsened by continued media exploitation. The overarching point is that the media exploitation of these families can lead to severe long-term negative ramifications for the well-being of the children involved.