This week, we read an article, “Ten Ways to Think About Writing: Metaphoric Musings for College Writing Student,” authored by E. Shelly Reid. As I read, what I gathered from it was that we have only ever faced introductions to the substance of writing with several concrete conditions that can make or break the professionalism and truism of any kind of written work. It has caused blockage and uncertainty in the minds of high school students transitioning into college scholars. Reid took it upon herself to number rhetorical situations that she advises writers to put themselves through while constructing their unique writing processes.
First to discuss are the “rules” that Reid begins the article by listing. The main “rule” that stuck out to me the most is one I’m afraid, at any point in a standard essay, to peel away from to make my voice heard on the topic at hand. It’s the idea that one structure of essay/paper writing is the law. This “law” is a sandwich of sorts: a paragraph to begin stating ideas, another at the end mirroring the first given the “meat and cheese” of the paper, which were laid out at the essay’s beginning and are further explored strictly with quotes throughout three larger body paragraphs. Time and time again with the readings of each week, I see a theme of sorts that slander how our writing processes start: with prompts, and thus, rigidity to show an understanding of how the real-world connects with learning.
With this in mind, I have a complete understanding and respect for how Reid casually lays out advice for students like myself to keep in mind when they feel pressured to stay within the societal pressures and expectations of how writing needs to present itself to be taken seriously at our stage of life. One that stuck out to me was her section: “Fruit Jell-O: Balancing Arguments and Examples.” In this section, Reid looks at writing as less of a structured sandwich and more of the brain supporting the reasons as to why an argument fits with an example or with the author of the text. It helps add flavor to the raw points that an essay or paper would be without its supporting examples or quotes. The reason the “Jell-O” example works more with me, personally, is because these examples or quotes need a structure, but one that’s comfortable to the author and not written in stone as the law that intimidates — and places a thumb above — the author.
Other points that Reid made were in honor of our brains, and how we must extend it to consider all possibilities of where our text goes. We must assume that readers, essentially, read along because they feel a journey that our papers can take them on, is warranted and sought out. In that assumed reality, we must plan examples and anecdotes accordingly, being specific so the points don’t become obscured, or lost in translation. Reid details how surprisingly simple it is to lose readers instead of grab their attention, hold it, and do so the way an author intends to all throughout their paper or analysis. I agree with these sentiments from Reid. If a topic is given enough passion by an author that claims such passion, it becomes easy to be comfortable and casual, rather than reflective and critical.
Leave a Reply