The paragraph is the most important component of writing. An effective paragraph contains three
elements:
Source: I have derived this section from Glenn Leggett et al., Prentice-Hall
Handbook for Writers, 3rd edition. (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1960), pages 213-257. I
highly recommend that you examine older writing handbooks because they distill
the elements of writing into simple and easily understood rules.
Effective writing contains a main point that the author seeks to communicate
to the reader. In scholarly writing, the
author task is to make this point as explicitly as possible.
What do we mean by a main point? The main point represents the author's purpose for writing in
the first place. The main point is not the subject of a paper, but a contention about that subject.
"Such contentions," according to the authors of a handbook on
historical research, "always involve claims that a particular conclusion is a correct view of the significance
of a certain subject." Note:
In a scholarly essay, you should express
your main point or thesis as early as possible. In the classic
five-paragraph form, it comes at the bottom of the first paragraph. In longer articles, it usually comes in the
second or third paragraph.
The main point represents a precise "contention" or the author's
stand on a particular subject. With
the main point, in effect, the author says to the reader, "After I have
analyzed this document or this set of sources, here is proper and best way to
think about this subject." Note: Your "contention"
provides you with the essential element of precision. For example, your main point does not merely
inform the reader that two objects are "different," but explains why
and how they are different, and the importance of this difference as it relates
to the subject. Your discussion of the
subject also must be accurate and thorough enough to convince the
reader you have proven your point within the confines of the assigned word limit.
Most importantly, an explicit point gives continuity or a theme
to an essay. Without it, an essay
consists of random evidence that fails to direct the reader to the significance
that the author has derived from this evidence. Note: To make sure that your papers
express continuity, think of each
paragraph in the body of the essay as a discussion of one topic of your main
point. In addition, refer back to
your main point as you move between topics.
When you introduce a new topic,
you must also show the reader how this topic relates to your main point.
Finally, an essay's main point is a personal expression of the author's
values and judgments that tells the reader what the author thinks about the
subject. Note: This is a personal
"expression" supported by evidence from authoritative sources, not an
"impression" that merely tells how the author thinks about something.
In short, always argue from evidence, not from assertions (one historian
I know shortens this rule to the phrase, "Show, don't tell.") Because your point is personal, you should clearly
define any specialized or abstract terms in your own words so the reader
knows exactly how you are using these terms.
(Never, ever, quote a dictionary definition of a term.)
Source: I have derived this section of the worksheet from Norman F. Cantor
and Richard I. Schneider, How to Study History (New York, 1967), pages
204-211. There is a new edition of this book, and I recommend that you pick up
a copy. It contains helpful guidelines about historical research and writing
that you can apply to other subjects.
Effective writing exhibits precision by combining the elements of elegance,
simplicity, and clarity. Lack of
precision undermines the purpose of your writing. Unless you can communicate your ideas in
clear, plain, and correct prose, your readers will fail to understand your main
point. At best, they may have a vague
idea about your main point, but will remain unconvinced or befuddled about your
intentions.
The Three Primary Causes of Imprecise Writing
1. Passive
Voice
2. Clichés
3. Vague
words and phrases
Precise writing uses the active voice by linking concrete nouns to vigorous
and active verbs. Imprecise writing uses the passive voice (or passive verb
form) in which a direct object becomes the subject of a sentence and the verb
takes the past participle form and a form of the verb "to be" (be,
am, is, are, was, were, being, been)
immediately before it (sometimes to two are split by an adverb). Let me clarify
this description, with a few examples.
The royal troops shelled the city. (Active—note
that the sentence attributes responsibility to an actual group of people,
"troops.")
The city was shelled. (Passive—note that the object "the
city" becomes the subject of the sentence, and the verb is now in its past
participle form accompanied by "was," a form of "to be."
You could put the phrase "by the royal troops" at the end of the
sentence. This correction is not only wordy but the verb is less vigorous than
in the first sentence.)
Shells were dropped on the city. (Passive—again note the characteristic verb forms and lack of
responsibility for the action.)
The late historian Christopher Lasch criticized passive
voice as "inert, lifeless, and evasive," because it "disguises
the subject and makes it hard to assign responsibility for an action." This
lack of responsibility not only applies to individual sentences, but to the individual
writer as well. Timid writers prefer the passive voice because they think it
exudes an air of detachment, when it actually avoids the "risk of a
straightforward judgment." For
example, in the above sentences, to locate who held ultimate responsibility, we
might ask which person in power ordered the bombing. Was this decision necessary? Was it humane? If so, what values are we using to make these
judgments?
Hint: To check your paper for passive voice, look for any form of the
verb "to be," such as “is” or “was.”
"Bad writing," Christopher Lasch
maintains, "relies on heavily on ready-made phrases" or clichés.
"This method of writing," Lasch observes,
"requires less effort than original thought, but it provides readers with
neither delight nor instruction." In other words, when you use clichés,
you are letting someone else's words carry the burden of your argument, without
improving your argument.
The problem with clichés is that when you try to make a point by prying a
phrase from its original context, that phrase loses its distinct meaning, and
conveys little of its original descriptive and explanatory power. Instead of
clarifying your point, you have only obscured it with a trite and inaccurate
expression. Fortunately, the more you read, the more you will learn to
recognize clichés.
Here is a list of some clichés that I have read in students' papers that I
want you to avoid "at all costs"—that's the first one.
"untold" or "countless" as in
"untold lives" or "countless lives"
"by any means necessary"
"the almighty dollar"
"wanted to have their voices heard" (or any variation of
this vague and imprecise phrase, such as "wanted to make people
aware," "wanted respect," "wanted recognition") This phrase is most often used when
discussing social movement. But people
involved in social movements have much grander goals and more specific agendas
than simply hoping that someone is listening to them. You should also avoid reducing someone’s
goals to a question of “respect” and “disrespect” (see above)
“make a difference" Like the phrase above, this cliché has become
a catch-all phrase to describe someone involved in a social movement. Again, tell the reader precisely what the
person wanted to accomplish. Remember,
even Hitler and Stalin wanted to make the world “different.”
"bite the hand that feeds them"
"Achilles' heel"
"lifestyle" (As Christopher Lasch
notes, this term assumes "that life is largely a matter of style.” He recommends: “Find something else to say
about life.")
"act out" (This is a colloquialism that you
must avoid, unless you are discussing infants. Babies and young children “act out,” adults do
not.)
"twists and turns"
"came into play"
“about” when used in the following way: The British Empire was "not exclusively about race or colour,
but was also about class and
status."
Here’s Benjamin Schwarz’s criticism of the use of “about” in this manner:
Most egregious is Cannadine's repeated use of
"about," as in the passage quoted above. What does he mean when he
asserts that the empire itself, or a method of rule, was "about" this
and that? Is he maintaining that these were motivating forces?
("Horses" can't be a motivating force. Can "class"?) His
dependence on this word often seems to lead Cannadine
to confound flummery and policy, and also ends and means. To argue that the
British used ornamental trappings as an instrument of rule is one thing; but to
assert that, guided by what he calls their "Burkeian
wisdoms and customary conservative modes," British statesmen and imperial
administrators ran their empire as a sort of Colonial Williamsburg writ large, for the purpose of
"safeguarding the traditional social order and preserving the traditional
way of life" of the peoples they ruled, is quite another. Benjamin Schwarz, “A Bit of Bunting,” (A
Review of David Cannadine’s Ornamentalism: How the British Saw their Empire), Atlantic Monthly, November 2001
I will add more as the course proceeds, so keep checking this list. Feel free to send me your own suggestions.
As a writer, you must use concrete and precise language to express your main
point effectively. For this course, I want you concentrate on improving your
precision in the following areas:
Effective writing deals with a precise historical context. You must limit the scope of your essays to the
subject and time period that you are discussing instead of tackling all human
beings and all of human history. In
other words, avoid any variation of the following phrases:
"Ever since the beginning of history…"
"Throughout all time…"
Remember that people are the
proper subject of historical study, because only people (and the weather,
geological changes, and epidemic illnesses—but these are not abstract but real)
can exert force over the course of historical events.
Virtual or abstract
entities, say, “society” or the “nation,” have no such power. So avoid such phrases as “Society forces people….”
NOTE: I think we can all
acknowledge that certain abstract forces—such as social norms, values, and
conventions—shape human action and behavior, but be very explicit when you make
this point.
Avoid using the pronoun
“This” to begin your sentences, particularly when the reader cannot discern any
obvious referent or antecedent in the previous sentence. Instead of beginning sentences with “This,”’
use a precise noun or phrase that refers to a specific object, person, or
referent in the previous sentence.
Particularly avoid any construction in which you begin a sentence with
the words, “This proves….” Show, don’t
tell, the reader how one thing “proves” another thing.
Improprieties are legitimate words that an author uses incorrectly. The most common version of this error is the
current fad that uses nouns for verbs, such as:
"impacted"
"maximized"
"referenced"
"accessed"
"opinioned"
"serviced"
“transitioned”
“partnered”
As with any fad, I am sure this one will fade away in time, but if you rid
your writing of these improprieties now, you will not have to do it later.
With modern computer word processors, your papers should have no spelling
errors. But you should always proofread
your paper, rather than relying on your spellchecker to catch words that are
appropriate in one context, but not appropriate in another context.
The four most common misspellings I have discovered in academic papers are:
"there" for "their"
"loose" for "lose"
“it’s” for “its” (the possessive pronoun. Remember—“it’s” is the contraction of “it
is”)
“lead” for “led” (the past tense form of “to lead.” “Lead” when pronounced like “led” refers to a
soft metal.)
Spell all
century numbers
twentieth
century (not 20th century or 20th century with superscript)
Spell decades
without the apostrophe
1980s (not 1980’s)
You can also spell out decades: the eighties
Avoid anonymous quotes that fail to indicate the speaker or writer of the
quote. Instead, make sure that you
provide the reader with proper
attribution (the speaker) and, even better, extract the phrase or phrases
from the quote that illustrate your argument and integrate them into your own
prose
Here’s an example based on
the opening lines of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
POOR: During
the Civil War, the Union’s political leaders advanced a new, and even radical,
version of American history. “Four score
and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation,
conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal.”
BETTER: During
the Civil War, the Union’s political leaders advanced a new, and even radical,
version of American history. As
President Lincoln declared, “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers
brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
EVEN BETTER (note the position and information
provided in the attribution): During the Civil War, the Union’s political leaders
advanced a new, and even radical, version of American history. “Four score and seven years ago,” Lincoln declared in his 1863 Gettysburg
Address, “our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation,
conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal.”
BEST: During
the Civil War, the Union’s political leaders advanced a new and even radical
version of American history. President
Abraham Lincoln expressed this new history in his 1863 Gettysburg Address. Lincoln maintained that the United States had
not only been “conceived in liberty” but that the founders of the “new nation”
had expressly “dedicated [it] to the proposition that all men are created
equal.” Note the use of brackets—in this case, [it]—allows you to insert words
in the quote to clarify its meaning.
Use Commas properly. For help, consult this webpage.
FINALLY! AVOID
UNNECESSARY PRELIMINARIES IN YOUR INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION
In your introductions, eliminate all phrases that begin, “This paper will…”,
and eliminate all proceeding phrases that describe explicitly the organization
of the paper, “First, it will show”…, and so on). In your conclusion, avoid beginning with “In
conclusion,…” and then repeating what you wrote in the
previous paragraphs. Rather than wasting
space in your introduction on these phrases, which the late historian Christopher
Lasch calls “unnecessary preliminaries,” tell the
reader something significant about your topic or your stand on the topic. In the conclusion, seal your argument with a
final inference that connects your evidence to your argument, and show the
implications of your argument. (In other
words, generalize from your findings).
Source: I have derived this section of the worksheet from Christopher Lasch, Plain Style: A Guide to
Written English, ed. Stewart Weaver, (