Talk:Rhetoric and Composition/Planning and Prewriting

Various talk
This is Old Word Wolf, again: I added a long, detailed section with genuine, classroom-tested strategies for finding a topic as part of the prewriting stage. My contribution was summarily deleted withing seconds without comment or notice as to why -- apparently a unilateral decision by one wikipedian. My contribution directly addressed the "dry" quality noted below, as well as getting quickly into the meat of the matter -- helping college students at the prewriting stage of locating a topic.

Further, the suggestion, later in the same section, of sending the freshman composition class writer to the library to research scholarly articles on Shakespeare would be laughable if it weren't so misguided. There is no faster way to discourage independent thinking and create a complete "writer's block" than by having a freshman try to sort out the gazillions of articles on just Hamlet or Julius Caesar or Midsummer Night's Dream, much less all the rest of the plays and sonnets. Modern freshman-composition classes are designed to help more than just the budding English major, as many of my deleted examples attempted to show.

I've taught Freshman writing for nearly 30 years, have half that number of years as a practicing journalist, and have ghost written memoirs, and edited scores of theses and dissertations.

-

I have an uncomfortable feeling that the first few pages are all rather dry, and reflect what an old-school textbook or instructor would say (or be afraid not to say). I have a few ideas but they're not terribly well thought through yet. I'll throw them out here while my impressions are fresh and hope to get some feedback.

1. Regarding presentation, I think graphics are necessary. Maybe to start with a chart of the writing process as you/we/whoever set up the present outline see(s) it. If MediaWiki can't handle graphics then, troublesome though it may be, a switch to WikkaWiki or any other that handles graphics may be in order.

2. Also regarding presentation, as I see it the collaborative editability of wikis is being exploited nicely, but their radical hypertextuality isn't. Although a reader can click on any of the headings or subheadings, at the moment this is very much a linear-hierarchical textbook. I think we need to provide multiple entry points. For example, when I am working on a paper I have quite a few vague ideas but feel intimidated to actually start writing. I also get very tense. So a nice method for me is to get a very large sheet of paper and some colored pens and do some mind mapping. So I would like to be taken to a section on that right away, rather than have to search for a tiny mention of clustering at the bottom of a page fairly deep in. (I guess I'm conflating my argument about presentation with my preferences on approach.) Without some kind of preferred linear path, some people might get lost. But a little bit of "random access" or multiple paths might be useful, too (something beyond the random module feature).

3. The content does seem very neutral and somewhat dull. I think this is a result of a very healthy desire not to make a general textbook too quirky. But I think it might be possible to make something that can be individual while covering all the expected bases by addressing my point 2.

4. Meta-discussions like this can get lost very easily when attached to a single page. There needs to be a separate space provided, and by default a wiki doesn't do that. Could there be a "Debating the overall structure" page or something along those lines? This point has been addressed briefly on Matt's blog, too. Without explicitly encouraging and supporting that kind of debate, the only way to change overall structure is to just go ahead and do it, possibly upsetting a lot of people. Because people are reluctant to mess up already good work, there's a high possibility that whoever had the initiative to come up with some kind of structure at the beginning will end up unwittingly dictating the ultimate shape of the whole book. And it's not just a question of reticence. I think when we see a structure already in place we subconsciously assume that is the optimal structure and censor out alternatives from our own mind.

I don't know how much sense this makes, but I hope it sparks a debate soon, because I do sense that a great opportunity could be missed here without it. [RickL]

I'd like to see examples here of brainstorming and freewriting. --Mattbarton.exe 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I see a few things that need to be addressed here. I deleted the rather archaic "writing steps" section, since that's long been discredited in the literature. The chapter also appears to need editing for tone and style to make it more consistent. Compare the language in the overview with the advice for free writing. Lots to do here:
 * Add links or reference to the research chapter.
 * Talking about mind mapping and finding topics by talking to peers
 * Burke's pentad is often used as a way to generate ideas for writing --Mattbarton.exe 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

- This is Old Word Wolf speaking. Off topic: I've tried to "log in" several times but after being told I'm in, when I get to the page I'm told I'm not.

On Topic: The planning and prewriting section is weak because it spends too much time discussing the fact that it's hard to start. Students know this. The section needs dive into ways to solve the problem and stop swimming around in the morass of experiencing the problem.

I've also deleted some references to "the author." The stated audience of this composition text is first-year college students, and I think the text should -- esp. on first references -- reinforce this connection. In this spirit, I deleted from this section three or four long sentences in the first graf describing an author's query letter to a publisher. Wrong audience. Apologies to the original writer; no offense intended.

More later. m.j. tarnowski __________ [[Media:Example.ogg]]

Outline
Let me try to sum up the outline as it currently stands, to help structuring the page.


 * Overview of Planning and Prewriting
 * Finding a Topic
 * Discovering Ideas (Generating ideas?)
 * Brainstorming
 * Postpone criticism
 * Clustering
 * Freewriting
 * Welcome petty mistakes
 * Dealing with Writing Anxiety
 * Determining Your Audience
 * Developing an Outline

The outline is structured not as the page is but as the topics covered are structured, or so I tried. A futher detail can be added, picking the points from the body text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Links
Two links aren't working: Tips for getting started on a paper Fighting Writer's Block
 * Outline

Matt's Thoughts on This Section
Just reading over the overview part, I was reminded of the book They Say, I Say by Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst. They talk a lot about how students struggle because they don't see scholarship as a big conversation they can take part in. Instead they think in terms of originality or personal opinions about a "hot-button" issue. I'd like to see this chapter advising students to see their essays in a context of other works of scholarship; as a contribution to an existing discourse. If a student becomes aware of a discourse and its points of contention, finding a topic becomes much easier. Furthermore, it makes it easier to select sources, tone, style, and so on.

I'd be okay with losing the "generating ideas" section altogether. I don't know any professional writers who use brainstorming, clustering, or freewriting. Again, the problem of finding a topic goes away once a student becomes aware of a discourse and isn't writing in a vacuum. --Mattbarton.exe (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt H's thoughts
“''A relatively new way to get feedback is through the Internet. Numerous discussion boards, forums and blog sites provide an opportunity to compose a sentence, paragraph or even longer "draft" about your ideas''.” – Some hyperlinked examples of such sites would be helpful.

“Without a concrete plan, writers may find themselves repeating information, referring the reader to nonexistent passages, or begin stating incomplete passages to a hopelessly confused reader.” – To achieve present participle consistency (if I said that correctly), shouldn’t it be, “… or beginning to state [write?] incomplete passages to a hopelessly confused reader”? Come to think of it, if I understand the aforementioned sentence correctly, it might be clearer to say, “… or offering incomplete passages that confuse the reader.”

“Fortunately, there are sound strategies that can help to solve these problems.” – “to” can be omitted.

“The discussion will begin with some prewriting strategies that can help you discover the best topics for your papers.” – I think it would sound better to say either “This discussion …” or even “This section …”

“''Next, some strategies will be given to help you reduce writer's block or writing anxiety. Finally, you will be given tips on how to best plan your draft and reduce the likelihood of composing confusing or incoherent documents''.” – I am not vehemently opposed to passive voice, but I think it deflates the effectiveness of the above two sentences. What do you think about writing this entry at least partly in first person?

“Keeping these questions in mind while you are writing will help you to develop and produce your ideas efficiently in a limited period of time.” – I prefer, “While you are writing, keeping these questions in mind will help you develop and produce [is there a better word?] your ideas quickly and efficiently."

This wiki book was written mostly by students, correct? Regarding the general tone, would it be acceptable, then, for the tone to be inconsistent among the different sections? Additionally, will this book, or has it already been, promoted as the work of students, and if so, what are the potential pros and cons of virtually publishing a book that many may disregard because of the perceived amateur status of its authors?

“''Developing an outline, such as the examples below, can be helpful because you can keep an overview of what you want to say, check whether you have covered everything, and find what is out of scope and should be excluded. The outline can grow during the process of writing the body text as you extend it with new points coming to mind during the process.” – “Developing an outline, such as the examples below, can be helpful because'' …”

This feels grammatically incorrect. How about this instead:

“''Outlines allow you to create, and reference, an overview of what you want to say, check whether you have covered everything, and determine what is out of scope and should therefore be excluded. The outline can grow during the process of writing the body text as you extend it with new points coming to mind during the process'' [I think this last sentence needs rewording]. Below are two examples of simple and effective outlines:”

--Matt.helm (discuss • contribs) 00:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Emily's Thoughts
I agree that this section does not offer what students really want to hear when writing. Dr. Barton's suggestion to replace this section with a more proactive stance regarding contributions to the academic community would be extremely beneficial for anyone to hear.

If this section should stay put, I would suggest condensing it. Speaking from a personal standpoint, when reading text on a computer I tend to read the first screen. Anything I must scroll to I end up skimming. If the ideas in this sections stay, could they be briefly mentioned with links elsewhere if students want more information? For example, the section could give a brief intro with a list of "Prewriting Tips" that would link to more specific examples? --Emily.isackson (discuss • contribs) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Karl's Thoughts
As per the meeting with Dr. Barton on Feb 2nd, during the semester for my part of the assignment, among other things, I will change the following: Convert topic headings into questions. Reorder the table of contents. Compress certain sections that seem overly long/verbose.

What strikes me most with this wiki is that much of it remains as two dimensional as any traditional hardbound paper text. This approach fails to take advantage of the multi dimensionality of web documentts with in-text links. The advantage of this approach would more empower the reader to get what they need most, when they need it, and without the traditional constraints of a hardbound text's ROM format. On the other hand, if a section is too generalized, web links could provide additional information.