4/11 Readings

I'm not 100%sure that I have the entire Swales reading, however if it is just the 2 pages that opened, however if it is the entire text I am glad. Finally an article where someone is able to sum up all of the points they wish to make in a conscience, clear fashion.

Introductions for papers have always been what I, as well as I believe most other students, consider to be the hardest part in writing a paper. Just about every teacher from grade school through graduate school, believes that even a standard paper should have varying formats, and the least consistent is the introduction. Some teachers want a catchy opening, some want quotes, while others want you to get straight to the point. It makes starting any paper somewhat of a nightmare, which is why I always choose to save the opening for last.

I thought that Swale's 'Moves' were interesting, especially the idea of establishing a niche. These ideas will be helpful in te future.

I fount the Kantz article to be informative, but at times a bit repetitive. I am not sure that I agree when he states 'writers can only handle so much task demands at one time.' I believe often the issues that rise from an unstructured or unorganized paper comes from a lack of clarity on assignments, not just the inexperience of the author. When a subject is to vague or broad it can be hard for any author, even experienced ones, to filter all of the relevant information into a seemingly non-biased persuasive paper.

I however did love the line when he said 'synthesizing ideas often requires the reader to not agree with the author's idea.' Like we discuessed in the first weeks of class, I believe a key part of reading or processing any information, is questioning the authors intenet as well as position and thinking critically. I wish that critical thinking was 'taught' or at least developed in more classes outside of english.

5//9 Reading response

I thought that this was easily one of the most articles we have had to read so far. Many of the examples that the author gave seemed relevant to frustrations that I also hear from students, and he used current publications which is always nice to see.

One of the best points I felt he referenced was this paragraph:

What we read and what we know sometimes meld together so

unnoticeably that we don’t know which ideas and pieces of information

are “ours” and which aren’t. Discussing “patchwriting,” a term

used to describe writing that blends words and phrases from sources

with words and phrases we came up with ourselves, scholar Rebecca

Moore Howard writes, “When I believe I am not patchwriting, I am

simply doing it so expertly that the seams are no longer visible—or I

am doing it so unwittingly that I cannot cite my sources.”

As a student, I have felt this exact same problem occur when attempting to site sources, especially if the paper is on a topic that I was previously already familiar with. I cannot go back through my memories and pin point what I already know to be ‘true’, now can I ever confirm the ‘source’ of how I have heard certain things phrased. This type of source ambiguity can make students nervous, as they can often feel that they will in some way be plagiarizing unintentionally. I think this type of fear can often leave to ‘over sourcing’ which can make a paper difficult to get through.

I am glad that the author included a ‘fix’ for this, as it is something I have innately had to pick up over time. Sighting the author or article in the sentence prior to what you are quoting or paraphrasing helps to make the paper flow better, but still shows that you are referencing the words of someone else.

I also felt that the closing quote was highly relevant to students:

In some cases when driving, signaling is an almost artistic

decision, relying on the gut reaction of the driver to interpret what is

best in times when the law doesn’t mandate use one way or the other.

Often when re-reading, you get a gut decision that tells you if your paper is heading in the right direction. If something seems off, especially when read out loud, it probably needs to be re-worked. I think it’s important for students to learn to listen to their inner critic, and to practice skills to become better proof readers.

Genere analaysis

Sara Cauvin

English 399

M/W 2:00

Book Reviews: The Authoritative Structure of Literary Criticisms

Many professionals outside the field of ‘publishing’ might not see book reviewing as a

complicated and imposing set of rules and regulations that govern what ultimately will be

considered as ‘good’ or bad writing’. Those professionals would also be mistaken. Inside the

world of writing, publishing, and book reviewing, lies a highly opinionated and subjective world

of opinions, rules, critiques and consequences. Writing about ‘the way that books should be

written about’ is an even more complicated and opinionated genre, that not many professionals

even in the profession seem to be able to grapple with. When writing about the best ways

to ‘review’ and ‘critique’ literature, I have found that the best approach is to take a humble yet

somewhat aesthetic approach, where the writer must make his opinions clear without seeming

biased. This balancing act is difficult to achieve, but I believe helps to ultimately structure the

final outcome of literary popularity and prestige that is relevant even out side of the ‘publishing’

and ‘book reviewing’ genre.

The first element to writing about writing, is for the author to assert a somewhat ‘humble’

stance about their own writing as well as their profession. They need to make it clear that while

their word is not final on what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’, they need to show they clearly have

some reason to believe they are correct. As Phillip Chong puts it in his article “Reading

Difference: How Race and Ethnicity Function as Tools for Critical”…

“The evaluation measure I use in the analysis compares favorable, mixed and

unfavorable reviews. I arrived at the overall assessment of the novels based on a balance

of positive and negative statements made by the reviewers.”

Here, Chong is showing that his preferred way of critiquing book reviewers is to look at

their overall use of positive and negative reviews. This is used to prove the idea that a writer

about reviewers must be able to remove their own bias from the reading, and look at what

the ‘other’ claims to be worthy. Another example of how my genre writers can maintain some

level of humility in writing, is through the conscience quoting and reference to other literary

critiques. An example of this can be seen when Nicholas Birns states:

“He also provides a wide historical and intellectual background and contextualizes the world of

literary theory through the incorporation of numerous anecdotes that humanize the image

of these theorists.”

This in itself is a way of humbling the genre of book reviewing, as it takes the burden

of ‘rightness’ off of the actual writers. If there is already an established idea of historical and

intellectual ‘good writing’ the literary critique is able to

Another element that is curtail when writing literary reviews, is being accessible through

language to the reader, as well as the critiques of your reviews. Nicholas Birns makes this point

clear in his “Theory after Theory. An Intellectual History of Literary Theory from 1950 to the

Early 21st Century.” He states:

“The study of the rise of literary journalism focuses on the writings of the literary critic

James Wood, who consciously avoids using theoretical jargon and rejects recent writers known

for their experimentation and self-reflexivity. Birns also mentions Dave Kickey and Jacque

Khalip’s claims that literary studies should make a return to aestheticism.”

The first key point to notice is that Birns believes that taking ‘theoretical jargon’ out of literary

reviewing is key for recent writers. This can be seen when a reviewer of Birns states:

Birns livens up this study with a reader-friendly language that is not exempt from humor

in some passages. This is a way for the writing to become accessible to the average reader.

Birns is relaying his opinions about reviewing from a seemingly ‘omnipotent’ stance,

however he never speaks in the first person. This is key element that genre writers in ‘literary

critiquing’ use to help establish a sense of authority and credibility. With this combination

of ‘humility’ but ‘authority’ they begin to establish the basic structure for what makes literary

reviewing ‘good’.

Through these articles, I have found that all reviewers seem to believe it is imperative

that when critiquing literary works, you remain as unbiased as possible. This is done by

removing personal bias from your writing, and stating that your opinions are structured around

the opinions of the author. By placing the burden on the author to construct maening, a book

reviewer is able to remove their own personal bias from the situation. A great example of this is

stated by Chong:

“I identified what critics deemed strengths or weaknesses of a novel by attending

to the explicit evaluative statements critics made about the book. For example, if a critic

stated that a novel’s protagonist was a middle-aged woman, I did not identify

characterization as a strength or weakness because this is largely a descriptive comment.

If a critic went on to say that this middle-aged character was deeply moving, lively and

complex, or conversely, unsympathetic and lacking depth, then I interpreted such

comments to mean that the critic considered characterization as a strength or weakness

within the novel.”

This type of passive yet authoritative role is very effective in the way that literary

critiques structure their reviews. By making technical statements such as ‘I interpreted’, but

reviewer is leaving their opinions unbiased yet unqualified.

It is by combining all of these technical elements, as well as ides of humility and

authority that book reviews, and the genre writers who critique them help to structure what will

eventually become the overall opinions of the average reader.