 |
EXPECTATIONS
|
| MODELS FOR GOOD WRITING
It’s what a screenwriter does, structuring the script as a series of happenings or events that progressively reveal the intent. So you could see your paper as a "story" with "scenes" (ideas) that follow each other in a certain order (first this happens, then that, etc.) "Revision,” then, is re-sequencing episodes, so that the story (explanation) unfolds step by step in a way the helps the reader grasp it, track it, most effectively.
The “Journalist”: Taking Charge of the Topic, Working for the Reader 
Still “screen writing” is more a technical view of the process (though crucial for a well-groomed final draft). There’s a basic attitude—a mindset—that goes to the core of effective writing. A journalist interviewing a “news maker” needs to be rigorous about the facts, but is normally doing more than reporting—otherwise you could just tape the interview and produce a stenographic transcript. That’s pretty much what “book report” term papers are—exact copies of the sources—, except that you take the time to rearrange the material (cut and paste it) to follow a certain view of the subject. Here’s where the “journalist” mode kicks in. Even if every single word in your “story (paper) is from your source, the story is not a chronological mirror of what happened during the interview. You make “editorial” decisions on how to arrange the material so it makes sense to the reader. The reader expects that of a journalist. That’s what you’re there for—to “make sense of this topic for me.” (This is the purpose behind “screen writing”—re-sequencing.) The next step is to say, Well, the journalist doesn’t just let the interviewee talk on, choosing their own topics and timing. He questions them, asks for answers, explanations, “reasons”—he digs, to get at the real story. In fact, he acts as the eyes and ears of his readers, trying to ask the (sometimes hard) questions that the reader would ask, if he were there to ask them
Now we’re cookin’. You’re moving toward “analysis,” taking apart your sources, finding out what makes them tick, challenging assumptions, poking holes, moving beyond the What to Why. This is just what readers demand of working journalists. And finally, readers may ask for the journalist’s personal take on the issue, to “editorialize,” even argue a point of view—“persuade.” Having immersed themselves in the topic, journalists (“writers”) are doing more than venting—I “feel” this way about the issue. The opinions are rooted in careful study, comparison, working through, so they have some meat. You speak with the authority of experience and thought—having been there. So, try this and see what happens. Thinking and acting like a good journalist can help you be a better writer.
|
It’s
hard sometimes to picture the writing process—what it means
to think and act as a “writer” or scholar. Is it like
anything I’m already familiar with? Here are a couple of parallels,
a close-up and a wide-angle view. 
Polishing
a first draft involves detailed crafting, revisiting word choices
(making them more precise), pruning out extra verbiage. What’s
sometimes missed is the bigger picture—sequence. Revision
can mean adding and subtracting material, but often it’s just
putting what you already have in a better order.
This
is just what good “writers” do. They dig into the material.
They don’t just take it as a given, but make demands on it,
ask questions, probe it for explanations, connections, reasons.