The one thing that sticks out the most is the need to include a chapter on respecting your readers. It’s silly that it’s necessary, in an academic environment, to remind ourselves that we should respect our readers. Not silly because it’s included, and I had to read it, but, silly because it is necessary. Point proven when I read the second paragraph of the section. I had always heard things like boats, countries, etc referred to with a feminine pronoun. I had to change a few portions on my causal analysis to reflect what I had learnt. Now I’m almost positive that it was not offensive and it’s original text but it was still improper, and that’s an important lesson to learn.
As for the rest, I think the chapter on style was a good review, however, I take issue with the book limiting high style to scholarly writing(seemingly). High style isn’t just stating things in a proper form and not using contractions. It’s a carefully constructed composition. Any given word isn’t just a good choice, it’s the best choice, if that makes sense. I guess the best examples of what I’m trying to say would be considered “poetic prose” or "elevated diction"(?) I don’t know, I may be off base, but I think it’s important to note that high style isn't just limited to academia.
On a side note, in regards to the 25 percent suggestion in chapter 37, should our rough drafts be larger than our final drafts?
Nope, you actually found one of those rare places where I conflict with the textbook. Good job, you get the Sherlock Holmes award! You see, I believe in expansion not reduction. Students tend to provide their points and statement them in first drafts, all without remembering to back up their points with the proper amount of evidence. Whether something in secondary education has changed or what, students don't tend to be going off on tangents or producing an over abundance of material. That was a long answer. The short answer is: no. Your title could have been "Research"-- like no one has used that.
ReplyDelete