How can I stop my writing from being vague?
December 7, 2010 6:15 PM Subscribe
I've always been told that my writing is "vague". No matter how often I've consulted with my professors (in the humanities), I haven't succeeded in changing my writing style. And frankly, I can't see what I'm doing wrong. Can any of you offer advice?
Admittedly, this is a broad question. I'll provide an example from a recent Art History assignment which is fairly representative of how I write:
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach emphasizes the experience of the individual. Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish. In its simple, yet bold imagery, the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict. This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier. In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective."
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Admittedly, this is a broad question. I'll provide an example from a recent Art History assignment which is fairly representative of how I write:
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach emphasizes the experience of the individual. Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish. In its simple, yet bold imagery, the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict. This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier. In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective."
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Out of curiosity, have you tried rewriting a single passage several times and seeing which choices they prefer? I mean, I know some professors hate commas (I think you may have too many, and I love the things.) Also, using connecting words (or splitting sentences) instead of commas and semicolons may help make your declarations seem more concrete and less like qualifications.
That is,
In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective.
Might become:
In this respect, the war monument represents a shift both in the form and function of public war monuments. What is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective.
This is a guess based on what I hope they mean by "vague."
posted by SMPA at 6:25 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
That is,
In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective.
Might become:
In this respect, the war monument represents a shift both in the form and function of public war monuments. What is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective.
This is a guess based on what I hope they mean by "vague."
posted by SMPA at 6:25 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Barlach emphasizes the experience of the individual."
The individual foot soldier? The individual citizen? The individual officer?
You know what you want to say- use the words that actually say it.
posted by pickypicky at 6:26 PM on December 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
The individual foot soldier? The individual citizen? The individual officer?
You know what you want to say- use the words that actually say it.
posted by pickypicky at 6:26 PM on December 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
Well, the problem I have with that particular paragraph is that you fail to really support your thesis claim: that the Gustrow memorial is about the experience of the individual. How, exactly, does a statute of a bunch of sad guys in robes speak to the "experience of the individual soldier"? Because they portray grief and anguish and the soldier feels grief and anguish? Doesn't the soldiers family feel similar grief and anguish? Don't the civilians whose homes are burned feel grief and anguish? Is this not the collective grief and anguish of the nation at war?
If anything, based on your description, Gustrow seems more about collective experience than, say, a traditional monument to a hero. I mean, the statue of the hero on the horse is certainly about the individual, no?
I don't know if this critique speaks to the criticism of vagueness your trying to address, but I think you can see how if you focus on specific ideas like those questions I've spelled out above, you might make your writing more clear.
The other main problem is that last sentence. It's really blah. The last clause in particular is completely facile. Of course traditional media are transformed when approached from a new perspective. Why should we care about this transformation?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:28 PM on December 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
If anything, based on your description, Gustrow seems more about collective experience than, say, a traditional monument to a hero. I mean, the statue of the hero on the horse is certainly about the individual, no?
I don't know if this critique speaks to the criticism of vagueness your trying to address, but I think you can see how if you focus on specific ideas like those questions I've spelled out above, you might make your writing more clear.
The other main problem is that last sentence. It's really blah. The last clause in particular is completely facile. Of course traditional media are transformed when approached from a new perspective. Why should we care about this transformation?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:28 PM on December 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
I wouldn't necessarily use the term "vague," but there are definitely some missing links in this paragraph. Let me start by saying that, although I am a humanities person, I do not do art history, and so I'm coming at this without any background in this particular topic. Having said that:
- It's unclear how this memorial emphasizes the experience of the individual. It is a memorial of an "assembly of men," not an individual.
- If there is a contrast between this memorial and traditional war memorials, it seems to deal with emotion. You note that this memorial has poses that suggest "grief and anguish," as opposed to "glorified" statues in traditional memorials. (If you mean "glorified" in a non-emotional sense, then there's an ambiguity there you can clean up.)
- I don't know what is either "simple" or "bold" about the imagery of this memorial. Those adjectives should, at least in my mind, be attached to some description rather than free-floating. I'm less certain of this because I'm not an art person, but my humanities mind certainly says that you should provide some evidence for those claims.
- You haven't said anything early in the paragraph about the function of public war monuments, so the last sentence seems to come from nowhere.
- Finally, I assume that the "new perspective" in the last sentence is the perspective of the individual, but the exact same last clause could be plugged into almost any comparison between styles of art. The fact that you could put the same clause into an entirely different paragraph unchanged is good evidence that you are being vague. Refer to specifics about how the medium is transformed, what the new perspective is, etc., rather than relying on the reader/context to fill in all those gaps.
posted by philosophygeek at 6:31 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
- It's unclear how this memorial emphasizes the experience of the individual. It is a memorial of an "assembly of men," not an individual.
- If there is a contrast between this memorial and traditional war memorials, it seems to deal with emotion. You note that this memorial has poses that suggest "grief and anguish," as opposed to "glorified" statues in traditional memorials. (If you mean "glorified" in a non-emotional sense, then there's an ambiguity there you can clean up.)
- I don't know what is either "simple" or "bold" about the imagery of this memorial. Those adjectives should, at least in my mind, be attached to some description rather than free-floating. I'm less certain of this because I'm not an art person, but my humanities mind certainly says that you should provide some evidence for those claims.
- You haven't said anything early in the paragraph about the function of public war monuments, so the last sentence seems to come from nowhere.
- Finally, I assume that the "new perspective" in the last sentence is the perspective of the individual, but the exact same last clause could be plugged into almost any comparison between styles of art. The fact that you could put the same clause into an entirely different paragraph unchanged is good evidence that you are being vague. Refer to specifics about how the medium is transformed, what the new perspective is, etc., rather than relying on the reader/context to fill in all those gaps.
posted by philosophygeek at 6:31 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
Is this paragraph about the Magdeburger Ehrenmal? If so, I see another problem with it that goes directly to the criticism of vagueness: The statue does not portray "an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes". It portrays three soldiers, an apparently grieving woman, a distressed man who is apparently not a soldier, and a skeleton. Some more specificity would help there, too, as it seems to go right to your thesis (individual emphasis vs. "glorified statues"). In particular, it seems to contradict your thesis....
posted by mr_roboto at 6:39 PM on December 7, 2010
posted by mr_roboto at 6:39 PM on December 7, 2010
An example of being vague. "In its simple, yet bold imagery, the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict." This sentence is fine to me, but only if it is accompanied by an actual example of the bold imagery, and how it might be commemorating sorrow. Do you see that, as it stands, it could mean all sorts of different things? If you tie it to concrete facts and an analysis of them, then you would have a phrase that meant a lot more.
In this case, you'd need to make a stronger link between your second, factual-ish, sentence, and the third, analysis-ish sentence. Currently facts like "cast in bronze" and "flowing robes" are hanging loose; it'd be wonderful if you could connect one or both of them to what you mean by "simple, yet bold imagery", or one of the other properties you say the monument has.
posted by squishles at 6:40 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
In this case, you'd need to make a stronger link between your second, factual-ish, sentence, and the third, analysis-ish sentence. Currently facts like "cast in bronze" and "flowing robes" are hanging loose; it'd be wonderful if you could connect one or both of them to what you mean by "simple, yet bold imagery", or one of the other properties you say the monument has.
posted by squishles at 6:40 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
I had a similar problem in my first year or so of college. The solution is to be way more detail-oriented than you think is necessary. Your writing includes a lot of flourishes, assigning adjectives without qualification. Your prof is thinking, "Um, what is "the experience of the individual" and why do men in flowing robes evoke grief and anguish?" They are then wondering why you call traditional war monuments "glorified statues" without explaining what you mean (and, after that, your essay has lost its credibility). This may sound boring, but seriously, don't try to say to much.
In the paragraph you quote, you sound like you're trying to say a lot about the unique resonance of the Gustrow memorial, but you are in effect saying nothing because your statements have no real strength.
An assignment for an Art History class is not the place to expound on the great forces of grief and representation. Focus on details and qualify your interpretations. This didn't click for me until I wrote a very detailed essay about a Jonathan Edwards sermon that my professor loved. While I was writing this essay, I thought it might be really boring because I was just talking about very specific images and the effect they may have on Edwards' audience. What I learned from the experience, though, is that you have to root your interpretations in fact, in details, and unless you do so, your writing will not be credible or interesting.
posted by sk932 at 6:42 PM on December 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
In the paragraph you quote, you sound like you're trying to say a lot about the unique resonance of the Gustrow memorial, but you are in effect saying nothing because your statements have no real strength.
An assignment for an Art History class is not the place to expound on the great forces of grief and representation. Focus on details and qualify your interpretations. This didn't click for me until I wrote a very detailed essay about a Jonathan Edwards sermon that my professor loved. While I was writing this essay, I thought it might be really boring because I was just talking about very specific images and the effect they may have on Edwards' audience. What I learned from the experience, though, is that you have to root your interpretations in fact, in details, and unless you do so, your writing will not be credible or interesting.
posted by sk932 at 6:42 PM on December 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
Here's some examples of ways in which parts of that paragraph could be made more explicit. (Warning: I don't know this memorial and I am making shit up.)
individual -> individual soldier/citizen/victim etc as pickypicky noted
poses evocative of grief and anguish -> hunched over poses/sitting poses/prostrate poses/with hands flung out/with heads bowed?
simple, yet bold imagery -> define these: is it simple due to lack of detail on the individual figures? due to the fact that only people are portrayed and not their surroundings? How is it bold? because of the poses? because of colours used? sharp lines and angles?
all those involved in conflict -> i.e. the soldiers, the officers, the politicians, the victims, the non-combatants...? All of these? Then say so.
In this respect -> this is a dangerous phrase for someone prone to vagueness. What is the referent of "this"? The fact that the monument speaks to the experience of the individual? Because that isn't a difference in form AND function. Or the whole of the previous sentence? Or the whole of the previous paragraph? Better would be to say something like "In its simple form and inclusive representation, the war monument at Gustow..."
posted by lollusc at 6:43 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
individual -> individual soldier/citizen/victim etc as pickypicky noted
poses evocative of grief and anguish -> hunched over poses/sitting poses/prostrate poses/with hands flung out/with heads bowed?
simple, yet bold imagery -> define these: is it simple due to lack of detail on the individual figures? due to the fact that only people are portrayed and not their surroundings? How is it bold? because of the poses? because of colours used? sharp lines and angles?
all those involved in conflict -> i.e. the soldiers, the officers, the politicians, the victims, the non-combatants...? All of these? Then say so.
In this respect -> this is a dangerous phrase for someone prone to vagueness. What is the referent of "this"? The fact that the monument speaks to the experience of the individual? Because that isn't a difference in form AND function. Or the whole of the previous sentence? Or the whole of the previous paragraph? Better would be to say something like "In its simple form and inclusive representation, the war monument at Gustow..."
posted by lollusc at 6:43 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Stylistically speaking, you're using more big long Latinate abstractions than you are strong hard Anglo-Saxon nouns. The Latinate is slippery to a lot of reading eyes, whereas Anglo-Saxon provides a lot of hooks to snag on. Now, it's generally appropriate to use Latinate forms in formal writing, but it doesn't always make for the most interesting reading. It can give the impression that a machine wrote it, a machine that always chooses the safest and most expected word. Give us a few real things, not "sorrows" or "experiences" or "traditions" or "functions." Those are all slick words that don't particularly command attention, and an entire paragraph studded with them may make the reader glaze over.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 6:48 PM on December 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 6:48 PM on December 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach emphasizes the experience of the individual.
Addressed above, but yes, what individual, and what experience?
In its simple, yet bold imagery,
What do you mean by "simple" and "bold"? What about the imagery makes it simple or bold? Show your work here. What are you picking up on that suggests these things to you?
the war monumentserves to commemorates the sorrow of all those involved in conflict.
This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier.
First, this what? The monument? The conflict? The sorrow? Or the monument's emphasis? And what's a "traditional war monument"? Is there an example you can use to illustrate your point? And what speaks to the experience of the individual soldier, the traditional monument or the Gustrow memorial? It's not clear here. And again, what experience? What individual soldier?
In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective.
Again, be more specific about what you mean by "the form" and "the function." Just spell it out. It'll seem like you are going on and on but you have to put yourself in the shoes of somebody who hasn't looked at the material you have and can't read your mind to see your thought process. Whose new perspective? Who is approaching it? What definition says a war memorial is traditional?
This all seems snarky but it isn't meant to be—I'm just trying to model a resistant reader who might be unable or reluctant to infer meaning from some of the phrases you use. I'm big lately on the idea of "showing your work": spell out exactly what you are trying to say and show your reader how you got to that point.
posted by synecdoche at 6:56 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Addressed above, but yes, what individual, and what experience?
In its simple, yet bold imagery,
What do you mean by "simple" and "bold"? What about the imagery makes it simple or bold? Show your work here. What are you picking up on that suggests these things to you?
the war monument
This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier.
First, this what? The monument? The conflict? The sorrow? Or the monument's emphasis? And what's a "traditional war monument"? Is there an example you can use to illustrate your point? And what speaks to the experience of the individual soldier, the traditional monument or the Gustrow memorial? It's not clear here. And again, what experience? What individual soldier?
In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective.
Again, be more specific about what you mean by "the form" and "the function." Just spell it out. It'll seem like you are going on and on but you have to put yourself in the shoes of somebody who hasn't looked at the material you have and can't read your mind to see your thought process. Whose new perspective? Who is approaching it? What definition says a war memorial is traditional?
This all seems snarky but it isn't meant to be—I'm just trying to model a resistant reader who might be unable or reluctant to infer meaning from some of the phrases you use. I'm big lately on the idea of "showing your work": spell out exactly what you are trying to say and show your reader how you got to that point.
posted by synecdoche at 6:56 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: mr_roboto: You're quite right. That's the second paragraph of an essay comparing and contrasting the Magdeburger Ehrenmal to the Chicago Picasso in terms of style, subject matter and in their respective historical contexts. I'll admit I had no idea what I was writing about and was rushed.
squishles/philosophygeek: When I'm tasked with writing a short paper (1000-1500 words) that's supposed to tackle such a grandiose topic, I find it very difficult to support every claim I'm making. My knowledge of the topic in the first place probably wasn't thorough enough to synthesize and apply in my writing. It seems most what I read that led me to my thesis claims seemed to only vaguely address any sort of reasoning behind them, assuming the reader has enough background knowledge to make certain inferences. That happens to me a lot and seems to lead to a dead end. Maybe the only way to approach it is to be considerably more stingy with the claims I make and be more careful pairing them with appropriate examples, all the while cutting down on my use of flowery, often unnecessary verbosity. My creative writing instructors love my writing. Unfortunately I don't fancy myself much of a budding novelist.
sk932: You hit the nail on the head. I have to ask, though, how do you know what to expand on? In this paragraph in particular, would it have been better if I just took a single example of the memorial's form and spent the next couple sentences explaining its significance? Whenever I try and do that it seems like a lot's missing, but maybe it's the only way to go.
Powerful Religious Baby: I'd never thought about it that way before, very helpful. I do have the impression my command of the English language is slipping somewhat, though. I'm an avid reader and writer but everything I write (including half-assed term papers) disgusts me.
synecdoche: Great concrete examples, thanks.
I really appreciate all the help. There's definitely a lot for me to think about.
posted by csjc at 7:07 PM on December 7, 2010
squishles/philosophygeek: When I'm tasked with writing a short paper (1000-1500 words) that's supposed to tackle such a grandiose topic, I find it very difficult to support every claim I'm making. My knowledge of the topic in the first place probably wasn't thorough enough to synthesize and apply in my writing. It seems most what I read that led me to my thesis claims seemed to only vaguely address any sort of reasoning behind them, assuming the reader has enough background knowledge to make certain inferences. That happens to me a lot and seems to lead to a dead end. Maybe the only way to approach it is to be considerably more stingy with the claims I make and be more careful pairing them with appropriate examples, all the while cutting down on my use of flowery, often unnecessary verbosity. My creative writing instructors love my writing. Unfortunately I don't fancy myself much of a budding novelist.
sk932: You hit the nail on the head. I have to ask, though, how do you know what to expand on? In this paragraph in particular, would it have been better if I just took a single example of the memorial's form and spent the next couple sentences explaining its significance? Whenever I try and do that it seems like a lot's missing, but maybe it's the only way to go.
Powerful Religious Baby: I'd never thought about it that way before, very helpful. I do have the impression my command of the English language is slipping somewhat, though. I'm an avid reader and writer but everything I write (including half-assed term papers) disgusts me.
synecdoche: Great concrete examples, thanks.
I really appreciate all the help. There's definitely a lot for me to think about.
posted by csjc at 7:07 PM on December 7, 2010
There are a lot of great answers here already; I just want to chime in quickly to say you should listen especially carefully to mr_roboto, who is telling you exactly what I'd have meant, as an instructor, if I read your writing and wrote "vague" in the comments on it (which I well might have done). It's not just a question of style. There are really two different ways that a piece of writing in the interpretive/aesthetic humanities, like your example, can be too vague: its thesis or broad argument can need to be made more specific and testable (what specific aspects of the work are you talking about, and how exactly are you claiming we should see them?), or the evidence it's using can need to be spelled out in more specific detail, and summarized less hastily. Most commonly, though, these two problems go hand in hand, as they seem to in your writing — the interpretive claims are kind of loose, abstract, and underspecified ("emphasizes the experience of the individual") at the same time as the evidence used to argue for them is insufficient and manifestly lacking in detail ("men dressed in flowing robes"). This is at least as much a substantive problem of argument as it is a problem of style.
So just try to remember, as you write, that the relevant antonym for "vague" is "specific." Be more specific in your account of the concrete details and you will almost have to be more specific, clear, and direct in your interpretive arguments about them. Ask of your argument, your interpretive claims, how we'd know if it were so, or how you'd persuade someone else to see the work this way; ask of your evidence whether it really is an account of all the relevant concrete detail you can see.
posted by RogerB at 7:28 PM on December 7, 2010
So just try to remember, as you write, that the relevant antonym for "vague" is "specific." Be more specific in your account of the concrete details and you will almost have to be more specific, clear, and direct in your interpretive arguments about them. Ask of your argument, your interpretive claims, how we'd know if it were so, or how you'd persuade someone else to see the work this way; ask of your evidence whether it really is an account of all the relevant concrete detail you can see.
posted by RogerB at 7:28 PM on December 7, 2010
I see two problems.
First, nowhere in your sample paragraph there did you make a specific assertion of fact or attempt to back up a claim of any kind. You have no thesis, make no arguments in support of any thesis, and come to no conclusions.
Second, the work you're describing (an assemblage of men in flowing robes) is not actually the Gustrower Cenotaph, as the Gustrow memorial is better known. Not even a little. You're describing another work of Barlach's entirely, most likely because your research for this paper started and ended on Wikipedia.
It's true that, in some sense, this represents a failure of pedagogy. "Your writing is too vague", as a comment, is not terribly constructive as criticism goes, but it is very likely the person telling you that is being awfully generous with their grading; in fact, I'd be willing to bet that person is basically giving your F paper a C- just to get rid of you. You have handed in the required number of pages, covered in words, some number of which are "Barlach". It's legible, Art History is hardly a weeding course, just let the disinterested undergrad get their arts prereq out of the way and get back to the civil engineering (or whatever) they'd rather be doing.
There's an A paper in here somewhere, one you're capable of finding and writing, but you need to figure out how to care enough about your writing that when you're given these assignments, you really research them, make a real argument and really back them up. And it's a shame that point hasn't been driven home harder to you, because outside of academia the ability to make your case in writing will have a much bigger effect on your successes or failures than your ability to use MatLab, Autocad or Final Cut.
posted by mhoye at 7:29 PM on December 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
First, nowhere in your sample paragraph there did you make a specific assertion of fact or attempt to back up a claim of any kind. You have no thesis, make no arguments in support of any thesis, and come to no conclusions.
Second, the work you're describing (an assemblage of men in flowing robes) is not actually the Gustrower Cenotaph, as the Gustrow memorial is better known. Not even a little. You're describing another work of Barlach's entirely, most likely because your research for this paper started and ended on Wikipedia.
It's true that, in some sense, this represents a failure of pedagogy. "Your writing is too vague", as a comment, is not terribly constructive as criticism goes, but it is very likely the person telling you that is being awfully generous with their grading; in fact, I'd be willing to bet that person is basically giving your F paper a C- just to get rid of you. You have handed in the required number of pages, covered in words, some number of which are "Barlach". It's legible, Art History is hardly a weeding course, just let the disinterested undergrad get their arts prereq out of the way and get back to the civil engineering (or whatever) they'd rather be doing.
There's an A paper in here somewhere, one you're capable of finding and writing, but you need to figure out how to care enough about your writing that when you're given these assignments, you really research them, make a real argument and really back them up. And it's a shame that point hasn't been driven home harder to you, because outside of academia the ability to make your case in writing will have a much bigger effect on your successes or failures than your ability to use MatLab, Autocad or Final Cut.
posted by mhoye at 7:29 PM on December 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
I'll admit I had no idea what I was writing about and was rushed.
This came across - you seem to be making sweeping statements without looking deeper and saying "what MAKES this simple, and bold? Why do I get a feeling of respect for the individual from this?" which are questions you might be able to get to if you had more time / spent more time thinking deeply about the issue. You might be able to ask your prof for samples of good writing that you could use for comparison - that's something that's been useful to me in the past.
posted by Lady Li at 7:29 PM on December 7, 2010
This came across - you seem to be making sweeping statements without looking deeper and saying "what MAKES this simple, and bold? Why do I get a feeling of respect for the individual from this?" which are questions you might be able to get to if you had more time / spent more time thinking deeply about the issue. You might be able to ask your prof for samples of good writing that you could use for comparison - that's something that's been useful to me in the past.
posted by Lady Li at 7:29 PM on December 7, 2010
Ex-freshman comp teacher here.
First of all, let me congratulate you on your correct use of vocabulary and the lack of punctuation and spelling errors in your writing. You have no idea how many of your peers across the U.S. are still at an 8th-grade writing level. You are a good writer.
Also, kudos to you for doing your own work. I was thoroughly disillusioned as a TA when 25 percent of my students copied their papers from the Internet my first semester teaching. And that's just the ones I caught with Google. Keep it up!
Third, everyone who said to be way more detailed in your description than you think you need to be is absolutely right. Explication is the name of the game in lit crit, and I'd imagine it's the same for art history.
I'd like to know exactly how the facial expressions, postures, dress, etc. of the figures in the monument you're analyzing evoke grief and anguish and what experience of the individual the monument commemorates. As individuals, we have many experiences and it's hard to tell which ones you're referring to in your paragraph. Be extremely detail-oriented and explain each and every bit of symbolism to the nth degree and I bet your professors will be happy.
I'll admit I had no idea what I was writing about and was rushed.
I recommend a time management system called Getting Things Done. Though it's for business people, it can work wonderfully for students too, or anyone who's really busy all the time.
posted by xenophile at 7:40 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
First of all, let me congratulate you on your correct use of vocabulary and the lack of punctuation and spelling errors in your writing. You have no idea how many of your peers across the U.S. are still at an 8th-grade writing level. You are a good writer.
Also, kudos to you for doing your own work. I was thoroughly disillusioned as a TA when 25 percent of my students copied their papers from the Internet my first semester teaching. And that's just the ones I caught with Google. Keep it up!
Third, everyone who said to be way more detailed in your description than you think you need to be is absolutely right. Explication is the name of the game in lit crit, and I'd imagine it's the same for art history.
I'd like to know exactly how the facial expressions, postures, dress, etc. of the figures in the monument you're analyzing evoke grief and anguish and what experience of the individual the monument commemorates. As individuals, we have many experiences and it's hard to tell which ones you're referring to in your paragraph. Be extremely detail-oriented and explain each and every bit of symbolism to the nth degree and I bet your professors will be happy.
I'll admit I had no idea what I was writing about and was rushed.
I recommend a time management system called Getting Things Done. Though it's for business people, it can work wonderfully for students too, or anyone who's really busy all the time.
posted by xenophile at 7:40 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
Is the topic being assigned by your teacher, or are you the one choosing the topic? It is almost always easier to write a cohesive and well-supported essay about a smaller and more specific thesis. If you are given a "grandiose" topic, your thesis should focus the topic to address something more specific. F'rinstance (I know nothing about art history), if the assignment is to write about "style", you should not be trying to tackle the entire question - as you're finding, this is hard and leads to generalizations. Focus on just one or two elements - say, solidity, or line quality, or spatial relationships between human forms or something. This both makes your job easier (less to tackle) and forces to you be more specific about what you're saying.
On preview, you've got the right idea here:
Maybe the only way to approach it is to be considerably more stingy with the claims I make and be more careful pairing them with appropriate examples, all the while cutting down on my use of flowery, often unnecessary verbosity.
posted by heyforfour at 7:48 PM on December 7, 2010
On preview, you've got the right idea here:
Maybe the only way to approach it is to be considerably more stingy with the claims I make and be more careful pairing them with appropriate examples, all the while cutting down on my use of flowery, often unnecessary verbosity.
posted by heyforfour at 7:48 PM on December 7, 2010
Response by poster: mhoye: I needed that. Looking over my paper now with a bit more perspective, it's definitely an F paper, which is reflective of the effort I put into it. You're mistaken, however, in assuming my motivations for taking the course. My concentration is in the social sciences where the presence of data forces me to effectively convey my claims in writing. When it comes to courses like literature and art history, I frankly don't know what the hell I'm doing and have never been taught any better.
posted by csjc at 7:48 PM on December 7, 2010
posted by csjc at 7:48 PM on December 7, 2010
Response by poster: A couple things I think are worth mentioning...
It was an assigned, rather broad, topic, which in hindsight I could have easily narrowed down. I think it's also worth mentioning that I've never really had the time to work on my writing, and having you all nitpick the crap out of it has given me a fresh perspective on how I ought to approach writing for humanities classes. In high school I assume I mostly got As since I have the fundamental skills and didn't pull my assignments off the net. Now, I'm a 16 year old in some second year college classes. Yeah, I'm gonna fuck things up. But better now than later.
posted by csjc at 7:59 PM on December 7, 2010
It was an assigned, rather broad, topic, which in hindsight I could have easily narrowed down. I think it's also worth mentioning that I've never really had the time to work on my writing, and having you all nitpick the crap out of it has given me a fresh perspective on how I ought to approach writing for humanities classes. In high school I assume I mostly got As since I have the fundamental skills and didn't pull my assignments off the net. Now, I'm a 16 year old in some second year college classes. Yeah, I'm gonna fuck things up. But better now than later.
posted by csjc at 7:59 PM on December 7, 2010
BA in Art History speaking. You need to focus on the visual analysis. You are being vague, but if you haven't done much Art History writing, it's an easy trap to fall into. Things seem obvious to you, but they're not to everyone else. You MUST support every statement you make about a piece with specific visual evidence. For example, assembly of men? Be more specific. What do they look like? Did the artist represent them in different ways? Are they wearing different clothing? Statements like "bold" ARE very vague and you must explain what makes the thing you are describing bold. Different subject matter than typical? Different pose? etc.
The exercise typically assigned in intro level courses at my undergrad was to take a painting and simply describe it in excruciating detail, for 5 pages. And come up with some sort of coherent thesis about what the painting was about through that analysis. It's a good exercise. I would try it for your next assignment. I think if you googled something like "art history critical visual analysis" you would get some hits for lists of things to consider.
Short answer: way more SPECIFIC details about the particular piece you are discussing and how they contribute to your argument. Even if it feels pedantic.
posted by annie o at 8:03 PM on December 7, 2010
The exercise typically assigned in intro level courses at my undergrad was to take a painting and simply describe it in excruciating detail, for 5 pages. And come up with some sort of coherent thesis about what the painting was about through that analysis. It's a good exercise. I would try it for your next assignment. I think if you googled something like "art history critical visual analysis" you would get some hits for lists of things to consider.
Short answer: way more SPECIFIC details about the particular piece you are discussing and how they contribute to your argument. Even if it feels pedantic.
posted by annie o at 8:03 PM on December 7, 2010
In academic writing, every time you make a claim, you support it with evidence. Nearly all your descriptions are claims ("Poses evocative of grief and anguish") that are not supported by evidence (What is the pose? How does it evoke grief? How does it evoke anguish? What life experience's of the observer does it invoke? etc.)
The posters above, mr_roboto, lollusc, synecdoche, etc, provide other good examples that might benefit from your reading them with this sort of claim/evidence filter.
posted by yeolcoatl at 8:05 PM on December 7, 2010
The posters above, mr_roboto, lollusc, synecdoche, etc, provide other good examples that might benefit from your reading them with this sort of claim/evidence filter.
posted by yeolcoatl at 8:05 PM on December 7, 2010
You're getting good feedback here.
Your example reads like the society column in a small town newspaper. "Olive Mowat operated the slide projector. Mabel McAngus served tea and sandwiches. A good time was had by all."
It's not vague so much as bland and cliched. Give it some punch with (as suggested) a thesis, an argument. Or call it a point of view.
Seriously, though, for a freshman? Don't beat yourself up. You'll be fine.
Hang in there.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 8:08 PM on December 7, 2010
Your example reads like the society column in a small town newspaper. "Olive Mowat operated the slide projector. Mabel McAngus served tea and sandwiches. A good time was had by all."
It's not vague so much as bland and cliched. Give it some punch with (as suggested) a thesis, an argument. Or call it a point of view.
Seriously, though, for a freshman? Don't beat yourself up. You'll be fine.
Hang in there.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 8:08 PM on December 7, 2010
I understand what you mean about the differences between writing about art history vs. a social science. In my museum studies classes, I excelled at papers based on anthro theory and concepts I was already familiar with. I was completely lost when it came to anything art history based, though, which was especially problematic because all of the other students in my program were art kids. The best decision I made was to take a bad paper to my prof with a bunch of articles and ask him to explain some of the theory I was missing. I don't know if you feel comfortable doing this, but I bet having better mastery over the theory will make you more comfortable and willing to put in more effort knowing that you have the basic knowledge you'll need to improve.
posted by Mouse Army at 8:10 PM on December 7, 2010
posted by Mouse Army at 8:10 PM on December 7, 2010
From a purely mechanical standpoint, all of your sentences are complex. None of them are simple and emphatic.
Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish.
Cast in bronze, the monument depicts an assembly of robed men. They're struck in poses of grief and anguish. [Now describe a pose or two. Don't make us imagine what poses of grief and anguish are.]
In its simple, yet bold imagery,
Its imagery is simple, but bold. [Declare something. Be assertive!]
the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict.
[Blah blah blah mooshy feelings, mealymouthed vagueness. What does this even mean? It helps us remember that people in conflict are sad? Because that's what these words say. Big words and complex structure don't always serve you well.] It's a monument to sorrow,
This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument
a stark contrast to traditional war monuments.
, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier.
[This is also unclear because of your complex sentence structure. ] NameofThisMonument captures the experience of individual soldiers, instead of glorifying the nameless whole.
posted by headspace at 8:20 PM on December 7, 2010
Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish.
Cast in bronze, the monument depicts an assembly of robed men. They're struck in poses of grief and anguish. [Now describe a pose or two. Don't make us imagine what poses of grief and anguish are.]
In its simple, yet bold imagery,
Its imagery is simple, but bold. [Declare something. Be assertive!]
the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict.
[Blah blah blah mooshy feelings, mealymouthed vagueness. What does this even mean? It helps us remember that people in conflict are sad? Because that's what these words say. Big words and complex structure don't always serve you well.] It's a monument to sorrow,
This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument
a stark contrast to traditional war monuments.
, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier.
[This is also unclear because of your complex sentence structure. ] NameofThisMonument captures the experience of individual soldiers, instead of glorifying the nameless whole.
posted by headspace at 8:20 PM on December 7, 2010
When I'm tasked with writing a short paper (1000-1500 words) that's supposed to tackle such a grandiose topic, I find it very difficult to support every claim I'm making.
Focus on only one part of the whole to make your point and support with detail.
An example from my college years. I had to write a paper using a single historical source in ancient history. (For reasons I'm not going into here, Gregory of Tours The History of the Franks was at the far end of the list of books and I used it. My thesis was simple: Religion was important to the Franks. I went through the work with a fine tooth comb and listed 40 or 40 examples of where the Franks were highly involved in religious things or where they were doing religious stuff, etc. I got an A.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:21 PM on December 7, 2010
Focus on only one part of the whole to make your point and support with detail.
An example from my college years. I had to write a paper using a single historical source in ancient history. (For reasons I'm not going into here, Gregory of Tours The History of the Franks was at the far end of the list of books and I used it. My thesis was simple: Religion was important to the Franks. I went through the work with a fine tooth comb and listed 40 or 40 examples of where the Franks were highly involved in religious things or where they were doing religious stuff, etc. I got an A.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:21 PM on December 7, 2010
If your topic is too big (too much to say and not enough space), then narrow it. Be deliberate with your word choice. Your goal is to communicate your position, not to write words that "sound pretty." Essays need a thesis, or an argument, and all your claims should be supported by evidence.
Have you tried outlining your papers?
Pardon my missing Roman numerals, but outlining your papers will help you get into the habit of going:
-Thesis argues claim #1, claim #2, & claim #3
--claim # 1
---evidence1
---evidence2
--- this claim supports my thesis because ____.
--claim #2
---evidence1
---evidence2
--- this claim supports my thesis because ____.
etc. If you follow such an outline you can't make vague claims, because you will have to support your claims with evidence.
You may find these exercises from Diana Hacker useful.
Visit the writing center at your school.
Writing is always a work in progress. All good writers write drafts.
posted by oceano at 8:32 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Have you tried outlining your papers?
Pardon my missing Roman numerals, but outlining your papers will help you get into the habit of going:
-Thesis argues claim #1, claim #2, & claim #3
--claim # 1
---evidence1
---evidence2
--- this claim supports my thesis because ____.
--claim #2
---evidence1
---evidence2
--- this claim supports my thesis because ____.
etc. If you follow such an outline you can't make vague claims, because you will have to support your claims with evidence.
You may find these exercises from Diana Hacker useful.
Visit the writing center at your school.
Writing is always a work in progress. All good writers write drafts.
posted by oceano at 8:32 PM on December 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Calm down calm down! There's some defensiveness in your responses, which I think is part of your problem.
Why? Because your writing falls into a certain genre of student writing: the writing of a smart kid who doesn't know what he's talking about, but who is used to playing with style in a way that fools people into thinking he does. And, let's face it, some high school teachers are just going to be impressed by the sophistication of your diction and let it slide, but that's less likely in college, probably because your college professors were once kids just like you who did the exact same thing.
There's a way to solve this, but it's going to test your mettle. It's going to force you to look more closely at your writing. If I were your professor, I wouldn't say you were being vague; I would say that you're using a host of abstractions and imprecisions. The solution is to find them, and replace them with more precise and accurate language. I know nothing of the statue in question, but I've gone through for you and bolded all of your instances of this.
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach emphasizes the experience of the individual. Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish. In its simple, yet bold imagery, the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict. This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier. In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective."
So, to fix this, go back through the paragraph and every time you get to a bolded phrase, ask yourself, "What, exactly, did I mean here?" Be specific, particularly when discussing counterexamples (what traditional war monuments are we talking about here? Find an actual example of what you're talking about and discuss that, and how it differs from what you're talking about). Don't talk in broad strokes. How is this statue simple? What's bold about it? Who are all those involved in conflict? Fighting spouses? Soldiers?
If you know, clue your audience in. If you don't, research until you do.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:33 PM on December 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
Why? Because your writing falls into a certain genre of student writing: the writing of a smart kid who doesn't know what he's talking about, but who is used to playing with style in a way that fools people into thinking he does. And, let's face it, some high school teachers are just going to be impressed by the sophistication of your diction and let it slide, but that's less likely in college, probably because your college professors were once kids just like you who did the exact same thing.
There's a way to solve this, but it's going to test your mettle. It's going to force you to look more closely at your writing. If I were your professor, I wouldn't say you were being vague; I would say that you're using a host of abstractions and imprecisions. The solution is to find them, and replace them with more precise and accurate language. I know nothing of the statue in question, but I've gone through for you and bolded all of your instances of this.
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach emphasizes the experience of the individual. Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish. In its simple, yet bold imagery, the war monument serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict. This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument, often glorified statues, speaking instead to the experience of the individual soldier. In this respect, the war monument at Gustrow represents a shift in both the form and function of public war monuments; what is by definition a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective."
So, to fix this, go back through the paragraph and every time you get to a bolded phrase, ask yourself, "What, exactly, did I mean here?" Be specific, particularly when discussing counterexamples (what traditional war monuments are we talking about here? Find an actual example of what you're talking about and discuss that, and how it differs from what you're talking about). Don't talk in broad strokes. How is this statue simple? What's bold about it? Who are all those involved in conflict? Fighting spouses? Soldiers?
If you know, clue your audience in. If you don't, research until you do.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 8:33 PM on December 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
I am an art history professor; at the end of the day, I am far more forgiving of bad writing than I am of lazy thinking or unsupported arguments.
I agree with the people who say "narrow your thesis" and "describe the thing in more detail, ideally in support of your arguments." My most frequent comment on papers is "be specific," and what I mean by that is, when you say something evokes sorrow, say what, precisely, about the object's formal qualities evoke sorrow. Is it a gesture? If so, how do we know what that gesture means? Can you compare it to other examples that are commonly read as connoting sorrow to convince me? Is it color? If so, don't just say, "blue is a sad color." Give me examples of how that artist has used color to express emotion (not all artists do; in the Renaissance blue wasn't sad, it was an attribute of the Virgin Mary).
I assign papers with broad mandates so that my students have some freedom to write about what interests them, within reason. There are an infinite number of things you can say about any artwork, give or take 3, and I enjoy variety when I'm grading. It doesn't mean I expect you to address everything I suggest you might write about; I expect you to pick an argument within the range of the assignment and argue for it through a close analysis.
Oh, and I also agree that compared to many of your peers, your writing itself is strong. It's just the content that needs work :)
posted by obliquicity at 8:49 PM on December 7, 2010
I agree with the people who say "narrow your thesis" and "describe the thing in more detail, ideally in support of your arguments." My most frequent comment on papers is "be specific," and what I mean by that is, when you say something evokes sorrow, say what, precisely, about the object's formal qualities evoke sorrow. Is it a gesture? If so, how do we know what that gesture means? Can you compare it to other examples that are commonly read as connoting sorrow to convince me? Is it color? If so, don't just say, "blue is a sad color." Give me examples of how that artist has used color to express emotion (not all artists do; in the Renaissance blue wasn't sad, it was an attribute of the Virgin Mary).
I assign papers with broad mandates so that my students have some freedom to write about what interests them, within reason. There are an infinite number of things you can say about any artwork, give or take 3, and I enjoy variety when I'm grading. It doesn't mean I expect you to address everything I suggest you might write about; I expect you to pick an argument within the range of the assignment and argue for it through a close analysis.
Oh, and I also agree that compared to many of your peers, your writing itself is strong. It's just the content that needs work :)
posted by obliquicity at 8:49 PM on December 7, 2010
I smell a lot of quibbling here. This is fine writing. You could use some streamlining, but that applies to everyone.
This is hardly the worst academic writing I've ever seen. So some call it "vague"? Ack! They should see what I would call "vague"!
posted by ovvl at 9:03 PM on December 7, 2010
This is hardly the worst academic writing I've ever seen. So some call it "vague"? Ack! They should see what I would call "vague"!
posted by ovvl at 9:03 PM on December 7, 2010
Try using simpler, more direct language. Here's my take on one sentence:
Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish.
The bronze monument depicts a group of grieving, anguished men dressed in flowing robes.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:12 PM on December 7, 2010
Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish.
The bronze monument depicts a group of grieving, anguished men dressed in flowing robes.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:12 PM on December 7, 2010
I basically came in here to say what synecdoche said, so I'll start by seconding that analysis.
It's worth mentioning that your style is good - it flows nicely and is understandable, and it isn't stilted. It does sound like you're trying a little too hard to sound smart, so don't be afraid to use a few short, to-the-point sentences.
Your (small) problem is your content - as others pointed out already, you have a thesis, but it's too general ("emphasizes the experience of the individual"). The rest of your paragraph flows nicely, but it's unclear how many of the sentences relate to that thesis. So your first and most important step is to make sure that you're not just describing the subject, but clearly stating points that are relevant to your thesis.
And please don't listen to anything mhoye said. Not a word. They seem to be coming at this from an academic perfectionist point of view, which won't help anyone except anal-retentive TAs. Notice that there's not a single positive suggestion in there, just tearing down anyone and everyone: your research for this paper started and ended on Wikipedia... this represents a failure of pedagogy...basically giving your F paper a C- just to get rid of you. Don't waste your time trying to live up to unhelpful, negative assessments. There are too many good suggestions in this thread to get caught up on that one.
posted by Tehhund at 9:22 PM on December 7, 2010
It's worth mentioning that your style is good - it flows nicely and is understandable, and it isn't stilted. It does sound like you're trying a little too hard to sound smart, so don't be afraid to use a few short, to-the-point sentences.
Your (small) problem is your content - as others pointed out already, you have a thesis, but it's too general ("emphasizes the experience of the individual"). The rest of your paragraph flows nicely, but it's unclear how many of the sentences relate to that thesis. So your first and most important step is to make sure that you're not just describing the subject, but clearly stating points that are relevant to your thesis.
And please don't listen to anything mhoye said. Not a word. They seem to be coming at this from an academic perfectionist point of view, which won't help anyone except anal-retentive TAs. Notice that there's not a single positive suggestion in there, just tearing down anyone and everyone: your research for this paper started and ended on Wikipedia... this represents a failure of pedagogy...basically giving your F paper a C- just to get rid of you. Don't waste your time trying to live up to unhelpful, negative assessments. There are too many good suggestions in this thread to get caught up on that one.
posted by Tehhund at 9:22 PM on December 7, 2010
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach emphasizes..."
Emphasizes is a terrible word. If I say Jake emphasizes, what image do you see?
Think of writing as feather for tickling someone's senses, by which I mean sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. This is as true for academic papers as it is for poems. Readers are sensual animals. Even if your goal is to explain an abstract idea, the best way to do it is by painting a picture that the reader can see -- or, even better, plopping him into a virtual mud bath.
Barlach didn't emphasize anything. He chiseled fine details into the soldier's faces while leaving the bodies blocky shapes. (I just made that up, of course. I'm ignorant about the sculpture, so swap your accurate sensory detail for bogus fancies.)
Avoid phrases like "In its simple, yet bold imagery..." How is it simple? How is it bold? Maybe something like "with just nothing but a block, a sphere and a blog, the sculptor..." (Again, I'm making up bullshit details.)
There's no such thing as "poses evocative of grief and anguish." Seriously, there isn't. There are just specific poses. Describe them. Tell me about mouths hanging open, clenched fists, drooped shoulders, whatever. And, along the same lines, there are no people "involved in conflict." People fight in battles, run out of burning buildings, etc.
"This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument" would be better as "this is a different species from the monuments like 'We Shall Remember' and 'Heroes of the Ages'" (I'm making things up again, but the point is to name specific works.)
Be careful not to link sentences with "blah blah blah" phrases like "In this respect..." You could start that sentence with "The war monument at..." Again, the problem with "in this respect" is that it's not sensual.
I'm sound over-the-top about this sensual stuff, I know. Of course you can't make every word describe a smell or a sound. Just be on the lookout for any chance you get to grab the reader's penis. Sorry to be vulgar, but that's what writing should do. If not his penis, it should grab something else and not waste time with "in this respect."
To obsess about "in this respect" a bit longer, you can usually avoid such phrases because, just by following one another, sentences naturally strike us as being connected. If the second sentence is a total non sequitur, you've got problems. But, in general, you should be bold! Link sentence one with sentence two by their placement, rather than with multi-word linking phrases. If you're absolutely need a link, see if you can get away with a short one like "And" or "However."
(See how I started the previous sentence? I didn't write, "On the other hand, if you're absolutely in need of a link..." Nor did I write, "That being said, if you're absolutely in need of a link...")
Moving on: the war monument at Gustrow doesn't "represent" anything. Sculptures can represent something to a particular person or group of people, but nothing just cosmically represents anything. Maybe after other sculptors saw the monument, they changed the way they worked. Maybe scholars changed the way the wrote. Maybe if the reader compares this monument with traditional monuments, he'll notice something he probably didn't notice before... What actual, quantifiable change did the moment cause?
If I was your professor, I wouldn't let you get away with "the war monument at Gustrow represents..." because phrases like that are usually vapid rhetorical tricks. "Our tax policy represents our commitment to..." No it doesn't. You're taking money from poor people. You know what it represents to them? Less food to eat.
Saying "it represents" sounds official. It sounds like scientists conducted experiments and pollsters handed out questionnaires. And the speaker has an easy out. If you corner him with "represents to whom?" He can always say, "Well, I was just talking about what it represents to me." Maybe that sort of game has a place in politics, but it's the enemy of scholarship.
Is building war memorials "by definition" a very traditional medium? (Is it even a medium?) Maybe most war memorials are conservative, but if war memorials are, BY DEFINITION, traditional, then Gustrow's can't be a war memorial, because it's non-traditional. You get into this sort of pickle via cliches like "by definition." I have to continually weed them out of my own writing.
This sums up the vagueness for me: "...a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective." Have you ever behaved in a way that can only be accurately, fully and SPECIFICALLY described as "approaching something from a new perspective"? If you told a friend about what you were doing, couldn't you be more specific than that? "I snuck up on the deer from behind," "I barged in through the back door."
And nothing "can be transformed." A specific person or people can transform things. Avoid passive constructions like this. Try, whenever possible, to talk about somebody doing something to something.
Oh, and can you think of a vaguer word that "transform"? Go through your writing, look at every verb and see if it describes a specific thing that people do -- not a category of things. Talk is specific; Communicate, like transform, is a category.
You won't always be able to make everything sensual and specific. Not all your sentences can be about somebody doing something to something. That's okay. Just don't let too many sentences go by without something concrete the reader can hold onto.
posted by grumblebee at 9:26 PM on December 7, 2010 [7 favorites]
Emphasizes is a terrible word. If I say Jake emphasizes, what image do you see?
Think of writing as feather for tickling someone's senses, by which I mean sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. This is as true for academic papers as it is for poems. Readers are sensual animals. Even if your goal is to explain an abstract idea, the best way to do it is by painting a picture that the reader can see -- or, even better, plopping him into a virtual mud bath.
Barlach didn't emphasize anything. He chiseled fine details into the soldier's faces while leaving the bodies blocky shapes. (I just made that up, of course. I'm ignorant about the sculpture, so swap your accurate sensory detail for bogus fancies.)
Avoid phrases like "In its simple, yet bold imagery..." How is it simple? How is it bold? Maybe something like "with just nothing but a block, a sphere and a blog, the sculptor..." (Again, I'm making up bullshit details.)
There's no such thing as "poses evocative of grief and anguish." Seriously, there isn't. There are just specific poses. Describe them. Tell me about mouths hanging open, clenched fists, drooped shoulders, whatever. And, along the same lines, there are no people "involved in conflict." People fight in battles, run out of burning buildings, etc.
"This starkly contrasts the traditional war-monument" would be better as "this is a different species from the monuments like 'We Shall Remember' and 'Heroes of the Ages'" (I'm making things up again, but the point is to name specific works.)
Be careful not to link sentences with "blah blah blah" phrases like "In this respect..." You could start that sentence with "The war monument at..." Again, the problem with "in this respect" is that it's not sensual.
I'm sound over-the-top about this sensual stuff, I know. Of course you can't make every word describe a smell or a sound. Just be on the lookout for any chance you get to grab the reader's penis. Sorry to be vulgar, but that's what writing should do. If not his penis, it should grab something else and not waste time with "in this respect."
To obsess about "in this respect" a bit longer, you can usually avoid such phrases because, just by following one another, sentences naturally strike us as being connected. If the second sentence is a total non sequitur, you've got problems. But, in general, you should be bold! Link sentence one with sentence two by their placement, rather than with multi-word linking phrases. If you're absolutely need a link, see if you can get away with a short one like "And" or "However."
(See how I started the previous sentence? I didn't write, "On the other hand, if you're absolutely in need of a link..." Nor did I write, "That being said, if you're absolutely in need of a link...")
Moving on: the war monument at Gustrow doesn't "represent" anything. Sculptures can represent something to a particular person or group of people, but nothing just cosmically represents anything. Maybe after other sculptors saw the monument, they changed the way they worked. Maybe scholars changed the way the wrote. Maybe if the reader compares this monument with traditional monuments, he'll notice something he probably didn't notice before... What actual, quantifiable change did the moment cause?
If I was your professor, I wouldn't let you get away with "the war monument at Gustrow represents..." because phrases like that are usually vapid rhetorical tricks. "Our tax policy represents our commitment to..." No it doesn't. You're taking money from poor people. You know what it represents to them? Less food to eat.
Saying "it represents" sounds official. It sounds like scientists conducted experiments and pollsters handed out questionnaires. And the speaker has an easy out. If you corner him with "represents to whom?" He can always say, "Well, I was just talking about what it represents to me." Maybe that sort of game has a place in politics, but it's the enemy of scholarship.
Is building war memorials "by definition" a very traditional medium? (Is it even a medium?) Maybe most war memorials are conservative, but if war memorials are, BY DEFINITION, traditional, then Gustrow's can't be a war memorial, because it's non-traditional. You get into this sort of pickle via cliches like "by definition." I have to continually weed them out of my own writing.
This sums up the vagueness for me: "...a very traditional medium can be transformed when approached from a new perspective." Have you ever behaved in a way that can only be accurately, fully and SPECIFICALLY described as "approaching something from a new perspective"? If you told a friend about what you were doing, couldn't you be more specific than that? "I snuck up on the deer from behind," "I barged in through the back door."
And nothing "can be transformed." A specific person or people can transform things. Avoid passive constructions like this. Try, whenever possible, to talk about somebody doing something to something.
Oh, and can you think of a vaguer word that "transform"? Go through your writing, look at every verb and see if it describes a specific thing that people do -- not a category of things. Talk is specific; Communicate, like transform, is a category.
You won't always be able to make everything sensual and specific. Not all your sentences can be about somebody doing something to something. That's okay. Just don't let too many sentences go by without something concrete the reader can hold onto.
posted by grumblebee at 9:26 PM on December 7, 2010 [7 favorites]
You asked how to know what to expound on. On top of what others have commented, I think it's important to remember that you're making an argument to an audience that has no particular reason to agree with you or even understand what you're trying to say.
When you make an argument you're telling a story. That story needs to pull people through your thought process; otherwise they won't be able to take your conclusions seriously. You need to demonstrate that there is a thought process, and that it is rigorous and valid.
posted by people? I ain't people! at 11:23 PM on December 7, 2010
When you make an argument you're telling a story. That story needs to pull people through your thought process; otherwise they won't be able to take your conclusions seriously. You need to demonstrate that there is a thought process, and that it is rigorous and valid.
posted by people? I ain't people! at 11:23 PM on December 7, 2010
Maybe the only way to approach it is to be considerably more stingy with the claims I make and be more careful pairing them with appropriate examples, all the while cutting down on my use of flowery, often unnecessary verbosity.
YES. THIS.
[former college writing instructor here]
posted by Orinda at 11:58 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
YES. THIS.
[former college writing instructor here]
posted by Orinda at 11:58 PM on December 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
Here's your problem right here
'I'll admit I had no idea what I was writing about and was rushed.'
You won't be able to write clearly until you think clearly, until you know what you're saying and why. I'd suggest focusing more on research, on really knowing what you're attempting to write about, and also focusing on the overall structure of your papers. Think about the length of the paper, what you're trying to argue and why. If you're unclear on the assignment, talk to your tutor or lecturer.
One way to do this is to break down the word count and think about the space you have. If it's a 1,000 word paper you've got maybe 300-400 words gone on intro and conclusion alone. That leaves 700 - 600 words left to set up your argument, present your evidence, analyse it and so on. Make sure the scale of your argument suits the scale of the paper.
I spend a helluva lot of time taking notes and freewriting when I'm working on a paper, which I think of as low stakes 'draft zeroes' to help me clarify what I'm going on about, work out my angle and evidence and so on.
Oh, and if it's a short paper it also really helps to read it aloud before you submit it. You'll pick up repetitions and errors much more easily than if you just proofread.
posted by nerdfish at 3:56 AM on December 8, 2010
'I'll admit I had no idea what I was writing about and was rushed.'
You won't be able to write clearly until you think clearly, until you know what you're saying and why. I'd suggest focusing more on research, on really knowing what you're attempting to write about, and also focusing on the overall structure of your papers. Think about the length of the paper, what you're trying to argue and why. If you're unclear on the assignment, talk to your tutor or lecturer.
One way to do this is to break down the word count and think about the space you have. If it's a 1,000 word paper you've got maybe 300-400 words gone on intro and conclusion alone. That leaves 700 - 600 words left to set up your argument, present your evidence, analyse it and so on. Make sure the scale of your argument suits the scale of the paper.
I spend a helluva lot of time taking notes and freewriting when I'm working on a paper, which I think of as low stakes 'draft zeroes' to help me clarify what I'm going on about, work out my angle and evidence and so on.
Oh, and if it's a short paper it also really helps to read it aloud before you submit it. You'll pick up repetitions and errors much more easily than if you just proofread.
posted by nerdfish at 3:56 AM on December 8, 2010
If I were you, I would try getting someone who's not the professor to look at your papers on the level of writing. Often, college professors will mention problems but don't have time to give you advice on fixing them. Your university may have a writing clinic or some writing counselors. Those people can go through your papers in detail and help you identify recurrent habits that are giving you trouble.
I also think having more confidence about the topic would help. If you start writing before you have any idea what you want to say, you'll panic and start throwing words around. (This is especially true in subjects like art history, where it often seems like what you are being taught is a way of talking about the subject.) I have a feeling professors like to assign comparison-and-contrast topics in beginning courses because they seem to provide a structure and to give students incentive to look closely at both the comparanda. If you are really looking at the things you're comparing, some sort of conclusion will eventually emerge. But you do need to slow down and look.
To improve on the level of argument-- as opposed to sentence-by-sentence writing-- I think just talking the paper over with someone can help. Partner up with a friend who is also working on a paper. Can you put your papers aside and tell each other what your arguments are? (A surprising number of times, people can't.) Sometimes a professor or TA will be willing to talk with you on this level too.
posted by BibiRose at 7:29 AM on December 8, 2010
I also think having more confidence about the topic would help. If you start writing before you have any idea what you want to say, you'll panic and start throwing words around. (This is especially true in subjects like art history, where it often seems like what you are being taught is a way of talking about the subject.) I have a feeling professors like to assign comparison-and-contrast topics in beginning courses because they seem to provide a structure and to give students incentive to look closely at both the comparanda. If you are really looking at the things you're comparing, some sort of conclusion will eventually emerge. But you do need to slow down and look.
To improve on the level of argument-- as opposed to sentence-by-sentence writing-- I think just talking the paper over with someone can help. Partner up with a friend who is also working on a paper. Can you put your papers aside and tell each other what your arguments are? (A surprising number of times, people can't.) Sometimes a professor or TA will be willing to talk with you on this level too.
posted by BibiRose at 7:29 AM on December 8, 2010
It does come across as vague. Maybe more like using a passive voice? It seems sort of like you are using adjectives to imply conclusions rather than stating them outright. I would also gently recommend clearing out some of the descriptors and parentheticals. Those work better in spoken word and more conversational prose. If this was a script for a presentation, with a slide of the memorial titled "A shift in tradition", it would be much more appropriate.
(Not that the prose isn't good. Maybe it is too good? You are very effectively creating a scene in the reader's mind, which is good for fiction, not so good for non fiction. If I were the professor reading this, I would be conflicted. I might think this is just a style choice, but I might also wonder if it wasn't a bit of word-count fattening. I'm sure I would be wrong, but the implication would be there, and this would count against clarity.)
Maybe step back a little and remember the grade school lessons on paragraph construction and be a little more direct with your conclusions and positions, and then back them up with descriptors. My sense while reading it is that I have to work a little too hard at figuring out what your thesis is.
The written word needs to be more concrete with its ebb and flow. As I said above, if you were delivering these words as a speech, you would verbally emphasize the important parts.
I just took a whack at redoing the quoted passage. Obviously, it is mostly cut and paste and not what I'd call good, but I tried to give more emphasis to the point, and separate out some of the details.
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach transforms a traditional medium by approaching it from a different perspective; he emphasizes the experience of the individual. By departing from the usual glorification of the warrior, this monument instead serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict. Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish. While this was a stark contrast in form, it maintains the traditional function of commemorating a historical event while adding a new function."
posted by gjc at 8:33 AM on December 8, 2010
(Not that the prose isn't good. Maybe it is too good? You are very effectively creating a scene in the reader's mind, which is good for fiction, not so good for non fiction. If I were the professor reading this, I would be conflicted. I might think this is just a style choice, but I might also wonder if it wasn't a bit of word-count fattening. I'm sure I would be wrong, but the implication would be there, and this would count against clarity.)
Maybe step back a little and remember the grade school lessons on paragraph construction and be a little more direct with your conclusions and positions, and then back them up with descriptors. My sense while reading it is that I have to work a little too hard at figuring out what your thesis is.
The written word needs to be more concrete with its ebb and flow. As I said above, if you were delivering these words as a speech, you would verbally emphasize the important parts.
I just took a whack at redoing the quoted passage. Obviously, it is mostly cut and paste and not what I'd call good, but I tried to give more emphasis to the point, and separate out some of the details.
"In his Gustrow memorial, Barlach transforms a traditional medium by approaching it from a different perspective; he emphasizes the experience of the individual. By departing from the usual glorification of the warrior, this monument instead serves to commemorate the sorrow of all those involved in conflict. Cast in bronze, the monument consists of an assembly of men dressed in flowing robes, in poses evocative of grief and anguish. While this was a stark contrast in form, it maintains the traditional function of commemorating a historical event while adding a new function."
posted by gjc at 8:33 AM on December 8, 2010
When it comes to courses like literature and art history, I frankly don't know what the hell I'm doing and have never been taught any better.
You're an adult, and change is hard, but don't get defensive about this. You're already admitting a shortcoming in your abilities and trying to turn feedback and criticism into an improvement opportunity here, which puts you comfortably ahead of the curve, but being defensive or passive-aggressive about answering criticism is a guaranteed way to derail that process. Things that are not your fault can still very much be your responsibility, and things that are not your responsibility can still very much be your problem. Your writing needs work, and you know it: own that shit.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is to care about writing well, though five page essays (which I assume this is) are approximately the worst format in the universe for this. They're super-easy to grade, though, and that's not a coincidence - five pages is some sort of magic writing threshold, for this reason: if you have nothing useful or interesting so say about something, five pages is approximately three and a half pages too many, but if you actually do have something to say, it is not nearly enough.
You can tell an A from a B from an F five-pager in the first half of the first page, using only this discriminant: does every sentence here matter? B, maybe a strong B. Does every word matter? That'll probably be an A. Is the lead in paragraph making a specific, defensible claim, or is it obvious filler? If you're honest with yourself, you can look at what you've written and know.
A good Art History essay isn't substantially different than a good English Literature essay, or a good internal company memo. There are obvious stylistic quirks you can avoid, and others you can cultivate, a lot of that's up to you, but above all else, you need to make an assertion. Then you need to show that your assertion is supported by the text, whatever "text" means - the painting, the statue, the novel, the server logs, whatever. Then you need to show that your assertion is further supported by the context in which the text finds itself - historical, environmental, sociocultural, whatever. Then, don't just reiterate your assertion, but explain to the reader what your assertion implies, or signifies; what your claim means in context, and how those implications support your original thesis. A tall order for five pages, and that's why you can tell an A five-page essay from an F in the first paragraph. There is no fluff, no slack, because there's no room.
If you want to improve your communication and get away from "vague", this is your number one priority; to learn enough about your topic that you can make an argument that matters, that's important enough to be worth defending. Then, show people to the best of your ability that you can defend it, and why you believe it's important to do so. In time, if you can do that really well, you will be able to make things that seemed like strange, alien argument in the beginning seem utterly self-evident by the conclusion.
And you'll probably get an A.
posted by mhoye at 9:24 AM on December 8, 2010
You're an adult, and change is hard, but don't get defensive about this. You're already admitting a shortcoming in your abilities and trying to turn feedback and criticism into an improvement opportunity here, which puts you comfortably ahead of the curve, but being defensive or passive-aggressive about answering criticism is a guaranteed way to derail that process. Things that are not your fault can still very much be your responsibility, and things that are not your responsibility can still very much be your problem. Your writing needs work, and you know it: own that shit.
I can't emphasize enough how important it is to care about writing well, though five page essays (which I assume this is) are approximately the worst format in the universe for this. They're super-easy to grade, though, and that's not a coincidence - five pages is some sort of magic writing threshold, for this reason: if you have nothing useful or interesting so say about something, five pages is approximately three and a half pages too many, but if you actually do have something to say, it is not nearly enough.
You can tell an A from a B from an F five-pager in the first half of the first page, using only this discriminant: does every sentence here matter? B, maybe a strong B. Does every word matter? That'll probably be an A. Is the lead in paragraph making a specific, defensible claim, or is it obvious filler? If you're honest with yourself, you can look at what you've written and know.
A good Art History essay isn't substantially different than a good English Literature essay, or a good internal company memo. There are obvious stylistic quirks you can avoid, and others you can cultivate, a lot of that's up to you, but above all else, you need to make an assertion. Then you need to show that your assertion is supported by the text, whatever "text" means - the painting, the statue, the novel, the server logs, whatever. Then you need to show that your assertion is further supported by the context in which the text finds itself - historical, environmental, sociocultural, whatever. Then, don't just reiterate your assertion, but explain to the reader what your assertion implies, or signifies; what your claim means in context, and how those implications support your original thesis. A tall order for five pages, and that's why you can tell an A five-page essay from an F in the first paragraph. There is no fluff, no slack, because there's no room.
If you want to improve your communication and get away from "vague", this is your number one priority; to learn enough about your topic that you can make an argument that matters, that's important enough to be worth defending. Then, show people to the best of your ability that you can defend it, and why you believe it's important to do so. In time, if you can do that really well, you will be able to make things that seemed like strange, alien argument in the beginning seem utterly self-evident by the conclusion.
And you'll probably get an A.
posted by mhoye at 9:24 AM on December 8, 2010
« Older Here Comes the Bride, All Dressed in White, da da... | Maybe I was a government experiment Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by csjc at 6:24 PM on December 7, 2010