The Final Blog- what is style, part two

For this last assignment, take a moment to look back at your previous blog entries for the term. You’ve written a lot. So, based on this writing (and your reading and discussing and everything else we’ve done), what do you think style is now? If someone asked you what you learned in the class, what would you tell them?

Obviously, what I’m asking you to do for this last assignment is to reflect a bit on what we did during the class. My hope is that you’ll take a chance with this last entry to take stock of the course as a whole.

*In the capacity of a written work, style could mean the nuances that define a writer’s stance or approach. In this case it would likely be how they choose to represent their ideas rather than themselves.*

This was part of my first definition of style. My thoughts at first were pretty limited to the scope of the author and their personal ‘style,’ like how they choose to express themselves. This is still very relevant of course, but now I see style much differently and more expansively. People who speak to one another or write anything are not speaking and writing for themselves; they are doing it for their audience. It might be advertising, scholarly work, or any writing but the point is to get an effective and engaging message across to the intended reader, and convince them of the merit of this message. Whether this be selling a product, arguing a thesis,  or even making a personal impression via letter or email, it must be stylish to accomplish it’s goal.

I think ‘style’ encompasses a lot of different things in terms of how it is used to communicate with an audience. Style includes the media or means of communication i.e. pen and paper essays, virtual communication, youtube videos or product commercials. These different formats will appeal to and reach different kinds of people and different demographics.

Style also means the ornaments of words and sentences that ancient rhetors like Aristotle studied and documented- devices like tropes, metonymy, synechdochy, alliteration, all ways of appealing to the ears, eyes, or values and norms of the target audience. These ornaments are all relevant to effective persuasion/communication today. Style is or can be very specific, i.e. the Tiger Woods commercial I analyzed and other commercials I saw. This was presented in a very deliberate fashion, using very simple words and appealing to the ethos of an audience. The primary challenge of the writer/designer is to try to determine how the majority of people or viewers will react to a particular style- the Tiger commerical appealed to the ethos of some, while others (myself included) found it to be weak, and the propriety (or kairos) of the commercial was fundamentally off.

Though some people are artists and can manipulate the rules, style also means writing that is direct and to the point. This was a major focus of both Strunk & White and Williams- basic clarity. This means careful revision to be sure work is polished and is neither more nor less than what it should be, no meaningless modifiers or nominalizations. This is one of the primary lessons I took from these authors. I now pare my writing down to be as concise as possible and find my papers sound more confident without all of the ”a bit”s and “the fact that”s. 

Basically now I see style as the entire means and methods of putting together a presentation, project, or written work and how it is supposed to interact with and affect the audience.

The Final Peer Review

Before you complete this last peer review recap blog post, first, take a look back at some of your previous blog posts about the peer review process. Second, write a final post that reflects specifically about this last peer review but that also considers the whole peer review process as a whole. For example:

• What was the most useful aspect(s) of peer review? What parts of the process did you find least useful?
• What do you think you have learned this term about responding to others’ writing?
• What do you think you have learned this term about making use of your classmates’ advice?

As I mentioned in my first few blogs about peer review, the whole process was new to me and really opened me up to peer criticism. I think peer review is a good idea in theory, but I have become somewhat disillusioned by it over the last few times.  I agree that most students don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings even in an online environment, and while I’ve gotten some really effective criticism a lot of it has been pretty generic. I’ve also given some effective criticism and some generic criticism too. I’ve seen discussion in other blogs about anonymous reviews and have thought about that a little. Students might offer one another more direct and honest review if it was anonymous, but at the same time direct criticism (constructive and tactful) is a necessary professional skill. Not to mention leads to better products. So where is the medium.

There were a lot of instances when I saw things I would immediately edit or change, like ways to tie a sentence back to the topics at hand or eliminations of nominalizations, I’m not sure why but I felt like that is inappropriate or too invasive to just directly change something they wrote, and instead was more general like “It would bring things together if you tied your topic in to more sentences.”

Students must be willing to take full responsibility for their drafts as well. I think that we should present what is considered a finished work for the most effective review, I don’t see any point in critiquing anything less than that and it doesn’t mean anything having my own work critiqued if I already know I will be changing it, adding examples, etc.

The star system- still not my favorite, in my mind I can’t help but think ABCDE and don’t feel prepared to judge a fellow student that way.  I think having students ask for specific feedback is an excellent idea, though again only really effective if a student has a sincere draft in place.

I really believe it’s a huge benefit reading one another’s work, because as an author you cannot escape the bias of your own perspective. It is others who will be reading your work, it is not written for you. I always find it hugely entertaining and fascinating to see what my classmates wrote about that was similar or different from me, and their different takes on the same material. I became interested in and gained a lot of respect for my peers after reading their discussions on the information we studied. I like peer review.

Low bridge videos and writing

So, given that context, take a moment and reflect on the process to date. How has this process of simple videos going? What kind of connections and misconnections do you see between “the writing process” as we’ve studied it and as you’ve experienced it, and the “video making process?” Do you see the point of Anderson’s advocacy for the use of “low bridge” technologies like the ones we are using for this project? Or is this comparison between writing and multimedia/video making hogwash, comparing apples and oranges, etc., etc.?

It is clear that some people have talent and aptitude for multimedia/ video technology and via machine can produce art, and reach out beyond their physical proximity, and use videos and multimedia as creative channels. The sheer number of people involved in these types of communications validate them as a movement regardless of any academic controversy or criticisms or preferences. The Tyger and the Lamb collages are just one form of proof that this is a type of intelligence, they were so beautiful. They affected me as a viewer, and they had a positive effect on the students who said they enjoyed making them very much, and were happy to be able to express their original interpretations of the poetry- Daniel Anderson says creativity is marginalized is public education systems. I am involved in virtual communication as I write this blog and participate in this course,  though for me it is a matter of convenience rather than preference or inclination. Though I see writing as being a part of a lot of the process or delivery of videos, I don’t consider low-bridge videos to be writing in themselves, but they are as important as writing- maybe the next step? Anderson quotes Selber who talks about multiple modalities and multiliteracy, I’d never considered the word literacy outside of reading and writing. I think technology should be taught just like art, music, physical education, etc. It is a really smart thing to learn because machinery and electronics are such as integral part of everything now- stoplights and computers and stocks and everything.

I found the brainstorming process to be similar for filmmaking and writing, getting beyond the logistics of meeting up, getting introduced and such. More minds are coming together but it is basically generating an idea, feeling it out until it is solid, building an argument or a plot, and deciding how things make sense. Working collaboratively on the video, in person, was a lot more fun than writing a paper and connected us fellow student on a more personal level than, for instance, peer review or electronic communication. Our ideas only really grew and matured when we were discussing everything in person, each contributing ideas. So, I conclude that nothing can replace personal interface. Once ideas are established electronic communication and computers can really facilitate the editing and production process.

Of course we were all able to offer our own resources to bring this together, as far as script writing, props, technical skills, etc. I learned it was not nearly as demanding as I thought to produce a movie and post it on youtube (Thanks Tracey).

So after this class I can see the virtues of technology and virtual communication. But still can’t ignore the fact that the majority of people who utilize it are not a positive reflection of us, and the majority of it is junk.

Interesting note- yesterday I saw my stepfather with a dictionary and I asked him why he had it, he’s a chef and has never done a lot of extended writing like full sentences and such. He said ever since he started text messaging he looks up all of the words in the dictionary to make sure he spells them right.

Looking back, forward

We all decided Ancient Style still applied in contemporary writing, literature, communications, advertising, etc. When designing movies and collaborating for projects that are meant for public viewing, scripts, messages, even images still incorporate or exhibit these elements of style. Varying styles, simple to grand, different ornaments, metaphors, metonymy, etc. can all be used in either visual text or images and symbols.

This type of public visual communication is like a new level of writing technology. It is possible to spread a message, though some feel it is more generic… virtual videos/communication is subject to many of the same criticisms, but opens up a new level of communication and connection.

Peer review #3

I have never had a class like this that basically forces students to citicize our peers (as scholars of course). I have come to look at this process in a completely new way by this third review. I had some original self- conscious reservations concerning privacy and public criticism. I felt and still feel prepared to accept criticism but have a harder time giving it out. Everyone has a different style and skill level, its hard as a fellow student not to compare anothers writing to your own. It is also difficult to be completely direct and specific, as no one wants to offend, equal treatment for all and such. At times I found spelling or grammar errors that I didn’t point out. I didn’t point them out for two reasons- one, I had other criticisms and didn’t want to be overly nitpicky. Two, I figured if they edited thoroughly they would find these errors on their own (and it was their responsibility to do so).

However. Prior to all of this communal criticism (like through the last three years of college) I was wrapped up very tightly in my own cocoon and wouldn’t have dreamed of letting another student or anyone besides my professor read, much less criticize my work. I was really limited in the sense that I thought all I had to work with was what I could think of. I didn’t consider a larger or historical context about how ideas are shaped and how everyone builds on each other, and how this enhances skills and widens perspective. 

Peer review #1

Truly this is the first peer review exercise I have been involved in in college, I was a little shy about it at first but I lost my self-consciousness and became genuinely interested in the thoughts and ideas of others and how they in turn responded to my work, the parallels and differences in opinion, etc. I wanted to be direct but not overly critical and try to focus on strong ideas. Actually now I believe peer review to be an invaluable tool, I got a lot of great feedback before turning in a final version for a permanent grade. I would look forward to another peer review experience.

I don’t feel shy any more. I read writing that is better and also writing that is not so practiced as mine. I never felt any superiority when I offered good advice or inferiority when I received good advice or criticism. We should all want each other to succeed.

Peer review #2

This review provided a more insightful and honest look at one anothers work than the first go around, though honestly I found it very hard to quantify their papers out of five stars… after review I began trying to equate stars to something, like abcde, or then I thought of percentages, and was concerned maybe I had been too critical at times. I also wasn’t sure exactly how much I should review and if it was okay to suggest things I thought they could develop that they hadn’t already touched on, though that really applies to any peer process I suppose.

Tracey and I had the same feelings about the star system… we both thoroughly disliked it. She compared it to kicking a puppy and I felt exactly the same way… everyone has a different style and natural skill level and I didn’t feel prepared to judge others in that way.

At first I thought I might be doing wrong when I suggested new ideas in a peer review. I thought (individualist mindset heh heh heh) that each person could only use what they came up with in their own mind. I feel differently after having done a few reviews, and after peers have had excellent suggestions that never occurred to me. I now feel that building on one another’s ideas is a positive thing and is really how anyone accomplishes anything. Generally students dislike collaborating, all want to be responsible for their own work. I’m finding that as we get further into our education, most of us are invested and have a lot of thoughtful and helpful insight to offer. In the reviews I tried to just briefly suggest these new ideas, leaving plenty of room for the author to expand if they chose.

Some things Laura said about the star system I could relate to-

First, it helped define the specific areas I was responsible for when reading my peers’ papers. I didn’t feel like I was searching for recommendations to make just for the sake of trying to be helpful.

Agreed. It was helpful to have some guidelines when reviewing, this made the reviews comprehensive and effective.

Second, receiving a star rating didn’t leave much room for interpretation. Your score was right there in black and white. Receiving a rating of 2 stars I KNOW I have some serious work to do.

After I read her blog I formed my final opinion on the star system. I agree with her- a somewhat concrete indicator of the strength of an aspect of writing really helps drive the point home. However, this must be accompanied by a thorough explanation of this rating, or else how does one determine if it is qualified or relevant criticism and what they need to improve?

Peer review is not for the sensitive.

Others say-

*I think that a lot of people, of all ages, have problems with commas. “Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause” (Strunk pg 5). When I first read this I was like, huh?

-Silisa

Me too girl! Up until my 300 or so level classes I did not know basic grammar or definitive rules, just relying on my ear for what sounded right. At that point I started looking these things up myself and learned how to translate that to-

“Silisa and Christine learn style, clarity, and English grammar.”

A refresher course would better prepare kids for college and reinforce positive habits. Mastering basic skills is a necessary foundation and habits get harder to break as time goes on.

Silisa also has really cool features on her blog (the page markers, I like those).

*I’ve written some total crap in my time that was still positively reviewed, and I written some awesome stuff that was poorly received. Bad writing is in the eye of the be-reader? And how do personal feelings toward the author/writer of the piece affect your opinion of it?

-Aimee

I couldn’t agree more and I think Aimee’s statement affirms itself. Funny how that happens sometimes. Personal feelings undoubtedly have an effect on a person’s interpretation and opinion of writing, evidenced by the fact that other people and teachers have felt differently about our work than we have. Not only personal feelings but prior knowledge- Williams explains that prior knowledge has an enormous effect on the reader’s comprehension. I also thought it was gracious of him to point out that often if we don’t understand something it’s because the writer does not know how to write. And as Williams points out, a writer will form something of an opinion of the author based on their work.

* This book was not laid out as clear, concise rules followed by examples but rather a more in depth look at each principle (Williams).

-Allison

I can see how Strunk and White’s book could be considered more clear and concise because of its format as more of a reference book. I really think that Williams’ in depth discussion and examples is even more clear and concise, because he has more to say about it. Instead of wondering how to apply the concepts, they are directly illustrated. From the preface forward the ideas seem to link as a cohesive work. Strunk and White was specific and to the point, but what they do not say leaves a lot of gray area.

Comparing and contrasting Strunk/White and Williams

-The portion about  organization of ideas, paragraphs, and appropriate visual breaks I found to be a great reminder. White and Strunk tell writers to focus ideas within paragraphs and always remember and state it’s function as a part of the whole. I also took their lessons on concision to heart- I recently wrote an in class essay and said “in fact” twice.

- Williams elaborates on these concepts. Strunk and White advise that single topics be discussed within single paragraphs. Williams goes on to discuss the importance of topics and their role as the psychological subject within paragraphs (or primary idea in a reader’s mind). He advises using topics and language that complement the overall theme of a written work.  Both books recommend the active voice vs. the passive, though Williams does a better job of explaining how the active voice is more emphatic as well as concise.

William’s further develops ideas and techniques regarding concision. Several times he advises writers against stating something a reader can infer i.e. pgs 115 and 121, reminding us of the collective body of general knowledge we share, as a culture. I think William’s chooses a poor example on page 121 when he describes the student and the Macbeth paper- the teacher responds but does not fully explain why it is not necessary to include this piece of information. It may seems obvious, but lots of people need things spelled out to them step by step before they fully understand. To build on existing knowledge one must have a firm foundation and to just say “It’s obvious” seems a little callous.

Lots of recommendations for scholarly work, like using the same tense throughout a paper and putting the most emphatic phrase/words at the end of the sentence. I cleared up a long standing question of mine about where to put the puntuation when using parentheses. The specifics regarding citations were helpful.

- Williams does not touch on the specifics of documentation, though much of his other writing is geared towards advanced/scholarly essays. A whole chapter is devoted to emphasis- he does a great job of explaining how to arrange sentences from beginning to end that will inform and engage a reader. Important subjects go first, to keep the topic in the mind of the reader. Williams discusses the importance of the end of the sentence, which will (for the skilled writer) build anticipation and flow into the next idea. Williams suggests writers and students extract important ideas from the paragraph and isolate them so they are more comprehensive. Sometimes it is necessary to break up a paragraph and rearrange the sentences.

I thought some of the language in the misused words and phrases was dated, but not so much so that it alienates a modern reader at all. I was also really surprised about their clear disdain for the word hopefully (I just had this in quotations but went back and removed them).

-Again the somewhat dated language did not really detract from Strunk and White (considering it was written in 1918 it is actually not that dated at all), but Williams work (written in 1990) is somewhat modernized. I didn’t have to include those publishing dates but it is a great example of a person writing  and remembering facts and working out ideas like Williams mentions. Both Strunk/White and Williams  have a list of alternatives to lengthy or needless phrases. Strunk and White rely enormously on a writer’s intuition, which could be less than accurate or refined. Williams on the other hand  has instructions and examples that aid understanding and enhance his suggestions.

The chapter on style interested me. As they point out there are no rules for style, but there are some techniques that help a writer create something distinguished and distinguishing. Writing naturally, not explaining in too much detail, and “ruthlessly deleting the excess” (Strunk and White, 72)- notes taken- I am often guilty of trying to make my papers sound too formal.

-Both acknowledge that style is not something that can be taught, though White and Strunk’s advice is somewhat cut and dry. They offer suggestions that are invaluable pieces of general writing technique i.e. ‘write naturally,’ ‘do not overwrite,’ ’do not use dialects/foreign language,’ ‘use simple language/orthodox spelling.’ Strunk prefers the standard to the unconventional and seems to feel that if you can’t write with style, you should at least be clear.

 Williams’s book is an entire approach to style but his chapter on elegance might be the most direct. Williams’s focus is more detailed on emphasis, balance, and controlling length and rhythm of sentences. Williams actually cites E.B. White’s work as an example of an elegant sentence.

Strunk and White is a totally valuable pocket reference as a more practical and formal guide to style for academic papers and such, but I prefer William’s and his in depth discussions and examples from literature. He seems to fuse clarity and correctness with writing as an art, and represents both equally.

Revising the turgid?

The original sentences-

“It is the mission of Extended Programs and Educational Outreach to provide leadership in dissolving traditional campus boundaries through collaborative programs that complement and extend the educational, research and public service activities of the University, as understood in the context of our identity as a metropolitan and publicly engaged University. Extended Programs and Educational Outreach also engages individuals across their life span, from high school, through traditional University years, to adult working years, through individual professional development and educational/training programs for business, government and nonprofit agencies.”

I wrote-

“The Extended Programs and Educational Outreach’s mission is to display leadership as a contemporary and publicly engaged University in a modern campus atmosphere. We achieve this through collaborative educational, research, and public service programs that engage individuals through the entire course of their professional and educational training.”

The original sentence definitely works but is a little weighed down with words. I thought I could revise it so it was more compact and the points were clearer. I removed some what I think were nominalizations-“It is the mission of,” “dissolving traditional campus boundaries,” as understood in the context of…” I replaced the complex with more basic verbs- “achieve,” “engage.” The first few words of a sentence are the most important so I tried to make them work in favor of the theme. I tried to keep with consistent topics and be as clear and straightforward as possible for focus. The use of “we” makes the piece relatable and establishes agency.

Peer review #2

Peer review #2 provided a more insightful and honest look at one anothers work than the first go around, though honestly I found it very hard to quantify their papers out of five stars… after review I began trying to equate stars to something, like abcde, or then I thought of percentages, and was concerned maybe I had been too critical at times. I also wasn’t sure exactly how much I should review and if it was okay to suggest things I thought they could develop that they hadn’t already touched on, though that really applies to any peer process I suppose.

I had my significant other read my paper as an outside reader… he said he understood the concepts I outlined. He did ask me to explain the overall concept of style as it applies to this paper and class, so maybe I was a little vague in that respect, however he is in the military and does not read a lot of English essays so he was basically walking in blind.

Strunk and White, considered

This book I will slide next to my other famous EB White book, it’s cool that he wrote children’s literature and academic works. This little book was like a very comprehensive refresher course.

The portion about  organization of ideas, paragraphs, and appropriate visual breaks I found to be a great reminder. White and Strunk tell writers to focus ideas within paragraphs and always remember and state it’s function as a part of the whole. I also took their lessons on concision to heart- I recently wrote an in class essay and said “in fact” twice.

Lots of recommendations for scholarly work, like using the same tense throughout a paper and putting the most emphatic phrase/words at the end of the sentence. I cleared up a long standing question of mine about where to put the puntuation when using parentheses. The specifics regarding citations were helpful.

I thought some of the language in the misused words and phrases was dated, but not so much so that it alienates a modern reader at all. I was also really surprised about their clear disdain for the word hopefully (I just had this in quotations but went back and removed them).

The chapter on style interested me. As they point out there are no rules for style, but there are some techniques that help a writer create something distinguished and distinguishing. Writing naturally, not explaining in too much detail, and “ruthlessly deleting the excess” (Strunk and White, 72)- notes taken- I am often guilty of trying to make my papers sound too formal.