WEBERJ's STYLE RESPONSES
From Mizzou Wiki
06/16/08
* LESSON 1
The first chapter of Joseph M. Williams book explains the struggles writers go through trying to relate their subject to the audience. Meaning, whether they are comfortable with the subject or not. Being more related to the subject may allow the writer to pronounce the subject in a clearer way. But if the writer is confused about the topic or unfamiliar with it he/she is going to betray the subject the same way; in a confusing matter. The writer will use more complex words or writing styles to make the audience believe that the document is more in depth then it really is or to compensate for his/her lack of intelligence or understanding. The trouble comes with the different languages of grammar, and the audiences that come with them. The writer being more concerned about the grammar and the structure rather than the subject they are trying to betray simply to ‘survive’ as the chapter says.
I believe the author; Joseph M. Williams does a great job delivering his ideas. He is very persuasive in his views and he delivers the facts in a very clear way. He gives many examples in the text and different perspectives on strategies of writing. He tries to relate to the audience which makes the reader (via, me) more comfortable in his state of mind. I feel I'm actually learning reading his text. I like the way he breaks up the section, like an outline, bolding the main ideas and having the details in minor text. This type of style points out his objective in a clearer manner then if it were put in more of a ‘textbook’ format.
This subject relates to me in ways that I feel I’m unclear about delivering the message to my audience and it is because I’m not always sure I understand how to translate thoughts into structured sentences. I over think and overcompensate my writing habits. That is why I relate to this chapter, it explains the reasoning behind the difficulty in translating my thoughts to paper. That is because I can’t always relate to the subject and therefore I can’t make a personal connection with it, which results in losing the attention of my readers.
--pretty good here, some grammatical issues, but the structure and content is what I'm focusing on. Good work--"betray" isn't quite the right word for what you're meaning, I don't think.
* LESSON 3
This lesson in the book tries to depict the difference in correct and incorrect format of a sentence. When a writer uses abstract nouns such as adjectives and action verbs to demonstrate there subject. It has a tendency to cause the sentence to become 'complex and dense'. Making the sentence or phrase difficult to understand or relate too in any manner. This process is called 'nominalization' which you will notice when it is the subject of an empty verb such as be, seems, has, et cetera or when it follows an empty verb, or when it is a subject of an empty verb and that follows there is or there are. This lesson is not neccessarily trying to say that nominalization is always incorrect, it is just saying that it may cause the subject to become more harder to understand.
I believe that this lesson did a very well job of delivering the knowledge of the correct and incorrect format of sentences. Trying to stray away from nominalization which causes sentences to be more complex and dense. He pulled out all the main ideas and orgainized them in bold sections. He made sure to insert examples after every point he tried putting across. Which made it very clear to the reader via me. By enhancing the clarity of the lesson, he made it very easy to understand his concepts.
This lesson does not relate to me in anyway, because I never think that in depth of my writing. If I have ever used nominalizaion, I would have never known till I read this lesson in this book. Yes, his lesson made sence to me but it did not relate to my writing style or habbits. I do not monitor my writing techniques or how I compose a document, but because the lesson was so clear to me, I may try utilizing his points in the future.
* Lesson 5
This lesson covers some very important factors of the subjects called cohesion and coherence. Where cohesion is the sense of flow, where we (the reader) would pick an individual sentence in the sense of it being 'active' rather then 'passive'. The active sentence would flow better in our minds as we read rather then a passive sentence where the verb is not doing the action. But in that thought, me (as a reader) would pick the passive sentence in a passage, because it formally translates the bits of information in the most basic way possible, (in my opinion). In a passive passage, you begin the passage with a sentence with information familiar to the readers. Then end the sentences with information the readers cannot predict. People get the words coherence and cohesion mixed up, because they sound alike. When thinking of cohesion, think of two puzzle peices fitting together. When thinking of coherence, think of the way all the peices in the puzzle fit together to make one big picture.
This lesson makes sense to me because of the way he dissected the terms coherence and cohesion, depicting the point of each, then telling you as the reader what all you needed to successfully create those terms in passage. By using subject, topics, grammar and coherence. Then to diagnose, analyse and rewrite the problems. By fixing the problems you can start with the subject and make that subject the topic of the sentence.
This lesson relates to me in the fact that it takes grammar and the format of the passage and basically gives you a right or wrong way of doing it. I like that for the fact im a factual person, and i like to be told, 'this is how you do this'. Then, I have the comfort that if the passage is heading in the right direction or not. This lesson was really good at giving me the reader a basic guide line to how to get my message out clearer.
--Good response. You should be clear that "passive" sentences aren't the only way to achieve cohesion. Just one of the outcomes if you use Williams' ideas.
* Lesson 7
This lesson explains the error of Redundancy which is another word for repeating, directly or indirectly. This happens when you become too close to clarity. According to Joseph Williams, he tries focusing on having an even mixture of these three terms: Clarity, Grace, and Concision, without being redundant. There are six principles of concision: (1) Deleting words that mean little or nothing,(2) delete words that repeat the meaning of other words,(3) deleting words implied by other words, (4) replace a phrase with a word,(5) change negatives to affirmatives,(6) delete useless adjectives and adverbs. There is a particular kind of redundancy called metadiscourse meaning the writer's intentions, direction to the reader, and the structure of the text. You as the writer need some metadiscourse in everything you write to help guide the reader through your text.--a little awkward in the bold parts.--
Joseph did a very well job translating what redundant means and how to improve of it. He gave three things (Clarity, Concisioin, and Grace) that are important to making a peice more understandable. He then takes a term called metadiscourse, and tells the reader how to take this in to consideration in a paper without over doing it. That metadiscoure guides the readers through your text.
--some of this is analysis, some of it just repeats the first paragraph--
This lesson make alot of sense to me because I as a writer have a tendency to be over abundant in my writing style. I have never seen it as a problem until now. The lesson gives alot of pointers on knowing how to watch out or improve from being abundant. He gives many examples and ideas so I as a writer know what to look out for.
--a little more proofreading, a little more analysis. Good thoughts though.--
* Lesson 10
In his last nine lessons he has emphasized the responsibility writers owe readers to write clearly. But readers also have the responsibility to read closely enough to understand ideas that reguire more then the basic sentences. He states a rule that all writers must obide by: "Write to others as you would have others write to you." That as a writer and a reader, both should put the equal amount of effort in doing both. Some writers "overcompensate" on a simple subject, and some try to hide the main subject by intended misdirection. Some writers "overcompensate" on simple subjects using to much of an academic response. "Whatever can be thought can be thought clearly; whatever can be written can be written clearly."
Is complexity in writing a good or bad thing? Some believe the more we think the easier it is to understand. Some believe that by making an argument more clear you are dumbing down the subject which could be unleading. It is not the complexity or the clarity that is the problem in writing, it is the way the writers uses these styles to decive the idea being translated. Jeffeson uses language as and art but puts it in the most simplistic form in the Declaration.
The conclusion on Joseph M. William's book results in this sentence: "Wee are ethical writers when we would willingly put ourselves in the place of our readers and experience whay they do as they read what we've written." Every individual has experienced outcome of unclear writing including myself. As a new freshman, I may have not experienced alot of 'careless dense writing'. An experienced reader will know that when you do find a graceful and clear writer, you are to relieved to run your eyes across the words in such ease. That as a writer, it is a breath of fresh air to write a good sentence or paragraph, that it has got it's own awards. That as a human being, we take pride in achieving sucess and doing good at waht we do.
Return HOME
Return WEBERJ
