In this blog post, I will discuss some pet peeves about writing, including such functions used in the very title. Why are such things true, anyway? Somewhere, I'm sure, there's been a rhetorical analysis of why these conventions have been adopted. Wherever it is, I'd like to see it.
Actually, all journal writing bothers me. In all of my training--until now--I was taught that, for example, using a phrase like "In this paper, we will discuss X" was just plain poor writing. Show, not tell. The nearest thing to coming outright in stating a purpose was the thesis statement, usually some sort of arguable point which we would then be verifying through a literary analysis (e.g., "Quentin is an archetype of all female characters in Faulkner's works"--no, don't ask me to back that statement up).
It's a different genre, I suppose. Or--is it? Is a scholarly article really all that different from a literary analysis? The purpose of both is remarkably similar. Both have their theses--whether on heresthetics and TC, or Faulkner's misogyny--they just use different sorts of evidence. Literary analysis relies heavily on the primary text, as opposed to secondary texts (i.e., other people's research) or empirical research. When, then, did the conventions break? Is this just another example of the bitter battle between English and Professional Communications departments?
Before I've finished this program, I'd like to write one TC paper in the style of a lit analysis, just to see if it can be done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment