Definitions

If you were in class on the first day and participated in the scavenger hunt, you should have some sense that I consider many issues up for debate: What is meant by "popular adaptation"? By "text"? By "image"?  It was interesting to see that "image" meant "what we think about Austen" to some students; when I wrote that I was thinking, more literally, of pictures we have of what she looks like! Both definitions, of course, are right. The key--as always--is in defining your meaning. Language is so flexible. There might be many ways to understand and use a single word depending on its context.

I was struck by a similarity between Elizabeth and Mr Bennet along these same lines. As Mr Bennet is slowly revealing that he has, indeed, met Mr. Bingley, he notes the "A fortnight's acquaintance is certainly very little. One cannot know what a man really is by the end of a fortnight" (4).* The joke, of course, is that he does know Mr. Bingely and the family also will have known him for a few weeks by the time of the assembly. But Mr. Bennet's likes to philosophically meditate on meanings. What does it really mean to meet someone? When we say we are acquainted, does that mean we know him? What is the difference between knowing and being acquainted? These are questions that the novel itself takes up in the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy, which begins as a somewhat strained acquaintanceship but develops into love.

After the assembly ball has taken place, as Elizabeth and Jane are discussing it, Elizabeth comments on Jane's inability to be critical of others. She calls this quality "candour" and carefully distinguishes Jane's candour from that of other people's: "Affectation of candour is common enough--one meets with it everywhere. But to be candid without ostentation or design--to take the good of everybody's character and make it still better and say nothing of the bad--belongs to you alone" (8). Elizabeth voices one of Austen's criticisms of the hypocrisy her society by noting that many people pretend to be candid; within the specific context here, she also reveals one of Jane's important character traits. This moment turns on a carefully situated definition.

What would happen to these two moments if Mr. Bennet or Elizabeth simply pulled out a dictionary and said "According to Johnson, the definition of acquaintance/ candour is . . . "? I argue that the moments would lose much of their power and interest. The definitions provided by Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth work within the context of the novel to lead us to some significant issues.

So what does all this have to do with writing? One of the important elements of writing an expository essay is defining your terms. Many students seem to take that as meaning opening the dictionary and copying the meaning. But, as I hope this tiny comparison of two moments in Pride and Prejudice suggests, working to define terms on your own--within the context of your own project--may have larger payoffs.


* Page numbers refer to the course-packet; The text of Pride and Prejudice being used is from Project Gutenberg.

Highlighters Anonymous

I am writing to day to ask you to stop using your highlighters. Or, at the least, give some reflection to HOW you use them.

When you are writing about a text--and by writing I also mean THINKING, not just pulling out a summary or a few facts--you need to be open to the way a text changes each time you come back to it. Something that didn't seem important on a first reading might significantly change your understanding on a second read. Your eye will be drawn to highlighted text--that's the whole point. But as you focus exclusively on what you've highlighted, you might neglect the surrounding ideas. That might be fine for some kinds of texts, but it isn't good for texts that you are writing about. If you've highlighted the text, it's harder to experience the way your ideas about a text evolve and mature.

And highlighting is basically passive. You are just drawing lines.

Annotating, on the other hand, is active. It requires more thinking because it requires you to use language. Annotation might include some underlining or circling of words, but good annotation will be words and phrases written in the margin (or in a notebook). Annotation should provide you with a record of your thoughts while reading--and that is more useful than a bunch of bright green lines! Not that color is bad--I annotate in bright reds and pinks so I can easily find my notes.

When I go back to re-read and write, I can find the places easily (time saver!), but the text itself isn't covered with highlights, so I can truly re-see the whole thing--and make more annotations as new ideas develop.

Here are a few tips for making useful annotations. While I would argue that good annotation will give you a deeper understanding of ANY reading material, by "useful" I mean useful if you are planning to write about the text you are reading. So, if you are driven by efficiency rather than intellectual curiosity (alas), at a minimum this kind of annotation will save you time when you start drafting your exercises and essays for this class.

• Mark words or concepts you don't know or understand. Stop periodically and look them up. WRITE the meaning next to the word/ concept on the text itself (if it's a borrowed book, use a post-it). We don't fully digest new terms until we've encountered them a few times; writing a definition down is an important step in truly learning the new term. 

• Write a brief summary of each paragraph off to side (or in your notebook). Or, stop every few paragraphs and do the same.

• Write down your questions. This is really important. Maybe you don't understand the text well enough to write a summary. Starting to ask questions will help. On the second reading you might surprise yourself by being able to answer them!

• Make note of turns and sections. Has the writer shifted to a slightly new idea? How does it fit with what came before?

• Pay careful attention to the beginning and the end. 

• Find the thesis statement in an argumentative texts. Mark the thesis statement. ( I usually put a bracket along the side of page and write "TS.") If you've marked the thesis statement, you can easily return to it when things get confusing along the way. Try to rephrase the thesis statement in your own words in the margin or in your notebook.

• Finally--and MOST IMPORTANTLY--make notes of YOUR RESPONSE. Are you excited, interested, intrigued by the ideas? Do they make you angry? Why? What would you like to say to the writer? Your responses are the seeds of your writing. Plant them.

I'd love to hear more tips for annotating--or maybe even arguments about uses for highlighters.

Worth Repeating

(This is a post from last year, but it's worth a re-run.)

Around the time the first draft of the first essay is due I start hearing questions that all start the same way: Can I . . . . ? The student then, almost inevitably, voices a "rule" about writing that he or she is worried about breaking: Can I use I? Can I use "you"? Can I use "we"? Can I use contractions? Can I use the word "because"?

The answers are: Yes, No, Yes, Yes YES!

Actually, the answers are all YES. I only make a tiny exception for "you" because it is difficult to use well and even more difficult to use it and maintain a sufficiently formal academic style.

I really hate these kinds of rules. Yes, of course, you (breaking the "you" rule here) have to abide by the basic grammatical conventions of standard English. But otherwise, there's an awful lot of ambiguity and flexibility in how we use language. Why put up obstacles to expressing meaningful ideas with all of these little rules?

More disturbingly, students frequently ask some variation of this: "Can I actually tell my reader what I'm trying to argue?" I know that some writing instructors come up with lists of rules and "Don't use the first person" or "Don't use contractions" might be on that list. But, "Don't tell your reader what you are up to"?!

Somehow, somewhere along the line, students get the sense that writing is about a set of tricks and isn't about trying to convey meaning to a reader. One the most literal level, I think students have been told to avoid "metacommentary"--saying what the essay is doing or arguing ( I will argue that . . . This essay will then look at . . . .). I fail to understand this rule given that most PUBLISHED academic essays use metacommentary extensively. If your ideas are complicated, giving your reader these concrete handhold really helps.

I also worry that this belief that writers have to disguise their ideas under fancy terms or convoluted sentence structures and follow a bunch of arbitrary rules means that beginning writers are afraid to fully engage in the messy work of drafting BEFORE editing. All of these rules can makes a writer stop and second guess every sentence before she has even worked out the main substance.

Stopping to take a breath and write "Okay, what I'm trying to say here is . . . ." can lead to great revelations. If you been taught to avoid using the first person or to avoid using metacommentary, you've been deprived of this tool. You can always go back and take the main idea and edit out the thinking. But do the thinking first!

So, whatever it is, if it helps YOU say what YOU want to say--yes, you can do that.