During the previous class discussion, everybody seemed to agree that writing doesn’t fit neatly into one category. However, good writing seems to be characterized by an experienced writer who takes into account his/her audience with a clear purpose. Obviously different people will value varying aspects of the writing process, which affects how they evaluate particular pieces of writing. In all reality, each theory of composition has its strengths and weaknesses that help to explain the process of writing.
The current traditional view of composition is one that greatly emphasizes the mechanics of writing. Based on this theory, the whaling essay would not be judged as “good” writing as it fails to meet some standard requirements. For example, there is no clear thesis statement. If there is one, then it is hidden in the all-inclusive block of writing that is hard to follow. The most obvious suggestion for the writer is to have a clear intro, body, and conclusion. By simply breaking up the large block of text, the writer can organize the paper more clearly. These major problems must first be dealt with before moving onto areas that can improve the essay.
Overall, the writer has significant problems with his/her organization skills. Also, the writer does not cite sources consistently, using varying format. There are minor problems with the grammar, but those should be pushed aside before really looking at the big issues. A good piece of writing can communicate its message clearly to a broad audience, which is something this paper does not do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
OK, Travis. So, if you are a teacher who is of the current traditional ilk, what do you say to this student? Write the end comments.
Post a Comment