Revising with Williams

The 2005-1007 EMU Undergraduate Catalog includes the following passage under the heading “Re-enrollment”:

Former EMU students desiring to re-enroll at EMU after an absence of two years should make application in the Office of Records and Registration, 303Pierce Hall, at least one month prior to the first day of classes. The applicant should complete the application and return it to the same office. A printable re-enrollment form is available on the Admissions web site (www.emich.edu/public/admissions/admissions.html). Students may also apply on the web. (11)

I revised this passage according to rules in Joseph Williams’ Style to the following:

Former EMU students who wish to re-enroll after an absence of two years must apply at least one month prior to the first day of classes. Applications are submitted to the Office of Records and Registration, 303 Pierce Hall, and can be picked up from that office or printed from the Admissions web site (www.emich.edu/public/admissions/admissions.html). Applications can also be submitted on the web.

Williams writes: “A series of clear sentences can still be confusing if we fail to design them to fit their context, to reflect a consistent point of view, to emphasize our most important ideas” (45). The problem he describes is one of cohesion. The original passage is difficult to read because it is not cohesive. It is not cohesive, specifically, because the writer does not follow the principle Williams calls “managing the flow of information.” To manage the flow of information, the writer must highlight important concepts by putting old information at the beginning of a sentence and new information at the end (48). In the original passage, the student is the old information because the heading “Re-enrollment” suggests it is relevant to a student who wishes to re-enroll. The first sentence does follow Williams’ advice because it mentions the student, the old information, first then it mentions “application” as if it is the new information. The problem arises in the second sentence when “the applicant” is again the character when the first sentence suggests the passage will be about application. To revise, I made the passage about application throughout as well as consistently balancing new and old information to match the context.

Struk and White...First Impressions

In the introduction to The Elements of Style, E.B. White describes his former professor, William Strunk Jr., as a capable and informative writing instructor, but also describes him as having "a number of likes and dislikes that were almost as whimsical as the choice of a necktie" (xvi). White's portrait of Strunk as both practical and persnickety is indicative of the information contained in the handbook as well as what I found useful and not useful. Some suggestions are solid and others read like a list of pet peeves.
One of the solid suggestions I will keep in mind is Rule #12: "Choose a suitable design and hold to it." I am a planner. I make outlines before I write to stop myself from wandering aimlessly on the page, but I do not think about my ultimate message. I often find myself at the end of writing satisfied that I've covered all of the topics I set out to cover and, yet, wondering what I've really said, what implications my writing has, and if I've added anything new to the conversation. The "design" I am going to think of as my overall message and this passage I believe will be useful for me to remember: "The first principle of composition...is to foresee the or determine the shape of what is to come and pursue that shape" (15).
Another valuable section of The Elements of Style is "An Approach to Style." I love the firmly cautionary, but gently reassuring tone of this chapter. It is difficult to put one's finger on what separates good writing from bad and the interesting from the bland. Strunk and White concede that fact and give some guidelines to moving toward developing a writing style that works for the writer and the reader.
What I find useless, yet entertaining, is the section "Words and Expressions Commonly Misused." I don't think the entire section is useless, but Strunk's fussiness shines. Yes, some words words are used up and no good for formal papers, many people do mix up "affect" and "effect." I will be the first to admit I use "that" and "the fact that" too much; my writing can be trimmed down. The previous, and other, helpful word usage tips, though, are tempered with tips I can't believe ever made it into the book. For instance, the pure hatred for the suffix -ize is a bit strange, an entire entry for the word "facility," "thrust" being a "showy noun...hinting of sex" (61). The oddities abound. My favorite useless tip falls under the entry for "flammable" when Strunk says "Unless you are operating such a truck and hence are concerned with the safety of children and illiterates, use inflammable" (47). The blend of insightful and idiosyncratic makes for interesting reading while learning about writing; don't get me wrong, I like the weird.
My first impression of The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is good. I think I will actually store in my mind and call into use from time to time the tidbits of knowledge contained within it. If nothing else, envisioning a prim and particular little man pointing at me when I fail to trim "that" from my writing will help me in my writing life.

Post #3...Writing as a technology/Show and tell

First part of post:
Response to the question about connections between the Manguel and Barron essays and my own relationship with writing technologies...

One connection between the two essays discussing histories of writing technologies is that both of the authors write about the ways in which writing technologies have become available, and eventually vital, to the common person.
I see my own relationship to writing technologies in these essays as related to the connection between them: writing technologies are necessities to me and to many. In the essays, writing technologies are described as originating from tools designed for specialized groups with no percieved uses for the larger population. Where now literate cultures cannot function without writing technology, when the same technologies were new, few saw the use for them. In short, my relationship is that of one tiny part of an ongoing history of writing technology that began as nonexistant, turned revolutionary, and is on to evolutionary.

Response to the question about the relationship between ideas about writing technologies and histories in Manguel and Barron and the ideas discussed in Plato and Ong...

Plato and Ong are each, in their own way, talking about the changes to individuals and cultures made by writing technologies: Plato is objecting to speculated affects of a shift from an oral society to a writing one in the midst of it and Ong writes about what he believes have actually been the affects ages after the shift. The relationship between the two sets of essays lies in the way Plato and Ong tackle changes to the mind and culture and Manguel and Barron catalogue the concrete manifestations of the changes in the form of improvements (?) to the mechanics of writing technologies. Put simply, Plato and Ong are concerned with thoughts and Manguel and Barron are concerned with the objects that accompany those thoughts.


Second part of post:
A bit about my invented writing technology...

First, to use the word "technology" might be a little excessive. The writing technologies I've been reading about in essays were refined and refined to the point that ease of use has made literate life and culture impossible without them. Of course, I did not expect to be able to find something useful; I expected to fail but I also expected to think and I certainly did do both.
When thinking about what to use to write, I really tried to remain as "pure" as possible and use no technology, but this project intersects with technology at every point. For materials, I used snakegrass gathered from a ditch near my house as my "pencil" and my dirt and rock driveway as my "paper." Even there I ran into problems because the driveway was so dark that the snakegrass did not show up very well, but everything around that was light in color was too far from natural that I didn't want to use it. This was the first instance that technology had to bleed into my writing technology: I could have written just about anything I wanted with my materials, but I also had to keep in mind that the words had to be photographed because the writing could not travel with me and deciding what would be small enough and color-contrasted enough was a huge limitation. Then technology further rained on my natural writing parade when I tried to take a sample picture of a word to see how I could visibly capture my writing technology and my camera then inexplicably decided to stop working altogether. I was not able to actually express anything with my technology (aside from the word "the" that you see below). Writing technologies, through all of the incarnations discussed by Manguel and Barron, have allowed people more and more to express themselves through communication and have affected changes in the way that communication and other thoughts are to be processed by the mind, as discussed by Plato and Ong. My technology does not even enter into this world. All that happened was a word oriented person, such as Ong discribes, got frustrated by not being able to write with ease. One final thought: at least two of the authors mention the alphabet as the ultimate writing technology and throughout the project I kept thinking about how writing technologies must have been driven by the need to use this brilliant tool.

Second Post ("What is Style?")

When I think about style in the writing context, I think about the tone in which material is conveyed to a specific audience. Style can be formal, informal, imaginative, etc. Style is half the battle; material that is relevant to the reader may fall flat if the style of the writing does not mesh with the information being conveyed. Style enhances writing to its potential. "Style" is beginning to look foreign and strange to me. Style...what do I know about style? I await further instruction.

sdfjkasldkjf

why why oh why