Quote: "An argumentative writer [should] spend one draft on just the freaking argument, ticking it off like a checklist, and then the real writing part would be weaving it and making the transitions between the parts of the argument — and probably never abandoning the opening, never letting the reader forget what the stakes are here"
The way that he wants to encourage the writers to attack the importance of the argument is different than the "normal' and expected approach that you think an educator in writing would take. Usually people would encourage their students to use nuanced language and to place emphasis upon finding extreme vocabulary that will demonstrate the intellectual validity of your argument. Instead Wallace encourages them to just "spend one draft on just the freaking argument". By setting this as the basis of his advice, he is showing what he thinks the most important part of good writing is, the actual argument itself. He is highlighting the fact that language is just language and has no use if their is no concrete argument for it to describe. He also goes on further talk of the importance of being concise but also meaningful, "Never letting the reader think that I’ve lapsed into argument for argument’s sake, but that there’s always a larger, overriding purpose".
This is such a cool idea, I hadn't really thought of writing a draft on the argument in such direct way. It is an interesting perception on writing argumentative papers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but I would argue that most English teachers do encourage their students to stick to their argument. Rather, I think it is the students that get carried away with flowery language that they believe will validate their intellectual ability.
ReplyDeleteI love the idea of focusing on the argument, not just the language used. However, I think there is something to be said about using language to sound like an intelligent, respectable writer that allows the reader to trust you more than they would a fifth grader. But the argument is what the paper is about, not just words for the sake of words, so I like the idea of making that the emphasis.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion thread here. Remember, Wallace isn't suggesting that what goes in between the bones of the argument -- the meat of the essay -- be pedestrian. Being effective, direct, and accessible doesn't mean forgoing precision and nuance; rather, it means making sure that precision and nuance is in service of intentional communication. No language, however charged or obscure, is unnecessarily "flowery" so long as it enhances, propels, and clarifies. Onward.
ReplyDelete