Let's get writing : it starts with a sentence
As I explain in this Flipgrid video, the aim of this blog is to give you an opportunity to develop your writing by:
1. writing for a genuine audience;
2. writing about your reading, and more specifically, writing about your thinking about your reading;
3. writing LITTLE and OFTEN.
As a starting point, I'd like you to read one or both of the texts below:
How to write a sentence by Thomas Basbol
How to actually write a sentence : The building blocks of written language by Dominik Lukes
After you've read your chosen text, just write a comment below telling us what you think. Does it make sense? Do you agree or disagree with anything either writer has said? Do you have any questions? Is there anything you don't understand and would like further clarification of? Any response will be welcomed and read!
If you would prefer to write a different topic, that's perfectly fine. You can follow the instructions in the video above and write a post of your own to tell us about something that you're read or seen recently which you found interesting. Tell us what it is, what it is about, and what you think about it. I'm sure we're all looking forward to reading!
I read 'How to actually write a sentence : The building blocks of written language' by Dominik Lukes. I must say this is a well detailed article on how to improve in sentence composition, which will further sharpen my competence in writing. I learnt a lot from this write-up and will certainly refer to it again. Cohesion and coherence is important to ensure flow in writing. Also the idea of using text to speech to read out essays caught me, because most times when I silently read my essays, I miss some mistakes on the essays. One question I have is how do I know when to discern that long sentences may complicate my essay, and when to break it up to shorter sentences. I need further clarification on dual articulation.
ReplyDeleteThanks Chizoba. I was quite taken with Lukes' suggestion that "writing is editing" and "editing is reading". I think we tend to think of editing as something you do AFTER you've finished writing, but this certainly isn't true for me. We're constantly editing and checking our writing against our thinking. I have a friend who refers to this as "crafting", which I think is a helpful term; sounds more positive than "editing", at least.
DeleteThanks for sharing your thoughts. Will be interesting to see what others make of the blog posts.
you are welcome Mark
ReplyDeleteAs I began to read "how to write a sentence" by Thomas Basbol, September 2019, I found myself transformed into metaphorical magpie by following the link for how to write a paragraph. Within seconds I realised, once more I was a human being and reverted back to the piece of writing. I wish at times that the overall conceptual framework for a subject would always be linked to so I could understand all the major parts, as to facilitate my learning. The writing clearly explains how a sentence is part of a paragraph. Cognitating what is written, it is clear that a paragraph is easier as its a conceptual framework and a sentence is a very complex set of rules. Another aspect that is helpful later in the document is that a conceptual approach towards writing using imagination followed by the rules of grammer to create good writing.
ReplyDeleteIt is suggested that the imagination is guided by "a window of your mind", that links to another web page. Linking to another page would interrupt the reading flow. The question is to identify the best practice when linking? Putting links in context is good to know what a link applies to, however it takes time to consider if one wants to click on it, easily forgetting the context that was previously built. As it is currently structured, the wording suggests the link is critical and not an aside and it is interpreted as it must be read before continuing the rest of the article. By following the link, the most important concept is not the "Window into the mind", but more like writing is like drawing, where recording the of the thoughts covering selection, technique and finally the creation is what provides the window. A window suggests watching, where drawing suggests participation.
The next paragraph presents a number of questions for consideration; it suggests that the use of mindreading across time could be useful, alternatively the reader should use their imagination to imagine themselves to be the reader. It is hard for one to know the capabilities of someone who has not been met and assessed, to be able to write for them. However it makes sense to a) attempt to order things within a logical manner building upon each other, b) know how to drip feed the information, so that the information is all accepted in to the mind of the reader. However, it is not clear how to consistantly achieve a) and b).
The last paragraph is hard to read as the style is much different, not suitable for general audiences. The paragraph feels in the opposite order it should be.One believes the approach should of been to say for the reader to develop their own style and evaluate and then give examples. It is suggested that one may develop a style of writing between Stein and Hemingway, in a way one feels tricked due to the reading time expanding during the reading process by following every link. Steins work is instantly harder due to the deep thinking power required, whereas Hemingway's helps you avoid deep thinking.
Thanks for this Phil. A really helpful insight into how you negotiated that text. I think there are parallels between the links within this text and the references within an academic text: they're serving the same purpose, after all, but one is more direct and immediate. I suspect that the future of writing may take the more direct, immediate path...or should that be "short cut"? As readers, though, do we want all of these distractions? It strikes me that you found some more useful than others, but how do we know which ones we need? A question for the future perhaps...
ReplyDeleteIn recent years I've become interested in the act of annotating text. I imagine most of us do this by hand only, but there are some ways to annotate a text electronically and as a community, such as https://web.hypothes.is/ I would imagine that if you set up a reading group with 3 or 4 other students within your discipline, a tool like Hypothesis might be quite useful. Flagging up to one another what is worth exploring and what is not could save some time.
I see your point about not knowing who your reader is, and I think this is a fair critique. Advice on writing often urges you to think about the reader, but rarely do we define who the reader is. University writing has the extra complication of writing for a reader who, we assume, already has great expertise in the subject, so why are we bothering? It does help to picture a reader, though, I think. When I write about football, I imagine a very well-informed reader who is going to recognise and enjoy esoteric cultural references. My reader probably doesn't exist, but it amused me somehow. For university writing, I would recommend imagining that your reader is another student; one who is on the same course as you, but who has not read any of the texts you have read in order to write that particular piece of writing. This ought to help you engage with the notion of "showing your working" while also making whatever case or argument you are making. No need to try to imagine your reader as anyone who might pick up your work in the future; I don't think that helps you!
Finally, yes, a good observation about how the final paragraph switches style. It strikes me as a coda - an attempt to end but not especially to round-up; he's trying to give some advice, of course, but it ends up being more a point of departure than a point of arrival. This is fine, I think, for a blog post which presumably aims to open up a discussion.
The blog post "How to write a Sentence" by Thomas Basbøll highlights a writer's ability to induce imaginations in the minds of their readers.
ReplyDeleteBasbøll's article identifies facts as the determinants of a sentence's authenticity or falsehood, pinpointing the need for writers to fully understand the fact they want to share, conjure an image that matches said facts in their minds before putting these facts into words that correlate with the images in their minds.
Basbøll (2019) also explains that writers are responsible for stirring the minds of their readers in any direction they desire, hence the need for selecting words that accurately paint the pictures in the writer's mind on paper. For example, authors need to consider any information they want to share, the flow of said information in writing, and the ease with which readers conjure the same image the writer has in their minds.
While I agree that writers determine the trajectory of their readers' minds, a few questions come to mind.
1. How do authors consciously convert their mind images to words, such that thousands of readers conjure the author's intended image when reading an article?
2. At what point do writers realise that there may be an information overload or a digress from the facts they intend to share with their readers?
3. Could there be a fool-proof method that enables writers to pen their ideas without undermining the authenticity of their sentences?
I agree. The article doesn't even try to go into how we actually build sentences. Doing so would be a huge task, though.
DeleteGreat questions. What do YOU think the answers are?
I honestly have no answers to those questions. I struggle with them everyday and everytime I write something. I can only say that time and experience plays a huge role in developing the skills necessary for writing.
DeletePerhaps the more experience I get, the better I'll be at streamlining my thoughts, putting just the important facts down, and passing a message to my readers the exact way I want.
I have read 'How to write a sentence' by Thomas Basbol and It was a good read. I plan on reading the second article, 'How to actually write a sentence : The building blocks of written language' by Dominik Lukes. I hope to give a proper/ more 'academic' response after this, Mark. Thank you for sharing these article with us.
ReplyDelete