Habits of Mind: Getting Ready to Have Ideas by Rosenwasser and Stephen - Article Example

Habits of Mind: Getting Ready to Have Ideas by Rosenwasser and Stephen The Rosenwasser and Stephen chapter, “Habits of Mind: Getting Ready to Have Ideas” (page 9), the authors advise writers to understand the subject they are writing about before making a judgment about it. They want writers to “figure out what your subject means before deciding on how you feel about it.” Why do you think this advice is good to follow, especially in the writing of a portfolio that tells of your experience? This advice is good to follow, especially in the writing of a portfolio that tells of my experience, because it will help me approach a subject without providing an easy “judgment” and instead, I can provide a more “thoughtful response” (Rosenwasser and Stephen 9). Rosenwasser and Stephen talk about watching a movie and creating “judgments” immediately after it. This also happens to me. When I watch a certain movie, I also rate it as “good” or “bad.” Nevertheless, unlike other swift judgments, I also try to rationalize why I say the movie is good or bad. Still, when I think about it now, I used the “good” or “bad” qualifier too hastily, when these adjectives are overly generalized. On the one hand, I can say that the movie is bad, because I did not like the acting of the main actor. On the other hand, I also appreciate the plot and its uniqueness. Perhaps, if the actors had been changed, I would have said that the movie is “good.” In addition, Rosenwasser and Stephen stress the role of context in making sense of experiences. It is also possible that while watching the movie, I was feeling “bad,” so I projected my negative emotions on the movie. Rosenwasser and Stephen effectively demonstrate that beginning with emotional responses tend to cloud people's ability to think rationally and independently. It makes sense to then first figure out what the subject means. By this, Rosenwasser and Stephen want writers to understand what the subject is all about instead of focusing on the feelings that we relate to the subject, which tend to be biased. This is an appeal to critical thinking, where I will motivate myself to think about the subject and its definitions, nature, and implications. For instance, I am writing on Voltaire's “Candide.” The subject is optimism. As an optimist person, I first felt personally offended in how Voltaire satirized optimism. He made Pangloss look like a fool, instead of a philosopher, by presenting circumstances that defied his optimism. If I think about the subject more clearly, meaning without my emotions, I will be able to see the subject in more objective terms. I will analyze what Voltaire's definition of optimism is about. I realized that Voltaire may not be attacking optimism per se, but its negative implications, such as making illogical decisions and then thinking that the best will come of out of it and accepting the status quo too graciously, since it is the “best of all worlds.” When optimism is viewed this way, then Voltaire has made a good point. Optimism can be unproductive and stupid, when people do not understand that it involves planning and action too. Hence, it is helpful to start writing about the subject by determining what it is about, so that I can have an analytical way of “seeing” it and avoid my emotions from clouding my analyses and perceptions. Defining what the subject is about can effectively block judgment “reflex” that comes too easily. 2. For Anne Lamott's Reading the question is.... In Anne Lamott's chapter, “Shitty First Drafts”, she attempts to calm writers' anxieties about the craft of writing by offering a method for approaching assignments. With some slight adjustment, we will be using Lamott's methodology in our course this semester. However, her piece is also an example of persuasive writing. Here I would like you to comment on the mechanics of her essay. Is this a well-written piece or not? In the next several weeks we will be exploring technical aspects of good writing such as voice, style, and tone. This week, however, I want you to discuss your own criteria for good writing. Don't forget to include citations from Lamott's essay. My criteria for good writing is that it has a clear thesis and the writer provides arguments or points in a clear and engaging manner. If it is a persuasive essay, the thesis should be clear and well-explained for the remainder of the essay. The paragraphs should also flow well with the right transitions, so that people can easily understand the connection between these arguments and feel that the writer “made sense.” The introduction should have an effective “hook” and there should be a “suitable” conclusion that reiterates the thesis. Finally, the voice, style, and tone should fit the audience's level of understanding. For this criteria, I argue that Lamott had produced a well-written piece, because she uses a clear and distinctive voice that reflects who she is and what she thinks about the topic of writing first drafts, she has an engaging writing style, and she has a friendly tone that fits her audience. Lamott uses a clear and distinctive voice that reflects who she is and what she thinks about the topic of writing first drafts. Readers will know from her essay that she used to write “food reviews” and had been a “clerk”. This provides the perspective that she knows what she is saying when she says that she writes “shitty” first drafts. It comes from her own personal experience, thereby establishing ethos. Furthermore, if she is a writer, this provides credibility to her own arguments that shitty first drafts matter, because they get the writer started. It does not matter how awful they are, because it is more important that they instigate the writer's creative juices. Lamott also writes in an engaging manner, because of her use of imagery and sense of humor. She uses colorful images that drive her point instantly and effectively. For instance, she says that most writers do not start writing and then continue to do so “bounding along like huskies in the snow” (22). Instead, writing the first draft can be like “pulling teeth” (22). Describing writing this way captures the difficulty and “pain” in writing the first draft. I can easily relate to this image of pulling teeth and feeling crazy, when it is hard to write about something. Furthermore, Lamott has a great sense of humor that makes it fun to read her essay. When she describes the “people” that affect her first writing, I am amazed by these “characters” that are metaphors for her biases and where they come from, such as parents, religion, and society. Lamott has a writing style that truly made the topic of writing first drafts enjoyable and interesting. Lamott also uses a friendly tone that fits her audience. She is speaking with writers who are constantly grappling with their first drafts and they can every well be high school or college students. Her tone makes it clear that she knows what the audience is feeling and she wants them to feel better by saying, “Hey, I feel for you because I am you!” This is an effective way of making the audience interested in her essay, enough to start and finish her essay, as well as absorb her main points about the value of brainstorming and how to do it. Lamott also has a clear thesis and a great introduction and conclusion. She argues that first drafts are supposed to be shitty, but it does not mean that the final product is shitty too. The most important process of writing is getting started and this is what the first draft represents. She then provides helpful tips in “calming” the characters inside the writers' heads so that they can write freely or brainstorm without the influence of biases and self-pity. Her goal is to persuade writers to go ahead and feel absolute freedom in writing shitty drafts, without feeling remorse and apprehensions, and she nailed that quite well. Read More