Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The middle should work . . . It lays out the argument in steps, not in a robotic way, but in
a way that the reader can tell (a) what the distinct steps or premises of the argument are;
and (b), this is the tricky one, how theyre connected to each other. So when I teach
nonfiction classes, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time teaching the students
how to write transitions, even as simple ones as however and moreover between
sentences. Because part of their belief that the reader can somehow read their mind is
their failure to see that the reader needs help understanding how two sentences are
connected to each other and also transitions between paragraphs.
Im thinking of the argumentative things that I like the best, and because of this situation
the one that pops into my mind is Orwells Politics and the English Language. If you
look at how thats put together, theres a transition in almost every single paragraph.
Right? Like, Moreover, not only is this offense common, but it is harmful in this way.
You know where he is in the argument, but you never get the sense that hes ticking off
items on a checklist; its part of an organic whole. My guess would be, if I were an
argumentative writer, that I would 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. Right? Never letting the
reader think that Ive lapsed into argument for arguments sake, but that theres always a
larger, overriding purpose.
Why are transitions so important?