Good Writing ---- transforms the natural but private expressions of the thoughts inside a writer into a structure and style adapted for a reader

Characteristics of prose that a writer writes for her- or himself    (= FIRST DRAFT)

2. Structure: association of ideas; deals with subject by narrating

3. LISTING ideas, not arguing

4. Language: consists of "inner speech" "privately loaded" terms, shifting, but unexpressed contexts for statements

5. Writing demonstrates process

Symptoms: sentence fragments, runon sentences, "saturated language"

Characteristics of prose that a writer writes for a reader (REVISION)

1. A deliberate attempt to communicate

2. Structure: well proportioned and appropriate for the circumstances

3. Argument presents point to reader and leads reader through steps of reasoning supported by examples

4. Language: creates a shared language and shared context between writer and reader

5. Writing demonstrates purpose

Good Writing = a cognitively demanding transformation of the natural but private expressions of writer-based thought into a structure and style adapted for a reader
[*This analysis adapted from Linda Flowers, "Writer-Based Prose"]

1. As you read through the paper, please CIRCLE any bright ideas, ideas that you think are key to the argument, and which the writer ought to emphasize in a rewrite. Draw a box around any expression that seems UNCLEAR, perhaps with a question mark. .

2. What is the THESIS of this paper? Label it on your copy. How effectively is it stated? Should it be narrower and more focused? Should it be broader and more thoughtful? How successfully does the writer stay with that thesis throughout the paper? Does the writer address every *part* of that thesis in the paper?

3. What sort of evidence does the writer use to support the thesis? [plot summary? characters?] Does the paper use concrete details and examples? Where (mark in the text) should the writer have used better details to support the thesis? Where has the writer forgotten to support assertions with evidence? Draw BRACKETS [] around important assertions that the writer has not supported.

4. Does the argument of this paper build in a logical and cumulative way? Does the paper represent OPPOSING VIEWS or ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS of the issue? Are there steps missing from the argument, or problems or issues the writer did NOT address that should have been addressed?

5. Were you persuaded by the argument? Which points did you agree with? Are there any parts that you remain in disagreement with?

6. Comment on the voice of the paper. Does it seem appropriate to its subject and audience? Is the writer's diction clear and accessible? Choose one word that you think is inappropriate (if any) and write over it one you think would be better.

7. What are the paper's greatest strengths and weaknesses?