- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
1. Always write in the active voice….past tense is preferable to present tense. 2. Go easy on the $100.00 words when a $5.00 word will suffice. Your readers should not have to labor to understand your meaning, and you need not impress anyone. 3. Always cite your sources. If in doubt, always give a cited source. If your idea is a common one known by most all, it need not be cited, but if it is a specific idea not your own, then you had better give credit where credit is due. 4. Avoid long paragraphs. Try to have at least two paragraphs per page (double-spaced). 5. Avoid long quotes where possible. Use long quotations sparingly, otherwise they lose effectiveness and can be exposed as "filler." 6. Choose a position and defend it. Historians need to prove cause and effect, and need to prove they have knowledge of what others have said on their subject. Show your readers you know the opposing perspectives. Knowing both sides of an issue enhances credibility, and also helps when arguing your own personal position. 7. Forget what your English teachers told you! History is not English class. Your research is your creativity. You are engaging in technical writing full of supportive evidence. Historians run the risk of being polemical if their writing becomes too "flowery." 8. Be specific. Don't assume your readers know something. 9. Stay focused. The best History writers are the ones who can stay on topic by avoiding long winded tangents. Usually when a writer does this, it is because he or she has a weak argument, or an agenda they wish to foist upon their readers. Just don't do it and you will do well. 10. Always try to show why your subject is worthy of study and unique. After you've shown the who, what, where, why, and when...you need to explain the "so what?" Good historians get cited by other historians when their work is exhaustive, well articulated, timely, and stimulates further discussion. If you are the only one saying something, and your evidence is strong, you will likely be cited by others in their respective works...there is no higher honor in scholarship than to be cited by a fellow scholar. 8)
I suppose it would help to know – or perhaps even to remember this as another “What to do” on the list – who your audience is. If your audience is a peer-reviewed journal, your words and thought processes will likely be different than if you are writing a high school or college paper, or one for more generalized publication.
I suppose it would help to know - or perhaps even to remember this as another "What to do" on the list - who your audience is. If your audience is a peer-reviewed journal, your words and thought processes will likely be different than if you are writing a high school or college paper, or one for more generalized publication.
Well actually not really. If you are writing scholarship, it needs to be concise and readable for all of the above all of the time. Complexity is never a good idea, especially when dealing with an already complex topic. The only thing that might change is the level of formality in the writing style. One might not write as formally in a generalized publication for instance, but one would definitely write in a highly formal style in a high school paper, college paper, and of course the peer reviewed journal. By formal I mean: not using first person in the narrative, and absolutely no colloquiallisms or slang anywhere. Yes, one might carry on longer more complex arguments at the post graduate level, but the writing style must not change. Grandstanding is anathema to good scholarship! The best scholars are the ones who can be read by all, and will most likely be cited if he or she is easily understood. I have read scholars like J.G.A. Pocock and Mark Knoll who make your head hurt while trying to decipher what they are saying, and I have read scholars like Nathan O. Hatch and John Hutson who are a breeze. All four are heavily cited, respected, and vastly knowledgeable in their field. Pocock is a Brit, and British historians are notorious for excessive verbiage....intellectual snobbery is their hallmark in other words. For example, Pocock would write, "Eschew obfuscatory morphemes" while Nathan Hatch would write "Avoid unintelligible phrases." See the difference? Which would you rather read? ;D
Well, perhaps this comes down to a difference of opinion. In my opinion, some of the things that you mention – formality, complexity of argument – are components which make up one's “style”. You acknowledge that these are different based on the context or audience who will read the work but for some reason you don't equate these with “style”. I think that all of these relate to one's style. This said, I realize now that when I speak of "writing history" I'm referring to any kind of writing - whether it be of general nature (magazines, newspaper articles, web copy, etc.) or specialized (journals, class papers, etc.). I think you were referring solely to the latter. For me, it's a no-brainer that one's writing would have to adapt to the audience if we're talking about the wide spectrum of writing, but I can see where you're coming from if we're talking about what you're referring to.
This a great topic. Keep it going, it's very helpful. I would assume this would work for pretty much any subject?(a topic on "How to properly cite sources" would be helpful too..although I'll learn how to do that in my next course)Is this also for any paper/essay? Avoid the "I think" or "in my opinion" phrases. Keep it in the third person.
This a great topic. Keep it going, it's very helpful. I would assume this would work for pretty much any subject?(a topic on "How to properly cite sources" would be helpful too..although I'll learn how to do that in my next course)Is this also for any paper/essay? Avoid the "I think" or "in my opinion" phrases. Keep it in the third person.
NEVER EVER use "I think" OR "in my opinion!" Use declaratory sentences with active voice/past tense preferably. For example, you might say, "Historian Skiguy made the argument that Phidippides was the most intuitive webmaster of his time." Or...."According to Skiguy, Phidippides launched WesternCiv Forum in hopes of possessing the best online history forum on the internet." Other do nots include "in order to"...."due to the fact of"...."on account of"...etc....These phrases, though grammatically okay, are poor qualifiers for descriptive technical writing. Try to avoid using "because" as much as you can, though it is far better than the above mentioned phrases. Better transitional words you can use are: "similarly"...."however"...."nevertheless"...."nonetheless"...."meanwhile"...."consequently"....but avoid "on the other hand"...."on the one hand"....etc....because they are wordy, cumbersome, and hinder the flow of your sentence structure. For the love of History, never use overly charged words! For example, never say something like this: "Martin Luther's 95 Theses miraculously changed the Christian world." Instead you would write: "Martin Luther's 95 Theses significantly altered the Christian world." Miraculously is obviously a super charged term that is both unprovable, and too paranormal for this arguably mundane earthly event.The idea here is to have smooth transition, proper word choice, and to avoid transposing one's personal biases and feelings onto their narrative. ;D
I'll add to this that if you want to write smack-dab delicious papers on any topic, make sure you back up virtually each and every statement that you make. You may end up having five or six (or more) citations per page, but it makes it far more solid and respectable to your professor. Along with this you should learn how to cite correctly and use it do it consistently throughout your paper. I have seen even at the graduate level where students fail to cite their statements. The places where you do not need to include citations are where you are doing your own thinking (i.e. making your own conclusions and providing your own reasoning). However, this should be done sparingly; overall, your paper should rest on your cited statements.A paper might therefore look like this:The older groups that dominated the colonies - the Puritans and the Anglicans - eventually decreased in size and number over the next few years.1 Although they accounted for about 40% of American congregations in 1760, they only made up about 2.5% by 1790.2
Here is an example of a short essay: The Great Awakening And The American Identity Pay attention to the sentence structure. (There are no citations, but you can still get a feel for what your professor will be looking for in terms of presentational prose).
