-
✍️ WORDS ✍️
Welcome Guest!
-
-
Words Moderators: Shambles
Workshop Thread #6 - "Luck Egalitarianism or Democratic Equality" by l2r
- Thread starter L2R
- Start date
Thou
Bluelighter
Reading now.
Thanks for commenting on my story, dick.
Thanks for commenting on my story, dick.
Thou
Bluelighter
The consensus is that it sucked. Try that angle, so I learn.
ForEverAfter
Ex-Bluelighter
L2R,
I'm hesitant to be perfectly honest with you. Because apparently I'm ruining the workshops. This, despite the fact that Max and I are the only ones who contribute on a weekly (or bi-weekly) basis. Perhaps, the workshops were doomed to fail. I don't know. Personally, I think they've gone quite well so far. Mine was extremely helpful and I'm incorporating practically all feedback I received into the new draft.
I'm going to assume that you have relatively thick skin and that you're not going to be offended; I'm going to respond frankly.
I don't read much non-fiction. Practically none. I do, however, write non-fiction essays for University. So I have some understanding of what I think makes a good essay. I don't, however, have any understanding of the subject matter. This makes it rather difficult to criticize - rationally or logically. That is, I cannot point out sections that I agree with or disagree with because I don't really have any idea what you're talking about. I don't know what egalitarianism is.
Which brings me to my first point. Where possible, essays and articles should be written so that they are universally accessible. They should incorporate some sort of context, so that the reader - whoever that might be - can comprehend the content.
In the opening paragraph, I would - therefore - include a very brief explanation of your core terms. Also, I would never start an essay with the words "in this essay". The two most basic rules of essay structure are: state your intention in the opening paragraph; and your conclusion in the closing paragraph. But I wouldn't write it like "My intention is" and/or "My conclusion is".
I think your essay is a little stiff, at times. It could do with some color, a bit more editorial in style rather than textbook. But, it comes down to a question of what the assignment was. And the field, I guess. I'm used to writing essays about literature and philosophy. Not law. Maybe law essays are, by their very nature, stiff. I really don't know. As far as general readability goes, however, you should aim to make it entertaining - on some level - regardless of your readership's interests.
The same thing applies to literature and philosophy. I've heard lectures that were very "textbook", to which I glaze over a bit, and lectures that have the right amount of that human element that gets people sitting on the edge of their seats. The same information can be delivered, often more effectively, by putting "yourself" into the writing. This brings me to my next point.
Aside from incorporating yourself stylistically into the essay, your opinions should be more prevalent. You repeatedly refer to what Anderson thinks and what Anderson says. Which, obviously, is unavoidable. But there should be more of what you think about Anderson (and Rawls; and Dworkin). I wouldn't even mention Anderson most of the time. Instead, establish her as the anti-egalitarian (and Rawls/Dworkin as the pro-egalitarians) at the beginning of the essay. Then, throughout the body of the essay, state your opinions about egalitarianism, using footnoting were appropriate. Finally, in your conclusion, make specific reference again to Anderson... The bulk of your essay currently reads as your opinion about another persons opinion. Whereas, really, it should be your opinion about the issue at hand, contextualized against the opinions of Anderson/Rawls/Dworkin. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well. I've never done a non-fiction workshop; this is new to me.
I'll put it to you this way. If someone was to write an article about your essay, they wouldn't refer to you referring to Anderson. They would take about the subject matter and refer, when appropriate, to both separately - and, perhaps, to your criticisms of Anderson. It becomes too complicated, if it is an essay inside an essay inside an essay. This hypothetical essayist, writing about your essay about Anderson's essay. If someone was to write an essay about him: again, they wouldn't write an essay inside an essay inside an essay inside an essay. I realize what I'm saying is kind of insane. It's just the only way I can really think to illustrate my point.
Basically your essay should function independently of all other essays. You might need to establish the gist of other essays, were appropriate, but your essay shouldn't rely on the fact that your readership has read them. Nor should you have to recap them. There is too much explanation, within such a short essay, of Anderson's essay.
Specifically:
The second paragraph begins with "Anderson argues..."
The third paragraph, with "Anderson claims..."
The fifth paragraph, with "(In her first objection,) Anderson argues..."
The sixth paragraph, with "Anderson asserts..."
The seventh paragraph, with "Her second objection is..."
The eight paragraph, with "The second part of Anderson's second objection..."
The ninth paragraph, with "Anderson's third objection..."
And, finally, the tenth paragraph, with "Anderson's solution to this imagined problem is..."
Eight out of fourteen total paragraphs follow this structure. This is too formulaic for me; it's a point by point, linear retaliation. You explain every aspect of her argument rather than creating a cogent counter-argument of your own.
The counter argument is there, don't get me wrong; it's just dwarfed by the over-establishment of hers.
I suspect that you might argue, in your defense, that there were specific guidelines for the essay - and that you had to reply point by point to her essay; even still, my point stands to some extent. The formulaic nature of the response makes the reading mechanical. Ignoring the repetition in terms of paragraph structure, you should integrate quotes from her article without saying "Anderson writes..." (or some variation, thereof). For example, in the middle of the 13th paragraph, you do both. You integrate a quote (a little too long, perhaps) from Anderson with the proper reference/footnote AND you preface it with "Anderson writes..." You don't need to do both, IMO.
The bulk of your essay consist of references to another essay. It is, like, 50% Anderson's essay and 50% yours. The ratio should sway more in your favor and the references to Anderson whittled down to a bare minimum. As I said, I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Maybe you feel you can't cut the references down anymore. If that's the case, your essay should be twice as long. So it feels like your essay, regardless of whether or not it is intended to be a counter-essay.
As for line editing, some of your sentences are too complex. I'm not going to do a comprehensive line edit. I'll just take one sentence as an example; the first.
It's 52 words long, and INCREDIBLY complex. As a result, it's somewhat grammatically incorrect. The problem stems from you trying to incorporate her entire stance (in bold, above) inside your essay's intention - kind of like incorporating her entire essay inside your essay. You should split the opening sentence. Clarify her position after you state your general intention. The underline words are simply there to indicate how the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
The word "and" appears three times. I don't know if you've studied sentence structure (simple vs. complex sentences). If not, google it, and you'll see what I mean. The sentence is so complex that I cannot edit it so that it's grammatically correct. Maybe I could, but it makes my brain hurt just thinking about it.
As for the repetition of the word "that"... I'm going to refer back to my essay inside an essay inside an essay illustration. The hypothetical essayist who is writing about your essay about Anderson's essay. If he/she was to follow the structure of your opening sentence it would be something like this.
I think you see my point. (If I was on acid right now, this would be seriously fucking with my head.)
The simplest way to cut the opening sentence down, without changing the structure of it, would be to cut the unnecessary bits...
This is, now, pretty much grammatically correct.
... *deep breath* ...
That was fucking difficult to workshop. When you said you wanted to do an essay, I thought you were going to do an essay on Jerry Springer or the sex life of emo chicks or genital piercings or something. You bastard!
-4EA
I'm hesitant to be perfectly honest with you. Because apparently I'm ruining the workshops. This, despite the fact that Max and I are the only ones who contribute on a weekly (or bi-weekly) basis. Perhaps, the workshops were doomed to fail. I don't know. Personally, I think they've gone quite well so far. Mine was extremely helpful and I'm incorporating practically all feedback I received into the new draft.
I'm going to assume that you have relatively thick skin and that you're not going to be offended; I'm going to respond frankly.
I don't read much non-fiction. Practically none. I do, however, write non-fiction essays for University. So I have some understanding of what I think makes a good essay. I don't, however, have any understanding of the subject matter. This makes it rather difficult to criticize - rationally or logically. That is, I cannot point out sections that I agree with or disagree with because I don't really have any idea what you're talking about. I don't know what egalitarianism is.
Which brings me to my first point. Where possible, essays and articles should be written so that they are universally accessible. They should incorporate some sort of context, so that the reader - whoever that might be - can comprehend the content.
In the opening paragraph, I would - therefore - include a very brief explanation of your core terms. Also, I would never start an essay with the words "in this essay". The two most basic rules of essay structure are: state your intention in the opening paragraph; and your conclusion in the closing paragraph. But I wouldn't write it like "My intention is" and/or "My conclusion is".
I think your essay is a little stiff, at times. It could do with some color, a bit more editorial in style rather than textbook. But, it comes down to a question of what the assignment was. And the field, I guess. I'm used to writing essays about literature and philosophy. Not law. Maybe law essays are, by their very nature, stiff. I really don't know. As far as general readability goes, however, you should aim to make it entertaining - on some level - regardless of your readership's interests.
The same thing applies to literature and philosophy. I've heard lectures that were very "textbook", to which I glaze over a bit, and lectures that have the right amount of that human element that gets people sitting on the edge of their seats. The same information can be delivered, often more effectively, by putting "yourself" into the writing. This brings me to my next point.
Aside from incorporating yourself stylistically into the essay, your opinions should be more prevalent. You repeatedly refer to what Anderson thinks and what Anderson says. Which, obviously, is unavoidable. But there should be more of what you think about Anderson (and Rawls; and Dworkin). I wouldn't even mention Anderson most of the time. Instead, establish her as the anti-egalitarian (and Rawls/Dworkin as the pro-egalitarians) at the beginning of the essay. Then, throughout the body of the essay, state your opinions about egalitarianism, using footnoting were appropriate. Finally, in your conclusion, make specific reference again to Anderson... The bulk of your essay currently reads as your opinion about another persons opinion. Whereas, really, it should be your opinion about the issue at hand, contextualized against the opinions of Anderson/Rawls/Dworkin. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well. I've never done a non-fiction workshop; this is new to me.
I'll put it to you this way. If someone was to write an article about your essay, they wouldn't refer to you referring to Anderson. They would take about the subject matter and refer, when appropriate, to both separately - and, perhaps, to your criticisms of Anderson. It becomes too complicated, if it is an essay inside an essay inside an essay. This hypothetical essayist, writing about your essay about Anderson's essay. If someone was to write an essay about him: again, they wouldn't write an essay inside an essay inside an essay inside an essay. I realize what I'm saying is kind of insane. It's just the only way I can really think to illustrate my point.
Basically your essay should function independently of all other essays. You might need to establish the gist of other essays, were appropriate, but your essay shouldn't rely on the fact that your readership has read them. Nor should you have to recap them. There is too much explanation, within such a short essay, of Anderson's essay.
Specifically:
The second paragraph begins with "Anderson argues..."
The third paragraph, with "Anderson claims..."
The fifth paragraph, with "(In her first objection,) Anderson argues..."
The sixth paragraph, with "Anderson asserts..."
The seventh paragraph, with "Her second objection is..."
The eight paragraph, with "The second part of Anderson's second objection..."
The ninth paragraph, with "Anderson's third objection..."
And, finally, the tenth paragraph, with "Anderson's solution to this imagined problem is..."
Eight out of fourteen total paragraphs follow this structure. This is too formulaic for me; it's a point by point, linear retaliation. You explain every aspect of her argument rather than creating a cogent counter-argument of your own.
The counter argument is there, don't get me wrong; it's just dwarfed by the over-establishment of hers.
I suspect that you might argue, in your defense, that there were specific guidelines for the essay - and that you had to reply point by point to her essay; even still, my point stands to some extent. The formulaic nature of the response makes the reading mechanical. Ignoring the repetition in terms of paragraph structure, you should integrate quotes from her article without saying "Anderson writes..." (or some variation, thereof). For example, in the middle of the 13th paragraph, you do both. You integrate a quote (a little too long, perhaps) from Anderson with the proper reference/footnote AND you preface it with "Anderson writes..." You don't need to do both, IMO.
The bulk of your essay consist of references to another essay. It is, like, 50% Anderson's essay and 50% yours. The ratio should sway more in your favor and the references to Anderson whittled down to a bare minimum. As I said, I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Maybe you feel you can't cut the references down anymore. If that's the case, your essay should be twice as long. So it feels like your essay, regardless of whether or not it is intended to be a counter-essay.
As for line editing, some of your sentences are too complex. I'm not going to do a comprehensive line edit. I'll just take one sentence as an example; the first.
It's 52 words long, and INCREDIBLY complex. As a result, it's somewhat grammatically incorrect. The problem stems from you trying to incorporate her entire stance (in bold, above) inside your essay's intention - kind of like incorporating her entire essay inside your essay. You should split the opening sentence. Clarify her position after you state your general intention. The underline words are simply there to indicate how the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
The word "and" appears three times. I don't know if you've studied sentence structure (simple vs. complex sentences). If not, google it, and you'll see what I mean. The sentence is so complex that I cannot edit it so that it's grammatically correct. Maybe I could, but it makes my brain hurt just thinking about it.
As for the repetition of the word "that"... I'm going to refer back to my essay inside an essay inside an essay illustration. The hypothetical essayist who is writing about your essay about Anderson's essay. If he/she was to follow the structure of your opening sentence it would be something like this.
Mr./Mrs. Hypothetical's essay said:
I think you see my point. (If I was on acid right now, this would be seriously fucking with my head.)
The simplest way to cut the opening sentence down, without changing the structure of it, would be to cut the unnecessary bits...
This is, now, pretty much grammatically correct.
... *deep breath* ...
That was fucking difficult to workshop. When you said you wanted to do an essay, I thought you were going to do an essay on Jerry Springer or the sex life of emo chicks or genital piercings or something. You bastard!
-4EA
Last edited:
haha, i think i might have made it harder than it needed to be by not posting the question i was answering. this is my bad, and i do sincerely apologise. you're on point with my long-windedness and somewhat elitist writing. "dumbing down" is one of the things i have most difficulty with. i fear coming across as condescending, and this happens both in my fiction and non-fiction.
this arvo i got my mark for this, a personal best of 30/35 = a touch over 85% so therefore a high distinction.
i have three weeks left in this degree (2 major essays to go). i will endeavour to give more regular feedback, and next round i will post something far more accessible.
my only issue with this workshop is that i think items get archived far too quickly. that's all, so otherwise, i think you're doing a fine job. from my own experience running programs and games on bl, it takes a bit of will to keep them up. so, good on you, mate.
this arvo i got my mark for this, a personal best of 30/35 = a touch over 85% so therefore a high distinction.
i have three weeks left in this degree (2 major essays to go). i will endeavour to give more regular feedback, and next round i will post something far more accessible.
my only issue with this workshop is that i think items get archived far too quickly. that's all, so otherwise, i think you're doing a fine job. from my own experience running programs and games on bl, it takes a bit of will to keep them up. so, good on you, mate.
Thou
Bluelighter
I'm sorry lefty for I can't critique you're writing at this jujncture.
I'm committing myself tomorrow, for as long as necessary. This is no fault of anyones, of course. If I get hold of a computer on 'the inside' I"ll send a PM.
I hate fiction.
The truest fiction is found in reality, W. Faulkner coined this truism, and HST made it his lifework.
Like with 'Hells Angels."
The lucky cocksucker was handed a book with the characters already developed. People that weird were a minority.
He was still fucked by his publisher, standing in line on the docks for work because he had no money. Serious winos, you understand. They didn't pick him, it was politics. The dock workers knew who was who and wasn'nt. He wasn't.
3 days later he had 7 book offers based on that one "Nation" article.
He took the one that gave him 1500 dollars just for signing, and spent it on the fastest motorcycle that engineers could pump out, at the time.
The 'BSA lightning.'
I'd love one myself, but I've no money and am suicidal and, like i said, go to hospital tomorrow.
However.
I don't intend to use their cheap, stupid bullshit for self improvement. Every day I'm there, I will commit myself to Zazen. Sitting meditation.
And their ugly asses can cram it walnuts, for I'm no fool.
Fools don't require fixation.
Smart people do, and I don't see this egoisitcally. I'd rather be dumb. I'd rather NOT suffer, then to suffer the way I do, knowing full well the world aaand market are wasteful as fuck, using finite resources as though they were infinite. 50 years from now unemployment will be at 65 percent.
I haven't killed myself because of the one reason I've mentioned; and secondly... I want to watch the fireworks on my roof with a snooftfull of bogus cocaine and DMT smoked every hour, as 'Rome,' our values culture and all of it... Burn to the ground. I don't play violin, but I'll learn, in time...
Thou
I'm committing myself tomorrow, for as long as necessary. This is no fault of anyones, of course. If I get hold of a computer on 'the inside' I"ll send a PM.
I hate fiction.
The truest fiction is found in reality, W. Faulkner coined this truism, and HST made it his lifework.
Like with 'Hells Angels."
The lucky cocksucker was handed a book with the characters already developed. People that weird were a minority.
He was still fucked by his publisher, standing in line on the docks for work because he had no money. Serious winos, you understand. They didn't pick him, it was politics. The dock workers knew who was who and wasn'nt. He wasn't.
3 days later he had 7 book offers based on that one "Nation" article.
He took the one that gave him 1500 dollars just for signing, and spent it on the fastest motorcycle that engineers could pump out, at the time.
The 'BSA lightning.'
I'd love one myself, but I've no money and am suicidal and, like i said, go to hospital tomorrow.
However.
I don't intend to use their cheap, stupid bullshit for self improvement. Every day I'm there, I will commit myself to Zazen. Sitting meditation.
And their ugly asses can cram it walnuts, for I'm no fool.
Fools don't require fixation.
Smart people do, and I don't see this egoisitcally. I'd rather be dumb. I'd rather NOT suffer, then to suffer the way I do, knowing full well the world aaand market are wasteful as fuck, using finite resources as though they were infinite. 50 years from now unemployment will be at 65 percent.
I haven't killed myself because of the one reason I've mentioned; and secondly... I want to watch the fireworks on my roof with a snooftfull of bogus cocaine and DMT smoked every hour, as 'Rome,' our values culture and all of it... Burn to the ground. I don't play violin, but I'll learn, in time...
Thou
It was ballsy to launch into the thesis with the opening sentence. Unfortunately, that sentence was a convoluted, run-on sentence. "In this essay I intend to..." can be dispensed with entirely if you have any confidence in the statement. The very act of writing an essay to defend the points you make should be enough to signify that you "hope to emphasize..." without having to explicitly state so. The thesis conveys an intent to attack this Elizabeth Anderson's thoughts on luck egalitarianism, so it doesn't need to get more complex than to basically say: "Here's what she thinks; I think it's wrong and read on to find out why."
TBH it's incredibly tough to focus on what I'm reading because there are loads of run-on sentences filled with costly academic words in conflict with the colloquialisms and hyperbole littered throughout. The essay fails to convince because there is too much focus on discrediting Anderson rather than providing solid counter-points. An essay should be like a citadel, not like a battering ram.
Please forgive my brutal critique but I wanted to be clear about the need to establish a strong arguement to support the attack on Anderson because the way it is now I'm left wondering if Anderson has a better defense for her own position, which could be enough to make me see things her way. That would be fatal.
TBH it's incredibly tough to focus on what I'm reading because there are loads of run-on sentences filled with costly academic words in conflict with the colloquialisms and hyperbole littered throughout. The essay fails to convince because there is too much focus on discrediting Anderson rather than providing solid counter-points. An essay should be like a citadel, not like a battering ram.
Please forgive my brutal critique but I wanted to be clear about the need to establish a strong arguement to support the attack on Anderson because the way it is now I'm left wondering if Anderson has a better defense for her own position, which could be enough to make me see things her way. That would be fatal.
^thanks dude, i really appreciate this. It gives me some fresh tips for my last 2 essays i have left to complete this degree.
just a couple of notes, this was for a third year philosophy unit (theories of justice), and here is the question i was responding to.
I didn't even touch on Sen for the lack of space (about 2000 words).
This is the first essay where i used the first person pronoun, and i did this because this tutor explicitly stated that philo units are different in that they can use such terms. Also, that long arsed thesis line is another direction from her. She said to summarise our intention in one line, and having seen her comments now, she commended me on that line!
Her main criticism agrees with you 4ea in my use of technical terms without explaining them. She noted that I was writing for an audience who haven't read what I have, which drilled the message home, some.
Still, this is my best essay mark yet, so i'm pretty stoked.
Thou, no worries.
just a couple of notes, this was for a third year philosophy unit (theories of justice), and here is the question i was responding to.
I didn't even touch on Sen for the lack of space (about 2000 words).
This is the first essay where i used the first person pronoun, and i did this because this tutor explicitly stated that philo units are different in that they can use such terms. Also, that long arsed thesis line is another direction from her. She said to summarise our intention in one line, and having seen her comments now, she commended me on that line!
Her main criticism agrees with you 4ea in my use of technical terms without explaining them. She noted that I was writing for an audience who haven't read what I have, which drilled the message home, some.
Still, this is my best essay mark yet, so i'm pretty stoked.
Thou, no worries.