Why is it so hard to write essays---or even to talk about them?
Let's look at a definition from the Internet:
An essay is a vague composition, usually presenting the personal view of the author.
Let's focus on that last part --- "the personal view of the author."
A COLOSSAL assumption is hidden there. Can you spot it? Try pinpointing that assumption in your own head, before I do it for you, okay? Try it for a couple of moments-and then read more.
It's one of those simple, basic assumptions that, when pointed out, makes all the difference in the world for truly understanding something. And I'm sure that when I reveal this obvious assumption, you'll smack your forehead with your palm and say, "Right! He's hammered it! Wow! Why didn't I see it?"
Don't be too hard on yourself --- the entire scholastic community hasn't seen what I'm about to tell you, and they've been playing around with this problem at least since 1580, when Michel de Montaigne published his two-volume work, "Essais" (French for our English word, "Essays;" and the meaning of the word is the same in both languages: to try, to attempt).
In fact, as I see it, scholars in Western Civilization have actually been plagued with this assumption since a Greek by the name of Gorgias introduced Rhetoric to ancient Athens around 425 B.C.
Okay, I've dangled the bait long enough.
Here's the assumption in that phrase, "the personal view of the author" --- we assume that the personal view of the author is NEW to most of the rest of us.
If the author's personal view isn't NEW to the rest of us, then why mess around with it? We surely don't want someone just repeating back to us what we already know or think, do we? So the underlying assumption has to be that the author of an essay --- or anything else, for that matter --- is saying something new.
AND THERE'S THE PROBLEM---academics (professional people involved in formal education and teaching) just never have presented a way of talking about or teaching about, across the board on all subjects, what's new. 'How's that?' you're wondering, no doubt.
Well, do you have --- or do you remember coming across, in writing or speaking --- a definition of 'new' that covers everything? Tall order, don't you think?
Look no further. The following discussion clears up the matter:
You see, the idea of new has always been a troublesome problem because it's so formlessly vague. 'New' has simply been a big, black, mysterious, even seemingly magical box that could hold just about anything and everything in it --- and did! --- because, up to now, we've never had a UNIVERSAL way of distinguishing one kind of newness from another.
However, one thing we do know about newness is that something couldn't be 'new' unless there was something 'old' to compare it to, right? But part of the whole problem is that 'old' is just as formlessly vague as 'new'.
What's missing? Answer: Two helpful sets of categories.
You see, for something to be 'new,' we must be able to compare it to a former version or type that is already accepted by the audience as 'old.' You know the old saying, "You can't explain color to a blind man."
That is, if there's nothing shared to compare something to, you can't talk about it to someone who hasn't seen or experienced anything that is "like" it. All you can really say is, "Like wow, man!"---and doesn't that just electrify you and make your hair stand on end with profound insight! Here's what I see as the full list of OldView categories:
values expectations experiences reasoning language
We can't say anything without using these in common everyday communication, especially in essays. Now, here's where old meets new. Through years of study and research, I've found that you can change an OldView in one or more, or some combination, of the following five major ways to make it "new:"
reverse add subtract substitute rearrange
That seems like an absurdly small number to cover all things new, doesn't it? Well, try it out yourself. Just think of something new, identify the old that it's related to, and you'll see one or more of those NewView categories in use (excepting merely "recent," of course; in such cases, the only difference is that something old has happened again, but nearer in time).
You know, I could bore you with a lot of detail-oriented analyses of published essays and student essays that use the OldView categories and the NewView categories. But I'm not going to do that because it would take away from the idea-level strength of the major insight I'm expressing here. If you are interested in such proofs, go out and look up on the Internet some popular essays, such as these:
"The Nature of Scientific Reasoning" by Jacob Bronowski "The Eureka Phenomenon" by Isaac Asimov
With essays, you simply can't get away from the very consistent pattern of OldView first, then NewView Reverse of the OldView closely after, and then support for the NewView.
Interestingly enough, that very same pattern occurs in novels, short stories, and plays but with an important twist that entices you to read through to the story's end.
But that 'twist' should be the topic of another article or essay or book, now, don't you think?
So be it.
Author Resource:-
Next you'll want to learn more about Bill Drew's popular book, The Secret DNA of Writing Essays-And Everything Else. To see his other books on writing, go to his website.
Bill has taught writing at a university and junior colleges, and he has been an editor, a technical writer, a technical support director, and a freelance programmer.
Bill's NewView methods are taught in schools and
If you hold the copyright to an article which has been posted on this site without your consent or knowledge, pleaseContact us and we will remove it immediately.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.articlesharer.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
