Define good Writing

Do you define good writing

To define good writing is almost as difficult as to define pornography. When the writing never fluctuates, this is a good writing. Writing great is different. If you stumble across a good piece of writing, you just get it. Well, a good writer takes a back seat to his own story.

Characteristics of good writing

While the first part of the book discusses the properties of good writing, the second part deals with the transition from the basics of writing to writing for certain scholarly disciplines; is aware of the degree of formalities demanded by the book; implements an efficient approach to the evolution of thoughts and reasoning; shows a good writing technique that occupies the readership with its use of dictation and punctuation. i. the first part deals with the transition from the basics of writing to writing for certain scholarly disciplines; is susceptible to the degree of formalities that are demanded by it. implements an efficient approach to the evolution of thoughts and reasoning; i. shows a good writing technique that occupies the readership with its use of phrasem ongering and interpretation.

To define good writing is almost as hard as to define porn. It is tempting to use paraphrases to paraphrase Justice Stewart and say: "I cannot define it, but I know it when I do. "We are far from pushing the similarities between good writing and good porn, but only to find that - as with porn, i.e. good writing - "community standards" vary from fellowship to fellowship and from disciplinary to disciplinary, to a shallow discrepancy between what different disciplinary views as good or merely proficient writing.

It is likely that most graduates will be in agreement on the basic characteristics of good writing. Briefly, the well-written article will be free of grammar and typographical mistakes; it will comply with the convention of English as a common language; it will prevent the use of unsuitable dialects or colloquial language; and it will be aware of the degree of formalities required by the work.

The majority of teachers will also accept that good writing gives a clear understanding of the author's use. Here we are dealing with what might be termed the mental effect of writing; it is possible (though unlikely) that writing avoids the above-mentioned mistakes in gremmar and mechanism and is still poorly spelled.

A seldom pupil could be able to compose in a way that is both conceptless and graphically flawless. Writing well at this stage often hinges on the author's readiness to sketch, excise and insert, reject. Basically, they should finish these tasks long before the design begins, but even good undergraduates are often reluctant to do them.

Writing well must also have an efficient writing technique. While many faculties may have difficulties characterising the styles of a particular text as appropriate or inadequate, they will generally concur that an efficient format will convey information and concepts accurately, succinctly and in a way that is appropriate to the contexts of a particular document or work.

By choosing the right words, an efficiently designed composition creates interest and even stress; it shows the capability of using speech in a rhetorical way - for effect and serenity. The English 101 course will introduce you to the quality of writing as described above. However, when a student moves to different academics, they often find that what a teacher means by an efficient organisational approach or an appropriate language skills is different from what they have learnt in English.

An economics major, for example, might be astonished to find out that she is supposed to start the first section of a case report with a concise and concise presentation of the final result and that the supportive detail (suggested by her native language teacher) can even be included in an apendix.

Science undergraduates may find that a particular organisational chart (abstract, introductory course, methodologies and material, results, discussion) is favoured by a magazine, although the organisational strategy they have learnt for first semester work in England has been practically unlimited. For one last example: √Čnglish 101 will teach you to prefer the proactive vote to the lukewarm one; this style preferences are good enough for the arts undergraduate, but the chemist who favors the proactive vote in his laboratory may be asked to overhaul it.

There are different writing style requirements for different academics and different fields. It is also very hard to forecast the careers of most of our undergraduates, not to speak of the old-fashioned free-art undergraduates. In view of these facts, we have a duty to our pupils to be prepared to write in as many different settings as possible.

I would be unjustified if this panel were to suggest general features of good writing in a way that ignores the discipline-specific variations in the individual definition of these features. When we define our terms "competence" and "incompetence" in a broad sense with regard to the various fields, the expert author will be able to meet the style requirements of more than one field (e.g. economics and the humanities) to the full.

Inexpert writers can only be marginal in one subject, and the inefficient author will not be able to write efficiently according to the convention of each subject. As we know, under these policies, real student writing excellence will not only be difficult to define, it will also be quite seldom.

Emphasizing the development of a students' writer's capacity to transcend disciplines implies that Excellency is in the capacity to appropriate the aspirations of one scholarly writing and to use them efficiently in another area.

Mehr zum Thema