How to get good prose?

[Gori the Grey]

My professor in "Textual Production in English" calls your approach the 'deductive approach', versus the opposite 'inductive approach'. He said it is the most effective way of the two to transmit knowledge.

For what it's worth, the two approaches are not incompatible. You can state your generalization as the topic sentence of your paragraph, or thesis of your essay, then go into the details that support it, and then end your paragraph or essay reiterating the general principle that those specifics support in a rephrased version of the topic sentence or thesis.

Writing almost always involves just such a movement between general statements and specifics.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I will look at some more then.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"We are so integrated with the world economy and political hierarchy that disregarding state power in favor of some categorical imperative would lead to global chaos."

The US's economy is globalized. China creates growth by exporting to us. Arab countries sell oil to us. Japan maintains high tech industries by trading with us. When we hit a recession, the world quickly follows. All that integration creates conflict, and an awful lot lot of countries depend on us to prevent it. For instance, Saudi Arabia needs us to pressure Iran, Japan and China might take unilateral action against each other if not for the fact that US interest requires that they both remain stable. Withdrawing military and financial support for other countries would thus lead to chaos, as each state tried to act in its own interest in the new global order.

OK, "educated" people, please show me how I should have expressed myself. Start with a generalization, like I did, and make my arguments.

Salvaging much of your well-written detailed paragraph, but using a more straightforwardly worded lead generalization:

The rest of the world is so dependent on the United States economically and militarily, that if we were to withdraw from these involvements, global chaos would result. The world economy is centered on that of the United States. China creates growth by exporting to us. Arab countries sell oil to us. Japan maintains high tech industries by trading with us. When we hit a recession, the world quickly follows. Moreover, the present level of global integration creates the potential for conflict, and a large number of countries depend on us to prevent such conflict. For instance, Saudi Arabia needs us to pressure Iran; Japan and China might take unilateral action against each other if not for the fact that US interest requires that they both remain stable. Withdrawing military and financial support from other countries would thus lead to chaos, as each state tried to act in its own interest in the new global order.

The last line needs a little recasting because states try to act in their own interest even within the present U.S.-dominated global order. You need to picture some new (and more chaotic) way in which they would do that were the U.S. to withdraw. But I gotta leave something for you to do.

Guiding generalization, supporting specifics, restatement of generalization. No fancy-schmanzy half-understood categorical imperatives.

 

[Mouthwash]

The rest of the world is so dependent on the United States economically and militarily, that if we were to withdraw from these involvements, global chaos would result. The world economy is centered on that of the United States. China creates growth by exporting to us. Arab countries sell oil to us. Japan maintains high tech industries by trading with us. When we hit a recession, the world quickly follows. Moreover, the present level of global integration creates the potential for conflict, and a large number of countries depend on us to prevent such conflict. For instance, Saudi Arabia needs us to pressure Iran; Japan and China might take unilateral action against each other if not for the fact that US interest requires that they both remain stable. Withdrawing military and financial support from other countries would thus lead to chaos, as each state tried to act in its own interest in the new global order.

Guiding generalization, supporting specifics, restatement of generalization. No fancy-schmanzy half-understood categorical imperatives.

The terms "involved" and "centered" did not occur to me. See what I mean?

 

[Gori the Grey]

But they're not fancy-schmanzy words, are they?

 

[Mouthwash]

But they're not fancy-schmanzy words, are they?

Still hard. Basic phrases and terms don't occur to me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, read more. That's the key. And, as I said in my first post, read good prose slowly, not just for content, but to study what was involved in creating the sentences you admire.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Withdrawing military and financial support from other countries would thus lead to chaos, as each state tried to act in its own interest in the new global order.

Mouthwash, try your hand at rewriting the last sentence. My attempt is hidden. Don't peek until you have made your own attempt.

Spoiler :

If the US were to withdraw military and financial support from other countries, those nations denied such support might change their economic allegiance or some other bold player might step in to try and shift the status quo to a new, less favorable to the US, pattern. Change brings opportunity, risk and perhaps chaos.

 

[Mouthwash]

How about "Ending US hegemony would upset the current global order overnight. The lack of a supporting hand removes any incentive for states to solve their disputes and problems peacefully."

EDIT: Looked at yours. I can't even start the thought processes required to create normal, well-expressed sentences like that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How about "Ending US hegemony would upset the current global order overnight. The lack of a supporting hand removes any incentive for states to solve their disputes and problems peacefully."

EDIT: Looked at yours. I can't even start the thought processes required to create normal, well-expressed sentences like that.

I think you sentence is fine; it just needs a follow up sentence or two to explain the bolded part.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think you sentence is fine; it just needs a follow up sentence or two to explain the bolded part.

That's the hard part for me.

 

[sophie]

How about "Ending US hegemony would upset the current global order overnight. The lack of a supporting hand removes any incentive for states to solve their disputes and problems peacefully."

EDIT: Looked at yours. I can't even start the thought processes required to create normal, well-expressed sentences like that.

Yours sounds fine. The problem with BJ's statement, in my opinion, is that the first sentence draws on for too long. There's like three and a half clauses in that sentence. It's a lot of information to digest without much in the way of punctuation to direct the rhythm. Yours on the other hand is more direct and to the point.

One important part of effective writing is achieving the right balance of simple and complex sentences. Stray too far towards simple sentences and your prose feels clunky and robotic. Run in the other direction and you'll wear your reader out with long, over complicated sentences. I know this is going to sound pretentious, but I like to think of writing an essay as similar to writing a poem or a musical composition: you need to think about the rhythm and flow of your argument, and blend the tools you have at your disposal effectively to convey your message in a smooth and readable manner. This is what editing is for.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yours sounds fine. The problem with BJ's statement, in my opinion, is that the first sentence draws on for too long. There's like three and a half clauses in that sentence. It's a lot of information to digest without much in the way of punctuation to direct the rhythm. Yours on the other hand is more direct and to the point.

His is much more easily picturable. I know that if I had come across my own sentence I'd have to read it twice and examine the context to understand it. Look at his last sentence. That's what I can't do. I really don't think it's normal.

 

[sophie]

His is much more easily picturable. I know that if I had come across my own sentence I'd have to read it twice and examine the context to understand it. Look at his last sentence. That's what I can't do. I really don't think it's normal.

Like I said, it's really not that great of a passage: the first sentence just goes on and on in a relatively unreadable manner. You should probably pick other passages to idealize.

 

[Mouthwash]

Like I said, it's really not that great of a passage: the first sentence just goes on and on in a relatively unreadable manner. You should probably pick other passages to idealize.

It's still leagues better than mine, but sure. How about this?

 

[Antilogic]

Another alternative take on The Last Sentence:

Spoiler :

If the US were to withdraw military and financial support from other nations, those deprived nations might change their economic and political allegiances. The decision opens a vacuum that enables another bold player to step in to shift the balance of power away from the US-friendly status quo. Change brings opportunity, risk and perhaps chaos.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Another alternative take on The Last Sentence:

Spoiler :

If the US were to withdraw military and financial support from other nations, those deprived nations might change their economic and political allegiances. The decision opens a vacuum that enables another bold player to step in to shift the balance of power away from the US-friendly status quo. Change brings opportunity, risk and perhaps chaos.

Good editing improves the odds of success.

 

[Borachio]

If the US were to withdraw military and financial support from other nations, this would inevitably lead to a power vacuum, which could be exploited by another, possibly non-aligned, nation. The consequences are impossible to calculate.

Mind you, that's no reason for the US not to withdraw such support.

 

[Antilogic]

Good editing improves the odds of success.

It helps to have the text already written--I like doing small editing work.

 

[Mise]

I like this thread. I've learnt a lot.

Petition to rename this "The Mouthwash thread for kids who don't write good and want to do other stuff good too."
- Mise