Un-Quest-ionable Writing Advice
[Adapted from The Quest Handbook]
Every class at Reed is a writing class. As far as stock phrases go, this one is only slightly below “humanities is a verb” and “praxis of love and care” on a scale of cliché and absurd. Nevertheless, writing well can be a valuable skill that improves how you communicate with others in nearly all aspects of life. There are a few hallmarks of good writing that can transcend genre to apply to both academic writing and journalism. To highlight these skills, I will introduce a few choice sections from the hallowed Quest Handbook. This tome has conveyed institutional knowledge between generations of Queditors for nearly a decade, for its esteemed contents to now be removed from the vault for the people’s eyes. This advice might be of use to anyone looking to improve their writing, whether that be for a Hum paper or (as we would highly encourage) a Quest article.
The Handbook highlights the characteristics of good news that writers should highlight when they are present, including but not limited to a story’s tension, actors, and singularity. These qualities in particular also apply to a good argument in a Hum (or other analytical humanities) paper, which should ideally be some kind of “news,” in the sense of a new and original line of thinking.
In the words of the manual: TENSION refers to things being disagreed over, things being traded off for one another, or reality not living up to how it’s supposed to be. Is there a bitter struggle between parties vying to influence the same thing? Is there a trade-off in values? Is a policy having the opposite of its intended effect?
Basically, an argument in a paper or news story must be about something. Small as it may seem, there needs to be some sort of conflict driving the events at play. A major part of the claim lies in identifying these sources of tension and highlighting their importance. A good argument can pinpoint where different themes in a literary text, for example, are at odds with one another and what the result is for the work as a whole.
It can be equally vital to establish the people and forces at work within a specific argument. The Quest Handbook defines these actors as the figures who play a role in a story. It’s important to identify who is at work behind the things that are happening and to characterize their actual level of agency.
In academic writing and journalism alike, it’s important to be specific about who or what is involved. It’s not enough to attribute everything to the dictates of “society” in a Hum paper, for example. Be more specific: what school of thought, culture, religion, or governmental regime is pushing a certain point of view? If applicable, what figures or people are advocating that view? To what extent are these individuals successful in spreading it? When making a claim about Gilgamesh, that might mean rulers or scholars in early Mesopotamian civilization. Usually, even if certain beliefs are dominant, groups of people throughout time are not completely homogeneous, and one should try not to imply that cultural developments are universally the same.
Last but not least, the Handbook highlights the singular or unique quality of good news: SINGULARITY refers to the unusualness of the event … [It] sometimes takes some work to show why something is unusual—-sometimes weird things masquerade as boring things.
It is vital to establish the singularity of the details being argued about in a paper. In fact, finding a point of singularity in the reading or research process can be the beginning of a larger claim in the first place. Most importantly, establishing singularity is a way of explaining to the reader why an argument is important and why they should care.
The methods a writer uses to build their analysis are also not so different between reporting news and interpreting texts. While issues of fairness and credibility may seem more pressing when writing news, considering these topics can also be valuable for building a strong and cohesive analytical paper.
The Quest Handbook naturally devotes a good deal of attention to reporting accurately on current events, but of particular note is its take on analysis: An analysis backed by facts is always more memorable and reportable than that analysis on its own.
Ideally, every argument needs evidence, and this evidence will gain more weight when it is introduced to the reader first, and then explained later. This makes your line of reasoning transparent to the reader, and thus, more compelling. Evidence and analysis should go hand in hand. If a paper’s analysis can’t be rooted in specific details, that’s probably a sign that, picturesque as the argument may be, it’s not very strong.
Finally, good writing requires critical thinking. The Quest Handbook offers the following sage wisdom: The lesson to take away is that fairness does not mean giving equal weight to all sides of an argument. It means giving equal weight to all the various pieces of evidence in an argument. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s always easy to tell. You’ll still have to use your best subjective judgment as to what constitutes good evidence, and there’s no science to that.
When making an argument, it is crucial to be honest with yourself about the strength of your position and adjust your perspective in light of new evidence when needed. Making every minor difference of opinion into a hill to adamantly die on can only be a miserable experience for both you and everyone menaced by your arguments.
While this is not the end-all be-all of how to write or think critically, this is merely a suggestion of the right direction on a path that can lead wherever one’s individual whims might take them. As with all things, the best way to write is to just do it now, worry later, and improve slowly over time. One great way to practice is by writing for this very paper. Not sure how? Turn to page 2 for more information on contributing to the Quest.
