[1] You can see models of this style in Diana Hacker, A Writer's Reference, 5th ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2003), 428-435.
Writing
Papers (for CS)
(1)
Care. If you care, you'll think about the topic. If you think about the topic
you'll have some ideas. If you have ideas, you'll write lively, definite prose.
Select the topic you care most about. Failing that, select the topic you least
care least about. Failing that, simulate passion; various errors of grammar,
organization, and attribution can be overlooked if the paper has momentum or is
unlike other papers in my stack. You can assume that I have the job of teaching
you this subject-matter because I care about it and think it's important and
fun. If you don't give a damn about it, I am personally offended; if you are
preoccupied or absorbed by it I am flattered. (This is the key to the heart of
all professors.)
(2)
Picture me reading thirty papers on a narrow range of topics on which I've read
hundreds of papers over the years. I'm bored. I have a headache. I'm popping
Advils(tm) like they're Skittles(tm).
Then I come across your paper. It takes a bold or counter-intuitive
stance, or it directly opposes everything I ever said in class. The years of
terrible disillusionment fall from me and I am again a young professor in his
pedagogical springtime.
(3)
By all means use 'I' and state your own opinion in your own voice. There is no
reason to pretend that you donıt exist, or that itıs not you whoıs writing. Use
of the first person is conventional in academic philosophy. This does not mean
that sheer assertion is acceptable: you must give the reasons for which you
believe what you believe. These can often be specified in careful reflection on
the thought process that led to your conclusion.
(4)
If a word can be dropped from a sentence, or a sentence from a paragraph, or a
paragraph from a paper without changing the meaning, drop it. If you find
yourself repeating or padding to reach a certain length, either think some more
or write short. Otherwise youıre wasting your time and mine, and I become
homicidal.
(5) A
reasonable form is summary and evaluation: give a clear statement of the
argument or polemic of the text and a supported assessment of it. Valid or fallacious? Moving or
senseless? A 'B' paper will show me that you have a pretty clear grasp on the
terms and argument of the text you are considering. An 'A' will go on to
evaluate the text in your own way in your own voice, giving reasons. The
five-paragraph essay must be ruthlessly suppressed in a paroxysm of violence, a
stylistic bloodbath.
(6)
Sadly and happily, however, excellent essays have been written in innumerable
forms or in no discernible form at all. Offhand, I will, for example, accept
dialogues and fictionalizations. I like a good tear or rant that is too angry
for organization, though not so angry as to lack documentation. I myself would
call my writing, often enough, 'riffing,' or improvising.
(7)
Destroy all cliches and empty, glittering generalities. If you find yourself
beginning with "Since the beginning of time, great thinkers have pondered . . . " or
any variation of it, stop and begin again in some other way.
(8)
Say everything as clearly and simply as possible, in words you are certain you
understand. Trying to sound sophisticated or academic often backfires.
(9)
Donıt contradict yourself or try to have it both ways. Be bold. Be clear. Often
self-contradiction arises from being overly deferential to a famous
philosopher: "Hobbesıs argument is very convincing and logical, but -" If youıre
not actually convinced, you donıt regard the argument as convincing; the term
'logical' ought not to be tossed around casually.
(10)
Define key terms, or if you are discussing the use of some term ("justice,"
say, or "state of nature") by some thinker, say what that thinker means by it,
with reference. If you do define a term, think about the definition as giving
necessary and sufficient conditions; try to make sure your definition counts
all and only the right items (perhaps you will receive a handout on this
matter).
(11)
Factual assertions that could be controversial must be supported by evidence
and citation. Claims that a philosopher said, argued, or believed something
should be supported by references to the text.
(12)
My preference for citations is footnotes using the Chicago Manual of Style.[1]
If you are referring to a course text, put the name of the author and page
number in parentheses in the body of your paper. Second and subsequent
references to the same outside source can be treated similarly.
(13)
Any materials apart from our texts that you consult should be listed in a
bibliography. If you use materials to which you do not refer in the notes for
the paper, you can list them on a separate "Works Consulted"; page in Chicago
Manual style (again, see Hacker 428-435).
(14)
If you cut and paste from the internet, and then replace a few words with
synonyms, etc, that is plagiarism. If you closely paraphrase a text by someone
else without attribution, that is plagiarism. If you get all your ideas from
somewhere, that is spiritual plagiarism. For God's sake show some pride: think
and write your own words.
(15)
If you are not perfectly confident about grammar and punctuation, get help from
the writing center or from someone who knows. And go learn grammar and
punctuation. I may not strike you as a person who'd be a stickler about such
things, but I am.
(16) If you are taking a position, it is
essential to consider the best possible arguments that could be made by your
opponents. The most vigorous and effective attack on an position considers that
position in its most plausible form. Perform the exercise of envisioning a
reply to your point of view, made by a very smart person who passionately
believes you are wrong. If you are attempting to support a position put forward
by a philosopher, you need to consider the best counter-arguments to that
position. I can often be of help with this.
(17)
Make sure you have the basics right. If you give the wrong title for a key
book, or misspell the name of the person youıre writing about throughout
('Mills,' for example), I assume (perhaps unfairly) that you havenıt actually
been listening in class or reading anything.
(18)
Read the damn thing over once before you turn it in, and after you spell-check
it.
[1] You can see models of this style in Diana Hacker, A Writer's Reference, 5th ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2003), 428-435.