[PREV - XANADU]    [TOP]

THE_GREAT_DEBATE


                                              October 4, 2004


Paul Graham's essay "The Age of the Essay"
is (among other things) an argument that
an essay need not be argumentative.

Graham's claim is that the
essay was originally (in
the hands of the likes of      To my eye Montaigne often seems really
Montaigne) more open ended,    tight.  The idea that he's just doing
more free form.                exploratory rambling may be a bit of an
                               exaggeration.
     A way of experimenting
     with ideas, without                           FULL_MONTAIGNE
     necessarily committing
     to them.                      Graham: "Essayer is the French verb
                                   meaning 'to try' and an essai is an
                                   attempt. An essay is something you
                                   write to try to figure something
                                   out.  Figure out what?  You don't
                                   know yet. And so you can't begin
                                   with a thesis, because you don't
                                   have one, and may never have one."




(1) He pins the problem with
essay assignments on a
historical quirk that has           What about "How
students learning writing by        I Spent My Summer
writing about literature.           Vacation?"

   This seems related to                 And I gather that a
   my thoughts on the                    a common assignment
   subject, but he                       these days is just
   doesn't quite say it:                 to keep a diary, and
                                         write about anything.
   The problem that I had
   with school essays was
   "Who is the audience?
   What am I supposed to
   be trying to communicate?"

                  THE_QUESTION_OF_ESSAYS


(2) Graham seems excessively dismissive of:

  (a) debate                                (b) rhetoric

      "Defending a position may be a           "Good writing should be
      necessary evil in a legal                 convincing, certainly, but it
      dispute, but it's not the best            should be convincing because
      way to get at the truth, as I             you got the right answers, not
      think lawyers would be the                because you did a good job of
      first to admit. It's not just             arguing."
      that you miss subtleties this
      way.  The real problem is that
      you can't change the question."             Rhetoric is the poetry
                                                  in the prose of the
                                                  argument, the attention
  It's hard to examine a notion                   to style, presentation,
  without getting inside it,                      connotation.
  adopting it, letting it get
  inside you.                                     It's naive to think
                                                  that you can do away
  But once it's inside, it                        with style: that
  can take over: it takes                         just drives it
  root. It can be hard to                         underground.
  judge it objectively.
                                                  If you want to craft
               SHANDY_TOWN_MIND                   a manifesto, to put
                                                  together a piece of
                                                  prose intended to
  The debate process appoints two                 inspire, intended to
  different sides to try to take                  stick in the minds of
  two positions seriously, to make                any who encounter
  the best case for them that they                it...
  can.
                                                     then you'd better pay
  The clash of these two sides                       some heed to Rhetoric
  in contest is supposed to                          in your rhetoric.
  illuminate which position is
  really the stronger.
                                                        ("Zen and the Art of
  Debate is a technique for                             Motorcycle
  getting at the truth that                             Maintenance" has a
  accommodates the flaws in                             defense of Rhetoric.
  human reason.                                         What was it again?)

                                           I attempted to take a
If you're debating the wrong               class in Rhetoric in
question?  Maybe shifting the              my high school.
debate is a different function,
a job for someone else...              I had to drop it,         Yes, an
                                       because the focus         elective in
But really, *formal*                   on form over content      Rhetoric.
debate on a rigidly                    was driving me crazy...   I gather my
defined question is rare.                                        high school
It's more common for                   Though weirdly enough,    was unusually
public debate to be                    I think I learned a lot   excellent,
carried out in a more                  about form in the few     though it
informal style, e.g. OpEd              weeks that I spent in     certainly
pages.  Common tactics                 the class.                didn't strike
include many dubious                                             me that way
maneuvers, and shifting                                          at the time.
the grounds of the debate
is the least of it.



--------
[NEXT - FULL_MONTAIGNE]