\input mla8.tex
%must be run from root directory
\input mla8.tex

%%preamble

\def\ifcited{\expandafter\iftrue \def\ifcited{\iffalse}}
\def\zincite#1{%cites William Zinsser in particular
  \cite{\ifcited \newcite \nameinline \fi
    \name{Zinsser}{Zinsser, William}%
    \contain{On Writing Well}%
    \publish{Harper Perennial}%
    \pubdate{2006}%
    \pagenum{#1}%
  }%
}

%%document
\numberfirstpage
\name{Holden} \last{Rohrer}
\prof{Jones}
\header
\title{{\fourteenit On Writing Well\/}'s Areas and My Style}

Writing is an intrinsically egotistical, self-centered act, but it's not done alone. ``At the heart of good nonfiction writing'' is a personal transaction, the writer's vulnerability to the reader \zincite{5}. ``Out of it come two of the most important qualities that this book will go in search of: humanity and warmth'' \zincite{5}. To present a warmer and more human style, I need to passively learn what good writing sounds like and actively learn what writing well feels like. %edit w.r.t. concerns in comments of next paragraph; also, very very bad transition

To learn the writing process well, starting at the beginning is only natural. The lead, the introduction, the hook. All of these pose a difficult problem---how to convince the reader that what I'm writing is worth their time. %clunky
However, instead of a lead, I often simply summarise my paper because I'm ``too stiff'' to communicate any meaningful information without just using formulaic patterns \zincite{19}. But my writing style isn't all weak. In the middle, the most constant section of the drudgerous story's outline, my writing often does a good job of relying on the facts and reducing clutter \zincite{49}. %Weak or no thesis. Thesis should be "To present a ??warmer and more human?? style, I need to passively learn what good writing sounds like and actively learn what writing well ??feels?? like."
%%lead/conclusion (maybe use a different thing as lead)

Research is another strongsuit of mine. My capacity to generate information with the tools available to me is almost always larger than my need to use it. %tighten up 
And that helps my writing because as I gather less information, the chance that I need to use an unfit fact, phrase, or quote skyrockets \zincite{46}. My ability to gather copious amounts of information %want to use quantity, or do I?
is outweighed by my weaker sense of quality---both of quotes or information and of writing.
%research

By quality of writing, I don't mean my writing---I mean models for my writing. %``I'm not referring to?''
In chapter 6, ``Words,'' Zinsser recommends to ``make a habit of reading what is being written today and what was written by earlier masters. Writing is learned by imitation'' \zincite{28} However, he makes a more difficult request than simply reading a lot---``cultivate the best models'' \zincite{28}. In certain cases, this can be easily discerned, like the breezy style chock-full of cliches denounced by Zinsser. %clean up
But it's not always that clear. A cliche or two can slip into a good writer's writing by accident. They are human, after all. So the presence of cliches couldn't possibly be the deciding factor. The frequency does play a part, but holistic analysis is necessary. Because magazines and newspapers' standards can be low, maybe best-sellers compose a good series of good writing \zincite{28}. This means I'd miss out on good magazine and newspaper articles, but to develop a stronger taste, it's not a terrible plan. This completely ignores my teachers, who probably have a better idea of what makes a good book than me. %good pivot point; also, is it too pandery or does ``probably'' weaken it too much?
To a degree, that is useful, but it's not enough---the number of books we read in class, and I am grateful for this (for a different reason), is too small to be of any large value in ``cultivating my models.'' My next question, after choosing what to read, is what to read {\twelveit for.}
%reading

Being that Zinsser describes the task in the chapter ``Words,'' I think reading and contemplating these authors would have one goal---the development of style: grammar, word use, sentence structure, cliche recognition (and removal), humor, and every other minor facet of style. But the idea of deliberately reading to develop style seems contradictory to his criticism of adding fake style and bald men wearing toupees. ``Trying to add style is like adding a toupee. At first glance the foremerly bald man looks young and even handsome. But at second glance---and with a toupee there’s always a second glance---he doesn’t look quite right'' \zincite{18}. %is the quotation necessary?
The only way to reconcile these two admonitions %find a better word
is to view it as a passive process. The only trouble is that passive processes are slower than active processes. This matches up perfectly with style not ``solidify[ing] for years as {\twelveit your} style, {\twelveit your} voice,'' despite being disappointing to my American ``I want it now'' spirit \zincite{23}. %should ``I want it now'' be in quotes or italicized? Use a better word than despite because that is not what I wanted to say.
%style

I haven't found myself as a stylist \zincite{23}. Therefore, I'm in the previous stage---learning to prune, clean, fix my writing \zincite{23}. %I prefer "pruning, cleaning, fixing my writing." Should I change?
Clean writing leads directly to warm style because it's not poisoned with the lack of fluidity endemic to cluttered writing. %feels very much like something I'm including because it sounds pretty, so double check if actually fits; also poisoned and endemic is repetitive
Lack of fluidity refers to both the act of reading---clutter makes ideas less sharp, less clear---but also the act of writing. Writing with clutter in my style ``beefs up'' what my words look like on paper, but it makes it difficult even for me to understand my train of thought when I'm busy writing ``gaudy similes'' and using ``tinseled adjectives'' \zincite{18--19}. Making ideas less sharp is problematic, but worse is the loss of identity behind such a fake and mechanistic facade. ``Style is who you are, [so] you only need to be true to yourself to find it gradually emerging from under the accumulated clutter and debris, growing more distinctive every day'' \zincite{23}. %may be redundant
And this method works, focusing on personal style instead of on hiding behind a preconceived notion of what is good (mostly based on what is common, leading to cliches), because ``ultimately the product that any writer has to sell is not the subject being written about, but who he or she is'' \zincite{5}. %Is this an ending??
%clutter

All of these issues can be reduced to the one atom of writing: problems. Writing is an analytical process, so the easiest and best way to fit it into my cognition is to recognize it as what it is: a big problem that can be broken down into smaller problems. This also allows active learning to be recognized as practice. ``Whatever it is, it has to be confronted and solved'' \zincite{49}. But therein lies the utility of recognizing problems. %does this fit my style?
They can be solved, and solutions can be learned in two ways: reading other people's good writing, and writing well myself.
%Make statements of qualities clearer

\biblio
\bye
