to write

Many hours have been spent this summer reading the raw writings of others. In many ways, it's a great resource toclarify what is good and bad about writing. Within a review of the literature by a someone else's doc student I recognize the practice of walking through a list of published works. What strikes me about the lack of sophistication was the overemphasis upon names without focusing upon ideas. In addition, the doc student was very reliant upon the direct quotes of others. I must confess that I have not read this manuscript completely. It is such a chore. I suspect that lack of pleasure for me by the reader equates with the sense of this being a writing task that must be completed.

Writers are often urged to attend to voice and audience. It becomes clear what these recommendations mean when the writer fails to keep these adages in mind. Now I feel as if I can spot the problem and turn it into a concrete recommendation for novice writers. If the emphasis of the writing is upon who said something, then the writing is probably not academic. Instead, it is an homage to others -- and neglects the opportunity to provide fresh insights. Ideas should come first; the sources are acknowledged as an aside. The narrator is telling the story of ideas: which begat what, where one contradicts another, how one might find similarities where no one else had done so before. But if each ¶ break signals the transition to another article or author, then the problem (and the reader) will suffer.

The purpose of a literature review is not to lead the reader from one article to the next. I can accomplish that by flipping through journals. What I am interested in reading is a thoughtful discussion about ideas. Further, my mind drifts rather easily (even now I'm watching the Red Sox beat the Yankees within another browser window). Explain the ideas and their significance. Show how your thinking is reflected within other sources. But don't allow the other writers to take center stage while you peak out from the curtains. Instead, the writer must ALWAYS be on stage in order to explain the storyline. Bringing in others from the wings lends interest to the tale. And yet as the writer, you should also usher others off of the stage as soon as you've extracted their ideas for your own use. In fact, it's not always necessary to know the exact source of ideas. At the end of it all, the synthesis of ideas (and not the parade of personalities) is the key to an effective literature review.