Writing academic papers is all about reading. It is all about reading what and when, in the process of writing, and yet there is writing to be accomplished different from reading. So, what role does reading play in writing? I would like to claim that there are three kinds of reading in the process of writing.
First, reading to narrow down on the title or theme. Let's call this Cursory Reading, a reading widely, that often uses the tool of speed reading. We begin with a pre-understanding, informed by our past readings, of a potential theme to work on. Cursory reading, confirms the theme within us, even as it ensures that writing on that theme is a viable academic project. Here the reading enables the writer to know the material that is available on the theme, as well as how deeply has the theme been thematized in existing literature within disciplinary bounds. Cursory reading gives confidence to the writer, that she is indeed investigating a theme that is important, one that has been engaged by others, and hence has a history of engagement, which will provide her dialogue partners and finally confidence that her script will definitely take this line of enquiry further and make a meaningful contribution to a body of knowledge.
Secondly, once the theme is finalized, the next goal is to get a structure of the paper. Of course we are taught from our early time of education that a good piece has three parts - Introduction, Body, Conclusion. Guess what, it is still great advise, albeit, all these three parts or sections maybe differently understood now than then. The body is what academic writing is all about. It must have three to four main sub-sections. Each section providing evidence, engaging an argument, in support of the central claim of the theme of the paper. Now, there are no rules about how each sub-section must be related to another. This is one reason we talk about internal rationality. The rationality of the piece evolves from the inside of the piece being conceived to be written. This relating and connecting is done by the author, and hence authorial rationality. The quality of paper depends on how deeply are these sub-sections connected to each other as well as to the central argument propounded in the script. Often writers string together rather superficially sections containing similar/different ideas, but not really interconnected. That would be an example of a weak paper. What has reading to do with this? Everything! It is here that the writer begins to do what I call as Committed Reading. This is the long trudge of the night. It is reading deeply, about the sub-themes. Now, one does not have a sub-theme to begin with, these sub-themes, or the different arguments being put forward will appear to one's horizon even as one committedly reads on the theme. They come upon the reader. Let's try and put a method to this madness. When we did cursory reading, we got a theme, and also a list of bibliography that we surveyed. While sifting through texts, we identified the semantic dense texts for our project and had already made note of the central interlocutors in our paper. All of this has been accomplished through cursory reading. With committed reading, we have three aims: first, to identify the main debate upon the selected theme and the history of its development. I would say that focus on the twentieth century, and use eighteenth and nineteenth century for grounding and locating the debate. Secondly, to find the different points of views or positions of that debate and the scholars holding those positions. This is again done historically, in a sense, you can't pit Hegel against Habermas in a horizontal sense, on two sides of the debate. Having a historical sense is of extreme importance. Finally, to identify your position, and argument. This is called the central argument. An argument consists of an assertion or a claim, which is supported by premises. The evidence one provides for the premises, and the validity of the premises determines the strength of the argument. Now, these different premises and evidences, must be correlated and must possess an internal structure. Each of them provides a part to the whole argument. It is these interconnected parts that form the sub-sections of the body of the paper. Committed reading is not cursory, it reads both exhaustively and extensively on these different points. The main texts of the main interlocutors are read completely, so that you can represent their positions confidently. The conceptual structure of the script develops within yourself during this phase of committed reading. At the end of this season of reading, you should be able to put out a conceptual framework, clearly outlining the development of the argument. This is the real grind. There are absolutely no visible marks for how exhaustively and extensively you read, no one sees your hardwork, but your final script will bear the marks of your hard work. It is here that the writer would be highly tempted to take short cuts, to read summaries, to read introduction and relevant chapters, et al, and to all these devious schemes of the devil that may tempt us, I say, stand fast, don't give in. Read with commitment. It is here that boys are separated from the men.
The third phase of writing a script is to simply write the damn script out! By now not only do you know clearly the theme located within a body of literature that you are going to address in your script, but you also know the argument you are presenting, the different positions or schools of views on the theme, which you might critique positively or negatively, and you also know the premises/evidences that coherently form the structure that embodies your argument. Now to put flesh to this skeleton is the articulation of your script. It is the easiest as well as the hardest thing to do. Here there is a general misconception, that once we have the idea in our head, writing out is merely a verbalizing of the idea. It is merely putting into language what we already know. This is an epistemological issue about the relationship between idea and its representation and the role of language in it. The crucial question is can there be ideas without words? Furthermore, what do we mean by putting ideas into words. I am not going to address this issue head-on except to say that writing takes the place of an author's intent to discourse. I follow Ricoeur in this. Writing is not transcribing an already existing speech, rather takes the place of speech. Hence writing is like speaking. It is an art that is informed by both cursory and committed readings, but is a different act altogether. To construct a sentence, and to construct a paragraph requires a set of skills that are different from those required for reading and speaking. Before I talk a bit about the skills involved in writing, the question I want to address is, is there a form of reading relevant to this final phase of scripting the piece. Yes there is, and let us call it Critical Reading. Now, this is not really reading in either the cursory or committed sense. It is reading in the service of writing. Reading here plays second fiddle to writing. You read to support, to evidence, to critique. The written text bears on you to read more, in order to write and develop the script. If your cursory and committed readings have been done well, then often it is the revisiting of those texts that you have already read and underlined, or taken notes of. However, it might also be a new path that your writing forges out with, for which new readings have to be done, in support of an argument, or to clarify a point you are making. This is strictly business-reading, you have to be swift and ruthless. This is paid work, every minute counts in this reading that is called upon to serve writing. The temptation here is to read to enquire further, or your self will tell you that you need to read more to know more, but you have to resist the temptation to be carried away by reading. These temptations to read are distractions, where reading itself becomes a distraction in the composition of the script. Here the devil is on the other side. Earlier the devil didn't want you to read, and to cut corners, now the devil wants to take you on the long garden path, a wild goose chase. So keep critical reading close to the script you are constructing.
With this we have seen the three forms of reading - Cursory, Committed, Critical - that are in operation in different stages of the act of writing. I will end with a few thoughts on writing and the skills it requires. In writing, the key is to write out a single coherent piece with all the various parts/sections embodied in paragraphs clearly relating and connecting together coherently. There are no points for empty descriptions that do not serve any purpose. Every paragraph must advance the central argument creatively. A good paragraph has four sections - (a) state clearly and simply the particular point it is making in other words describe the point being made, (b) discuss the point, by showing the different positions on it and by bringing together the divergent schools into a conversation, (c) evidence your position/point by debate, and (d) finally, deploy the point made towards the extension of the larger or central point/thesis/argument you are advancing in the piece. It is here in (d) that all the hard work of (a), (b), (c) will pay off if the connection to the larger thesis and argument is made strongly. This is YOUR contribution. How you connect is YOUR creation of knowledge. I must also mention about writing styles here. Each writer must develop a style unique to one's own style of discourse. However, just as everything one's own begins with imitation and only much later brings about a certain uniqueness through innovation, I suggest, that it is the same in the act of writing - imitate the styles of authors you respect. When you read don't read for substance alone, but read to understand their methodology and also styles of writing. Imitate them. Use their styles of writing and meticulously learn from them. Be an apprentice to their skill of writing. As you write fluidly, then bring your innovation to it. Make changes and create a new style for others to imitate. Finally, the skill of writing lies in re-writing. Often one can have 12-15 drafts before the script begins to make sense. But the more you write, the rewriting becomes less. But still there is rewriting, lots of it. It is like chiseling the sculpture so that it is smooth like butter. Ironing out knots, holes, straightening out unnecessary twists and turns - bringing about clarity, simplicity, and thrust.
The goal of writing is to be read, and the underlying goal of being read is that your text will give new insights, directions, and energy to the reader, so that her action in the world will imitate the structures you have laid down in your script with a hope that they will act better in the world. Thus writing is a powerful means to change the world, by changing the actions and decisions of readers. Perhaps it can be said that investing in learning the skills of writing is indeed investing in the transformation of the world. So it would only be appropriate to end by saying - read to write and write to be read.
First, reading to narrow down on the title or theme. Let's call this Cursory Reading, a reading widely, that often uses the tool of speed reading. We begin with a pre-understanding, informed by our past readings, of a potential theme to work on. Cursory reading, confirms the theme within us, even as it ensures that writing on that theme is a viable academic project. Here the reading enables the writer to know the material that is available on the theme, as well as how deeply has the theme been thematized in existing literature within disciplinary bounds. Cursory reading gives confidence to the writer, that she is indeed investigating a theme that is important, one that has been engaged by others, and hence has a history of engagement, which will provide her dialogue partners and finally confidence that her script will definitely take this line of enquiry further and make a meaningful contribution to a body of knowledge.
Secondly, once the theme is finalized, the next goal is to get a structure of the paper. Of course we are taught from our early time of education that a good piece has three parts - Introduction, Body, Conclusion. Guess what, it is still great advise, albeit, all these three parts or sections maybe differently understood now than then. The body is what academic writing is all about. It must have three to four main sub-sections. Each section providing evidence, engaging an argument, in support of the central claim of the theme of the paper. Now, there are no rules about how each sub-section must be related to another. This is one reason we talk about internal rationality. The rationality of the piece evolves from the inside of the piece being conceived to be written. This relating and connecting is done by the author, and hence authorial rationality. The quality of paper depends on how deeply are these sub-sections connected to each other as well as to the central argument propounded in the script. Often writers string together rather superficially sections containing similar/different ideas, but not really interconnected. That would be an example of a weak paper. What has reading to do with this? Everything! It is here that the writer begins to do what I call as Committed Reading. This is the long trudge of the night. It is reading deeply, about the sub-themes. Now, one does not have a sub-theme to begin with, these sub-themes, or the different arguments being put forward will appear to one's horizon even as one committedly reads on the theme. They come upon the reader. Let's try and put a method to this madness. When we did cursory reading, we got a theme, and also a list of bibliography that we surveyed. While sifting through texts, we identified the semantic dense texts for our project and had already made note of the central interlocutors in our paper. All of this has been accomplished through cursory reading. With committed reading, we have three aims: first, to identify the main debate upon the selected theme and the history of its development. I would say that focus on the twentieth century, and use eighteenth and nineteenth century for grounding and locating the debate. Secondly, to find the different points of views or positions of that debate and the scholars holding those positions. This is again done historically, in a sense, you can't pit Hegel against Habermas in a horizontal sense, on two sides of the debate. Having a historical sense is of extreme importance. Finally, to identify your position, and argument. This is called the central argument. An argument consists of an assertion or a claim, which is supported by premises. The evidence one provides for the premises, and the validity of the premises determines the strength of the argument. Now, these different premises and evidences, must be correlated and must possess an internal structure. Each of them provides a part to the whole argument. It is these interconnected parts that form the sub-sections of the body of the paper. Committed reading is not cursory, it reads both exhaustively and extensively on these different points. The main texts of the main interlocutors are read completely, so that you can represent their positions confidently. The conceptual structure of the script develops within yourself during this phase of committed reading. At the end of this season of reading, you should be able to put out a conceptual framework, clearly outlining the development of the argument. This is the real grind. There are absolutely no visible marks for how exhaustively and extensively you read, no one sees your hardwork, but your final script will bear the marks of your hard work. It is here that the writer would be highly tempted to take short cuts, to read summaries, to read introduction and relevant chapters, et al, and to all these devious schemes of the devil that may tempt us, I say, stand fast, don't give in. Read with commitment. It is here that boys are separated from the men.
The third phase of writing a script is to simply write the damn script out! By now not only do you know clearly the theme located within a body of literature that you are going to address in your script, but you also know the argument you are presenting, the different positions or schools of views on the theme, which you might critique positively or negatively, and you also know the premises/evidences that coherently form the structure that embodies your argument. Now to put flesh to this skeleton is the articulation of your script. It is the easiest as well as the hardest thing to do. Here there is a general misconception, that once we have the idea in our head, writing out is merely a verbalizing of the idea. It is merely putting into language what we already know. This is an epistemological issue about the relationship between idea and its representation and the role of language in it. The crucial question is can there be ideas without words? Furthermore, what do we mean by putting ideas into words. I am not going to address this issue head-on except to say that writing takes the place of an author's intent to discourse. I follow Ricoeur in this. Writing is not transcribing an already existing speech, rather takes the place of speech. Hence writing is like speaking. It is an art that is informed by both cursory and committed readings, but is a different act altogether. To construct a sentence, and to construct a paragraph requires a set of skills that are different from those required for reading and speaking. Before I talk a bit about the skills involved in writing, the question I want to address is, is there a form of reading relevant to this final phase of scripting the piece. Yes there is, and let us call it Critical Reading. Now, this is not really reading in either the cursory or committed sense. It is reading in the service of writing. Reading here plays second fiddle to writing. You read to support, to evidence, to critique. The written text bears on you to read more, in order to write and develop the script. If your cursory and committed readings have been done well, then often it is the revisiting of those texts that you have already read and underlined, or taken notes of. However, it might also be a new path that your writing forges out with, for which new readings have to be done, in support of an argument, or to clarify a point you are making. This is strictly business-reading, you have to be swift and ruthless. This is paid work, every minute counts in this reading that is called upon to serve writing. The temptation here is to read to enquire further, or your self will tell you that you need to read more to know more, but you have to resist the temptation to be carried away by reading. These temptations to read are distractions, where reading itself becomes a distraction in the composition of the script. Here the devil is on the other side. Earlier the devil didn't want you to read, and to cut corners, now the devil wants to take you on the long garden path, a wild goose chase. So keep critical reading close to the script you are constructing.
With this we have seen the three forms of reading - Cursory, Committed, Critical - that are in operation in different stages of the act of writing. I will end with a few thoughts on writing and the skills it requires. In writing, the key is to write out a single coherent piece with all the various parts/sections embodied in paragraphs clearly relating and connecting together coherently. There are no points for empty descriptions that do not serve any purpose. Every paragraph must advance the central argument creatively. A good paragraph has four sections - (a) state clearly and simply the particular point it is making in other words describe the point being made, (b) discuss the point, by showing the different positions on it and by bringing together the divergent schools into a conversation, (c) evidence your position/point by debate, and (d) finally, deploy the point made towards the extension of the larger or central point/thesis/argument you are advancing in the piece. It is here in (d) that all the hard work of (a), (b), (c) will pay off if the connection to the larger thesis and argument is made strongly. This is YOUR contribution. How you connect is YOUR creation of knowledge. I must also mention about writing styles here. Each writer must develop a style unique to one's own style of discourse. However, just as everything one's own begins with imitation and only much later brings about a certain uniqueness through innovation, I suggest, that it is the same in the act of writing - imitate the styles of authors you respect. When you read don't read for substance alone, but read to understand their methodology and also styles of writing. Imitate them. Use their styles of writing and meticulously learn from them. Be an apprentice to their skill of writing. As you write fluidly, then bring your innovation to it. Make changes and create a new style for others to imitate. Finally, the skill of writing lies in re-writing. Often one can have 12-15 drafts before the script begins to make sense. But the more you write, the rewriting becomes less. But still there is rewriting, lots of it. It is like chiseling the sculpture so that it is smooth like butter. Ironing out knots, holes, straightening out unnecessary twists and turns - bringing about clarity, simplicity, and thrust.
The goal of writing is to be read, and the underlying goal of being read is that your text will give new insights, directions, and energy to the reader, so that her action in the world will imitate the structures you have laid down in your script with a hope that they will act better in the world. Thus writing is a powerful means to change the world, by changing the actions and decisions of readers. Perhaps it can be said that investing in learning the skills of writing is indeed investing in the transformation of the world. So it would only be appropriate to end by saying - read to write and write to be read.
