“What’s the Point?” Daniel Hengel (pgs 28-33)
Daniel Hengel’s “What’s the Point” deconstructs analysis and introduces a different interpretation of how to begin writing a thesis. Hengel institutes analysis as a intellectual curiosity about a texts that subsequently leads to the asking of questions. This initial process of inquiries goes something like this: initial interpretation, identification, discussion, importance, extension, and reduction, These inquiries, completely subjective on both individual and text, eventually composes as a prefatory mental argument, or thesis. Although this does not have to be the structure of your thesis writing program, Hengel adds, it allows new trails of thought and experience as we write. In my own writing, a thesis often comes the moment I finish a text thanks to natural opinionated thinking that the public school system developed.Both importance and extension can take my thesis further and allow for a more complex analysis.
“Responding—Really Responding—To Other Students’ Writing,” Richard Straub (pgs 104-114)
In the interest of giving a meaningful peer review, Richard Strab lays out a checklist on getting started. Straub begins with thinking on the assignments purpose, content, and limitations followed by the writers interest and purpose. Something to also keep in mind when responding to a classmates writing is the substance of the work in class. Whether the work focuses on detail, developing arguments, or any other writing lessons, it is a big help to keep that classmate responsible for tying his work with these concepts and strategies. The content and level of your criticism should match the laud you are able to give. In a general sense, giving a constructive response requires you to approach the writing with both support and assessment.