How meta is it that we are writing an analysis about writing as a form of analysis, (man)?
But what if we define writing as the act of recording thoughts in search of understanding?
The idea that Rossenwasser puts forth that “good writing is good thinking” is one that is quite radical (yet very feasible) to what I have thought to be true of good writing – that it is not a product of talent (that some people “have it” and others don’t), nor is it following a strict set of linguistic rules (grammar, syntax, spelling). Before I did not think of writing as an analysis process, but more so as the one that comes after the analysis – the interpretation/persuasion/argumentative. To introduce the analysis in the writing makes a lot of sense now like showing the work in a math problem.
Having good ideas is less than a matter of luck than of practice
Again, the idea the process of good ideas not being a product of “innate talent” or a matter of chance is novel one. It shows that analysis “is surprisingly formulaic” which effectively democratizes the access to the skill of good writing!
The distinction between argument, summary, and expressive writing
The “Data into Method of Analysis into Interpretive Leaps” figure is a process that I did not think of doing. It is essentially coming up with the framework that anyone can use in order to produce good writing, academic and beyond. I know now that good writing will be a matter of distinguishing yet master each of these.
