Writing Analytically

Rosenwasser brings up very interesting and important points about the process of analyzing. My issue with analyzing textual material is that I always conclude to generalizations. Rosenwasser describes analysis as a “sustained act of reflection” or “writing to understand” (3). I have been used to writing for the purpose of getting a good grade or just reaching a solid conclusion instead of actually trying to understand what I am trying to analyze. Rosenwasser suggests that by breaking the subject into much smaller parts, it will be much easier to analyze. I always had trouble with this method since it was time consuming and tedious. But after reading this text I see why this is a great method to use while writing. If you break the subjects apart it will be easier to organize your thoughts and you will be able to understand more of the subject matter.
Rosenwasser also brings up the idea of looking for patterns while analyzing. He suggests looking for patterns of repetition or resemblance, binary oppositions, and anomalies. The concept of anomalies has never occurred to me while analyzing because I tend to avoid them, like how Rosenwasser described in his text. I tend to avoid anomalies because analyzing them would be challenging, time consuming, and tedious. I would already have a set thought or generalization while studying the text and that’s another reason why I ignore anomalies. If I strive away from my set thought, I’m afraid that a new subject might come up that don’t connect to my generalized thoughts; therefore making it harder to organize my thoughts.   But after Rosenwasser explained the importance of anomalies, I want to try incorporating anomalies into my ideas.

I have always had a problem with balancing personal experience with other sources in my writing. Sometimes it’s too much personal experience and sometimes it’s not enough. Rosenwasser states “Analysis often operates in areas in which there is no right answer, but like summary and argument, it requires the writer to reason from evidence” (16), and then he lists three rules for personal associations. I believe that these three rules are very helpful in explaining how to balance personal experience in an analysis. I have to make sure not to include unnecessary details and I also have to make sure it always connects to the subject matter—don’t stray away from the subject.