Reading Goal: Identify Zadie Smith's argument
Writing Goal: Be able to concisely explain how she makes her argument/what strategies she uses
The best writers in the world can definitely identify good books, and the best readers in the world can definitely identify good writing. However, "good writing" is subjective in many cases; its difficult for a reader to decide what is good writing, and even harder for a writer to decide if his/her own writing is good writing. In her essay "Fail Better", author Zadie Smith argues that great fiction writing is much more personal than we often make it out to be, and that readers today are not good at judging the success of a book, through detailed anecdotes and examples, fiction-like imagery, and rhetorical questions.
Zadie Smith uses both positive and negative anecdotes in her essay to prove that good writing must be personal, and that personal writing is hard to do. Her positive anecdote is used right in the beginning to set up her argument. She uses the story of a young novelist named Clive, who attempts to write a great novel and appears to have all the skills necessary, but is not as successful as he would like/as he thought he would be because he questions himself and how he wants to represent himself in his novel. Smith uses this anecdote as an example to readers of what many writers go through, and builds ethos by acknowledging that she has done similar things, trying to write with personality and sometimes failing. Her negative anecdote comes in later on, as a counterargument portrayed through the eyes of TS Eliot. Eliot believed that writing was "an escape from personality" and what writers should avoid when writing a good novel. These contrasting anecdotes help make Smith's argument seem more valid, proving that most writers do not think of personality as important to writing and, more specifically, to fiction/the novel.
Smith also uses wonderful imagery and rhetorical questions to make her argument. Imagery is a large part of the anecdotes in "Fail Better", as well as the base for her analogies and comparisons. Without this imagery, it would be difficult to connect with the reader, as many have probably not written novels themselves. The rhetorical questions in the essay provide appeals to ethos, logos and pathos, but also are great transitions. Smith tends to use rhetorical questions to make a point or share her own opinion, making her more credible, logical, and connectable to her audience before she continues her opinion or moves towards another point in proving her argument. The questions hook the reader for the next thought, but also tie up the loose ends of the point Smith is making.
Overall, Zadie Smith uses anecdotes, imagery, and rhetorical questions to argue that writing, particularly fiction writing, is dependent on personality/personal writing to be successful. Smith also argues that because many writers are not personal in their writing today, readers cannot be good judges of successful writing and failed writing. Writers should strive to write the best they can, and that requires being personal, not scientific. Until writers can do this, they should be ok with "honorable failure", knowing that great novels are rare and its hard to write one; they should expect to fail, but try to "fail better".
Zadie Smith uses both positive and negative anecdotes in her essay to prove that good writing must be personal, and that personal writing is hard to do. Her positive anecdote is used right in the beginning to set up her argument. She uses the story of a young novelist named Clive, who attempts to write a great novel and appears to have all the skills necessary, but is not as successful as he would like/as he thought he would be because he questions himself and how he wants to represent himself in his novel. Smith uses this anecdote as an example to readers of what many writers go through, and builds ethos by acknowledging that she has done similar things, trying to write with personality and sometimes failing. Her negative anecdote comes in later on, as a counterargument portrayed through the eyes of TS Eliot. Eliot believed that writing was "an escape from personality" and what writers should avoid when writing a good novel. These contrasting anecdotes help make Smith's argument seem more valid, proving that most writers do not think of personality as important to writing and, more specifically, to fiction/the novel.
Smith also uses wonderful imagery and rhetorical questions to make her argument. Imagery is a large part of the anecdotes in "Fail Better", as well as the base for her analogies and comparisons. Without this imagery, it would be difficult to connect with the reader, as many have probably not written novels themselves. The rhetorical questions in the essay provide appeals to ethos, logos and pathos, but also are great transitions. Smith tends to use rhetorical questions to make a point or share her own opinion, making her more credible, logical, and connectable to her audience before she continues her opinion or moves towards another point in proving her argument. The questions hook the reader for the next thought, but also tie up the loose ends of the point Smith is making.
Overall, Zadie Smith uses anecdotes, imagery, and rhetorical questions to argue that writing, particularly fiction writing, is dependent on personality/personal writing to be successful. Smith also argues that because many writers are not personal in their writing today, readers cannot be good judges of successful writing and failed writing. Writers should strive to write the best they can, and that requires being personal, not scientific. Until writers can do this, they should be ok with "honorable failure", knowing that great novels are rare and its hard to write one; they should expect to fail, but try to "fail better".
Smith, Zadie. "Fail Better." Fail Better. The Guardian, n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment