Official Style and Obamacare

                                                  Official Style and Obamacare

In Obamacare, lawmakers lay out the elements of “official style “. It said that style of writing is characterized by passive voice, complex sentences, verbose and jargonistic. As generally, the official style is used by legal and business document, the scientific articles, and the diplomacy. People complain that they cannot totally understand the meaning of text if using official style. As generally, ordinary people will not read these documents which helps readers to sleep unless they have special cause. Although it cannot be completely accepted by the public, it still exists in formal writing. I think, because this style has a definite communication aim and accordingly has its own system of interrelated language and stylistic means. This main aim of this type of communication is to state the conditions binding two parties in undertaking. In other words, it is not for anyone to read.

We view this legal document as an activity system. The lawmakers is  the subject of this activity system. What lawmakers write is super formal, which make the readers believe its authority and credibility. In some way, it can reduce questions toward the document, because it is not easy to find out flaws for ordinary people. Therefore, it limits the range of readers to read and explore. Now we discuss what strategies of official style obstruct people to read. Let’s take a look at an excerpt from a section of the patient protection and affordable care act:

“The insurance-related terms described in this paragraph are premium, deductible, co-insurance, co-payment, out-of-pocket limit, preferred provider, non-preferred provider, out-of-network co-payments, UCR (usual, customary and reasonable) fees, excluded services, grievance and appeals, and such other terms as the Secretary determines are important to define so that consumers may compare health insurance coverage and understand the terms of their coverage.”

Except passive voice often used in formal writing, it also uses the strategies of verbose, slow sentences opening, complex sentences, and jargonistic. For passive voice, we see two examples, “terms described in” and “the secretary determines are important”. For verbose, I think, it easily observes that the sentence structure complacent habits of a large, Impersonal, arbitrary bureaucracy. So many compound words make the long sentences that let people think it is really “professional”. For the slow sentences opening, we see that the beginning of sentence is short, having seven words, “the insurance-related terms described in this paragraph”. But the number of words in the whole sentence is fifty-seven. For the jargonistic, I find out a word, like “UCR” which is a term that the certain group people can understand. When I look for the meaning of UCR, I find that UCR has more than twelve translations in Wiki. But within this context, the appropriate definition is “usual, customary and reasonable, a method of generating health care prices.” If it doesn’t mention its meaning behind the word, how many people can understand its specific meaning? It is the exclusive right of experts. It causes difficulties for ordinary people to read. But for some people, such as the lawmakers, the worker of insurance company, it is easy for them to understand, or it is succinct that they might think of.

I think, it is not the fault of official style itself. It is a style of language that is created by society. But people are the practice subject of social activities. So we question that, why people have to use unpopular official style? According to the average reading grade of Americans, it is bond to the reading difficulty of Americans who don’t accept higher education. The official style has a definite communication aim literally and accordingly has its own system of interrelated language and stylistic means. This main aim of this style is to state conditions binding two discourses. Two discourse like the state government and citizens. The purpose of stating conditions is to reach agreement. For example, the Phone Company has contact with users. You have to sign up after reading the conditions. They make a deal with Phone Company. Sometimes, some conditions is a barrier to the non-experts. It leads to a cheat literally. But some people play well this game, they will not be fooled. Therefore, we can see the differences among people, at least you know their education level. We question that, will it become a circle that people who have lower education never understand official style? If so, the using of official style will lead to social inequality. And the inequality mainly reflects on the social class.

The book of the social stratification of English in New York City written by William Labov, has an interesting discovery. The higher socio-economic status position, the higher their pronunciation of retroflex. Similarly, in British English, we can find out more examples to prove the different habit of using words at varying levels. If you cannot understand what others said, as generally people say “sorry”, not “pardon”. Because “pardon” means the forgiveness from upper class to prisoners. The other example is that, the middle class of British people will not say “I go home”, they will say “I go to my house”. So there is the differences between social stratification. I see, the Obama’s speech is not the same thing as the Hillary Clinto’s speech. After all, they represent different social groups in the United States.

                                                                                                                        Jingyu Liang

Does the Official Style in Feminist Studies Contribute to Inequality?

I’m not exactly sure when the official style of writing became an everyday occurrence in my life. I likely saw simplified versions of it in high school in my drier textbooks, not that they were read often, but today, as a college senior, I expect nothing less than my assigned readings to challenge not only my understanding of the world, but also my reading ability. While I usually feel a sense of accomplishment after reading and engaging with a difficult, official document, more often than not, I’m inclined to skip the reading and peruse Facebook, or at best, do a Wikipedia search for a shorter, simplified version on the topic. Occasionally, I attempt to actually read the difficult article, only to find that I still need to do my own research just to understand what I read.

            I’ve found that in classes where one specific interpretation is highly important, reading assignments will be simple and to the point, or if I’m lucky, authored from personal experience. Perhaps this is what drew me, in part, to fields in the humanities, like Women’s Studies, English, and Communication Studies. When I was handed a textbook full of personal essays and creative nonfiction in my intro to women, gender, and sexuality studies course, this change of pace caused me to pause and really soak in the authors’ words, especially when I was used to skimming through 30-page dense articles in which I was lost by the third sentence. It’s not laziness, necessarily, that makes this type of reading more desirable; it’s the literature’s accessibility.

            As I near the end of my college career and enter upper level courses, I have noticed that my ‘fun’ classes (mostly those in the field of Women’s Studies) are getting more difficult and dry. My homework involves more theory, academic writing, and research studies. No longer does the reading feel close to home—it suddenly feels removed and foreign. I am fortunate because I already have the background knowledge needed to understand the basic premise of the readings, due to previous classes. I am also in a position where I have resources to help me get through the material—like peers and professors.

            While I sometimes absolutely dread having to take hours of my day to work through such difficult articles, I understand their importance to the discipline. Without the formulation of theories, we wouldn’t have research, and without patterns found in research we wouldn’t have a reason to study inequality. However, the points made in these articles are so important that they need to reach a broader audience. Because the texts are complicated by use of the official style of writing, they limit who is capable of comprehending them and therefore making use of the knowledge.

I have selected a sample of writing that was assigned to me in class that I found particularly challenging to illustrate this argument. It is titled Speaking to the Past:  Feminist Historiography in Rhetoric, written by Dr. Susan C. Jarratt, who has studied rhetoric, history, and feminist theory and pedagogy. Here is a small sample from this text:

“We should learn from feminist historians in literary studies that the relations of feminist history to "history" should not be only additive. Writing women into history "implies not only a new history of women, but also a new history." Scott points out the need for theoretical synthesis of descriptive cast studies. Without such rhetorizing, marginalization, seems almost inevitable: history of rhetoric here, women's history of rhetoric over there. In Joan Kelly's terms, "compensatory history" is not enough. Gender as a category--i.e. as constitutive of social relations and as a way of signifying power--allows for more than an addition: it shakes up dominant disciplinary concepts. Gender is relational: a history conceived in terms of gender as an analytic differs from "women's history" in that it investigates the ways social categories are constituted around or in the absence of each other” (p. 22).

What I learned in class the day after this reading was assigned were the main points of Jarratt’s article. What this piece (in its entirety) is saying comes down to a few basic points:  first, history is written by men—they are the “dominant culture.” Second, history is no more than a socially constructed narrative. Third, bringing feminist voices into history won’t just add to it, they will change history entirely. Finally we need to break down hierarchies within the feminist movement if we want to break down hierarchies altogether.

With such basic and fairly simple ideas, why was this so difficult for me? First, the author was very fond of name-dropping (which I mostly omitted from the excerpt). For people who study the history of feminism in rhetoric, these names are probably pretty useful. When Jarratt cites these particular people, she is giving herself credibility in these elite circles of scholars who know everything about historical rhetoric and feminism. For the average undergraduate scholar like myself, however, skipping over five long names every few sentences and parenthetical citations every other word gets old quickly. It’s distracting and it doesn’t help me understand the topic.

            It’s not just Jarratt’s use of name-dropping that makes her writing hard to read. She also writes in a very dense way, fitting as much information into a short amount of space as possible. Take these two sentences, for example: “Gender as a category--i.e. as constitutive of social relations and as a way of signifying power--allows for more than an addition: it shakes up dominant disciplinary concepts. Gender is relational: a history conceived in terms of gender as an analytic differs from "women's history" in that it investigates the ways social categories are constituted around or in the absence of each other.” Not only does Jarratt use jargon excessively, she also takes abstract concepts and discusses them in long, complex sentences—complete with dashes and colons. Mainly, however, my frustration with Jarratt’s writing style has everything to do with content. How can someone who is very clearly passionate about feminism, which is, at its core, all about inclusion, be so exclusive? The ideas in this Jarratt’s writing may spark an entirely new way of thinking, which can be hard, but they’re extremely important for people to understand.

            As a kid, I was a really good student. I was in “gifted” programs, I scored well on standardized tests, and I was generally pretty compliant (maybe aside from being a little too chatty with my friends). I’d still like to believe this is true. I may have disliked the work that went along with going to school as a child, but I really didn’t dislike any subject—aside from history.

            You see, no one questions what they learn in school as children. We’re taught that our teachers know all because they went to college. Now that I’m in college, the only thing I’ve learned is that I really know nothing and that everything I’ve been taught deserves critical thought. For example, as children we took for fact that Christopher Columbus “sailed the ocean blue” and discovered the greatest country of all time. No one ever tells us that he killed, tortured, raped, took what wasn’t his, and committed mass genocide. We don’t learn about the realities of our history until we are taught about social issues in our sociology, communication, or women’s studies classes—all of which aren’t offered (generally) until college. So what about people who don’t get to go to college? Are they not worthy of learning about a history that wasn’t just written by wealthy white men? I’ll never forget the sudden realization that came over me when I first heard about the problems surrounding history education. I remember thinking, that’s why I hate history. I’m not a part of it. No one like me is represented.

            As far as privilege is concerned, though, I’ve got it pretty good. My parents are middle class, I’m white, I’m able-bodied, I’m fairly thin, I’m heterosexual. I can’t imagine trying to absorb knowledge in our society as a poor, black disabled lesbian. The fact is, people like this actually do exist, and where will they see their unique perspectives represented? I’ll tell you where: in gender studies, in feminist writing, in feminist standpoint theory, and in Jarratt’s writing. Works in this discipline are advocating for the silenced, and, sadly, these oppressed people are likely not going to be capable of accessing such valuable information.

            This reminds me of the Comstock laws that I learned about in my Women’s History (not regular History, I might add) class. It was the poor women who already had 8 children and an abusive husband who made $3 a month who couldn’t get access to information about birth control. While disseminating works like Jarratt’s isn’t illegal, it’s not reaching those who need it most. Maybe my comparison is a stretch, but I really don’t think so. In order for the disadvantaged to learn about their histories, they need accessible information. This means it needs to written in such a way that most people can understand. This is the only way certain groups will ever gain any power.

            As I mentioned above, there is a time and a place for challenging, jargonistic writing. Without it, Women’s Studies could not be an academic discipline. Through research and the official style of writing, this feminized, undervalued field of study has gained power. I just wonder, why is overcomplicating necessary to achieve power? Shouldn’t a field that aims to achieve equality for all people attempt to gain clout through enlightening all people, instead of only privileged college students? My frustration comes from the period in life in which I’ve become educated about such important issues, especially because I am a woman. Had I been introduced to feminism earlier in life, I could’ve been saved from a lot of self-hate, oppression from my peers, and the guilt of unknowingly being an oppressor in the past (and still today). It’s time that valuable information reaches younger, broader audiences.

The Official Style and Opinion Pieces Written as Fact, by Madison N.

The Official Style and Opinion Pieces Written as Fact

Barbara J. Fields is an African-American woman born in Charleston, South Carolina in the 1950s. She is currently a Professor of American History at Columbia University. Prior to becoming a professor, she first earned a BA from Harvard followed by a PhD from Yale. Among many other achievements and awards, Fields was the first African-American woman at Columbia to receive tenure.

Being a professor at a prestigious university, Fields is highly educated. I believe she writes in the Official Style because after several years as a student in the education system, topped with even more years as a professor, she is used to writing in this formal practice. It is also possible she writes this way to give off an authority she feels she has earned. She has a PhD and she might want to profess her wisdom and knowledge onto others. In some cases it does not seem right to have such a vast amount of education and write plainly, thus she does not.

A noteworthy aspect of her writing is that she writes in a passive voice; however not quite as passive as other official style pieces. She uses the pronouns “we,” “our” and “their” to discuss a group of people, but she never includes the word “I.” If she did include “I” it may take away from her piece because it puts emphasis on the notion that these are just her opinions. By leaving herself out of the writing, her thoughts and ideas have a quality of higher power. Her thoughts are delivered as fact rather than opinion, in other words, it simply enhances the authoritative and knowledgeable tone. 

It is evident Fields wants to discredit those whom support racial ideology because she states, “no one holding reputable academic credentials overtly adheres to the view that race is a physical fact.” This sentence should send off a red flag because she makes a very opinionative statement that can easily be seen as controversial. She basically states that those who disagree with her are not educated people. So, even though she keeps “I” out of the writing, as an African-American, she assumedly takes this topic personally. She was born in the south in the 1950s, for this reason, it is likely she has experienced racial discrimination in one form or another giving her writing bias. It is possible she wants to keep herself out of the writing because she wants to hide her bias as an African-American woman. First person might appear to extreme readers that Fields is bias because she is a part of a race that racial ideology negatively impacts prominently and not because she is specialized in this academic area.

Another way Fields utilizes the Official Style is through her lack of specificity. This is demonstrated in the phrase, “mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact.” This phrase has the air of Official Style because, well, it is rather confusing. It is not definitive because she does not state what the “two things” are within the sentence. Even in the previous sentence she never explicitly mentions, to my understanding, two obvious ideas, people or groups. If she replaced ambiguous phrases with exact information, clarity would be reached. However, the Official Style does not care about clarity and preciseness.

Similarly, Fields deliberately chooses her words carefully-- this can be seen in the sentence, “With a few well-publicized exceptions, no one holding reputable academic credentials overtly adheres to the view that race is a physical fact.” The words “holding,” “reputable,” “credentials,” “overtly” and “adheres” are thought-out word choices. She could have easily said, “A well educated person wouldn’t agree that race is a physical fact.” I believe she selected the words she did to illustrate that she is, in fact, an educated person, and she does not believe the notion of race being biological. Fields is discussing a not only serious matter, but a controversial one as well. I believe it is important to her to appear credible to her audiences. If she writes plainly, people might not accept what she is saying. But if she writes with great diction, more people might take her argument seriously. Audiences might read this and conclude that she is educated and well-versed; therefore, this piece of writing must be purposeful and accurate.  

In the phrase “this line of inquiry has yielded” she makes calculated word choices as well. The words “line of inquiry” are striking because I question what it even represents. What does she mean a “line”? She could have made the decision to state what was so questioning, but she did not. Fields also could have chosen the word “stop” or “given up” to reach a wider audience, but she did not. Again, I believe this is her way of sounding well-read in order to get her point about racial ideology across. 

These stylistic aspects may be praised by those in this particular academic field, but disliked in other activity systems. Opposing audiences, such as pro-racial ideologists, might view Fields’s wordiness as beating around the bush. Her work may be discredited because it is not clear and often difficult to follow. Students unfamiliar with this particular discipline may read her work and immediately view her as credible because they have been taught that the Official Style is a sign of credibility. Students may not understand the specifics of what Fields is discussing, but they walk away taking her view point as the only answer. On the other hand, students may view her piece as false because they notice the confusing sentences and get a sense she is attempting to hide a greater truth. People who have been discriminated against because of the idea of racial ideology might be passionate enough about the topic to be pleased with this work—no matter the level of confusion within Fields’s piece. All of these activity systems’ views pose implications because they judge the content based on stylistic choices or topic choice—not by the actual content, arguments or motives of Fields.

I believe Fields’s motives are to not only educate, but persuade others to view race differently. Her educational background paired with a list of honors and awards, suggests to me that her work is reliable and worthy of attention. Therefore, I do not determine her work to be dishonest or filled with idiocy. With that being said, she does have motives for writing this piece. She wants to persuade readers’ opinions on racial ideology-- otherwise she wouldn’t be challenging its notion. It also appears she wants to discredit those who disagree with her as seen in a previous example.

More generally, I think Fields’s piece helps raise questions on how the Official Style functions within an opinion piece. Fields writing is her opinion, whether it is widely accepted or not; however, she never utilizes the word “I.” I believe opinion writers as a whole avoid the first person because they want to present their work as fact. They want to persuade their readers to agree with them without blatantly presenting their work as only their point of view. Unless readers look closely, they might miss the authors’ true motives and agendas. The largest implication, in my opinion, that stems from the authors of these types of pieces is that they aren’t being honest with their readers. Their work may be riddled with opinion statements, but they are not presented that way and it gets confusing for readers—and these pieces are meant to be read. The largest implication that stems from readers is that no matter the activity system we are a part of, we often judge writing based on technique versus content. Passive voice, diction choice, and sentence structure are how we judge credible content. This is problematic because these are not always accurate ways to judge writing.

There are countless ways to interpret academic opinion pieces written as fact. It is important to note that not all of these pieces will result in the same analysis or conclusions. Each author will have their own agenda and purpose, but it necessary to question the possibilities of what they might be. It is also helpful to gain insight on the authors’ background to aid in determining their potential purpose(s).

- Madison N.

Technobabble: The Official Style in Science

          The official style is often criticized for being obtuse and unreadable. Richard Lanham, the man who first quantized and named the official style, was so disgusted with it that he waged a war against everything it stood for, even creating his own remedial “paramedic style” to be applied whenever possible. And while it is true that, to the majority of readers, the official style is frustrating if not completely useless, its elements have their place. As with many things in rhetoric, the practicality of the official style is not a black and white issue. One area in which the official style is both common and practical is among academic papers. Many of the official style strategies, while too cumbersome for every-day writing, actually help in the transmission of academic ideas.   

            Nuclear Physics B journal. While it is available online, it’s hidden behind a paywall of thirty-five dollars. This context is important to consider. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and what may appear absurd in one situation may be (and often is) perfectly reasonable in another. Context can also reveal clues as to the motivations of the writer. The exchange of ideas and information from writer to audience and the wider world always influences what’s being written, on some level. In the case of “Loop space,” the goal of its writers was, at least partially, to be published in Nuclear Physics B. The title of the journal alone lets the reader know what they’re in for. It is clearly by academics, for academics, within a highly specialized field which only a relative few people on Earth truly understand. In submitting to Nuclear Physics B, the authors open themselves and their work up to peer review and criticism. The need to appear official and authoritative is understandable. The issue of the paywall may also have influenced the decisions of the authors. Knowing, as they surely did, that their work would be published in a journal that requires a significant price to be accessed, it’s not difficult to believe that the authors would try their hardest to make their submission up to snuff. But were these the only reasons for the use of the official style? And how exactly did the authors apply the hallmarks of the style to their writing?

For the purposes of this critique, a document was chosen to represent certain elements of the official style. In this case, the document was an abstract from a paper entitled “Loop space representation of quantum general relativity.” The full paper was published in the February 1990 edition of the

            The abstract reads as follows:

“We define a new representation for quantum general relativity, in which exact solutions of the quantum constraints may be obtained.

The representation is constructed by means of a noncanonical graded Poisson algebra of classical observables, defined in terms of Ashtekar's new variables. The observables in this algebra are nonlocal and involve parallel transport around loops in a three-manifold Σ. The theory is quantized by constructing a linear representation of a deformation of this algebra. This representation is given in terms of an algebra of linear operators defined on a state space which consists of functionals of sets of loops in Σ. The construction is general and can be applied also to Yang-Mills theories.

The diffeomorphism constraint is defined in terms of a natural representation of the diffeomorphism group. The hamiltonian constraint, which contains the dynamics of quantum gravity, is constructed as a limit of a sequence of observables which incorporates a regularization prescription. We give the general solution of the diffeomorphism constraint in closed form. It is spanned by a countable basis which is in one-to-one correspondence with the diffeomorphism equivalence classes of multiple loops, which are a generalization of the link classes studied in knot theory. Then we explicitly construct, in closed form, a large space of solution of the entire set of constraints, including the hamiltonian constraint. These turn out to be classified by the ordinary knot and link classes of Σ.

The space of solutions that we find is a sector of the physical states space of nonperturbative quantum general relativity. The failure of perturbation theory is thus shown to be not relevant to the problem of the existence of a nontrivial physical state space in quantum gravity. The relationship between this new loop representation and the self-dual representation of Ashtekar is illuminated by means of a functional transform between states in the two representations. Questions of the completeness of the solution space, the meaning of the physical operators and the physical inner product, are discussed, but not, so far, resolved.”

At a glance, it’s an eyeful. It’s easy to become lost in only the first several sentences. Pushing through and actually perusing the paragraphs, several official style strategies leap out. Passive voice is used repeatedly: “solutions of the quantum constraints may be contained,” “The theory is quantized,” “The Hamiltonian constraint…is constructed.” Nothing in the universe does anything, it seems, but are only involved in things that happen. Latinate diction abounds (“quantized,” “regularization,” etc.), but most of all, the abstract is absolutely filled with jargon. “Quantum constraints,” “Noncanonical graded Poisson algebra,” “Ashtekar’s new variables,” “parallel transport,” “three-manifold Σ,” and all within the first three sentences. To an outsider it renders even a single sentence virtually unreadable, and to read it aloud would require speech therapy. Even the title of the paper, “Loop space representation of quantum general relativity,” is 70% jargon. The effect is a feeling of moving further away from reality the further one reads into the document. It climbs the ladder of abstraction with each sentence, until the (every-day) reader is left uncertain of whether they read anything at all. It wouldn’t be out of place in a bad Star Trek script that needed some technobabble padding.

            The obvious question here is, what’s the point? Not just in the jargon (although that seems to be the most offensive), but in any of the strategies present? Generally it could be said that, within the official style, passive voice is used to distance ones’ self from what is being written, to avoid any real responsibility. And while the passive voice is present within the abstract, that doesn’t seem to be its function. In a trend contrary to typical official style documents, the few places where passive voice is not used are where the authors do take responsibility: “We define a new representation for quantum general relativity,” says the opening sentence. Placed within the context of academia, this choice can be easily understood. It could be argued that half the point of publishing anything in a scientific journal is to claim credit for your discoveries. Whatever happened in this paper sounds like it was a lot of work; it’s understandable that the authors would want credit where it’s due.

            The Latinate diction, viewed in the context of an academic paper, can also be easily explained. After all, Latin was once the language of academia. Its spirit still flows through universities today, in the bloated papers of college kids everywhere. Latinate diction provides a sense of authority, something the authors likely strived for. And while it is present in the abstract, it isn’t necessarily obtrusive or unjustified. “Quantized” refers to the act of narrowing something down, from the general to the specific, a concept that applies directly to quantum physics.

            But can the jargon be excused? One of the goals of scientific work is to pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge, and good scientific ethics demand that that knowledge be made available to all members of the public. What good is that if this knowledge is hidden behind jargonistic phrases like “nonperturbative quantum general relativity” that require a doctorate to understand? Combined with the steep paywall that prevents access to the full paper, it is easy to see a somewhat malevolent motivation behind the use of so much jargon. Scientific knowledge, arguably some of the most profound and important knowledge currently possessed by the human race, becomes a commodity, accessible only by a select few. A sort of classism arises, between those that understand the jargon and those that don’t. Knowledge becomes hidden, and the ethics of scientific study are tossed aside.

            It is easy to levy such criticisms against academic articles like this one. Nobody enjoys feeling like an outsider, especially if the Other is privy to the secret knowledge of the universe. Unreadability is one of the main assaults against the official style, and a valid one. But, again, context must be considered. What is unreadable to some is not unreadable to others. The truth is, papers like “Loop space representation of quantum general relativity” was not written for the masses. It seems to be aimed at an inner circle because that is exactly who it was written for. Never mind credibility and paywalls; quantum physics and general relativity are heady topics that necessitate specialists if humanity is to understand them at all. The use of jargon may exclude the majority of the public, but for those specialists it makes things much easier. It functions as short-hand, conveying ideas and concepts so complicated the only other way they could be fully expressed is through Einstein-level mathematics. The information is not being hidden, simply unboxed. It needs to start somewhere, and after the academic articles have been published and reviewed in journals like Nuclear Physics B, then the knowledge can be disseminated to the wider public through publications like New Scientist. This too requires some level of specialization: the ability to translate official style into common style, while still maintaining a coherent message. It all comes back to context.

            Too often, it seems, the official style is torn down. What few people realize is that it has its place. This applies to both critics and supporters. Certainly the average customer shouldn’t have to wade through reams of legalese in order to understand what they’re agreeing to when they sign up for iTunes, but the quantum physicist should be free to communicate in a language they understand in order to fully convey ideas. Richard Lanham seeks to eradicate the official style completely, but to do so would be a mistake. Like most things in life, the answer to “Is the official style useful?” is, “It depends.” The official style has its place, but is it always worth muddying the ethical waters? Before we throw it out completely, we should consider: Is there a better way?

                      -- Christian Velguth

Respect, Acclaim, and Credibility: Subjective Phrasing in Case Reports

Case reports often taken on an official style in which the situation presented, that is the condition and treatment of a patient, is deescalated to a point where the medical professionals reading the report are desensitized from what is really happening to the patient and is instead offered an objective oriented view. This allows the authors to direct the reader’s attention on the efforts made and the outcomes that resulted. Ultimately, the focus shifts from the patient’s overall wellbeing to the efforts made by medical professionals who are responsible for the care of the patient. This signifies that the true purpose of such official writing is to further advance the acclaim and respect of the authors and medical professionals in the eyes of the rest of the professional medicine community. There are many ways in which this effect is achieved some of which include impersonal language, medical jargon, and subjective phrasing.  

            When referring to the patient, the authors do so passively in such a way that the focus is shifted from the patient to the efforts made to treat the patient. This can be seen through the use of “he” in reference to the patient and “the” instead of “his” in reference to something that belongs to the patient. “He has burns of variable thickness to the face, neck, chest, both arms, both thighs and the abdomen amounting to 33% total body surface area…” The lack of personal reference is due to ethical and professional standards that must be upheld while providing care for someone because of the confidential manner of the situation. In order to maintain an ethical standard of privacy and professionalism, medical professionals must not reveal any identifying information, such as the name, of a patient. This standard is expected among all medical professionals when they discuss or report about certain cases and signifies competency within their field. A subsequent effect that is often not readily noticed of this impersonal language is that besides upholding a professional standard, the case report is being focused on the authors themselves and their efforts.

            Once the focus is shifted to the authors’ efforts the authors must be able to maintain their credibility and respect which is often accomplished via the use of jargon relative to medical profession. The use of precise, formal language in relation to medicine is necessary to convey certain ideas that are being presented. This specific use of diction creates a type of shorthand which allows for communication amongst medical professionals to be clear and concise. Subsequently the authors are furthering their respect and acclaim through the lens which they are perceived by their peer professionals.

Purposefully or not the authors are putting themselves on a pedestal to showcase their efforts and knowledge. Impersonal language and medical jargon help the author establish credibility, respect, and acclaim which in turn allows them to phrase their report in a subjective manner. Case reports are phrased in a way which can allow the authors to take credit for but also avoid responsibility of the consequences of the information presented.

Should medical professionals’ findings on a type of treatment of a specific medical issue manifest into actually be detrimental to patients, then the medical professional will have wanted to word their report in such a way that they can go back and point out that they stated their uncertainty. Rather, they will want to be able to say that they were merely stating their findings without any proclamation of its significance. On the other hand, if their findings prove to further advance the care and quality of life of patients, then they will want to have worded the same report in a manner that portrays their discovery as an advancement in the future of medicine. An effective way through which this subjective phrasing is accomplished is the use of vague statements such as “we believe” or “we report” or even “may allow.”

Why would this be important? Why would a medical professional want to word their findings in such a way that, regardless of its practical significance and relation to the future of the medical field, would allow for subjective interpretation of their findings? The world, especially the world of medicine and science, is filled with uncertainty. What may be a groundbreaking finding today could end up being a false point tomorrow. Since the world is constantly changing and evolving, medical professionals want to be able to present their findings in such a way that they can take credit for its contributions to their field of study regardless if their findings prove to be accurate or are declared false. Essentially this is a win-win situation.

Upon recognizing this unique position that researchers put themselves in, their motives can be clearly reasoned. By wording their findings in a manner that allows for interpretation of their intent, the professionals are protecting themselves from backlash against others in their field. This protection of their reputation therefore allows for professionals to publish their findings without any negative drawbacks. For example, if their findings prove to be false they can simply say that they were reporting on what they had found and had not made any concrete conclusions about the significance of their publication. In this case their reputation is maintained and no true harm has been done. On the other hand if their findings do prove significant then their acclaim and reputation can only be boosted. Often times the purpose of this official style would be masked by professionals who say that they publish their findings to be used in collaboration amongst professionals rather than their own self-interest. This too is open for interpretation just as the phrasing of case reports are.

-James G. 

Official Style Prose: Ability to Understand Environmental Issues

                A common form of writing in academia is known as the official style which is highly different from plain style or creative style. Characteristics used within the official style include, but are not limited to, euphemistic wording, passive voice, complex sentences, prepositional phrases, and Latinate diction. Authors Barbara R. Lyon and Thomas Mock published their article in a peer-review, research journal called, “Polar Microalgae: New Approaches towards Understanding Adaptations to an Extreme and Changing Environment,” in January of 2014 in Polar Microbiology. This article is written in the official style and discusses the newly discovered insights in polar microalgae and the benefits associated with them.

The two authors use official style to target a select group of scientists through diction and overall syntax. “Polar Microalgae,” for short, presents a prevalent environmental discovery that should be published in multiple venues at varying reading levels to ensure all types of individuals can understand the environmental concern rather than subjecting the information to a select audience. This particular article is written at an average grade level of 17.9 which dissuades a large audience from reading it whereas articles written at varying grade levels would ensure all types of individuals would be able to read and comprehend the material that is being presented (www.readability-score.com)

                Dissecting Lyon and Mock’s article can be problematic if you are unfamiliar with environmental terms such as polar microalgae, ephemeral nature, or oscillating polar environmental gradients. To fully comprehend the article you have to be able to clearly understand what each word or phrase means. More often than not, the average person will be unable to decipher what the above terms mean let alone put them into context. For example, the sentence, “Polar microalgae, which form the base of a largely bottom-up controlled polar food web [1] have successfully adapted to the extreme and oscillating polar environmental gradients,” would be difficult for anyone to understand unless they have a background in field specific scientific studies.  The previously mentioned terms show how the authors identified a target audience which is limited to scientific officials with a scientific understanding of the issue and excludes the people who only have a social understanding of the issue. A study conducted by the National Adult Literacy Study showed that the average adult only reads at the seventh grade reading level. The difference between an average adult’s reading level and this article is 10.9 years of schooling! This is a drastic difference.

                Another way in which Lyon and Mock targeted scientists was through their general syntax (which is not in fact general at all). After putting the first paragraph of the article into the readability calculator, I found a few interesting facts about the piece. First of all, the official style is typically written in long, complex sentences which have one or more subordinate clauses (a subject and verb that cannot stand alone like a dependent clause). The readability calculator’s text statistics show a few alarming numbers that demonstrate complex sentences. The average words per sentence in the article are measured at 25.2! After researching the official style I was able to come to the conclusion that the longer the sentences, the less inclined people are to read them. In addition to that observation though I discovered that even when some sentences are long people prefer reading them to shorter sentences if they flow smooth and are comprehensible. This statement prevails true to the first observation of the article on microalgae because the average words per sentence were 25.2 in a single paragraph. In addition to word count, the sentences contain strategies known such as relative clause and slow sentence opening. These strategies are often used with transitions which increase sentence length. Two specific relative clauses appear in the first paragraph. The first one states (relative clause in bold), “Polar microalgae, which form the base of a largely bottom-up controlled polar food web [1] have successfully adapted to the extreme and oscillating polar environmental gradients,” in which the bolded portion of the sentence is extra information and unneeded for the audience to understand the rest of the text. Relative clause is used again in the same format as, “…which have been well described in previous reviews…” In this case, additional information should not be necessary to understand the sentence in its entirety. Another way in which the official style is used is to provide extra words to the beginning of a sentence to increase the word length and draw out the emphasized portion of the sentence. The article has one slow sentence opening that stuck out to me in particular. It is written as (slow sentence opening in bold), “And only through advances in our understanding…” The beginning of this sentence is wordy and contains too many words. The sentence could easily have begun at “advances” rather than at “and only through.”

                Transitions were also used in the article to increase sentence length and provide some clarity between details and explanations. These three transitions were words such as, in addition, thus, and however. These three transitions are broken up into further categories of transitions. “In addition” falls under the amplification category which means the author uses it to develop worth and understandability for a science audience. “Thus,” on the other hand is the relationship between cause and effect while “however,” belongs in the category of compare and contrast. In this particular situation “however” fits precisely in the contrast category because it is comparing the dangers of global warming to the new advances of “resource for identification of new species, new physiological mechanisms of adaptation and new genes.”

Each of these strategies coincides with the writing associated with a scientific community. The article itself was published in Polar Microbiology, in order to provide other scientists with this newfound data, tracking the effects of polar microalgae.

                An easy way in which this article could have been written for the general public would be to explain what and how the issue relates to daily life. A short excerpt is written as, “Polar microalgae, which form the base of a largely bottom-up controlled polar food web [1] have successfully adapted to the extreme and oscillating polar environmental gradients,” could have been written as, “Polar microalgae, or algae found in sea-ice, is the base of a the food chain in polar regions. This type of algae has successfully adapted to the extreme changes in the Polar Regions. These changes can be caused from altitude, temperature, depth, etc.” The changes I made from the single sentence to my version is three times longer than that of the original sentence; however, my three sentences is written at an average grade level of 8.7 rather than the original sentence written an average grade level of 18.6. One struggle that comes from converting something with “high” official standing to something more plainly is that the material will be longer which could, in itself, deter people from reading it. In my experience though, I would prefer to read something at an easier grade level where I understand the material than try to read something in the official style that may as well be written in a foreign language.

                Scientific pieces should be published in multiple venues at numerous reading levels to ensure all individuals have the right and ability to understand what is going on the environment. This article caters to a select group of people in a complex way to establish credibility. However, even though these two authors are given credit for the piece and it was published in Polar Microbiology I can only find information on Thomas Mock whereas information background information on Barbara Lyon is limited if not impossible to find. I also found it peculiar the article is labeled under “open access” which means it is open to the public. I am curious as to why an article written at this level without including a basic explanation of the topic would be open to the public at all. I think this is another important aspect of the article because the use of the official style in the article has a specific audience of scientists. This could make the general public feel unintelligent after attempting to read the article since they would not have an understanding of the topic. I understand that the scientific community is constantly at odds with one another but excluding the general public from valuable information will deter the general public from putting in an effort when the issue is too advanced to come back from.

By: Shelby Jacobson

Official Style And It's Inherent Assets, Or Are They Flaws?

Official Style: A Critique

The question of “What is the Official Style,” has a multi-faceted answer. The irony of the Official Style is that it was not a style implemented by any official source. While official sources certainly use it, and to great effect, there is no law or any direct imperative that any individual is forced to use it.  Certainly, in our youth during schooling we are taught that we should use the Official Style, without it ever being framed as a style. We are taught that by writing in the method of the Official Style that we sound smarter, and that is how we will get ahead in society. This training is essential to success in today’s society, since the Official Style is so widespread. Indeed, many people write in the Official Style without ever realizing that they are doing so. What then defines Official Style becomes extremely relevant, and the point of this discussion.

            There is an entire list of descriptive features that underlie Official Style. Such as absolutes, coordination, infinitives, prepositions, and more. These features appear in concepts such as obfuscating the truth in political speech, being detached and impartial on government forms, even the intent to fill space with needless words to convey legitimacy through volume, such as in legal papers. The reasons for these tactics are related to the strategy that the person or person(s) writing the Official Style is implementing. In the case of the article I am analyzing, the strategy of the Official Style use is to build impartiality and emphasize passive voice. The document wishes to communicate information, without taking sides. The bureaucratic nature of the work conveys official practices and standards, and the Official Style is clearly the default method to facilitate with that goal. This being said, there are specific examples that highlight this goal, such as the statement regarding unjust treatment or firing reads as follows, “In considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Fair Work Commission must take into account all of the following factors.”

                After the preceding statement, this text implements bullet points to highlight each possible aspect that needs to be considered in order to answer the question. While these bullets are meant to be clear, and easy enough to understand for the average reader, the tone of each point in this segment echoes the whole. The whole work is written in the passive voice, and strives towards impartiality. This strategy is mostly enabled by the use of definitive bullet points, prepositions, and infinitive phrases. There is also heavy use of coordination in order to link subjects within the same bullet point format. These methods of implementing the Official Style are each unique with defining characteristics. Absolute phrases such as “employees who have been demoted but the demotion did not involve a significant reduction in their remuneration or duties and who remain employed by the employer who demoted them,” particularly help to sell the image of this being an unbiased and impartial work. Not interested in taking sides in a dispute but rather being a neutral judge and setting the policy for procedure. This voice is also passive and is by no means reacting to moment. This text is meant for reference and review, not as an immediate response to a particular action.

This tone is further propagated by Prepositions such as “In other dismissals,” and Infinitives like “Eligible employees may be able to claim.” While both of these terms are in reference for separate tactics for writing in the Official Style, both are highly instrumental in fulfilling the strategy of being detached from the subject matter. It is fair to say that the writer(s) of this government text on the proper and lawful methods for terminating employees will never have direct contact with those that are employing the text. Then there is the very consistent use of coordination. With so many ideas that need to be linked together within one bullet point in order to be precise, it is important to use clear transitions. Such as laying out the specific criteria for terminating an employee, what they have to qualify for, or have been lacking in. Especially in a document that strives for the thin line between clarity and impartiality. This line can be interpreted differently depending on which side of it you are on as well. For an employer, the document can be interpreted in a way that allows them to be rid of unwanted employees. On the flip side it could be interpreted by differently by an employee who feels they have been wrongfully fired. To compound these viewpoints further, there is an interesting irony within this document, while the words on the page strive towards being impartial, unbiased, and official, the content of the message is inherently political and biased. While certainly not everyone will agree with this claim, there is evidence to support it.

            This argument goes beyond just the words on the page. While the words do their best to be passive an impartial, the policies themselves clearly affect the public in political ways. How difficult it is to terminate an employee often boils down to political considerations. Traditionally Republicans maintain the conservative line that favors loose policies that favor companies, and would enable them to more easily terminate employees. This is known as the pro –business line and generally prefers as little government interference as possible. At the other side of the spectrum are the Democrats that tend to be more liberal, and are more supportive and protective of employees rather than employers. The Democrats would be focused on policies that would make it more difficult for companies to fire employees, and require companies to jump through more hoops in order to avoid paying unemployment. They are not against businesses, they just are pro-employee. For either point of view on the subject, it is important to consider that the Official style of writing hides these biases, and serves as a highly effective disconnect between those who set the policies, and those that view the policies and are affected by them. Employer, employee, judge, or even unbiased bystander, Official style is subject to interpretation, both in its word usage and intent.

            In conclusion, to revisit the original question of what the Official Style is, there are two answers. The first, and most boring answer is, The Official Style is the proper method or means to convey ideas, thoughts, and emotions in written and spoken form to another individual or individuals. The far less politically correct answer, and probably the most accurate answer is, the Official Style is how person A sends a message to person B and tries to sound as smart as they can in the process. In the case of our document of the Proper Termination of Employees, It is a combination of these two answers. Some aspects of the document are wordy and written to sound 

Mark S

Creative Style Prose: Spoken-Word Poetry

            The spoken word poem “Remember How We Forgot” is a poem that appears on the award-winning Canadian writer, poet, and performer Shane Kocyzan’s compilation titled The Short Story Long.   In 2000, Shane Kocyzan was crowned the very first Canadian to win the number one spot at the National Poetry Slam.  He has written and published three books.  His books were named Best Books of The Year in 2005 on the Guardian and Globe as well as Mail.  In 2012, he came out with a digital album of written works titled Remembrance Year in combination with the digital album titled A Short Story Long.

            In February of 2013 he appeared on a TED Talk Conference with his spoken word poem titled “To This Day.”  The poem discusses the lifelong effects of bullying on individuals who experience it, including Kocyzan, himself.  Kocyzan has received over ten million hits on many of his spoken word poems on his digital album.  “Remember How We Forgot” is among Kocyzan’s spoken word poems that can be found on YouTube.  The work appears on The Short Story Long and has received nearly a million views on YouTube to date. 

            “Remember How We Forgot” is quite a long poem.  When physically written out in its poem form, it is just over two pages long.  There are many creative rhetorical devices that are used in this poem that make the work as powerful as it is.  To begin to analyze the work based on its use of rhetoric, one can begin with the title itself.  Remember How We Forgot, both a rhetorical question and an oxymoron is an attention grabber that gives the listener a sense of wonder as to what exactly is supposed to be remembered that has been forgotten.  Following Remember How We Forgot is another rhetorical question, “remember how nobody really died in wars fought?” This is also an example of assonance, repeating of stressed vowel sounds.  Following this is “because each gunshot came from our fingertips”.  Here the author uses imagery to take us back to childhood.  To get the reader to begin to understand where he’s going with the title “Remember How We Forgot.”

            Following the rhetorical devices discussed above, the author begins to use a great deal of the scheme repetition.  In the below text taken from the poem, the word remember is used three times as a key word from the preceding clause, which is indicative of conduplicatio.  The author begins by comparing bending reality with circus strong men, which is an example of a simile.  The author then emphasizes his simile with anaphora, with the clause “like our imaginations were in shape then”, which is an example of personification.  Followed by a third like, again using anaphora, as well as imagery to take the reader back to being a little boy.  The author then uses the rhetorical question, remember how we forgot once again.  Another example of anaphora but with the second use of “remember how”, which is an example of amplification.  The author uses several instances of amplification exemplified in the examples below.  This use of repetition is for added emphasis on the parts of the poem that he wants readers to recognize as most significant.

Remember how we used to bend reality 
Like we were circus strong men
Like our imaginations were in shape then
Like we were all ninjas trained in the deadly art of "did not". 
Like "I totally got you"
"Did not"

Remember how we forgot?
Remember how our parents told us never to look directly into the sun.
Remember how we forgot?
Remember how we all caught mono and out folks would go, "oh the kissing disease"
Even though we’ve never really kissed anyone
Even though we never did half the things we said we’d done
Somehow we overcame
Somehow we pushed on
Somehow we’ve gone the distance
Test the limits 
Test the boundaries and borders 
Let us go the distance once more
Let us remember all the moments that were and were not
Like each moment inspires the next 
Like memories are the context we put ourselves in
Let us live like we meant it
Let us burn like we mean it

            The text below, also taken from the poem, is an example of climax.  The text begins with: “our dreams hung like apples”, an example of a simile, followed by an example of imagery “waiting to picked and peeled.”  The text then uses the analogy “we figure skated on thin ice” to demonstrate taking chances, followed by another analogy: “each slice of life was something sweet on the side.”  Personification is then used in the following clause: “we supplied the determination to make ideas and goals the parents of possibility.”  Akin and related is a pun for the actual definition of akin, which is being close in relation, while kin is an actual familial relation.  The author expands on the metaphor of family again, with his use of “members of this family”, “not just one branch on one tree, but a forest whose roots make up a dynasty.”  The author builds and builds in this passage until finally ending on a hyperbole using the word “dynasty” as a trope for emphasizing the oneness of humanity by discussing each individual person, first, as separation of one branch on a tree with a forest which makes up a “dynasty.”  The author also uses amplification in this instance, coupled with climax when the poem hits the word “dynasty.”

Once upon a time, we were young.
Our dreams hung like apples 
Waiting to be picked and peeled
And hope was something that needed to be reeled-in
So we can fill the always empty big fish bin with the one that got away
And proudly say that "this time, impossible is not an option"
Because success is so akin to effort and opportunity that it could be related
So we took chances 
We figure skated on thin ice
Belief that each slice of live was served with something sweet on the side
And failure was never nearly as important as the fact that we tried
That in the war against frailty and limitation 
We supplied the determination it takes to make ideas and goals the parents of possibility
And we believe ourselves to be members of this family
Not just one branch on one tree 
But a forest whose roots make up a dynasty

To further expand on this written work, analyzing the text’s intended audience gives greater significance to meaning as Koyczan expresses it within this work through creative prose.  Evidence of Koyczan’s intended audience is first represented in the title of the work itself and is reinforced through repetition throughout the entire work.  “We” broadly represents all of humanity.  It would be a generalization to say that Koyczan is referring to everyone, entirely, because not everyone has forgotten what he is describing in the text.  Additionally, not every person would be able to relate to the text, necessarily, yet Koyczan is trying to generate the widest audience possible through his use of the word we as an opener in general.  Using we as a word choice invites anyone reading or listening to the text to be a part of Koyczan’s intended audience. 

Analyzing the text based on its background, that is, who wrote it and for what purpose gives greater insight into a narrower intended audience. Koyczan, a victim of childhood bullying and an advocate for a bully-free society is narrowing in on those who may have forgotten the novelties of simply being human, living, and existing.  Either through the experience of being bullied or through the process of growing older.  As the intended audience is likely, in part, those who have been victims of bullying as individuals, as mentioned, Koyczan tries to enable those who may have lost some of their self-respect and self-efficacy due to the traumas of bullying to also remember [the narrative outlined in the poem].  The entire work is meant to inspire hope in its audience, which is concretely why we is likely, in part, those, that like Shawn Koyczan, have experienced the difficult wrath of bullying. 

Despite this text seeming to most importantly be to inspire hope in one who may need inspiration, namely, one having been a victim of bullying, there is one clause that connects to many other ideas in the text that signifies a much wider audience than just victims of bullying.  While some of Kocyzan’s other poems are meant to give voice to those without a voice, that is, victims of bullying, this particular poem is likely speaking to a much wider audience.  The following independent clause within the text gives light to this idea: “And when I ask you to remember, it’s because the future isn't what it used to be.”  This is directly talking to individuals in adulthood or at the very least, teenagers, who have learned that the future is not what it originally appeared to be during childhood.  This is signified in the preceding passage to the one just mentioned: “remember when we wanted to be Firemen? A time we now call "back then", when boys wanted to be Astronauts or superheroes. Those days when girls wanted to be Prime-ministers or princesses.” This is not only speaking to how our dreams or life goals shift as we age and recognize life from a much different, more realistic perspective, but also gives light to growing older as we internalize gender roles: “those days when girls wanted to be prime-ministers…” This passage gives insight into the “tom-boy” phenomenon girls often experience (not always) in childhood. 

It is at these stages in life that we realize the inevitabilities of life. And it is in childhood that we have the greatest sense of imagination and hope.  There are several parts within the text that talk about larger, “big picture” ideas.  Like wars, tragedy, and the reality of the lifecycle.  Each person encounters at least one of these obstacles by just being a part of the human experience.  These few passages really signify the intended audience.  The rest of the text just extends on this idea, “we figure skated on thin ice”, which represents how we took chances so freely as children---a sense of omnipotence.  The following also represents how our paradigm shifts as we grow older: “believed that each slice of life was served with something sweet on the side.”  The use of past tense, “believed” states a passing of this belief.  The succession of clauses to follow show an intense drive for defeating what we deemed to be the impossible, the connectedness we felt with others, and seeing “dreams and goals [as] the parents of possibility.”  All of these clauses represent a strong sense of inspiration, hope, and ambition for life, yet they also imply that these feelings have passed.  These few examples, and there are several more, coupled with the use of “we” in the title in addition to the repetition of the use of “we” in the same format as the title using anaphora, keep the use of we consistent and repeat the thought to the large, intended audience with each new clause.  This written works’ intended audience is humanity as we age.  It is growing older and the passing of hope. 

The core point of the message in the text is the renewal of hope by remembering what we have forgotten.  Finally, the end of the text shifts completely to a new a paradigm altogether.  The text asks the audience to now forget remembering “how we forgot.”  The succession of asking the audience to “remember how we forgot” and then abruptly asking the audience to forget remembering is asking the audience to now come into the present.  The core philosophy Koyczan’s wants the audience to grasp is each individuals’ inner “light” or individual greatness.  “The memories we are amassing will stand as testament that somehow we bend minds around the concept that we see others within ourselves”, this clause points to seeing our dreams fulfilled through others. The following clause, “that self-knowledge can be found on bookshelves, so who we are has no bearing on how we appear” is either a biblical reference to understanding ourselves from a biblical perspective already foretold or, simply, that one should not try to understand oneself based on looks. 

This likely is referencing accepting oneself on the basis of what we look like.  Kocyzan may purposely align “self-knowledge can be found on bookshelves, so who we are has no bearing on how we appear” to take the focus off of individuals looking to their image to understand themselves.  Expanding on this idea, Kocyzan is likely trying to shift the paradigm of those bullied based on their physical appearance—another example of how this text is in part, perhaps meant to renew hope or manifest a shift in paradigm to victims of bullying.  Lastly, the last passage shifting from the past to the present “forget remembering how we forgot” is indicative of an immediate call for action. 

Forget remembering how we forgot

Live like a plot twist exist now and in memory

Because we burn bright

Our lights leave scars on the sun

Let no one say we'll be undone by times passing

The memories we are amassing will stand as testament

That somehow we bend minds around the concept

that we see others within ourselves.

That self-knowledge can be found on bookshelves

So who we are has no bearing on how we appear

Look directly into every mirror

Realize our reflection is the first sentence to a story

And our story starts:

"We were here.”

Overall, the author’s use of repetition is meant to lead up to his main idea, that being, “we were here”, despite the cycle of life.  All of it builds in an exciting way that enables the reader to keep reading to find out where the author is going to end up.  With that said, the use of simple creative rhetorical devices, that is, amplification, rhetorical questions, personification, hyperbole, assonance, pun, and climax makes this written work both playful, yet serious.  It takes one back to childhood, yet identifies a certain generation with its use of eponym “we just spun yarn like Rumpelstiltskin spun gold”.  According to the TED Talk Kocyzan was featured on, The Short Story Long as a compilation is meant to especially inspire those ridiculed by bullying and the lasting effects bullying can have on people as they grow from children into adulthood.  Koyczan, a victim of bullying himself, uses creative rhetoric to shed light on the bigger themes of life that can sometimes be forgotten if we don’t remember how we forgot.

Kocyzan may have indirectly stated many of these ideas to allow individual interpretation and not force-feed individuals listening to his message an idea, but letting them interpret the text from their own perspective.  This idea as a whole outlines much of the point of creative works, especially poetry, and what divides creative prose from the other styles of rhetoric, official and plain, because quite literally, interpretation is up to the audience when it comes to creative prose.  While there may be an official “right answer” to what certain creative prose in poetry means, often, again, artists want to leave interpretation up to the audience to allow freedom of interpretation. 

By: Courtney Joslin