Editing WS

[astroid88]

Just looking for some general opinions on what are the best parts to "remove" in a WS that one is trying to condense. I am asking because I'm in that process right now (making a 50 page paper a 25 page paper). My paper is basically arguing that x was a certain way for a certain time period. Then x slowly transitioned. Then it became y.

Right now my paper looks like this:

Intro: 10 pages. Involves situating reader, thesis, historiography 

First Body: 10 pages. Introduces and explains how x was a certain way.

Second Body: About 12 pages. Explains the three reasons why x changed.

Third Body: About 10 pages. How x is now y and my justifications for that belief. 

Conclusion: About 4 pages. Summarizing everything.

I'm thinking about dropping the conclusion in the WS I submit. Where the argument is ending will be obvious from the abstract and the third body. I don't think I need to recapitulate everything for a third time. Is this a good move?

I'm also thinking about only going into one of the three reasons why x changed. It saves space, I can sum up the other two in an abstract, and I can make it clear in the abstract that I will just be examining one of those reasons. Opinions?

Edited September 26, 2017 by astroid88

[fuzzylogician]

It's hard to answer specifically for such a general question, but in my experience condensing this much usually needs to involve some combination of rewriting/condensing sections and removing whole parts. In this particular case, I can imagine that one way to go is to condense the intro to about 4-5 pages; pick one of the main three arguments to be *the* main point of this shorter paper and spell it out in full (but with an eye for condensing where possible), a total of 8-10 pages; for the other two parts, give shorter versions of the arguments (my preference is to give strong detail for one argument, sketch others; but sometimes it's better to fully leave out an argument than do a half-assed job of explaining two, so pick wisely), about another 8-10 pages combined; then a shorter 1 page summary/conclusion (instead of the abrupt no-conclusion option, which I personally don't like as much. Iterate only what the main point was and why it matters, not how you got there). 

[astroid88]

37 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

In this particular case, I can imagine that one way to go is to condense the intro to about 4-5 pages; 

Thank you for responding! I had that idea in mind. I'm going to try and see how much of the historiography section I can condense. I have a paragraph each for 3 historians who have written on the topic, so I will try and condense that into one paragraph. 

 

37 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

pick one of the main three arguments to be *the* main point of this shorter paper and spell it out in full (but with an eye for condensing where possible), a total of 8-10 pages; 

By this do you mean I should possibly change my thesis paragraph to account for only that one driving factor? I just feel weird attributing my argument to solely one factor, as part of paper argues that no one factor contributed to the change. It was a coalescence of the three factors. If that's not what you meant, could you please clarify? 

Thanks again. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by astroid88

[fuzzylogician]

7 minutes ago, astroid88 said:

By this do you mean I should possibly change my thesis paragraph to account for only that one driving factor? I just feel weird attributing my argument to solely one factor. If that's not what you meant, could you please clarify? 

You have "body 1", "body 2", "body 3", each making a separate point, supported by one or more arguments. These three points are separate from one another, but obviously related. I am asking, is it possible to make the main point of this shorter paper be just whatever is the main point of body 1/2/3, with all its supporting arguments making a strong case for this (now) one main point you're making, and with the other two points being condensed and hence at least somewhat secondary (= with some arguments either omitted or greatly reduced/sketched)? This is under the idea that it's better to do one thing well than three things half-assed. You can very well place this shorter paper in context by explicitly saying it's a reduced version of a longer paper where you spell out more completely arguments for the other two points that are now no longer the main one in the smaller paper. You can even make that longer paper available on your website for anyone who's curious to see the full paper. 

Caveat: I'm coming at this from my own field, which is not history, so take this advice as you will. 

[Sigaba]

12 hours ago, astroid88 said:

Just looking for some general opinions on what are the best parts to "remove" in a WS that one is trying to condense. I am asking because I'm in that process right now (making a 50 page paper a 25 page paper). My paper is basically arguing that x was a certain way for a certain time period. Then x slowly transitioned. Then it became y.

Right now my paper looks like this:

Intro: 10 pages. Involves situating reader, thesis, historiography 

First Body: 10 pages. Introduces and explains how x was a certain way.

Second Body: About 12 pages. Explains the three reasons why x changed.

Third Body: About 10 pages. How x is now y and my justifications for that belief. 

Conclusion: About 4 pages. Summarizing everything.

I'm thinking about dropping the conclusion in the WS I submit. Where the argument is ending will be obvious from the abstract and the third body. I don't think I need to recapitulate everything for a third time. Is this a good move?

I'm also thinking about only going into one of the three reasons why x changed. It saves space, I can sum up the other two in an abstract, and I can make it clear in the abstract that I will just be examining one of those reasons. Opinions?

I recommend the following. 

• Find a few secondary works that are important to your fields of interest by a mix of established and up and coming historians.
• Find previously published works, delivered papers and speeches that served as earlier versions of chapters of the published works.
• If the path backwards leads you to a historians' dissertation, consider obtaining a copy.
• If an established historian has published a memoir or autobiography, check it out from the library.

Spend time with the books and their earlier iterations.

• You will see historians making the kinds of tough decisions you're attempting to make now.
• You will see how they refine bigger arguments to more efficient, heavily nuanced cores.
• You may also see how supporting examples and narrative passages are made ever tauter.
• You will also see how footnotes or end notes are used to show what they know but don't have the space to say now.
• You'll also find turns of phrases that allow for full speed pivots, hop-skip changes of pace, and off tempo jump cuts that leave readers feeling smart and doing some of the heavy lifting for the writer.

After doing the above, take a day or two off. After your break, sit down with a physical copy of your 50-pager close by, turn on your computer and then write a new essay that's about fifteen to seventeen pages long. (It's absolutely imperative to hold yourself to this limit.)

This effort is going to sting at times. That sting will be the pride. And rightly so, a 50-page paper takes a lot of hard work to produce. Yet, to paraphrase Marcellus Wallace, FUCK PRIDE. This is about getting into graduate school. (Where, if you're lucky, pride will be beaten out of you.)

Use what you've studied by other historians to write a new work--one that's leaner and meaner than what you've started with. When you're done, you'll have a twenty-page writing sample. (Because seventeen is such an odd number, and if you went to fifteen that would be too short, so, yeah, twenty.) Then, at your discretion, develop five more pages worth of material.

If the previous suggestion isn't to your tastes, ignore it. (I'm used to it. It happens at work. All the time. And I get to say "Gee.." from time to time.)

But what ever you do, make sure that the most polished section of your WS is your discussion of X becomes Y and how it relates to the existing historiography of X to Y as well as the broader implications for your field--if not the profession more generally. And do all you can to keep it under five pages.

#HTH