Re: Writing Workshop Group - TOEGTW Exercise Discussion: Please Read First Post
A few comments on the submissions for chapters 14 and 15.
Seems like none of us were too impressed with the piece we were commenting on for this one!
I had difficulty with this topic so my comments will probably reflect that! Springs’ restatement seemed to be within two of the sentences, “Finished, complete, en finato” and “fly, little WIP, fly” maybe I’ve missed some, but is this restatement? I’m not sure. If I’ve got it right, I think Glen had it quite well: “They need water”, “Early and plentiful drinking of water”, and “water supplies” (not so sure about that one). Moonbat uses the repeated word technology in much the same way that the book example on pirates use the phrase “there were pirates” but again I’m not sure if Moonbat’s quite makes it as restatement. Aber’s seems to use explore in much the same way again but maybe with more variation in form making it less repetitive. I really did much the same in my own, except that I introduced the dart gun and then subsequently used ‘it’ or ‘they’ to avoid monotony but then does that mean I didn’t achieve restatement at all? I’m not really criticising the entries here, I suspect the problem is that I struggled to nail this idea down for myself.
I think Moonbat is the only one to have tackled this one, and seems to have done it fine! Although, again, I had problems with this idea as well. The book says that an illustration is one of several possible cases, whilst specification covers all the cases. However, how can you say all the cases have been covered? Again I struggle to see the difference!
The material on comparing and contrasting I found much more straightforward (thank goodness!).
I thought both of Springs first two were organised around the points of difference. In the first I think you should have fully discussed all the points about Abendau before moving on to present the contrasting points for Dignad, ie. organised around subject not the points. Both of your paragraphs seemed to deal with one point of difference between each and then move on to another point of difference. I think Glen’s (slightly vitriolic!) comparison showed the two techniques better. Though I notice he didn’t go on to show the similarities (maybe there aren’t any J). I actually found the difference between the two techniques, organising around subject or points of difference/similarity, quite interesting. I’ve never consciously done this before and the two approaches do seem to shift the emphasis between the subject and the points.