Writing Challenges! Finding Your Argument
Argument. It’s one of the most important parts of academic writing. But it can be very hard to identify your arguments even if (and maybe especially if) you’ve been working on a piece for a while. Many of my clients hire me to help them figure out what they are actually trying to argue in their writing.
Of course, sometimes you don’t want to hire a developmental editor to work on your argument or you can’t afford it. So in this post, I want to share a method that helps me in my editorial work. I’m gearing it towards authors who have a draft of an article or book, but aren’t completely sure what their arguments are within it. This strategy is inspired by Scott Norton’s Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers. This book is a must-read for developmental editors, but it can also be useful (as the title suggests) to authors. It provides many helpful strategies and tips for editors, coaching us on how to work with common issues in writing, including argument, structure, and narrative flow.
One of the reasons it can be difficult to identify your argument (or at least your main argument) is that you’ve likely been working on this manuscript for a very long time. It is very likely swirling around in your head in ways that make it difficult to tease apart. So what I like about this method is that it provides a way to step back and evaluate your argument with a new perspective.
Norton emphasizes that a strong argument needs to have three main components. A thesis statement needs to be (1) clear and have a compelling point of view; (2) original; and (3) relevant. So when trying to refine (or define) your argument, these are the three areas you need to keep in mind.
When Norton is talking about a thesis having a compelling point of view, he means that it should be your unique take on the material. What do you bring to this material or how do you interpret in ways that are original? He calls this the “author’s special take on the material” (52). After all, many people write books about similar topics. What is it about your topic that makes it your own?
In terms of originality, he’s suggesting (not surprisingly) that your argument can’t be something that someone else has made before. What is it about your thesis that is new? What gaps in the research does it fill? Your thesis should not simply be derivative of other’s work. Just as importantly, I would add, is that your argument should be significant. It’s not just enough to identify a gap in the literature. Rather, you need to convey to the reader why it is important to fill that gap. Why does your work matter? Why should a reader care? As I’ve discussed in an earlier blog, publishers are looking for books that can appeal to broader audiences. At the very least, this includes scholars outside of your discipline (and undergraduates), but ideally it means educated members of the general public. Your argument should help them understand why they should care about your work.
When Norton talks about a thesis being relevant, he means that it should apply to the majority of the material in your book (without just being a broad generalization). So if your book is about clothing in contemporary Mauritania, with an equal focus on men and women’s clothing, your argument shouldn’t mainly focus on women. As a rule of thumb, he suggests that at least 75 percent of the material should directly relate to the thesis.
So what do you do with this? Here’s where I find Norton especially helpful in my editing. He suggests that for manuscripts that have an issue with argument, you read through the manuscript carefully, flagging every instance where an argument or a potential argument appears. He writes them out (along with the page number) on a legal pad. I copy and paste them (along with the page numbers) into a separate document.
One you have all of your arguments together, read through them and see if any themes emerge. I find that often in the manuscripts I work on, arguments group under two to four themes. For example, an imagined book on dress in Mauritania might have themes that include gender (how dress expresses and reinforces gender categories), agency (how dress shapes people’s experiences in the world), and social status (how dress reflects and creates people’s social standing). I then list those themes and put the relevant arguments beneath them. Then I move arguments around in each theme, trying to order them from most essential to the most minor. At this point I also try and flag any arguments that don’t seem relevant to the text or that seem tangential. They might be discarded later.
Once I have a sense of the themes and the arguments within them, I start trying to find the overarching argument. First, I revisit each theme’s most important arguments, trying to determine if there are any that encompass the whole manuscript. If not, I start trying to draft new arguments, often by combining arguments from different themes.
Keep Norton’s three elements of argument in mind at this stage. A good argument should encompass all three. I find the “relevance” one especially helpful. If you’re finding that your overarching argument doesn’t apply to all of your text, either you need to expand the argument or cut part of your text. For example, let’s consider this potential argument for my imagined text: While women use the Mauritanian mahlafa (veil) to display their femininity, lower-status groups also invest in particular kinds of veils to demonstrate their improved social standing. This thesis doesn’t encompass the theme of agency. Maybe that’s a minor part of the text and so this doesn’t really matter. But if it’s fairly major, I either should expand the thesis or consider whether I actually want to keep my discussion of agency. (Remember, cut pieces can always become other articles!)
You might find that other methods work better for you (like highlighting all the arguments in your text itself). The main point of this exercise is that it’s helpful to develop strategies that allow you to see your arguments in a fresh way. This, in turn, makes it easier to reflect on what your manuscript is really about. If you do this exercise and still feel confused, take a few days off and then revisit your argument list again. Often some time away gives your brain the space to figure things out without you even knowing it. Happy editing and good luck!
Like this post? Consider subscribing to my blog below!
