Maria Shreve
Dr. DeVries
English 5870
February 24, 2009

In the introduction of Rewriting, Joseph Harris, discusses exactly how intellectuals write in response to text, that is, the work of others. (1) He states that it simply is not enough to summarize a text, but that respondents are expected to add to it and reinterpret the texts. (2) Interestingly, he notes, “Our creativity thus has its roots in the work of others – in response, reuse, and rewriting.” Harris divides the textbook into five separate areas, which he refers to as moves: coming to terms, forwarding, countering, taking an approach, and revising. (4) He specifies that this is not a book about style or research and states:

My concerns here begin at more or less the point when research ends; when you are faced with the question of what to say about a text that you have located or that you have been assigned to read. (9)

That, of course, is the difficult part. I can relate to this with my own students. When we work on response to literature, they tend to summarize, and are very resistant to analyzing the text. However, I find myself feeling that same resistance, when I am reading a difficult academic text. After all, it’s safe to summarize, it’s easy to summarize, and I won’t be blatantly wrong if I summarize. However, if I interpret something and I am way off – then what?
In Chapter One, Harris states that to understand a text, it is necessary to essentially understand the author’s language and text and then translate them into words of your own. This translation process includes a delicate balance of quoting and paraphrasing. (15) All of this amounts to coming to terms, which he defines as following:

…you need both to give the text its due and to show what uses you want to make of it. You are not simply re-presenting a text but incorporating it into your own project as a writer. (15)

However, it goes beyond incorporating it into a project as a writer, because at this point there are so many decisions about what words and phrases to use and not use, whether to quote of paraphrase, or even use italics, the writer’s role essentially becomes that of a writer/editor. Harris believes that part of coming to terms includes defining the project in your own terms, noting key words or passages from the text, and assessing the uses and limits of that approach. (15) Harris warns that there is a risk that while summarizing complicated texts, and converting the texts into academic shorthand, that important information can be inaccurate or shortchanged. How can an academic writer prevent this? Harris suggests restating a main idea of thesis of a text, although he acknowledges that when multiple texts and issues are used in composing your own text, this is not usually feasible, or even possible. He advises to ask yourself: What issues drive this essay? What ideas does it explore? What lines of inquiry does it develop? For there he says to try to narrow it down to a main idea. (17)
A concept that stands out in my mind is the idea of generosity, in which a writer believes another writer’s view is flawed, but begins by explaining the original writer’s point of view in a positive light, before presenting her point of view. (18) He notes that this particular process gave a writer “a sense of weight to her own response.” This method certainly is more professional than simply starting off using an obvious counterargument on someone you don’t agree with.
Harris also discusses the various uses quotations – how they can be used to strengthen your writing, and in what ways they can actually weaken your writing. He notes that students tend to overuse quotes, and I know that I fall into that practice myself. This is ironic, considering I advise my students to quote “only the really good stuff.”
My initial reaction to reading the first few pages of the introduction was – bravo – this is certain to help me with my academic writing. This is my third semester in the RTW program, and although I’ve done well, I am never certain that my writing is what it should be. This does make me wonder, though, why this book isn’t part of one of the gateway courses. For instance, in English 5001, we did a literature review, and it seems to me that this textbook would be a valuable resource.