The critique assignment

A WRITING ASSIGNMENT THAT IS frequently used at BSU is the critique. Its most common form is the critique of a journal article, but it includes critiques of speeches, other kinds of presentations, and artistic performances. It is a useful kind of assignment because it can be adapted to almost any discipline, it is easy to design, it exposes students to some of the ideas and modes of thinking in the discipline, and it requires critical thinking.

Successful critique assignments, however, require thought and carefully written instructions. If students are only told to "find an article in a professional journal and write a critique of it," they won't have much to go on and are likely to produce all sorts of different papers. The critique is actually a more complex and challenging assignment than it might appear. This issue of Word Works is an update of an earlier treatment we did of the summary and critical analysis in numbers 9 and 11, January and March 1987.

An important key to success is to understand that the critique is really a two-part assignment. The parts might be called summary and response. First the writer must summarize enough of the article (or performance, etc.) for readers to have some basic information about what is being critiqued. It is only after that background has been established that the writer will be able to communicate his or her thoughts on the value of the article.

There are several possible learning goals for the critique assignment: to get students to do a close reading of a sample of writing in the discipline, to get them to do some critical thinking, to engage them in a conversation in the discipline, to acculturate them to the kinds of writing done in the discipline.

The summary section The summary section should be brief. It forms a kind of entryway, a portal the writer leads readers through so that they can get their bearings in the critique. At the same time, the summary needs to convey adequate information about the article. If it's too brief, it won't do enough to orient the reader. A rule of thumb is that the summary should be between 100 and 150 words; the length depends on how complex the article is and how the writer plans to respond to it. Students are more likely to have difficulty making the summary short enough rather than long enough.

The three most important criteria for summary writing are

• The summary should be fair to the original article. No matter how strongly the writer may disagree with the article, the summary should be rendered neutrally, without any expression of approval or disapproval.

• The summary should be accurate. The writer should not distort the author's meaning. Such distortion is akin to the "straw man" fallacy, in which the opponent's position is first misrepresented, then the misrepresentation is attacked rather than what the opponent really says.

• The summary should also be proportionate. The ideas the writer finds important should be presented in the summary as important. The summary must highlight ideas that are really important in the original, not minor points, examples, or details.

The matter of audience needs to be addressed in the assignment. What should the writer assume about the audience? Is the audience already familiar with the article? If not, then the writer must supply enough of a summary so that the reader can follow the response. If the reader can be assumed to know the article, then the writer still must provide brief bits of summary, probably throughout the response, so that the reader will have a reference point. The reference point is needed so that the reader can know what points in the article the writer is responding to.

Still, on the whole it is better not to assume that the audience knows the article. For many students, the process of summarizing is itself an important step toward writing a good response. Many students need to go through the summarizing process in order to think critically about the ideas in the article. One might think that only the response part of the critique contains real critical thinking, but good summarizing calls for critical thinking, too. Students must make discriminating decisions about what is more important in the article and what is less important.

A common requirement in writing summaries is to "write it in your own words." This is important, but it can be misleading. What happens is that some students lift whole sentences out of the article and just change a few words. As a result, they do not think very hard about what the sentences are saying, and they come close to plagiarizing. A better piece of advice is: "Write in your own sentences." When students struggle to render the author's ideas in their own sentences, they are more likely to internalize the article's meaning and line of reasoning and so it's a valuable preparation for writing a strong response. There's something about writing one's own sentences that challenges one to work harder and try to render the article's meaning as accurately as possible. And students are more likely to actually write in their "own words."

So far, in this discussion of writing the summary, we've talked mostly about what the finished summary should be like. But how can a writer go about writing a summary? The best strategy we know of is to make a "descriptive outline" of the article. The descriptive outline was invented and named by Ken Bruffee, but it has become popularized under the name "does-says analysis." The writer goes through the article and annotates it in the margin, in two ways: "This paragraph does . . . ." and "This paragraph says . . . ." The "does" analysis gets at the role each paragraph fills in the article. It may introduce the article, introduce a main point, make a transition from one main section of the article to the next, continue the discussion of the previous paragraph, conclude, etc. The "says" analysis is a brief summary of the paragraph's main point. If the paragraph has a topic sentence, then the "says" is a boiled- down version. If there is no topic sentence, then the writer has to think about what the paragraph as a whole adds up to.

If the article is long, then a does-says analysis of every single paragraph gets tedious and unnecessary. In that case, the writer should move up one level and analyze the article by sections, by groups of related paragraphs.

The annotations from the does-says analysis, if written in the writer's own words and sentences, can usually be translated directly into a written summary. If the writer feels unready to make that jump, there is an intermediate step, that of mapping out the article graphically in some sort of idea-map or tree diagram or even by drawing a picture that somehow represents the article's message. The graphic representation will often help the writer get the summary organized in his or her mind, ready to write it down.

In many professional journals, abstracts are provided at the beginnings of the articles. Will the existing abstracts make it more difficult for students to write their own summaries? It shouldn't. In fact, an existing summary may help students think about their priorities for deciding what is most important to include. Aside from getting this help, they will have to work just as hard as if there were no abstract, if they are required to write summaries in their own sentences.

The response section The response section should be longer that the summary. A one-to-two or one-to- three ratio is a good rule of thumb. So a three-page critique would have less than a page of summary and two pages of response.

When writing a critique, the writer may totally agree with the article, totally disagree, or fall somewhere in between. When taking the in- between position, the writer mostly agrees but disagrees on a few points, or vice versa. The in- between position is the most common, because it reflects most readers' experiences. It is also the most persuasive, because it shows that the reader is trying to be fair not just buying everything the article says uncritically, nor dismissing the whole article out of hand as worthless without giving it due consideration.

Students often have difficulty figuring out what to say in the response part of the critique. They encounter a familiar problem: How can I take a piece of writing and produce more writing about it? What can I possibly say? If I agree with the article, what can I do but make a bunch of empty noises saying I agree? If I disagree, then it's easier to say something, but who am I to disagree with someone who knows so much more than I do?

A strategy that helps writers find things to say, both in agreement and disagreement, is to play the "believing and doubting game." It was first developed by Peter Elbow almost 30 years ago and has become increasingly popular ever since. What makes the game work is exactly that it is a "game" that a writer "plays."

The believing game. Write down every possible way you can believe what the author says. Believe with all your might. When you come across things you don't believe, try to find some possible way in which you might find it believable. Think about what readers might believe it. Think up circumstances under which you might possibly find it believable. Try to fill at least a page. Here is an example of a writer playing the believing game with an article by Mark Rothenberg, "The Net Doesn't Need Thought Police."

I believe Rothenberg is absolutely right. If we allow censorship of the internet in any form, what will happen to the free exchange of ideas? The internet is supposed to be an open forum where everyone has a voice. If I don't like what someone is saying I can respond or refute or, on TV or the radio, change the channel. By having someone else dictate what I should be exposed to, I no longer am allowed even the freedom of thinking for myself. Why should I think that someone else is better qualified to make my decisions when the decision is mine? Legislating morality and censorship is not for my benefit but for the benefit of those that want to censor.

The doubting game. Write down every possible way you can doubt what the author says. When you come across things you believe, try to think of ways they might be doubtful to certain kinds of readers or under certain circumstances. Try to fill at least a page. Here is an example of the same writer playing the doubting game with the Rothenberg article.

Rothenberg is really making the same slippery slope argument that people like the NRA use. Just banning children from looking at "dirty pictures" is not a good reason to think that the whole internet will lose its contents. The internet is or should be held to some standard based on what is being promoted, and responsibility dodging on the internet is just as bad as responsibility dodging elsewhere. Without something in place to make people responsible for information on the web, what can we do or how would we expect quality info? Why can't the slippery slope run in the opposite direction and we find ourselves with an internet that has been completely take over by corporations? What happens to the content then?

In addition to helping the writer find something to say in response, the believing and doubting game helps the writer get past any personal biases and look at the article more objectively, seeing the value in it while also seeing problems.

When students in an English 101 class recently played the believing and doubting game about a controversial article, more than half of them did their strongest writing when taking the position opposite to what they really believed. When asked why, they replied, "We had to think harder." It's not unusual, in fact, for writers to change their minds after playing the believing and doubting game.

The believing and doubting game is a kind of pre-writing exercise. What comes out is free- form and probably written in self-expressive language rather than more formal academic language. It probably needs to be written again to fit the rhetorical constraints of the assignment. This creates more work for the writer, but considering that it produces rich material where before there was nothing, the time is well spent.

To get from the free-written believing and doubting game to a draft of the response, the writer strengthens the connections between the ideas in the freewriting and specific statements in the article, looks for other points that might have been missed in the freewriting, and organizes the material into a logical arrangement.

Grading the critique A primary trait analysis (PTA) scale would work well for evaluating and grading critiques (see Word Works #102-103). Three criteria for scoring the summary have already been given. As for the response, the categories might include

The response deals with the most important aspects of the article. The writer's ideas about the article are reasonable and fair. The writer's ideas are supported with evidence from the article.

Sample critique

How Big a Threat is the Communications Decency Act?
A response to Mark Rothenberg's "The Net Doesn't Need Thought Police"

(Summary)

In the article, "The Net Doesn't Need Thought Police," Marc Rothenberg argues that censorship of the Internet, in the form of the Exon-Coats Communications Decency Act, gives the government license to censor almost anything. He portrays the act as a threat to freedom of speech and predicts that it will lead to trivial, capricious acts of censorship. He argues that we should decide for ourselves what's offensive and what's not; we should not let the government decide for us.

Rothenberg refutes three arguments offered by supporters of the act. To the claim that "it's nothing more than old-fashioned regulation of TV and radio," Rothenberg counters that the Internet is not like radio and TV because web site operators are not licensed. To the claim that the act "will protect children from the evils of dirty pictures," Rothenberg responds that children "aren't interested in dirty pictures" and that parents, not the government, should regulate what their children can see. To the supporters' claim that "they don't intend to eliminate the acceptable stuff, just the bad stuff," Rotheberg counters that "that's exactly the problem the First Amendment was designed to avoid."

(The writer's thesis about the article)

Rothenberg makes several persuasive points showing that the Exon-Coats Communications Decency Act is a threat to free speech. However, in his zeal to prove his case, he overstates the seriousness of the threat.

(Points of agreement with Rothenberg)

Rothenberg begins his argument with some examples, all of them ridiculous, of governments' attempts to censor sex on the internet. Though we can't forget that there are plenty of hardcore porn sites out there, Rothenberg paints a rather chilling picture when he describes how Bavarian prosecutors censored the Patrick Stewart website because its address was alt.sexy.bald.captains. When such innocent websites are blanked out because of sweeping government policies, free speech is truly in jeopardy.

Rothenberg's refutations of the act's supporters are for the most part persuasive. He is correct that the Internet is not like radio and TV and cannot be regulated in the same way. Though I think it's debatable whether or not young kinds are not interested in dirty pictures (how young are these kids we're talking about, anyway?), he is right that the act of forbidding something makes it all the more enticing and all the more available. He is also correct that the First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from distinguishing "the acceptable stuff" from "the bad stuff" for its citizens. They must be allowed to make their own decisions about what's acceptable over the internet, just as they make choices when the vote or even when they decide what to watch on TV.

(Points of disagreement with Rothenberg)

I agree with Rothenberg's position, but I am not entirely pleased with the way he presents it. His presentation is almost hysterical, even though it is written in prose that sounds for the most part calm and reasonable.

First of all, it is difficult to assess the seriousness of the threat because Rothenberg does not quote any of the language of the Decency Act or provide any details of what it says. The closest he comes to a factual description is the statement, "The legislation gives federal investigators the right to comb through Web sites, newsgroup posts and even private electronic mail to find evidence of indecent speech." But that, too, is an interpretation, not a factual description. We have only his word for it that the act actually allows the government to tell people "what they should read, think or believe. . . ."

Rothenberg uses examples from foreign countries, whose constitutions may or may not guarantee the same rights as ours does (certainly not China or Singapore). The only example from the United States is a hypothetical one, about how Vance Packard's The Naked Society could be taken off the internet just because of its title. Just because a similar thing did happen in Bavaria, where CompuServ was ordered to delete any newsgroup with the word sex in the title, that does not mean a similar order here could be carried out.

Rothenberg uses a slippery slope argument, stating that the government might not stop at censoring the internet for "decency." He argues that it could use the act as a license to snoop into every nook and cranny of the internet, even private e-mail. "Once they start drawing lines, they rarely stop. . . . be careful when people tell you which words you can speak and which books you can read. Once they start drawing lines, they rarely stop." This dire warning seems far-fetched, because Rothenberg doesn't city any compelling evidence that such things will happen (once again, I wish Rothenberg had given us the language of the act itself).

The idea that federal investigators are going to comb through web sites looking for forbidden words also seems far-fetched (para 12) "Use a word that someone doesn't like, and you could get thrown in jail." Here Rothenberg is using a scare tactic that seems to have little credibility.

Another slippery slope argument, hinted at but not fully stated, is that when governments start censoring the internet, the effect will accumulate worldwide: "If each country imposes a filter on information, there may be little content left." Rothenberg gives no indication as to how censorship could cross international boundaries in the way he suggests.

(Conclusion)

We need a healthy national debate on control and regulation of the internet. Hopefully articles like Rothenberg's will help further that debate. But I hope not all participants in the debate will be as near-hysterical as Rothenberg in predicting the dire consequences of either regulating or not regulating the internet.

Much of this approach to writing critiques is indebted to John Ramage and John Bean, The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.