Ellie Stewart

Writing 2

Metacognitive Reflection WP2

My purpose for writing this essay was to distinguish certain writing conventions and

writing styles that are common within the discipline of Classics, as well as why these

conventions and styles are beneficial and make for successful writing. My audience for this

project is for readers not necessarily familiar with literature within Classics, but has some

interest or is curious about what it entails.

The genre I wrote in is an academic essay, though, I did use certain conventions

replicating the scholarly journals that I evaluated. I used evidence and explanations to prove my

points and had a thesis. Although, to meet the conventions of a Classics piece, I used endnotes

and some first person narrative (which is controversial as to if it’s acceptable in some forms of

writing). I organized my paragraph with an introduction, defining what Classics is, introduced

the two articles I compared, and then giving my thesis- this way my audience would have some

general background information and would be able to tie later evidence with the main thesis.

Then throughout the body (3 paragraphs) I allowed a separate paragraph for each similarity

within the articles (structure/endnotes, references to other classicists’ ideas, and the use of first

person). This way the evidence and explanation wouldn’t be all jumbled and the reader could

connect the evidence directly with the claim of why the similarities were used. Then to tie it all

together, I included a conclusion so that the reader could refresh over all that was discussed. The

diction that I used was fairly formal, although there were times I used my personal accounts and

how I felt about reading certain things, so maybe the readers (if they felt the same way) could

connect or see where I was coming from, but overall I tried to remain using formal diction. The
type of evidence I used was excerpts from the articles to show how the conventions were used,

so I could then explain how they used it and why it was effective. This was effective because it

allowed the reader to see an example firsthand from a Classics writing, and then see an

explanation of how it was beneficial and they can compare the explanation with the example to

test the validity. A particular stylistic choice that I made that I borrowed from the article was the

use of endnotes and using them to not only cite, but to add my own insights, comments, and

counterarguments. On the last page of my article in the notes section, there are numbers

corresponding with phrases with superscripts throughout the paper; I think this is the best and

most creative aspect of my paper. I have never used (or read something with) endnotes before, so

it was a new concept, but after learning what they are used for, I tried using them for the benefit

of my paper. There were some comments that I thought would be useful in my paper, but could

seem repetitive, out of place, or kind of unnecessary if it were within the body paragraph, but the

endnotes allowed me to still include those thoughts without disturbing the flow and

understanding of the paper (iii, vi, vii are my favorites).

On this writing project, I learned how to research different topics and articles within the

library and different online databases. Also, I learned how to read and try to understand why a

piece was written a certain way if I’m unfamiliar with the genre. After this assignment, I still

kind of question whether I really did the research and evaluations correct, but if so, then I don’t

really have any questions. The best research skill I gained from this project was how to search

for specific things I’m looking for on the UCSB library page. The most difficult part about

researching for this assignment wasn’t necessarily the process of finding something, but what to

do with the works after we found it- after I found my articles, I wasn’t really sure where to start,

it also made it more difficult since I was unfamiliar with the genre.
 The most important stage of the writing process was after reading both articles, the

purpose of the assignment had finally clicked; because I did notice similarities between the

articles, I was able to see what the prompt was referring to. My writing rituals occurred in my

bed, after a nap and dinner, at about 9p.m. as well as at the library between the times of 3 and 6

p.m. The helpful factor in my writing rituals is my mindset; I like to have plenty of time with

little worries or other tasks to do so I can commit 100% of my brain’s energy. Distractions or

thinking about things I have to do later on hinder my thinking and stress me out. The addition of

endnotes is the most interesting and game-changing edits since my earliest draft. In the

evidence/claims/analysis workshop I definitely took note on how to make my analysis’ better; I

needed to know that it’s okay to sometimes make it “too” clear even if it kind of sounds like I’m

dumbing it down too much; it’s important for the reader to know exactly the connections you are

making with your claims and evidence. The greatest challenge of this project was definitely

reading genres that are foreign to us; before reading them I was unsure of what I was going to do,

but after it all just kind of pulled itself together. Through this project, I learned that with a little

extra research, looking things up, and extra time reading, I can understand and write about just

about anything if I evaluate it a certain way.

As a reader, I want you to connect my claims with my evidence and see if it proves it true

and if my evidence is suitable for the claims I make. I am curious about my introduction and

conclusion; I don’t know if my introduction is engaging or if my thesis is clear enough and I am

also unsure if my conclusion leaves the reader satisfied or confused. Between this draft and the

next I hope to make changes that will improve the readers’ understanding if they have trouble

with it and perfect the structure of using endnotes.

 Ellie Stewart

Writing 2

WP2

A Structural Study: Analyzing the Conventions, Literary Practices, and Techniques of Academic

Articles Within the Classics Discipline

The discipline of Classics is the study of ancient literature, culture, and other findings from

Greek and Roman times. Ancient literature and artifacts within Classics are normally written in

Greek, so the translation is somewhat difficult to get across, but Classics allows us to better

understand not just the direct translation, but the context behind this translation. Classics

professionals evaluate the evidence, literature, and culture during ancient times and make their

own interpretation of what it means, both literally and contextually. Although each classicist has

their own beliefs on the true meanings of ancient pieces, they all write their evaluations and prove

them with parallel literary techniques and uses of evidence. To see what kinds of conventions

Classics articles have in common, I analyzed Fluctuating Meanings: “passage rites” in ritual,

myth, Odyssey, and Greek romance and compared it to Mealeager and Odysseus: A Structural and

Cultural Study of the Greek Hunting-Maturation Myth. Both articles were about a similar topic,

ritual initiation. Along with similar information, the literary techniques used by the authors were

also similar. To support their points, both authors referred to other classicists’ works and ideas,

used superscripts and endnotes for further explanation (or citations) on certain topics, and used

first person narrative. The uses of each of these techniques is necessary within the discipline of

Classics in order to write an effective and understandable academic essay.

While reading through both articles, the first thing I noticed about them was that there were
words or phrases with superscript numbers (my immediate thought was “why does this word have

an exponent?”). It turns out, these superscripts are for the readers’ use; sometimes there are terms

or concepts within Classics that need further explanation on the meaning, counterarguments, or

the citation. For example, in Meleager and Odysseus it states , “Common to virtually all Greek

hunting tales are the various interpretants to which we apply the semantically related Greek terms

kosmos, kairos, and hubrisi”ii. Notice the first i superscript, strange, right? Well, if you look at the

end of my essay, I recreated a similar “Notes” section as included in Meleager and Odysseus, and

the corresponding i section has an excerpt of what’s included in the actual article. As you can see,

the superscripts have a corresponding explanation in the endnotes of the essay giving further

explanation on the phrase being noted. These superscripts and notes are beneficial especially

within the Classics discipline because there are an abundance of ancient Greek terminology,

concepts, or language that the readers may have questions on when it comes up in an academic

article (if the words “kosmos, kairos, and hubris came up, wouldn’t you want some background

information?). So, rather than implementing a lengthy definition in the core of presenting an ideaiii,

authors can include the term for it, with additional information in the “Notes” section (if needed

by the reader). Therefore, the use of superscripts and notes in academic journals is a helpful

technique in the Classics discipline because it allows readers to find out more on certain topics

without interfering with their understanding of the thesis.

Another parallel between the articles was how frequent the authors referred to preceding

classicists’ works about certain concepts and how they used these references to relate to their own

points. There are many well-known classicists within the Classics community that discovered

certain interpretations used among classicists. So, as long the reader has some background

information on well-known Classics concepts, they can understand the authors’ comparison to
familiar ideas. One of the many examples of referring to past works says, “Coming from another

angle, Kermode’s focus on beginnings, middles, and ends projects a sort of passage rite structure

into fiction.”iv By referring to a concept from Kermodev, it allows the readers (whom normally

would have background in interpreting literature) to connect a new idea being presented to them

to an idea they are already familiar with. It’s almost a distinct type of language among classicists

when authors refer to past pieces/concepts- almost kind of like a “remember when” moment, but

within the Classics community. By comparing and contrasting ideas familiar within the classics

community, the author makes it easier for the readers to understand and visualize their theses. By

using these familiar and preceding works, the author is successful in making their ideas clear and

understandable because it is being compared to an already known concept.

A third and interesting similarity between the two journals was that they both spoke in the

first person when addressing an idea or thesis. Sometimes in academic writing, authors avoid the

use of I, we, or other indications of a personal experience, but that’s not the case with Classicsvi.

We can assume that since academic journals in Classics already use lots of evidence, references,

and explanations, the credibility of the author (ethos) isn’t the main factor in persuasion, the main

approach is the use of logos (evidence, references, and explanations). As you can see, the use of

personal thoughts is used in these excerpts from both articles, “…which is one reason why I now

draw the romances into connection with passage rites.”(iv) and “His attempt is interesting, but in

our opinion seriously flawed.” (ii) Both journals used personal accounts to get their point across

and explain how they depicted certain interpretations from text. I particularly noticed the use of

first person narrative because I thought “does this take away from the credibility and formality?”,

but after re-evaluating, I realized that it doesn’t.vii Instead of beating around the bush trying to

avoid using the word “I” (or “our” in the case of multiple authors), classicists can get straight to
the point of what they think and why they think it. By clearly presenting what the author(s) believes

and relating their thoughts directly to themselves, it allows the reader to know what idea or thesis

they should be looking for. Although it may seem like a normal or insignificant tactic, the use of

personal narrative benefits authors within the Classics discipline because they can clearly state

their beliefs among the excessive evidence used in their papers, so readers can clearly connect the

evidence to the thesis.

Whether you have or haven’t read a scholarly article within the discipline of Classics, know

that it has certain conventions that allow classicists to present their points in the most academic

yet understandable way. The structure of articles that contain superscripts and endnotes allows

readers to get filled in on topics they need further clarification on, which benefits their

understanding of the whole concept that the author is producing. The references to well-known

classicists and ideas also benefits the readers’ understanding (if they are within the classics

discipline with background knowledge) because they can compare the author’s new idea with one

that they already know. Lastly, the use of first person as a literary practice was a common,

interesting, and beneficial similarity between the journals. This type of narrative allowed author to

clearly state their opinions, techniques, and ways of thinking. Although there are unfamiliar and

lengthy concepts within Classics that may not always be the easiest to understand, the combination

of these conventions allows authors to present their ideas in the most successful and

understandable way.

Notes

i
“A brief word on this use of the technical term from Peircean semiotics. Since the ‘final interpretant’ is ‘the effect
the sign would produce upon any mind upon which circumstances should permit it to work out its full effect’ (Peirce
1966.413)…” This was an excerpt from the corresponding endnote included in Meleager and Odysseus. (Both
articles contained endnotes and superscripts, not just Meleager and Odysseus).
ii
Rubin, Sale: 1983 (137)
iii
Although an author could implement definitions and background information in the midst their academic essay, it
could potentially confuse the reader if too much additional detail is included. By having excessive definitions, it
could stray from the author’s main purpose and fog the readers’ connection between the main theses and the
examples that support them, which is why endnotes help the author stay on track of their ideas and helps the reader
clearly understand the points the author is presenting.
iv
Dowden: 1999 (229)
v
Frank Kermode was a British literary critic well-known for his extensive book reviewing and editing, as well as his
own work The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kermode)
vi
Although it may seem an insignificant technique, the use of “I” or other personal narratives is acceptable in some
fields, but not in others. Although, in Classics the use of first person is quite normal and can even be argued to be
more beneficial as to not using first person.
vii
In some circumstances, the use of personal narrative and first person can make writing seem less academic, less
credible, and informal, but this is not the case for an article in a scholarly journal. In order to be published in a
scholarly journal, a piece must go through extensive evaluation and editing to ensure the information is correct,
credible, and valuable to the reader. Therefore, the use of “I” or “we” does not interfere with the academia level of a
piece, nor the credibility. It is simply the way the author can clearly present their points.

Sources

Dowden, Ken. “Fluctuating Meanings: ‘Passage Rites’ in Ritual, Myth, Odyssey, and the Greek
Romance.” Bucknell Review, vol. 1, no. 43, 1999.

Rubin, Sale, Nancy, William. “Meleager and Odysseus: A Structural and Cultural Study of the Greek Hunting-
Maturation Myth.” ProQuest, vol. 1, no. 16, 1983.