For much of my rhetorical writing journey as a student I have struggled with finding and

sticking to a focused argument. Especially with topics I find most interesting, such as writing

related to the environment, I find there is too much I want to say. I end up getting lost in my

thoughts and forget to stick to a central focus. So, I sought to fix my problem.

I found a lot of instructions on how to formulate a focus and stick to it, but most of it was

the same exact advice I have received from so many teachers. I finally came across a

discussion that did not tell me what to do, but rather told me what to tell other people to do. The

audience was not for beginner writers, but for instructors who are teaching beginner writers.

Because the discussion between a few different author-teachers was aimed at teachers, I got an

insider perspective to answer my question.

The original piece responding to other authors was by Richard M. Coe and titled “If not to

Narrow, Then How to Focus”. He begins by discussing a long taught method of “narrowing and

focusing”. First the writer finds a broad subject they would like to write about and then narrows it

down. The next step is to focus. As Coe says, “ focusing limits a writer to a particular aspect of

the original topic”. Here is what it might look like:

The final product after narrowing and focusing is often a question about a fairly specific subject.

This should hypothetically help writers maintain their central idea.

Given the “narrow and focus” method is a fairly traditional, and potentially lacking,

method of teaching, Coe consults his peers to discuss new methods. Ann E. Berthoff thinks the
“narrow and focus” method constrains the writer too much in that they must follow a script. I will

refer to her counter proposition as the “contradiction” method. She suggests writers come up

with two contradictory statements. For example:

Now the writer has two statements they can choose from as their main argument. The other

statement can be used in the portion of the piece that counters an opposing viewpoint. In

Berthoff’s mind, this method allows the writer to write with more passion and think harder about

what the opposition may believe.

Ann E. Berthoff and Kenneth Burke agree that the “contradiction” method properly

supersedes the “narrow and focus” method. However, whereas Berthoff recommends writing out

two contradictory statements to get one started on their writing, Burke argues it is more

beneficial to discover a problem with an argument as one writes. One can get on with writing

about one argument and discover a contradiction as they create their argument. The original

argument provides an “‘angle’” to bring an opposition to light. Coe’s way to encapsulate and

simplify Burke’s method is as follows:

Once the writer has decided why they are writing, or the argument they are trying to make, they

can start writing with a purpose. As they write, they can think of contradictions to their argument,

which establishes a focus. With a purpose and a focus, hopefully the final product has a

well-argued and comprehensible structure.

 Most helpful to me as a college student right now, is Mina Shaughnessy’s approach to

establishing a focus. She too believes coming up with a contradiction in a writing piece is a good

method for focusing in, but especially for university writing assignments. Shaughnessy heavily

emphasizes the importance of knowing your audience, and the audience of university writing

assignments, the graders, give good grades to the pieces that follow the “contradiction” method.

This is because using contradictions in writing makes it more likely to interest the student writer,

and lead to a proper thesis, structure, and tone that the grader wants to see.

Berthoff, Burke, and Shaughnessy make good arguments for the “contradiction” method

that Coe does agree with. He also claims there is a time and place for the “narrow and focus”

method and an optimal way to use it. Rather than narrowing and then focusing, and jumping into

the writing, Coe suggests a more detailed approach. After narrowing down the topic, Coe thinks

it is helpful to do a free-write. Getting as many thoughts down on the page as possible can help

the writer figure out what aspect of the topic they find most interesting. Now that they have

focused in on their argument and have plenty of ideas to draw upon, the writer can start to

actually write.

Given good arguments made by the other writers and the potential for the “narrow and

focus” method to work sometimes, Coe allows for a compromise. He asserts that it is often

helpful to combine the “narrow and focus” method with the “contradiction” method. What makes

the most sense to me would be combining the “narrow and focus” method with Kenneth Burke's

version of the “contradiction” method. For a university writing assignment, the professor would

likely provide a broad topic and ask students to discuss it. I would take that broad topic and

narrow it down to start. Then, I would free-write a bit to find a focused argument I believe in the

most. While writing my rough draft I would think about how readers might pick apart my

argument, so I can revise it on the basis of potential contradictions. If the discussion between

these four authors was productive, I should be able to maintain a clear focus throughout my

piece with their guidance.

Links:

Richard M. Coe; “If Not to Narrow, Then How to Focus”

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/356190.pdf

Ann E. Berthoff; “The Problem of Problem Solving”

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/356449.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad56f16e4b2ede589d5bef53c
17a809cd&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=

Kenneth Burke; “A Dramatistic View of the Origins of Language”

https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=52cddd30-29dc-4524-82c4-
2bec83d8276c%40redis

Mina Shaughnessy; “Errors and Expectations”

https://www.leetorda.com/uploads/2/3/2/5/23256940/mina.shaughnessy.errors_expectations.pdf