Thoughts on the five paragraph essay
From the moment I learned to write it, I remember seeking to subvert the strictures of the five paragraph essay. I would slip in extra paragraphs, or not list three components in my thesis statement, whatever I could get away with to break free from those five-walled confines. I wonder, sometimes, if my writing is better or worse off from never giving myself time to master what seems to be seen as such a fundamental component of academic writing. My tendency is to lean more towards the former. The five paragraph essay, while useful as a dialogic tool, is a flawed pedagogical tool when used beyond the early scaffolding of nascent writers as it stifles creative output, limits linguistic experimentation, and does not prepare students adequately for the more complex writing required later in life.
First, the limiting form both of the essay itself and the construction of the argument limits the degree of creative input available to the writer. Not only must the argument consist of three easily dissectible components, but they must be able to both be described and justified within the limits of a single paragraph. This does not allow the writer to go into any sort of meaningful depth about any single element of their argument without creating unwieldy paragraphs that will, without a doubt, attract the ire of any teacher that values the brevity and minimalism enshrined in the five paragraph format. Additionally, the writer is prohibited by the form itself from straying beyond those three initial points, unable to bring in intertextual conversations such as those presented in a literature review that might provide background or alternative perspectives to their argument.
Second, as the length of the essay is hard and fast at five paragraphs, the writer is similarly limited in how free they can be with their language use. In order to fit everything that must be included within the confines of brief, concise paragraphs, sentences much be exacting in their content and, like the ideas above, never stray from direct adherence to their points. When all of the space in the essay is being used for hard evidence directly related to the points that feed back into the thesis, it becomes encourage to focus more on that than any sort of beauty within the language, or to even experiment with how different stylistic choices might lend power to or detract from your argument. One might counter that of course there is freedom for this in the five paragraph form, but particularly for developing writers who are unsure of their voices on the page, it will already take much of their focus and ability just to live up to the arbitrarily prescribed layout.
Third, the limiting nature of the five paragraph essay, when needlessly used across assignments, without considerations for the discursive needs of the moment, fails to prepare students for the mental flexibility that is required to fully participate in many of the discursive environments of post-secondary education and professional life. Wesley (2000) notes that when instructors select both the form and function of a student’s essay, there is little incentive for the student to perform any sort of rhetorical analysis, leaving them often unable to even understand the purpose of why they are writing what they are. Being able to adapt to the discursive needs of the moment is a critical skill that just does not get developed when one mode of expression becomes privileged above all others. Many real life problems do not easily segment into three easily identifiable components, and thus resist by their very nature conforming to the article restrains of five paragraph essays.
Five paragraph essays may serve a valuable function in initiating beginning writers into the basics of form and function, however they are not sufficient to meet the demands of more advanced and rigorous academic conversation. Novick (2001) writes an impassioned defense of the five paragraph format, comparing it to highly structured poetic forms such as the sonnets penned by William Shakespeare. I find this to be a problematic comparison, as it would be more akin to saying that in addition to having a specific amount of lines and a particular rhyme scheme, a sonnet must also contain no more and no less than three metaphors, which all directly relate to a stated image in the first line that is then restated at the end. Even masters of traditional Japanese poetry, renowned for its highly codified language patterns and rigid syntactic structures, were at their best when they were subverting these rules.
First, the limiting form both of the essay itself and the construction of the argument limits the degree of creative input available to the writer. Not only must the argument consist of three easily dissectible components, but they must be able to both be described and justified within the limits of a single paragraph. This does not allow the writer to go into any sort of meaningful depth about any single element of their argument without creating unwieldy paragraphs that will, without a doubt, attract the ire of any teacher that values the brevity and minimalism enshrined in the five paragraph format. Additionally, the writer is prohibited by the form itself from straying beyond those three initial points, unable to bring in intertextual conversations such as those presented in a literature review that might provide background or alternative perspectives to their argument.
Second, as the length of the essay is hard and fast at five paragraphs, the writer is similarly limited in how free they can be with their language use. In order to fit everything that must be included within the confines of brief, concise paragraphs, sentences much be exacting in their content and, like the ideas above, never stray from direct adherence to their points. When all of the space in the essay is being used for hard evidence directly related to the points that feed back into the thesis, it becomes encourage to focus more on that than any sort of beauty within the language, or to even experiment with how different stylistic choices might lend power to or detract from your argument. One might counter that of course there is freedom for this in the five paragraph form, but particularly for developing writers who are unsure of their voices on the page, it will already take much of their focus and ability just to live up to the arbitrarily prescribed layout.
Third, the limiting nature of the five paragraph essay, when needlessly used across assignments, without considerations for the discursive needs of the moment, fails to prepare students for the mental flexibility that is required to fully participate in many of the discursive environments of post-secondary education and professional life. Wesley (2000) notes that when instructors select both the form and function of a student’s essay, there is little incentive for the student to perform any sort of rhetorical analysis, leaving them often unable to even understand the purpose of why they are writing what they are. Being able to adapt to the discursive needs of the moment is a critical skill that just does not get developed when one mode of expression becomes privileged above all others. Many real life problems do not easily segment into three easily identifiable components, and thus resist by their very nature conforming to the article restrains of five paragraph essays.
Five paragraph essays may serve a valuable function in initiating beginning writers into the basics of form and function, however they are not sufficient to meet the demands of more advanced and rigorous academic conversation. Novick (2001) writes an impassioned defense of the five paragraph format, comparing it to highly structured poetic forms such as the sonnets penned by William Shakespeare. I find this to be a problematic comparison, as it would be more akin to saying that in addition to having a specific amount of lines and a particular rhyme scheme, a sonnet must also contain no more and no less than three metaphors, which all directly relate to a stated image in the first line that is then restated at the end. Even masters of traditional Japanese poetry, renowned for its highly codified language patterns and rigid syntactic structures, were at their best when they were subverting these rules.
Resource:
https://www.kibin.com/essay-writing-blog/5-paragraph-essay-structure/
I hesitate to post this because of its ad riddled nature, but the writing made be chuckle. I think it makes a good point about reading and breaking down editorials from professional publications like The New York Times is a great way to learn new ways of structuring essays without resorting to lectures or proselytizing about a specific archetype. It could even be an interesting assignment to let students go out to pick an editorial they find really interesting, dissect its structure, and then do a write-like on a topic of their choice. One could really get into the way that form and content start to speak to each other in this way.
Comments
Post a Comment