eng 1 hw

Koji Frahm — How to Write an A Paper

  • Biography of Koji Frahm

    • Born in 1987; grew up in Palo Alto, California (suburb of San Francisco).
    • In high school, competed on the swim team; spent much of his time playing video games.
    • Began at UC Davis as a biomechanical engineering student, started writing short stories before classes, switched major to creative writing.
    • Graduated in 2009.
    • Lives in Brooklyn, New York; directs and edits video programming for a comedy studio; continues writing.

  • About the essay: purpose and form

    • Title: "How to Write an A Paper"; written in response to a freshman composition class assignment.
    • Locus: like Anne Lamott’s writing, Frahm discusses the challenges and frustrations of writing.
    • Genre: largely a directive process analysis, but it is also a satire: by outwardly showing a single approach, he implicitly urges the opposite.
    • Core idea: the piece mocks conventional, “textbook” advice by presenting an extreme, counterproductive method as if it were the ideal strategy.
    • Key tactic: satire through paradox and exaggeration; the reader is invited to recognize the absurdity and contrast it with real, effective writing practices.

  • Core satirical commands and ideas (as they appear in the text)

    • Be nebulous / amphibological: the vaguer, the better; the reader should wonder what you mean from the start.
    • First sentence should be short, deadly, and impossible to understand; not indiscernible due to stupidity but due to smarts.
    • Make the reader think you’re brilliant from the outset; establish intellectual superiority early.
    • End the introduction with no clear thesis: force readers to assume the thesis exists later, or extrapolate from unresolved parts.
    • Be choppy / desultory: jump between ideas; transitions should be sudden; sentences short and rapid fire.
    • The goal is confusion; the reader should be flummoxed by paragraph three.
    • Focus on a single point in the body: the “meat” of the essay is often a single point; reiteration is the key.
    • Keep talking; act as if you’re paid by the word; extend the same idea with different wording.
    • Repackage old ideas; novelty sells the car; avoid genuine deep analysis.
    • The thesaurus is your friend: use increasingly obscure vocabulary to perplex the reader (e.g., nebulous, amphibological, perspicacious, samplings like sequestered, ambagious, obfuscate).
    • The goal is to make reading your essay more difficult than solving a Rubik’s cube in the dark; replace common terms with grander synonyms (e.g., elderly person → septuagenarian).
    • Metaphors are everywhere: insert random metaphors to distract and obscure clarity.
    • Treat the essay as a patchwork quilt of metaphors; avoid lucidity; aim for distraction rather than depth.
    • Make deliberate errors: capitalize random words; pretend the computer malfunctioned; blame the device for typos and odd phrasing.
    • Occasional caps-locked words; excuses about printing errors serve as a defense against grading.
    • Build a long, weighty paragraph as “evidence”: longer paragraphs signal importance, regardless of content.
    • Conclude with a grand, inspirational quote: select a quote that sounds profound (Aristotle, Socrates), place it in italics, and make it seem to illuminate the essay despite irrelevance to topic.
    • End with the sense that an A is inevitable: celebrate victory while implying incompetence in grading.
    • The closing move: present a mock-consideration of evidence that signals confidence while masking lack of content; then pivot to a Gandhi quote about humanity to cap off the satire.

  • Thematic and rhetorical purpose

    • Frahm’s piece is a satire of process-and-form writing advice that overemphasizes style over substance.
    • It deliberately demonstrates the very pitfalls he attributes to bad writing: obfuscation, redundancy, rhetorical flourishes without substance, and a disregard for the reader’s needs.
    • The essay invites readers to recognize and resist these tactics in their own writing.
    • Intertextual reference: Frahm contrasts with Anne Lamott’s constructive guidance (in a related context of writing instruction).

  • Structure and organization of the piece

    • The essay proceeds as a stepwise, pseudo-instructional guide across sections that mimic common writing advice—only to invert them for satire.
    • Paragraphs use abrupt transitions, short sentences, and repetitive loops to illustrate “desultory” writing styles.
    • Reiteration and boucle structure: the same idea is repackaged and restated with different diction to simulate depth without content.
    • Closing moves: a blend of pseudo-proofs, grand quotations, and self-referential comments about the quality of the work.

  • Language, tone, and diction

    • Tone: ironical, sardonic, tongue-in-cheek; consistently signals “this is not genuine guidance” while masquerading as guidance.
    • Diction: heavy with high-register, rarely used words (nebulous, amphibological, perspicacious, sequestered, ambagious, obfuscate, etc.).
    • Purpose of language choices: to parody pretentious academic prose and to critique how linguistic complexity can mask a lack of real content.
    • Sentences and structure: the piece frequently uses imperatives and rhetorical questions to create a sense of urgency and authority, even as the content undermines itself.

  • Examples and vivid phrases from the text (illustrative excerpts)

    • “The vaguer, the better.”
    • “Make them understand that you're smarter than they are.”
    • “Is it short? Is it vague? Does it tell the reader nothing about what's going on? If so bingo.”
    • “Toss your reader around like a paper bag in a tempest.”
    • “The reader should be flummoxed by paragraph three.”
    • “Write as if you're being paid a dollar a word, and you have only thirty seconds to type.”
    • “Regurgitation is the key term here.”
    • “Vomit your words out and eat them back up, then spit them out a minute later.”
    • “The patchwork quilt of random metaphors.”
    • “The thesaurus is your friend.”
    • Gandhi quote at the end: “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”

  • Writing process and author reflections (Koji Frahm’s own comments)

    • Frahm acknowledges that he’s ambivalent about liking the essay, but enjoyed writing it and found it fun.
    • He describes the piece as a parody of another essay and as a highly multi-layered, ridiculous creation.
    • He notes qualms that it doesn’t fully meet the original idea but that it elicited laughter, which he considers a reward for writing.

  • Questions for analysis (from the source text)

    • Meaning and purpose
    • What is Frahm’s actual purpose: amuse, inform about better writing, warn about bad teachers, or mock readers? Support with evidence.
    • Does the conclusion promise that the advice guarantees an A? Why or why not?
    • Writing strategy
    • How is the essay organized: is the process CHRONOLOGICALLY presented or arranged differently? Is this effective?
    • How do the phrases like “is the key term here” contribute to coherence and unity?
    • What is the author’s attitude toward readers and audience awareness?
    • What role do all-capital words and other typographical quirks play?
    • What are Frahm’s implied elements of good writing?
    • Language
    • How do tone-signaling lines like “The vaguer, the better” signal satire, and how should they be read (literally, ironically, etc.)?
    • What is the consistent subject performing the process?
    • Do readers need to know all the difficult words to understand the meaning?
    • Note imaginative metaphors and discuss their purpose.
    • Suggestions for writing (activities and prompts)
    • From journal to essay; write a satirical solution about a challenge.
    • Write a serious non-satirical essay teaching a skill.
    • Recall a time of struggle with a simple assignment and write a narrative.
    • Critical writing: critique Frahm’s advice and its application.
    • Connections: what are the strengths/weaknesses of satire vs. straightforward approaches like Lamott’s guidance?

  • Koji Frahm — reflections on the experience of writing this essay

    • “I’m still not sure if I like this essay. But … it was a ton of fun to write.”
    • The piece began as a parody of another essay; grew into a multi-layered satire.
    • He acknowledges it may not fully meet his original vision but notes the joy it brought and the laughter it elicited.

  • Questions for reflection (author’s prompts)

    • What inspired the piece? How did Frahm interpret the assignment and make it his own?
    • How ridiculous and multilayered is Frahm’s advice?
    • Did the essay amuse the reader?

Mary Roach — When Animals Attack

  • About the author and context

    • Mary Roach: born in 1959, Hanover, New Hampshire.
    • Public figure in popular science writing; known for macabre yet laugh-out-loud wit.
    • Education: bachelor’s degree in psychology from Wesleyan University (1981).
    • Career: writes for periodicals and public relations for the San Francisco Zoo; later author of popular science books.
    • Notable works: Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers (2003); Spook (2005); Bonk (2008); Packing for Mars (2010); Gulp (2013); Grunt (2016); Fuzz (2021).
    • Roles: Mars Institute Advisory Board member; American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel member.
    • Hobbies: travel, backpacking, birdwatching, word games; lives in Oakland, California.

  • What the essay covers

    • Topic: What people should do during a surprise encounter with a predator.
    • Approach: Based on research and professional guidance; draws on experts in wilderness forensics and crime-scene investigation.
    • Publication context: Adapted from the first chapter of Fuzz; the essay includes explicit sources within the text and a bibliography at the end.
    • Citation style: Not strictly MLA/APA; nonetheless, citations are clear within the text.

  • Content highlights and key claims

    • Predator encounter risk statistics (illustrative examples):
    • For most of the past century, your odds of being killed by a cougar were about the same as your odds of being killed by a filing cabinet.
    • Snowplows kill twice as many Canadians as grizzly bears do.
    • Forensic and investigative context
    • In the rare instance when a North American human is killed by a wild North American mammal, the investigation falls to state or provincial fish and game (or fish and wildlife) authorities.
    • Because such incidents are rare, investigators have limited experience with them; they are more accustomed to poaching cases.
    • When the animal is the suspect, a different kind of forensics and crime-scene know-how is required.

  • Method and style

    • Research-based approach: draws on expert insights and real-world casework; emphasizes empirical information.
    • Integrates humor with science: Roach uses witty, accessible prose to make technical topics engaging.
    • Citations and bibliography: includes clear references to sources, even if not bound to a single formal style.

  • Purpose and significance

    • Educational aim: equips readers with practical guidance for encounters with predators, framed through a rigorous yet entertaining science lens.
    • Real-world relevance: conveys risk context and the limits of human experience in wilderness scenarios; highlights the importance of proper forensics and investigation in wildlife-related incidents.

  • Connections to broader themes in Roach’s work

    • Consistently blends macabre biology with humor to explore uncomfortable topics without sensationalism.
    • Demonstrates how science communication can be engaging and approachable while maintaining accuracy.
    • Shows an interdisciplinary approach: biology, forensics, risk communication, and popular science writing all intersect.

  • Reflection and broader implications

    • How public understanding of wildlife encounters can be improved through accessible writing.
    • The balance between humor and factual rigor in science writing; how to maintain credibility while remaining engaging.

  • Suggested discussion questions (Roach-focused)

    • How does Roach integrate humor with serious scientific information to educate readers?
    • What is the role of statistics and real-world incident data in shaping readers’ perception of risk?
    • How does the structure of the essay (adapted from Fuzz) support its instructional goals?
    • In what ways does identifying sources within the text and providing a bibliography influence the reader’s trust?

  • Cross-cutting connections between Frahm and Roach

    • Both texts use satire or humor to engage readers with tricky topics: Frahm critiques writing pedagogy through exaggerated instruction; Roach makes forensics and predator encounters approachable through witty, well-researched prose.
    • Both rely on clear identification of purpose: Frahm to mock bad writing practices; Roach to inform and entertain about real-world risks.
    • Both demonstrate the importance of audience awareness: Frahm exposes how writers can mislead or confuse readers; Roach aims to educate a general audience without sacrificing scientific integrity.

  • Potential exam-style prompts drawing from both texts

    • Compare how satire is used to teach a practical skill in Frahm’s piece with how Roach teaches practical safety and scientific literacy in When Animals Attack.
    • Analyze the role of audience awareness in Frahm’s process-analysis satire and Roach’s science communication.
    • Discuss the ethics and effectiveness of humor in communicating risk and uncertainty in both essays.

  • Quick activity ideas

    • For Frahm: rewrite a section in a straightforward, non-satirical style to contrast with the original voice and show how tone affects reader uptake of information.
    • For Roach: identify three statistics used in the essay and discuss how they shape the narrative and reader understanding of risk.

  • Summary takeaway

    • Frahm uses extreme satirical instruction to critique and illuminate the traps of weak writing; Roach uses research-based humor to make complex scientific topics accessible and memorable while emphasizing the importance of credible sources and practical guidance.