Too many [Argument] Fish in the Sea

            In editing Stanley Fish’s piece, “Yet Once More: Political Correctness on Campus,” I found a striking problem with the clarity and focus of his argument. Rebecca Jones identifies in her piece, Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic, “While many pro and con arguments are valid, they can erase nuance, negate the local and particular, and shut down the very purpose of having an argument” (160). Many of Fish’s opinions were entirely FOR or AGAINST a specific issue. In acknowledging this, I attempted to re-phrase in a manner that would prove for a possible middle ground. I wanted to regain a sense of clarity and order in my edits. I also had a slight problem with his casual tone. I believe that such a tone can work when done in moderation. So, I attempted to remove some of the harshest examples of “everyday speak” and replace them with academically acceptable, yet still casual, phrasing.

            One of the more complex parts about editing this Fish’s piece was that it was hard to decipher exactly what the true message and thesis was. He brings up many good points, yet lacks any means of organization and flow. His ideas are not allowed to build on top of one another because there is no sense of flow between thoughts. The most extensive editing I did was in what I pinpointed, to the best of my ability, to be his thesis paragraph. He had listed a long list, entirely too long, of every problem that Maloney defined in his documentary. Yet, the reader could not even comprehend this long list and so I decided to take it out completely and let the reader be introduced to each issue individually as they reached each paragraph. I also decided to bold the issues in order to assist the reader in gaining a little more clarity. The topics being discussed are rather complex. So, my thinking was that any organizational helping hand I could lend to the reader wouldn’t hurt.

            I almost felt as if this article could have been split into a part 1 and part 2, because it seemed to be tackling two issues at once. There were issues Fish had with the way that Maloney went about making his documentary and then there were also issues that Fish had with the subjects discussed in Maloney’s film themselves. He is simultaneously playing critic and activist, which is proving to be quite confusing for me, the reader/editor. Yet, this confusion on my part may stem from the multiple stases Fish is using to make his argument. He is most certainly evaluating both the effectiveness of Maloney’s directing and the University institution. He is also attempting to use the proposal stasis to enact change in the university institution. Yet, this is not done to a clearly defined audience, which makes for the confusion.  To combat this, I attempted to re-word phrases to, again, establish a sense of flow.

            Fish’s argument itself is very unsupported. A lot seems to be a matter of personal opinion, which isn’t exactly a sure-fire way of gaining a reader’s trust. It also bothered me that at times it seemed that Fish was attempting to give advice to his audience, a poorly defined audience at that. Sometimes he would interject statements that seemed to be speaking directly to college students and other times he would be speaking directly to those operating the University system. As Grant-Davie defines in his piece, “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents,” “Rhetors may invite audiences to accept new identities for themselves, offering readers a vision not of who they are but of who they could be” (271). I took this into consideration when I attempted to pinpoint Fish’s intended audience. It was possible that he was speaking to one side and asking them to empathize with the other. However, it is very difficult, if not nearly impossible, to adequately write for both of these audiences within one article that is “bad-mouthing,” one side.   I eliminated many of the phrases that spoke directly to the college student, because I felt that this article would be very ineffective if aimed at the college audience. It would be pointing a subject toward those who do not hold the power to change it. Yet, by honing in the audience to just those academics in power of the university institution, there is hope for realization and change.

Works Cited/References:

Fahnestock, Jeanne, and Marie Secor. "The Stases of Scientific and Literary Argument." 427-443. Print.

Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constraints." Rhetoric Review. 15.2 (1997): 264-279. Print.

Jones, Rebecca. "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic." Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing . 1. 156-179. Print.