Stedman Response.

I love how the opening of Stedman's reading uses a comparison between sloppy conversational writing and slow drivers to show how annoying poor writing is for readers.

Stedman persists to continue that even though your writing may be as interesting as a "custom paintjob" there may be better usage of that creativity if it's too distracting for readers -- the way you drop in sources may make sense to you, but it's the readers who matter.

He says, "One of the fundamental ideas of rhetoric is that speak- ers/writers/composers shape what they say/write/create based on what they want it to do, where they’re publishing it, and what they know about their audience/readers." (Stedman, p244.)

This is showing how sources can be more than something which adds to your story, but in fact they play road map for readers in better understanding your purpose in writing.

He goes on to discuss his interpretations of citing and the "annoyances." He even gives his own names for each ... not say these guidelines are rules in any way, but suggestions or as he insists conventions on page 244 again.

Uncle Barry and His Encyclopedia of Use- less Information is my favorite mistake and fix. I often, find myself wanting to write question after question in my writing but know to avoid this ... I can only imagine it to be annoying because it leads to topic jumping. Being a journalist means being able to focus in on the real topic or lede of a story. Whenever I write, I have to stop and make sure there is a relevant point to my work which readers will find interesting enough to follow throughout the piece.

Stedman says, "Readers get the feeling that they’re moving from one quo- tation to the next without ever quite getting to hear the real point of what the author wants to say, never getting any time to form an opinion about the claims." (Stedman, p248.)

Just like Stedman's Uncle Barry, writing isn't about knowing the answer to every piece of curiosity writer or reader encounters. Showing you know and understand the topic means sharing with readers what's most important for them to know and understand.

In papers where this topic switch-up occurs, writers often are quoting too many outside resources, Stedman says, claiming that using the authority of others too much takes away from the writing having any authority at all.

In journalism, we're taught to use quotes, or the words of outside sources, to convey emotion or interest -- things an objective writer could not convey. If it's a fact or concept it's often much easier to explain it in your own terms, however it's the colorful things worth pulling in from outsiders. Stedman says this same idea applies when writing papers and pulling in resources. A writer must examine every source and its purpose for being there he insists.

In my Genre Analysis paper I want to include more sources, however after reading this article I realize stuffing in a certain numerical amount of outside quotations into my writing isn't the answer. I need to re-read my paper and see where its weak enough to need a quotation to lean on -- the crutch adding to my paper of course and not making it more confusing in the process.