Reorganizing Your Draft

What this handout is about...

This handout gives you an overview of paper organization. It provides some strategies to help you organize (or re-organize) a paper; it also lists some common pitfalls to look out for.

Your Paper, Your House, and You

Writing an effective college essay can be compared to building a sturdy and attractive house. One might say that the shape and size of the house depend largely on the subject matter and the assignment's particular details, such as length and sources. But the final appearance of the house-its color, its style, its interior decorating: the whole shebang-is heavily influenced by the builder's opinions, habits, and tastes. In other words, you-as the writer/builder-need to follow some guidelines as you "construct" the essay. But your style, your habits, and, most of all, your argument usually determine the sturdiness and attractiveness of the essay. An effective essay, then, requires you to find a feasible balance between your instructor's requirements, some elements of standard form, and, most importantly, your own ideas.

If we accept that writing an essay is like building a house, organizing an essay is like preparing that house for inspection. The inspector could be a building code supervisor-to make sure the rules of the language are obeyed-or, more likely, prospective buyers-your readers, who you hope will "buy" your argument. But nearly every draft requires some work in order to stand on its own as a unified structure, one that can be appreciated by an independent reader. (After all, you won't be around to explain to your reader-to plug the leaking pipes or to open a stuck door, so to speak-how to make sense out of what you wrote.) Sometimes, the design of the essay may require extensive remodeling in order to attract buyers; other times, a pillar or beam of supporting evidence may be missing; often, not enough hallways and other linking passages have been provided; and perhaps, too, the arrangement of ideas is slightly askew.

This handout will suggest a number of strategies that will help you organize your ideas and evidence into a coherent essay. Keep in mind that not all strategies will apply to your style and habits of writing, and you may want to glance through the entire handout in order to find which approaches best address the difficulties you may have with organization. It may help to read the boldface questions that introduce each section; if they sound something like questions you've asked yourself or others before, those may be the sections to start with.

Please also note that this handout assumes you have a draft of your paper in hand, with at least a working thesis (see below) and a developing, if not fully developed, argument. For pre-writing strategies, please see our handouts, Reading Toward Writing and Argument in Academic Writing. We will soon put out a new handout devoted to pre-writing organization strategies.

Why Organize?

"But, but," you say, "as long as I know where all my ideas are, who cares what order I put them in?"

Well, it seems like you're asking your readers to climb inside your head. And to a significant extent, you're right: a paper should invite readers into the writer's head (or "house"), showing what s/he's thinking (ideas) and why (evidence). But readers can grow apprehensive, or perhaps even reluctant, if they can't find their way clearly through the ideas and evidence. The only way they're going to enjoy being inside the writer's head is if the writer carefully shows them what's there and why it belongs there. It may help to imagine readers as rather lazy folks who, if they wanted to, could make good sense out of the paper, but have a lot of other things to do and therefore probably won't take the time to make sense out of everything unless it's already done for them. To go back to the metaphor, it is highly unlikely that the reader-as an invited guest, shall we say-has much time or willingness to clean up the writer's house, let alone to fix falling plaster or to install a fire escape.

Organization is also helpful for you, as the writer, to clarify what you want to say. By forcing yourself to organize the presentation of your ideas and your evidence you can discover what elements of your paper are strongest and what needs some improvement. This is especially useful if, for example, you've written a paper which you know has good ideas, but you're still unsure whether it gets the message across or expresses and supports the argument in a clear and concise manner. This sort of thing happens even to the most experienced writers and should not be taken as a setback. Rather, it is often easier and more fruitful to organize ideas and evidence after they have been explored. The writer at that point has more to work with; not only have her ideas been more fully articulated than they were when she began writing, but by virtue of writing, she has opened up new possibilities and new ideas that may turn out to be integral to making an explicit and persuasive argument.

Another way of thinking about organization is to challenge the rule of thumb that many of you have heard about writing: make an outline before you begin to write the paper. An outline is often a good way to begin, to generate ideas, to explore possible arguments. But it doesn't work for everyone. And even when it works, writing the paper itself inevitably generates more ideas and opens up previously unconsidered arguments while closing off others that had been considered. In short, all writers would benefit from revising their papers for smooth and effective organization.

"But, but," you persist, "what's the point of revising and reorganizing my paper? After what you've just said, it's clear that it's a never-ending process, so why even bother starting it?"

Don't let the prospect of perfection get you down!

There are usually several ways to organize a paper successfully. Ideally, you create a number of options and then choose the one with which you are most comfortable. This handout, for example, has undergone several revisions in its organization. I have chosen this approach not because it is right, but because I was comfortable with it as a writer, and after reading it over and having others read it for me, it seemed that readers could follow it well, too. If I had endless time in which to complete it, I might find even more ways to organize it, and even more points to make to my readers. But you have to be reasonable: give yourself options, but don't get too caught up in creating them just to avoid having to choose one. Rather, by creating options, you help yourself justify why you decided on this organization; your argument will be stronger because you have considered how and why you put it together as you did.

More importantly, the process of creating options and making informed decisions will, in the long term, ease the pain of organization. In this sense, it is just like tidying up the house. Sure, it has to be done all the time, but the more frequently you do it, the easier it is.

Prerequisites

Following are three prerequisites that will help you organize your draft. The first--a thesis statement--is vital. The next two--paragraph development and transition sentences--are not absolutely necessary for reorganizing your draft, but knowing their importance to writing will help you comprehend and use all of the ensuing organization strategies.

1. The Thesis

"But, but," you plead, "I know it needs to be better organized, but where should I start?"

In order to organize successfully, you almost always have to begin with the thesis-the argument-of the essay. Without a thesis, your essay will lack direction. If you are still having trouble constructing a thesis statement, I suggest you look at our helpful handout.

As long as you have a "working thesis"-one that states the general argument but not quite the specific points you are going to make-we can certainly work on organization. In fact, organization strategies can often sharpen and strengthen both the argument as a whole and the thesis statement in particular.

To model suggestions and strategies more effectively, I will use some examples of working arguments. Keep in mind that even though these examples come from a particular discipline, say History or Sociology, the strategies I recommend don't depend on the course for which you are writing. They depend much more on your habits as a writer, the kind of argument you are making, and the space and time you have to make it.

2. Paragraph Organization

"But, but," you realize, "I have a thesis. My paragraphs, though, tend to sprawl all over the place. Should I focus on them or on reorganizing the whole paper?"

If your paragraphs try to cover too much or too little ground, or if you are just not certain that they are well structured, you may need to reconsider them. Each paragraph should illuminate one controlling idea, and explain its significance to your argument. Please consult our online handout on Paragraph Development to gauge and/or improve your paragraph organization.

3. Transition Sentences

"But, but," you continue, "it's not really the paragraphs themselves that are problematic. I just don't think that they really link together well."

The connections you are trying to make may benefit from a larger perspective on the entire paper, and therefore, some of the strategies below may help you. But it may be more useful to construct better transition sentences between paragraphs, which would help you pinpoint the larger structural problems. In other words, you may simply need to practice writing transition sentences so that the connections you are thinking about become more explicit to your reader. But trying to find appropriate and reasonable transition sentences, you will notice where more than just a sentence is needed, or where larger organizational problems persist. For further guidance on transition sentences, please consult our online handout.

Strategies

Although there are no hard and fast rules, some of the following strategies seem more suited for longer papers (e.g., D, E) and some more so for shorter ones (e.g., B, C). It bears repeating, though, that you should choose those suitable to your writing habits and difficulties; that may mean applying what seems like a strategy for a short paper to a long paper.

There are some concepts to keep in mind as you search for strategies that will help you organize your papers effectively. Essentially, all but the last two strategies encourage you to think schematically about your draft. Often-in class, in assignment prompts-we are encouraged to think more conceptually. For example, many are familiar with assignments that present a series of questions to stimulate thought, asking us not to answer the questions one-by-one, but rather to reorganize them and push beyond them to formulate our own approach. Here, we are taking a more structural approach (as illustrated by the guiding architectural metaphor). The idea is that having developed your concepts-at least toward a working thesis-you are now looking for ways to organize them in a manner that will be logical, readable, and persuasive. These strategies, then, should nudge, push, or propel you toward prioritizing the elements of your argument. They show you different methods to break down your draft and then to reconstruct it from the ground up.

1. Listing

"But, but," you protest, "my ideas are a little scattered in my paper. Still, there's a general order to things. I'm writing on why the Civil War was fought, but the reasons and the sides themselves seem to be running together all the time.

"My working thesis is, 'Though both sides fought the Civil War over the issue of slavery, the North fought for moral reasons while the South fought to preserve its own institutions.'"

What may be giving you trouble here is that you've created some fairly broad categories to work with (slavery, morality, institutions). Certainly, they all appear to be relevant to the Civil War, but there's only so much one can do in a three-, five-, or even ten-page paper. Chances are, too, that if we look more closely at the paper itself, you may be able to narrow your argument by finding more specific terms.

To do this, try a straightforward strategy called listing. In an argument like this, where the central idea is to distinguish between and explain two sides of an issue, listing can help clarify the organization and the argument.

1. Make a list

In two separate columns, list the reasons why each side fought the Civil War, limiting yourself to ones you address (however briefly) in your paper. Let's say you come up with the following:

North		South
slavery		slavery
moral issues		self-government
humane treatment		right to property
against tyranny		against tyranny
against oppression		against federal government oppression

As you can see, some of the issues pertain to both sides and some just to one or the other. Thus, the listing process should relatively quickly confirm that the paper obeys the argument laid out in the working thesis.

2. Re-examine the thesis

You can now see that the paper offers clearer terms for your argument. A revised thesis statement might now read: Both sides fought against tyranny and oppression, but while the South fought for the political and economic rights of slaveowners, the North fought for the human rights of slaves. Compared to the working thesis, this version offers more specifics on the argument itself, specifics which should help you organize your paper more successfully by narrowing the scope. Note that it doesn't spell everything out: it appears, for example, that you will still break down political and economic rights to self-government and right to property

3. Re-examine the general structure

It seems from this list that you probably want to establish the similarities first and then explain the differences. This broad plan reflects the emphasis of the thesis statement, i.e., that the differences are more crucial than the similarities and thus, emphasizing the differences will help your reader to understand your overarching understanding of the Civil War. We can see this easily if we look at a reversed thesis: While the North fought for the human rights of slaves and the South fought for the political and economic rights of slaveowners, both sides fought against tyranny and oppression. Because this thesis sounds like it rests on traits shared by the North and South rather than on differences between them, you would probably want to establish the differences first, and then offset them with the similarities.

4. Re-organize the argument

You still need to ask yourself which differences are most important, i.e., you need to let your audience know what is significant about these differences. The order in which you present your points generally reflects, at least implicitly, some hierarchy of significance for your readers to follow. If, for example, the most important thing you want your readers to understand is that the South fought for principles that extended beyond slavery, then that would probably be the last point you make. If, for another example, the most important thing you want your readers to understand is that the North's reasons were more justifiable, then that would probably be the point toward which you'd want to orient your paper. There are, of course, numerous other possible significances to your argument. The point is that the organization should both implicitly and explicitly reflect the important elements you see and therefore want your readers to see as well. You clearly still have choices to make, but having broken down your argument into parts, you can now restructure it so that it illuminates that guiding significance.

2. Reverse Outlining

"But, but," you insist, "I seem to be wasting a lot of space in my writing, and I don't know if reorganizing it will do me any good. After all, the main ideas are getting across.

"This paper is about Huckleberry Finn. My working thesis is, 'In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between his life on the river and life on the shore.'"

This paper may benefit from one of the more common strategies of organization called reverse outlining, in order to help it realize the promising thesis. The "reverse" here indicates that this tactic is used after you've written a draft, or at least most of one. What you aim to do is to create an outline of what you've written, which, in turn, will allow you to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, and by dint of that, the argument itself.

The process is straightforward, demanding more patience and open-mindedness than anything else.

1. Re-read the Draft Carefully

Read your paper over, and as you do so, make very brief notes in the margin about what each paragraph is trying to accomplish. Essentially, you are meant to be tracking the ideas in your paper as they collectively build toward a persuasive argument (which is ideally captured in your thesis statement).

2. Outline the Draft

After you've read through the entire essay, transfer the brief notes to a fresh sheet of paper, listing them in the order they appear in the essay. Let's say you get something like this:

• Paragraph 1: Intro
• Paragraph 2: Background on Huck Finn
• Paragraph 3: river for Huck and Jim
• Paragraph 4: shore and laws for Huck and Jim
• Paragraph 5: shore and family, school
• Paragraph 6: river and freedom, democracy
• Paragraph 7: river and shore similarities
• Paragraph 8: Conclusion

3. Examine the Outline

You've already gained a better idea of what exactly it was that you were uncomfortable with in this paper. The difficulty is somewhere in Paragraphs 3-6, where the potential for repetition is high because you keep moving back and forth between river and shore. And then there's this weird interruption at the end about some similarities between the two places.

4. Re-examine the Thesis, the Outline, & the Draft Together

Now for the harder part. After taking some time away from the paper itself-an hour, a few hours, a day or two, if possible-look closely at the outline and see how it holds up as a model for demonstrating the validity of the thesis statement.

To go back to what was said earlier about outlines, you now have before you an outline of what you have written, to measure against what you want to argue (the thesis). You should be able to determine which paragraphs need to be better connected, if they are in a logical order,and if some are tangential or perhaps irrelevant to the focus of your argument. This is essentially the same process you would employ with a pre-outline draft-and it can certainly help then, too-but now that you have actually drafted your argument in detail, it should be easier to find the strengths and weaknesses of the draft's organization.

 

3. Topic Sentences

"But, but," you continue, "my paragraphs are pretty clearly differentiated from each other by topic. I just don't know if I'm being specific enough about the topics or making good connections between them."

"My working thesis is, 'Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove exposes the absurd logic of nuclear war while, at the same time, it offers little hope for redemption.'"

In this case, it sounds like you've got your ideas carefully separated from each other, paragraph by paragraph, but as with the previous two examples, you are still unsure of the order they're in and the connections between them. Consider a strategy similar to the previous two, but this time focusing on topic sentences. Like listing, this strategy allows you to revisit your paper rather swiftly at first, requiring more careful consideration in the later steps.

1. Write Down Topic Sentences

Beginning with the paragraph immediately following your thesis statement, re-write each paragraph's topic sentence on a fresh sheet of paper. Let's say you get something like this:

• "In the 1950s and 1960s, people were very scared about nuclear war."
• "Dr. Strangelove is a satire about the Cold War."
• "Kubrick appears to be blaming the U.S. military."
• "Peter Sellers plays both a genocidal wheelchair-bound maniac and a timid bumbling English officer, which illustrates the schizophrenia of the Cold War."
• "The mushroom cloud at the end of the movie symbolizes the film's lack of hope for humankind."
• "Dr. Strangelove should ultimately be seen as a tragicomedy, like Samuel Beckett's postwar plays."

2. Are They Really Topic Sentences?

Topic sentences should clearly connect to the thesis statement; they should explain to the reader how the material in the ensuing paragraph "fits" in the larger argument the paper makes.

Some of the topic sentences above do this, some don't. The first three, especially, are not linked to the argument. It may be that the first paragraph itself, for example, shows that Kubrick's movie was part of larger historical context. Still, if that's all it does, you should ask yourself why you need a whole paragraph to state this. After all, it seems evident from your thesis that the film is historically contextualized. That the film may offer a particular perspective on that context seems like an idea worth developing, but that is essentially what the entire paper is about. A similar problem exists with the second sentence.

The third sentence verges closer to a good topic sentence, but the connection to the thesis is still obscure. This paragraph could be a general summary of the film's anti-military bent, and thus fairly weak. But it could also be a paragraph that shows that by targeting the U.S. military, the film isolates a particular culprit for both the tragedy and the comedy. If the latter, the topic sentence would need to be strengthened along those lines. If it is just a summary paragraph, then a consultation of our paragraph development handout is probably in order.

3. Locate and Re-examine Central Ideas

Look back at the thesis and relocate the central ideas of your argument. In this case, you have absurdity and hopelessness (remember, this is a working thesis, not a finely tuned one). For those paragraphs that do not have strong topic sentences, examine the paragraph to see how (or if) its contents are related to the argument. If there is not a reasonable way that the paragraph illuminates the argument-and "background" or "plot summary" are not reasonable illuminations-then you should consider rewriting the paragraph or removing it entirely.

4. Back to Reverse Outlining

Essentially, you are now at step 2 of Reverse Outlining. By isolating and reworking the topic sentences, you have re-outlined the central ideas of your draft. Now you are ready to strengthen the thesis and re-organize the draft in an effective manner.

 

4. Sectioning

"But, but," you exclaim, "I'm having trouble distinguishing between the different things I'm supposed to, and the different things I want to say. I'm working on a paper in which I'm arguing for euthanasia on the grounds that it reflects humane values, respects individual autonomy, and reduces needless costs."

This strategy is similar to the previous three, though perhaps less detailed. It works particularly well for long papers where you will be contending with a number of ideas and a complicated argument. It will also be useful if you are having difficulty distinguishing between the goals of each paragraph.

1. Put Paragraphs under Section Headings

Looking at your argument, it seems that you have three categories to justify your position. Either by cutting and pasting, or simply by numerical notation, put each of your paragraphs into one of the three categories. (If any paragraph, beyond the introduction or conclusion, fits into all three, you may need to look at paragraph development exercises. If some paragraphs don't fit, then they probably don't belong in the paper.)

2. Re-examine each Section

Assuming you have more than one paragraph under each section, try to distinguish between them. For example, under "Humane Values" you might have placed an argument in favor and a counterargument (with which you presumably strengthen your position). Or perhaps you have two arguments in favor that can be distinguished from each other by author, logic, ethical principles invoked, etc. Write down the distinctions-they will help you formulate clear topic sentences. If the distinctions can only be made within paragraphs themselves-that is, for example, one paragraph presents two arguments for and one counterargument-you probably need to revisit paragraph development.

3. Re-examine Entire Argument

Here you want to examine the prioritization of your points. Which section do you want to appear first? Why? Which Second? Why? And so on. You are looking for reasons that help you find an order to make the strongest possible argument.

4. Replace Headings with Transition and Topic Sentences

You should generally present your paper as one cohesive piece, where the points of analysis are marked off by clear transition and topic sentences rather than chapter headings. There are exceptions: sometimes, you will be instructed to use headings; for long papers (15-20 pages or more) they areoften helpful, but not always necessary; they are almost always useful when writing on-line handouts about organizing essays.

5. Visualization

"But, but," you say, "I can't really see what I'm doing. I have a lot of information and strong conclusions, but it's not clear to me, the writer, how to put them together. I'm writing a paper on the reasons for suicide and my working thesis is, 'The rate of suicide is highest amongst those who feel disconnected from the mainstream of society.'"

This strategy takes you away from the paper at first and then pushes you to revisit it later with a pictorial model of the written argument. It is probably more conceptual than the previous four, but, depending on which type of model you choose, it also offers a good method for finding a balance between conceptual and schematic thinking.

1. Choose an appropriate visual model.

You can choose a pyramid, a good model for an argument that emerges as a synthesis from two or three others, such as the euthanasia argument above. You could choose a ladder, often a good way to envision how one source, say Huck Finn, can illuminate something about a much larger context, say, late-nineteenth-century American cultural politics. Here, I'm going to use a road-map model because it can be applied to a range of arguments.

2. "Picture" Your Draft

In the case of a road map, you have a beginning-usually your source(s)-and your end point-always your argument. In between, you are looking for various routes (the paragraphs) and signposts (your topic sentences). It is crucial that your signposts are directed toward the argument-not toward "background" or "plot summary"-and thus your topic sentences will only be useful if they explicitly link the material in the paragraphs (the routes) to the argument (i.e., they must be good topic sentences). Mapping your entire paper should allow you to evaluate the directness, readability, and logic of your draft.

3. Evaluate the Picture

Do you follow direct routes? Does one signpost lead down three diverging routes? Are the beginning and end really close together? Are there routes but no signposts? Signposts but no routes? While a college essay does not always ask you to go from beginning to end as quickly as possible, it does ask you to justify the route you are taking. The reader generally doesn't appreciate doubling back, circuitous travel, aimless travel, or mere enjoyment of the scenery.

4. Re-organize

After isolating where the difficulties are, where the visual model is difficult to follow and comprehend, you can now revisit your paper and restructure it accordingly. If your paper travels right through Charlotte to Atlanta only to return to Charlotte and then back to Atlanta, you have a problem. If you bypass Atlanta, be sure your reader knows why.

 

5. Talking

"But, but," you cry, "I just get so confused whenever I look at my draft. I don't know if I'm just tired of it right now, or really unhappy with it, or what, but isn't there any way to just talk this thing out?

"I'm writing on Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, and my working thesis is, 'The New Deal was a conservative defense of American capitalism.'"

Indeed, there is a strategy just for you and we can simply call it talking. This strategy really emphasizes how you're thinking about your paper, in this case the New Deal. Unlike the other strategies, though, it can't be done alone.

1. Find a Friend, your T.A., your Professor (a sympathetic and intelligent listener)

Since we are more accustomed to talking than to writing, the ways we explain things out loud often makes more sense both to us and to our audience than when we first write them down. Pressures, fears, and expectations can cloud our writing, so it is a good idea to try just to talk about them in order to relieve some of those feelings.

2. Explain to Him/Her What Your Paper Is About

What you're looking for here is to see how you explain your argument verbally. Chances are that the order in which you present your ideas and evidence to your listener is a logical way to arrange them in your paper. Let's say that you begin (as you did above) with the working thesis. As you continue to explain, you realize that even though your paper doesn't mention "private enterprise" until the last two paragraphs, you begin to talk about it right away. This should tell you that you probably need to discuss prsivate enterprise sooner in your paper.

3. Take Notes

You and/or your listener should keep track of the way you explain your paper. You probably won't remember it all if you don't, and then you'll just rely on what you've already written (which you're not that happy with or else you wouldn't be reading this). But if you keep track of your explanation-first I explained private enterprise, then work relief, then economic principles-you will have a model against which to measure your draft's organization. Also, when you talk, you are also likely use more specific terms and explain better the ways you are connecting them, which can alert you to holes in your paper.

4. Get Your Listener to Ask Questions

This is easier than it sounds, but it underscores the importance of getting a sympathetic and intelligent listener. As the writer, it is in your interest to receive constructive criticism, from yourself and from others, so that your essay will become stronger. You want your listener to say things like, "Would you mind explaining that point about being both conservative and liberal again? I wasn't sure I followed" or "What kind of economic principle is government relief? Is it communist? Archaic? Ridiculous?" Questions you can't answer may signal an unnecessary tangent. Questions you need to think about will probably make you realize that you need to be more specific in your paper. In short, you want to know that your listener fully understands you; if she doesn't, chances are your readers won't, either.

 

Pitfalls

1. Plot Summary and Generalization

"But, but," you point out, "I had to spend most of the paper telling the story, so I had nowhere and no time to put in my own ideas."

It sounds to me like you are encountering some of the more frequent obstacles to organization. If you find that your paper has to spend most of its time telling the story, something needs fixing, because your argument is not receiving enough attention. Whether you are summarizing the plot, offering lots of evidence, or making lots of general statements, these all need to be subservient to the argument itself. In other words, the development of the plot should be crucial to your essay only insofar as it supports a crucial part of the argument. To take the paper on the Civil War for example, you do not need to tell your reader all the reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War. Rather, you want to highlight those reasons that will serve to support certain aspects of your argument. Your reader is interested not in the history of the Civil War but in what you, the writer, have to say about it. If all you do is tell the story of the Civil War with no interpretation, then all you have is evidence for common knowledge.

2. Two Papers in One/Competing Ideas

"But, but," you persist, "I'm writing about two different things, but that's the only way to answer the assignment."

It sounds like you probably have two papers here, or at least a substantial amount of extraneous information or tangential material. Frequently, when we begin to write essays, we have a lot of ideas running around: we just read a long book, or often parts of a number of books, which all covered a lot of ground that seems important and worth further investigation. Still, in order to present our ideas successfully, we need to focus in on a relatively narrow part of that ground. (The relativity is often indicated by the wording of the assignment or even by the page limit. If you have a five-page limit, it doesn't make sense to formulate an argument that can only be demonstrated in 10 pages, let alone one that will require a whole book to prove.)

How do you know if you have two papers in one or tangential information? I'd probably return first to the thesis statement and then to the road map strategy. If you are having trouble stating the argument in one clear sentence, this might be a good sign that the focus needs to be narrowed. Keep in mind, however, that the thesis itself may not always reflect your argument adequately, as we've discovered above.

 

Bibliography