Literary Theory & Writing

Ever since I can remember, like the usage of commas, introduction formats have been always changing. I have had instructors tell me to use quotes, tell me not to use quotes. I have had instructors tell me to use rhetorical questions others have shunned me for using such an opening. Some instructors have even insisted on not using an opening hook at all but rather go right into the meat of the intro. Now come on! Can MLA just not stick with one simple introduction format and make everyone’s lives simpler? Like you though, introductions and conclusions have always been my least favorite. In some classes, I have even protested against using a conclusion. Why would I write an entire paragraph resuming everything I just wrote, completely idiotic. I have had a few professors actually agree and allow me to get away with not writing a concluding paragraph which makes sense people! Anyways, I too begin with my thesis but then have to follow strictly with my introduction. I find to keep myself sane I have to go in preceding order: thesis, introduction, body paragraphs, and if needed conclusion. One format to look into for structuring an introduction paragraph is the Little Red Schoolhouse method. It is very clear and direct, to the point.

I could not agree with you more–I have always been very confused on how to write a good introduction. It does not help that teachers at different stages of schooling will tell you different things. In middle school, I had teachers telling me to use a quote to hook my audience; in high school my teachers told me never to do so. I still struggle with how to form a complete, interesting introduction.

As Cordell noted last week, it is not necessarily most important to write out a main claim to get you started. I know that some people work chronologically with the introduction and then flow seemingly into the paper. I have found that it is sometimes easier to write about something your interested in, something that you would like to argue, and then eventually when you are finished, construct a claim that summarizes your argument based on what you have already written. Does that make sense?

Those were examples of fully-fledged introductions that Cordell himself thought were more than adequate. Introductions really aren’t as scary as writers sometimes make them out to be. What I find helps a lot is adapting a creative edge and going with it throughout the introduction. Usually something that the reader wouldn’t know or would like to read on to find out more about.