Sin Boldly!: Dr. Dave's Guide to Writing the College Paper

Rating:
Summary: The Devil and Dr. Dave
Review: An entertaining guide to writing a college paper and finding your voice. Dr. Dave is an advocate of "plain-style American populism" - I enjoyed it.

Rating:
Summary: It is definitely bold... and interesting
Review: I found this book very useful since it helped me make my arguments stronger. Humorous and an enjoyable read.

Rating:
Summary: Don't judge a book by its content.
Review: This is a potentially useful book to the student writer who discovers it on his own and therefore has no reason not to buy into its solid, commonsensical advice. There's nothing new here--Strunk&White directives, concisely expressed tips about brainstorming and revising, admonitions about cliched language and ignoring the conventions of grammar, punctuation and citation form. The strength of the book is the author's personal voice, logical reasoning disguised as irreverent defiance of the academic establishment, and invocation of countless examples from pop culture (the Simpsons to Monica Lewinsky), literature (a definite bias toward Melville), philosophy (Derrida and the post-modernists), and theology (Luther--the source of the book's title).

While most of the author's points are on target, some may question his failure to distinguish between "opinion" and "idea," especially in the context of exhorting student writers to use the medium to trust and express their opinions ("Here I stand"). It's one thing to "sin boldly," the better to experience a state of despair and to be open to divine grace. But the gain in writing flagrantly bad somehow eludes this reader.

Certainly the text is too spare to be of any use as a "Handbook," but as a "Rhetoric" it succeeds remarkably well in its first half in addressing the constant student refrain: "Is this what you want, Professor?" (I want what you want when you might have cause to be proud of yourself for having wanted it in the first place.) By so overtly taking the student's "side," the author conveys a responsible writing instructor's agenda in a manner that allows the student to view it as privileged information.

In the latter half of the book, I'm afraid the author grinds a few too many personal axes--taking on the deconstructionists and postmodern types, for example--and strays too far from the matter at hand to hold, let alone influence, his audience. In some respects, the author's purpose becomes suspect (cf. David Foster Wallace's "display" piece on grammar and usage in Harper's, 4/2001). And the book ends in an eerily preachy style.

The loud, naughty cover and penchant for scatological language (admittedly a potential turn-off for delicate sensibilities) help atone for the book's didacticism and moralizing as do the moments of refreshing candor (Ronald Reagan didn't know what he was talking about, George Will can at least write effective essays, etc). The price is right, so you can read or assign the first half of the book and ignore the rest.