The French system of education, excessively demanding in some respects, is justly so when it comes to literature and writing. I know I tend to write in French using English words, merrily violating every English syntactic rule in the process, but the method preceding the writing has a universal quality, so my particular treatment of English does not infirm its efficiency. However, I wrote this with non-fiction in mind. I believe fiction writing is where one should feel free and push one's creativity even on the level of structure. Therefore, although the following methodology may help you, don't allow yourself to be fettered by it if it is fiction you are writing.

Now, assume I am assigned a paper to write. Whatever the assignment is, it must be one of two things: either a topic that requires research or one that requires personal thought. In both cases the first thing I do is brainstorm.

If it is research that I need, then before even trying to think of a hypothesis I read as many relevant documents as time allows. Every time I encounter a fact that feels significant or that has potential as a support to an argument, I type it up, even in a brief reminder form. The more info I type, the more patterns emerge and so I make sure I keep the facts roughly grouped. For example, the assignment for my first university paper was: "Building in Antiquity from 3600 BC to 1800 BC". In this case, if I remember well, the rough groups I had were MESOPOTAMIA, EGYPT, POSSIBLE THEORIES. Every idea that comes to mind as the research progresses should be noted down.

If the paper needs nothing but personal reflection, then I jot down every idea and argument, for or against, that the subject brings to mind. I think this kind of topic is rare though and that most often it will be an intermediate between the two. Philosophy essays for instance requires personal input, but with the abundant support of philosophical and literary quotes. We were taught there were at least two ways of structuring such a dissertation: Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis (or "for-against-what transpires from their addition") and, if the topic does not lend itself to controversy but rather to build-up: Thesis-Furthermore-Even Furthermore. I would therefore roughly classify my ideas either as for-against-sum or according to how strong they are in an argument, going from weakest to strongest.

In the case of philosophy the hypothesis was usually chosen for us and it was our job to confirm or infirm it, but the research papers required us to come up with one before demonstrating it. For this I read carefully through all the notes I have taken and see what they tell me. This is a delicate step because here enters the notion of concept, and I can't give you general pointers as to developing one. I am often indecisive at this point because a weak theory can affect the entire paper, and let's not even mention one that I'd fail to demonstrate. However, as my teacher said at the time of giving us the above assignment: "I don't care if you tell me the Pyramids were built by aliens as long as you can prove it." My hypothesis for the example I gave was a little bold, but I was confident I could demonstrate it: "Architecture was not a self-serving profession in the first building civilizations".

Once I have my hypothesis, I may need a little more research in the light of it to fill possible gaps. When I feel I have every fact or argument I need, it is time to organize my notes to obtain the most important thing in the paper: the outline.

If you polish your outline, your paper is practically done. It becomes exactly like assembling a puzzle right on top of its map.

In a research paper this means reworking my groups in ways that serve my argument better. I copy and paste until I have an outline where every paragraph may look like this:

I. Buildings that did not evolve in typology.
A. Nature of these buildings: domestic constructions.
B. Domestic building typologies in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
- Houses.
- Palaces.
C. Reasons and significance of their not evolving.
- Construction material.
- Configuration.
- "Ornamental" features.
- Conclusion: architectural effort -- whether technical or aesthetical -- stopped when the users were satisfied.

Not every outline will follow the same exact structure, but notice the progression in this one:

A. General statement (may need back-up), i.e. introduction to this paragraph.
B. General descriptions to back up the above with specific examples.
C. Interpretation of A and B: mini-hypothesis backed up by examples and by what was just discussed in A and B.
Conclusion to this paragraph

As you can see, every "paragraph" (which is actually several paragraphs long) is a mini-paper in itself, with a one-line introduction and a conclusion. Why is this important? When your paper is between 15 and 30 pages long like mine are, you can't ask the reader to remember all the arguments and examples you used. Giving a conclusion at the end of each of your demonstration paragraphs means he or she will only have to keep in mind a single conclusive sentence for each of them – and you can't possibly have more than 4 of these in a paper. A thesis is another business, but if you divide it into part 1 and 2 (maybe three) and have a short conclusion at the end of each part, you can still use this successfully.

When I was in high school we had two hours to write a dissertation in class, meaning no computer access and no time to think. I would brainstorm as I described, stick the appropriate examples or quotes directly next to the general statements and then, since I couldn't cut and paste, I would number everything on my paper so that I'd get my outline – shuffled a bit, but easy to use. We were supposed to figure out the outline then write a draft before copying the latter in final shape to the test paper. In two hours? Nobody can write that fast AND do a good paper. By having my outline detailed and polished as above, I could skip the draft and write the final paper directly, using it as a template.

It is not enough, however, to have the facts and examples in the perfect order. What made my strength in school and university is, I believe, my use of transitions. It is indeed indispensable to lead the mind smoothly from one idea to the next. A good exercise to achieve this: do not use headers inside your paper. In the French system an essay is a piece of literature and any "technical" device such as headers and lists are absolutely forbidden. This means we have to create smooth transitions throughout to lead from one idea to another without a cut – cuts being made permissible by headers. You will likely insert headers when you are done to make reading easier for the teacher, but working without them means your paper will flow smoothly in a single thread of thought from beginning to end. Transitions need to be well thought-out; if they make no sense they only make things worse. Take the idea you just finished with, the idea you want to get to, and find something that connects them – even if it means adding a couple of sentences or a quote. The only place in a paper where it is fine to not use a transition is between the end of the final paragraph and the beginning of the conclusion.*

The conclusion is not just a means of wrapping up the paper and putting an end to it without sounding like you're slamming a door in the reader's face. It has to take up again the conclusions you reached in each paragraph of the body and show how they support your theory, or confirm/infirm the given hypothesis. It can end in a statement that is your hypothesis (reworded or not), but it can also end on a more general, thoughtful statement, a quote, or a question that gives the paper another dimension by hinting that the discussion could be pursued. Typically we are told that a paper has the shape of a sand watch where the body is most specific, with the conclusion starting specific and broadening to a general statement again; the introduction will have done the opposite, starting broad and ending on the specific note that announces the body.

I didn't mention the introduction before now because it is the very last thing one works on. You need to know everything that comes after it before you can write it, because it must state the topic, narrow down your area of enquiry (explaining why), and introduce your hypothesis. Most importantly, it must invite the reader to read on. When you have 30 pages to show, you'd better make people excited about what you have to say. The first and last impression are the most important parts of the paper: they are practically all one retains. If they are interesting, original, crystal clear, masterful, this is what will be remembered of the whole.

A few more points I would like to stress:

- It is important not to ramble, especially in research subjects. Think of your reader's reaction: you don't want them to think "you said that already!" or to have to wade through several lines of useless description. Your paper must be like a cougar: all muscles and no fat. Anything that doesn't add to the thought process is a useless appendage. I sin myself in that regard as I tend to repeat an idea throughout a paper, phrasing it differently every time. That is a deliberate device to insist on an idea without becoming irritating, and it is also due to the fact that when I see several approaches to the same argument, I want to expose them all. You be your own judge as to where the point of rambling is reached.

- Rambling and being lyrical are two different things. You can be lyrical yet concise and to the point. The French tradition dislikes pieces that don't at least try to have style: every work must be a linguistic delight or else it is just technical. Even more so in Arabic, where repetition is encouraged and only the news can dispense from being poetic. As a result of those two influences I place lyricism in places that may look inappropriate to Americans, but if I remove it I get protests from teachers my side of the ocean who miss "my usual style". My point here is: if you can write beautifully without choking your argument instead of being dry, do so – you'll only make your paper more valuable, since writing was never just about thinking but also about how this thinking is expressed.

- If you have a good idea but it fits nowhere in the thread of the argument, it's better to forget it than to create a disturbance. I often have fascinating facts I want to include, but have to leave out for the sake of a seamless flow.

- Not permissible in school, but that I have done successfully, are "stream of thought" papers. You take a starting point and just write on from there. Don't stop for language corrections, and don't let your thought be interrupted; you'll polish it up later. If you find yourself at the end of your thread, you can either start working on the conclusion and introduction, or take another starting point and write another paragraph this way (you can create a transition later). I write many of the articles I post in this fashion, as it is a way to rest the mind as opposed to all the focus required for a proper outline. I got away with it in school because they were broad-topic assignments where the teacher wanted to see some personal input. Which brings me to my last point...

- BE PERSONAL. If a teacher wanted dry facts he or she would open a dictionary. The whole point of a paper, unless it's a stupid "spill what you memorized" assignment, is to see the inside of your brains, so to speak. So give it your own input, theories, analysis – give it something someone will want to quote YOU on.

Time to start enjoying those assignment papers! Good luck!

* By the way, this was a transition to lead you to the paragraph about the conclusion.

Article © Joumana Medlej