B. Conclusions
Like the introduction, the conclusion is a source of great anxiety for many writers. Also like the introduction, the conclusion is often subject to strict textual conventions.
Many genres--again the lab report comes to mind as an example--define what a conclusion must accomplish and what it must look like. Many teachers also have very strict notions of what a conclusion must do. The "summary conclusion," which is the form most commonly taught in English classes, is sort of an inversion of the roadmap introduction, which it is often paired with. Just as the roadmap introduction summarizes in advance what the paper is going to cover, the summary conclusion reiterates the main points the essay has just made.
My objection to both the roadmap introduction and the summary conclusion, aside from the fact that they are inelegant and uninteresting, is that they waste precious time and space repeatedly going over the same ground. In fact, that's one of the reasons why such introductions and conclusions seem so boring--when handled formulaically, as they almost always are, they keep telling us the same few things.
On the other hand, if the essay is a formal academic presentation of fairly extensive, complex, or detailed material, a roadmap introduction and summary conclusion may be not just helpful but absolutely essential, so that the reader doesn't get lost. That's why such introductions and conclusions are found so often, in one form or another, in scientific papers.
But in a simple 500-2000 word essay, which is what most students are asked to write in high school and college classes, saying the same thing three times limits the space available to extend the range or depth of analysis. Besides, since the paper is so short, it is almost an insult to the reader's intelligence to write as though he must constantly be reminded of what he is reading.
The summary conclusion is particularly ineffective when, as is often the case, the analysis in the essay is static, so that the conclusion really is just a repeat of the introduction. When the reader gets to the conclusion, he should feel as if he has actually made some progress from the introduction, not as if he has merely been marching in place.
Apart from rhetorical situations governed by strict textual conventions, formal academic presentations of complex, detailed material, or situations where the writer must satisfy a teacher who demands adherence to rigid formulas for introductions and conclusions, writers will usually do better if they allow their conclusions to develop naturally out of the nature of their material and the form of their presentation.
If an essay is well-conceived and well-developed, it will "click closed" when it comes to its natural endpoint. By
well-conceived, I mean that the writer has a clearly defined purpose and a clear sense of the developmental steps necessary to accomplish that purpose.
well-conceived, I mean that the writer has a clearly defined purpose and a clear sense of the developmental steps necessary to accomplish that purpose.
By well-developed, I mean that the writer has sufficient information to support his purpose statement, and that he makes effective use of that information.
When a writer knows exactly what he means to do and how it needs to be done, then when he has accomplished his purpose, the reader will feel that the essay has taken him to the endpoint that was implied from the start of the essay. When he gets to that endpoint, he will feel a sense of closure, a sense of sufficiency--which is what I mean when I say the essay should "click closed."
