Writing Effective Sentences

Copyright 2019 by Gary L. Pullman

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

To write an effective sentence—a sentence that communicates exactly what you mean—you should practice the follow these principles:

• Use active voice. (Active voice results from using an active subject and an action verb. Often, the verb is transitive: in other words, it has a direct object.)
• Use the third person. (All nouns, all indefinite pronouns, and all third-person personal pronouns are in the third person.)
• Be concise. (Use only the words that are necessary to communicate your precise meaning.)
• Write with purpose and deliberation, with a specific intention, or aim.
• Start with a kernel sentence. (A kernel sentence is the shortest possible sentence that you can construct about a topic. Often, a kernel sentence consists of only an active subject and an action verb.)
• After writing a kernel sentence about your topic, consider what information you need to add to communicate the exact meaning you have in mind. Also consider what additional information, if any, your reader is likely to need to know about the topic as you are writing about it in this particular sentence.) According to philosopher and rhetorician Kenneth Burke, all communication addresses only one or more of these questions: Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? How many or how much? Knowing this about communication can help you to decide what information is necessary to include in any sentence concerning any topic.

Let's practice this approach.

Suppose you are writing about the topic of sharks' attacks.

Start your sentence with these words. “Sharks” is your subject; “attack” is your action verb:

Sharks attack.

Ask yourself, WHAT about shark attacks? (What point do you intend to communicate about a shark attack?)

Sharks attack rarely.

What else do you intend to say about shark attacks?

Sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.

What is your purpose in communicating these facts? What do you intend to communicate? Perhaps you intend to correct a misconception, such as:

Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently.

If this is the case, relate your goal (correcting a misconception about shark attacks) to the sentence you have already written (about the rarity and relative non-lethal number of shark attacks):

Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.

To emphasize your point, you can add a phrase such as “in reality”:

Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but, in reality, sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.

Let's review what intentions motivated you to construct each new, expanded version of this kernel sentence.

You started with a kernel sentence about a specific topic: “Sharks attack.”

You identified the first point you wanted to communicate about the topic of your sentence: “rarely.”

You decided to add a pertinent fact to the sentence: “and these attacks are seldom fatal.”

You identified your purpose in writing these facts, which was to correct a misconception: “Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently.”

You related your purpose to the facts that you had already communicated: “Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.”

Finally, you used a phrase to emphasize your point: “in reality.”

As a result of this process, using your intent to determine the content of your sentence, you went from the kernel sentence “Sharks attack” to its final, expanded, complete version: “Media reports suggest that sharks attack people frequently, but, in reality, sharks attack rarely, and these attacks are seldom fatal.”

This approach can work for any sentence concerning any topic.

Constructing Sentences

Copyright 2018 by Gary L. Pullman

Pre-sentence and Sentence-level Grammatical Elements

Oxford Dictionaries: English defines sentence to mean “a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.”

To understand this definition, we must know the meanings of “subject, “predicate,” “main clause” and “subordinate clause.”

A subject is “a noun or noun phrase functioning as one of the main components of a clause, being the element about which the rest of the clause is predicated.” (A noun phrase is simply a group of words that acts as a noun, naming a person, place, thing, or abstraction, such as quality”: “White House” is a noun phrase.)

A predicate is “the part of a sentence or clause containing a verb and stating something about the subject (e. g., “went home” in “John went home”; “John” is the subject). A predicate can consist of either single verb or a phrase that acts as a verb. (A verb expresses action or a state of existence.)

A main clause, also called an independent clause or a simple sentence, is a group of words that has a subject, a verb, and expresses a complete thought.

A subordinate clause, a type of dependent clause, is a group of words that has both a subject and a predicate but does not express a complete thought. “Which was fun” is a subordinate clause: “which” is the subject; “was fun” is the predicate, but “which was fun” does not express a complete thought.

Although our definition of “sentence” doesn't mention the word “phrase,” we also need to know what a phrase is to understand a sentence. A phrase is a group of words that has neither a subject nor a predicate; therefore, it cannot express a complete thought. “Under the table” is a phrase. Many phrases act as adjectives, describing nous or pronouns, or as adverbs, describing verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. Many adverbs end in the letters “ly.”

There are eight parts of speech (the building blocks of language): nouns (name persons, places, things, and abstractions), pronouns (take the place of nouns), verbs (name actions or states of existence), adjectives (describe nouns or pronouns), adverbs (describe verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs), prepositions (words which relate one word or phrase to another word or phrase, over through a reference to space), conjunctions (words that connect other words, phrases, or clauses in a sentence), and interjections (words that express strong emotion). In addition, phrases and dependent clauses may act as equivalents of adjectives, adverbs, or other parts of speech.

The Seven Elements of Linguistic Communication

Language, as it relates to communication, has seven functions:

1. To identify agents, agencies (organizations), or other actors.
2. To identify deeds (actions) or objects.
3. To identify time, duration (how long something takes or acts), or frequency (how often something occurs).
4. To identify location or position.
5. To identify manner, method, or technique.
6. To identify cause, function, motive, purpose, or use.
7. To identify quantity.

These seven functions are associated with questions and are accomplished by the parts of speech and by groups of words (phrases or dependent clauses) that function as parts of speech:

Linguistic Element	Associated Question	Part of Speech or Common Equivalent	Example(s)
	Who?	Noun, pronoun, dependent clause	Tom (noun), Jane (noun), he (pronoun), she (pronoun), it (pronoun), The man in the blue suit (dependent clause)
Agent (Actor)	What?	Verb (predicate)	Danced (action), went dancing (action), ball (object): He kicked the ball.
Deed (Action) or Object	When?	Adverb, adverbial prepositional phrase	Yesterday (adverb), Two-hour-long (compound adjective), twice weekly (adverbial phrase), at five o'clock (adverbial prepositional phrase)
Time, Duration, or Frequency	Where?	Adverbial prepositional phrase	Under the table
Location or Position	How?	Adverb, adverbial prepositional phrase	Slowly (adverb), with great care (adverbial prepositional phrase)
Manner, Method, or Technique	Why?	Adverbial infinitive phrase, dependent clause	To ensure integrity (infinitive phrase), who used it to conduct surveillance (adverbial dependent clause)
Cause, function, motive, purpose, or use	How many? Or How much?	Adjective, adjectival infinitive phrase, adverbial prepositional phrase	Three (adjective), one-pound (compound adjective), to fill a bushel basket (adjectival infinitive phrase), under a gallon (adverbial prepositional phrase)

Building Sentences

We need to define one more term before we can consider how to build sentences. A kernel sentence is “a simple, active, declarative sentence containing no modifiers or connectives that may be used in making more elaborate sentences.”

Let's break this definition down. “Simple” means that the sentence consists of only a subject and a predicate: “John slept,” “Jose eats,” “Maria will graduate.” A kernel sentence does not include any modifiers (adjectives, adverbs or grammatically equivalent phrases or dependent clauses). “Active” means that the subject is acting (doing something), so the verb will be an action verb: “John slept,” “Jose eats,” “Maria will graduate.” “Declarative” means the sentence makes a statement, or indicates that a certain state of affairs existed, exists, or will exist. If we write “John slept,” we are declaring that he was performing a particular action at a previous time: he was sleeping. If we write “John eats,” we are declaring that he is performing a particular action right now: he is eating. If we write “Maria will graduate,” we are indicating that she will perform a particular action in the future: she will graduate. A modifier is a word, such as an adjective, an adverb, or an equivalent phrase or dependent clause that describes, limits, or otherwise changes the meaning of a noun, pronoun, or other part of speech, so, basically, in other words, a kernel sentence doesn't contain any adjectives or adverbs. “Connectives” refers to words that connect each other or connect words with phrases, dependent clauses, or independent clauses, so, basically, in other words, kernel sentences don't contain any conjunctions or prepositions. Let's rephrase our original definition to read:

A kernel sentence is “a simple, active, declarative sentence” without any adjectives, adverbs, or conjunctions, or propositions. A kernel sentence can help us write longer, more detailed, more involved sentences.

Using the chart that shows the seven functions of language, as it relates to communication, the questions to which these functions are associated, and the related parts of speech and their common phrase and clause equivalents and the information about kernel sentences, we can easily control our the writing of our sentences. As a result, we'll be able to write rhetorically effective, grammatically correct sentences.

Let's try a few examples. Let's say we are writing about a movie that changed the way we thought about something. First, let's collect our thoughts. Which movie do we have in mind? Let's start with its title, in italics (because the title of long works are italicized):

Tombstone

(See? That was easy!)

We've identified the subject of our sentence. Now, in one word—an action verb—what is the main idea we want to express about Tombstone? If our thought about the topic includes the idea that Tombstone does something to someone or something else, we will also need to add a direct object after the verb at some point. If that's the case, keep the object in mind. However, begin with a kernel sentence consisting of nothing more than the subject and the action verb. Lets' list some action verbs that could express our idea about our subject, Tombstone:

addresses

celebrates

embellishes

exaggerates

falsifies

highlights

presents

reflects

shows

Suppose we selected “celebrates” from our list:

Tombstone celebrates.

Celebrates what? we think. “What” is on our chart!

Linguistic Element	Associated Question	Part of Speech or Common Equivalent	Example(s)
Deed (Action) or Object	What?	Verb (predicate)	Danced (action), went dancing (action), ball (object): He kicked the ball.

According to our chart, the question “What?” is associated with the linguistic element of deed (action) or object. If we ask “celebrate what?” we know we are thinking of an object, because an object receives the action of a verb. What is the movie Tombstone celebrating?

Maybe our first thought is gun fighting, since many of the characters, including the protagonist, Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and their friend, Doc Holliday, are gunfighters. However, as we think further about it, we remember that the movie's antagonists, the outlaw gang led by Curly Bill Brocius, are also gunfighters. However, Curly Bill and his gang, the Cowboys, use their guns to kill innocent people, to threaten and intimidate the townspeople, and to otherwise break the law. They shot and killed almost an entire wedding party, including the priest, and Curly Bill shot and killed the town's marshal, Fred White. According to the movie, Wyatt has killed only one outlaw in his life, and, although Doc has used his gun to rob people and is a notorious gunfighter, he usually obeys Wyatt, who keeps him mostly in check. Wyatt's brother Virgil, is, like Wyatt, a former lawman, and he is concerned about how the Cowboys run roughshod over the townspeople, endangering their lives. The youngest brother, Morgan, has joined Virgil o enforce the law in Tombstone. As the movie portrays them, the Earps and, to a lesser extent, Doc, are law-abiding men who use their gun-fighting skills to enforce the law and protect others. It's not gun fighting that the movie celebrates, but the courage that the Earps and Holliday display. Now, our sentence reads:

Tombstone celebrates courage.

That's a start, but does it celebrate anything more? The Earps and Holliday are willing to risk their lives to protect other people who lack the skills they have as gunfighters. In other words, they put the welfare of other people above their own. They are willing to sacrifice their own safety and their own lives, if necessary, to enforce the law and protect the citizens of Tombstone. With this in mind, we can extend our sentence to read:

Tombstone celebrates courage and altruism.

(“Altruism” means “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.”)

The simple question “What?” has helped us think our way through a good deal of the content, or action, of the movie to identify specifically and exactly what we want to address in our essay. Refining our thinking has helped us to think about the events of the movie and the implications of the characters' actions. Many of the ideas we have considered might be used to help support and develop our thesis, once we have written it.

(By the way, a question can be repeated as often as repeating it may prove effective. As we move from one thought to another, it may be beneficial to us to repeat one or more questions about emerging aspects of our topic or implications arising from it we hadn't seen or considered before.)

Referring to our chart, we answer the other questions:

WHO? Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and Doc Holliday; Curly Bill Brocius, Johnny Ringo, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Tom McLaury, and Frank McLaury.

WHAT? Shootout at the O.K. Corral; Vendetta Ride

WHEN? 1888.

WHERE? Tombstone, Arizona, and its environs;

HOW?: Gunfights

WHY?

HOW MANY or HOW MUCH: Not relevant to this particular topic

“Why?” can be a difficult question to answer, but, once again, our chart helps us. Since our topic concerns human behavior, we will focus on motive, rather than cause, function, purpose, or use. In other words, we will concern ourselves with why Wyatt Earp, his brothers, and Doc Holliday are willing to risk their own lives to protect the citizens of Tombstone. As we think about the movie, we remember scenes in which some of the characters showed how they felt about the Cowboys' treatment of others. Virgil was disgusted when he saw a Cowboy nearly run down a child in the street and saw the scar on the cheek of the boy's mother, which may have been caused by the gang's abuse of her. He also told Wyatt that he felt ashamed to stand idly by while the Cowboys terrorized the townspeople. He said he was a lawman. Morgan became a deputy because he respected Virgil, probably because of his older brother's views. Doc said he fought alongside Wyatt because Wyatt was his friend and Doc didn't have “lots of friends,” like others. He seems to risk his life not for strangers as much as for Wyatt. Although Doc is himself something of an outlaw, his longstanding friendship with Wyatt motivates him to join forces with the Earps against the Cowboys. Wyatt seems to join the others because his brothers are kin and because Doc is his friend. However, like Virgil, he is also a former lawman, as he demonstrates in arresting Curly Bill after the outlaw leader kills Fred White. They respect the law, which implies they believe in justice. Wow! In considering the “WHY?” question, we have not only refined our ideas about our topic, but we have also generated a lot of material that may be helpful in writing our paper. With our answers to the questions WHEN?, WHERE?, HOW?, and WHY? in mind, we can now further add to our sentence:

Set in Tombstone, Arizona [WHERE], in 1888 [WHEN], the movie Tombstone [TOPIC] celebrates courage [WHAT] and altruism [WHAT], showing that devotion to justice [WHY], admiration for one's kin [WHY], and respect for friendship [WHY] can defeat—

Oops! Defeat WHAT?

No need to panic. “What?” is on our chart. It directs our thoughts to deeds. What deeds do the Earps and Holliday “defeat” or stop? To what types of actions do they put a halt? We know they fight Curly Bill, Johnny Ringo, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Tom McLaury, and Frank McLaury. What kinds of deeds have these outlaws performed? Thinking again of individual scenes involving the actions of these characters, we can generate a list:

• retaliatory murders of a wedding party and a priest (Cowboys)
• dangerous gun play while under the influence of opium (Curly Bill)
• shooting of Tombstone's Marshal Fred White (Curly Bill)
• shooting up a theater during a performance (Curly Bill and his men)
• menacing Doc Holliday in a saloon
• menacing the Earps and Holliday on the street
• nearly running down a boy in the street (one of the Cowboys)
• refusing to turn in their guns upon entering Tombstone (Clantons and McLaurys)

We have eight examples now. If we watch the movie again, chances are we can add more examples.

Next, we can characterize these actions, grouping our examples, as appropriate:

• retributive murders (wedding party and a priest) (Cowboys)
• dangerous or fatal disregard for the safety of others: dangerous gun play while under the influence of opium (Curly Bill), shooting up a theater during a performance (Curly Bill and his men), accidental shooting of Tombstone's Marshal Fred White while under the influence of opium (Curly Bill), and menacing Doc Holliday in a saloon and menacing the Earps and Holliday on the street
• violations of local law: refusing to turn in their guns upon entering Tombstone (Clantons and McLaurys)

With these more general categories of the Cowboys' actions in mind, we can finish our sentence:

Set in Tombstone, Arizona [WHERE], in 1888 [WHEN], the movie Tombstone [TOPIC] celebrates courage [WHAT] and altruism [WHAT], showing that devotion to justice [WHY], admiration for one's kin [WHY], and respect for friendship [WHY] can defeat outlaws [WHO] who commit retributive murders [WHAT], show a dangerous or fatal disregard for the safety of others [WHAT], and violate a local law [WHAT].

Further reflection on the thesis may make us realize that we're not writing as much about the values that certain men have as we are writing about the men themselves who hold these values. This important distinction can be made by adding a couple of words to our sentence:

Set in Tombstone, Arizona [WHERE], in 1888 [WHEN], the movie Tombstone [TOPIC] celebrates altruistic men [WHO] of courage [WHAT], showing that their devotion to justice [WHY], admiration for one's kin [WHY], and respect for friendship [WHY] can defeat outlaws [WHO] who commit retributive murders [WHAT], show a dangerous or fatal disregard for the safety of others [WHAT], and violate a local law [WHAT].

For topics concerning which quantity is an important element to consider, we would also ask ourselves one more question: HOW MANY? or HOW MUCH? For Tombstone, we found this is not a relevant issue, so we did not ask this question about this topic.

The questions on our chart helped us to think purposefully about our topic, considering specific scenes and characters with a point in mind, and select details useful to the development of a thesis sentence and its support and development. Our sentence is clear, specific, explicit, has a plan of development, makes a claim of our own about the topic, and is grammatically correct. Understanding what a sentence is, what it does, and how to construct one, starting with a kernel sentence to which we apply the seven linguistic elements (or as many as apply to the topic in hand), can help us to write purposeful, well-planned sentences. It is a process applicable to not only thesis sentences and topic sentences, but each sentence we writer. Using it, we will develop meaningful sentences, paragraphs, and entire essays that are rhetorically effective and grammatically accurate, one word, phrase, and clause at a time.

Now, let's try the process again, using the same movie, but with a different topic in mind. Let's say, this time, we are responding to a writing prompt provided by the instructor:

Is Wyatt Earp morally justified in leaving his common-law wife, Mattie, for the actress Josephine Marcus? Why or why not. Give reasons, and provide examples from the plot of the movie Tombstone to support and develop your thesis.

As we carefully consider the writing prompt, we realize that it suggests we need to focus on WHAT—Wyatt's act of leaving Mattie for Josephine—and we must decide WHY his action is morally justified or not. Therefore, we should answer these questions first, since they will shape our sentence.

We start with our kernel sentence. This time, the instructor has assigned us our topic:

Wyatt Earp feels.

Feels WHAT? Justified.

Wyatt Earp feels justified.

Feels justified about WHAT?

Wyatt Earp feels justified in leaving Mattie.

WHO is Mattie? we may further ask. (The same question can be applied as many times as appropriate.) Our answer: Wyatt's common-law wife.

Wyatt Earp feels justified in leaving Mattie, his common-law wife.

We have already answered two of our questions:

WHO? Wyatt Earp; Mattie Earp; Josephine Marcus

WHAT? Justification for leaving Mattie for Josephine Marcus

Now, we answer the rest of our them:

WHEN? 1888.

WHERE? Tombstone, Arizona

HOW? Wyatt runs away with Josephine.

WHY? Wyatt believes that Mattie will never change, preferring her addiction to laudanum to the excitement, romance, and adventure that Josephine Marcus offers him.

We continue to build our sentence, expanding it as we add the answers to our questions:

In 1888, while living in Tombstone, Arizona, Wyatt Earp leaves Mattie, his common-law wife, running away with Josephine Marcus, because he believes that Mattie will never change, preferring her addiction to laudanum to the excitement, romance, and adventure that Josephine Marcus offers him.

As we reflect on our sentence, we realize that the way it is stated does not address the question in the instructor's writing prompt. The prompt asks us to answer the question as to whether Wyatt is mortally justified in leaving Mattie; it does not ask us what Wyatt believes. His belief may or may not be valid. That's what we must decide. Reading the prompt again, we see the words “Why or why not.” Thinking about this question may make us realize something else: If we agree with Wyatt, we agree that his action (leaving Mattie) is justified, for the same reasons Wyatt himself does. All we need to do is to revise our thesis slightly so it indicates our point of view, rather than Wyatt's perspective:

In 1888, while living in Tombstone, Arizona, Wyatt Earp leaves Mattie, his common-law wife, running away with Josephine Marcus, believes, rightly, that his action is morally justifiable, because Mattie will never change, preferring her addiction to laudanum to the excitement, romance, and adventure that Josephine Marcus offers him.

By adding “rightly,” we imply that we agree with Wyatt's belief that his action in leaving Mattie is morally justified and for the same reasons he offers: Mattie will never change, preferring her addiction to laudanum to the excitement, romance, and adventure that Josephine Marcus offers him. Now, the sentence is about what we believe, not just what Wyatt believes.

Maybe we wonder whether the time and place of the movie is all that important to the topic we're concerned about—whether or not Wyatt's leaving Mattie for Josephine? If not, we should revise our sentence, omitting these elements and changing the sentence structure to maintain grammatical accuracy:

Wyatt Earp, who leaves Mattie, his common-law wife, running away with Josephine Marcus, believes, rightly, that his action is morally justifiable, because Mattie will never change, preferring her addiction to laudanum to the excitement, romance, and adventure that Josephine Marcus offers him.

Once again, our technique has helped us think through our topic, address all its pertinent and significant aspects, and develop a sentence that is clear, specific, explicit, has a plan of development, makes a claim of our own about the topic, and is grammatically correct. Our approach may also help us to zero in on specific scenes in the movie that we can use as examples to support our own reasons for our claim that Wyatt is morally justified in leaving Mattie for Josephine. We might jot down the scenes on which we want to focus. maybe watching them a second and third time, as we take notes:

• Mattie asks for, and receives, laudanum from Morgan's wife, after having drunk all of her own
• Mattie refuses to seek help for her addiction after Wyatt encourages her to do so, saying she does not have a problem with the drugs (alcohol and opium)
• Mattie often seems to be in a drug-induced stupor and behaves at times in an inappropriate manner, as she does when she laughs at Wyatt in their hotel room when he is in earnest as he speaks to her
• Josephine and Wyatt are strongly attracted to each other from the moment they first see one another
• Josephine wants adventure, excitement, and romance, and she seeks a man with whom she can share her pursuits no longer only for “a while,” but for life (this comes across clearly in the scene in which she and Wyatt ride their horses down a steep hillside)
• When Wyatt asks Mattie whether she would like to “live on room service,” as Josephine had characterized her own desire for adventure, excitement, and romance, Josephine has no idea what he means and is obviously intoxicated—again; Wyatt seems to know there is no longer any hope for their relationship

Again, our approach has helped us to pinpoint specific parts of the movie to revisit, consider in detail, and mine for examples to support our thesis. Whether we are generating our own thesis, based on our own interests and ideas, or we are writing in response to a particular writing prompt provided by the instructor, this method of using the chart that shows the seven functions of language, as it relates to communication, the questions to which these functions are associated, and the related parts of speech and their common phrase and clause equivalents and the information about kernel sentences pays big dividends in helping us both to think about our topic and to write sentences that are well thought out, precise, detailed, and on topic. Our constant revisions and reflections on not only what we have written, but also why we wrote it and how it might be improved results in well-written sentences, paragraphs, and papers and is useful in the development of any type of paper for any type of topic.

A Three-Step Brainstorming Process

copyright 2008 by Gary L. Pullman

Brainstorming is a way to generate a thesis sentence for an essay and the material that you need to support and develop the essay’s topic sentences. There are several ways to brainstorm, but one of the most effective involves these three steps:

1. List
2. Group
3. Use your imagination to create a situation that provides a purpose for your essay to create your thesis

When necessary, step one or step two (or, for that matter, step three) may be repeated.

Let’s try an example to see how this three-step brainstorming process works.

We’ll select a topic about which most high school and college students know quite a bit--horror movies. According to the first step, we should generate a list of such movies. List as many as possible. This step can be accomplished individually or in small groups or, if the teacher or instructor allows, as an entire class exercise.

Here’s a possible list of horror movies, in no particular order, the title of each added as it came to mind (remember that the titles of a long literary work, such as a movie, is underlined or italicized):

• Alien
• The Exorcist
• The Birds
• Psycho
• Carrie
• The Howling
• Dracula
• Frankenstein
• The Mummy’s Curse
• Poltergeist
• The Others
• I Know What You Did Last Summer
• Descent
• The Hills Have Eyes
• Them!
• The Blob
• Texas Chainsaw Massacre
• The Ring
• The Shining
• The Thing
• The Abominable Dr. Phibes
• Burn, Witch, Burn
• Needful Things
• ‘Salem’s Lot
• Halloween
• A Nightmare on Elm Street
• Night of the Living Dead
• Saw
• Jaws

Now, let’s repeat step one, listing the monster or the antagonist that appears in each movie:

• Alien--extraterrestrial
• The Exorcist--devil
• The Birds--birds
• Psycho--mad kille
• Carrie--telekinetic girl
• The Howling--werewolves
• Dracula--vampire
• Frankenstein--monster assembled from parts of dead bodies
• The Mummy’s Curse--mummy
• Poltergeist--poltergeist
• The Others--ghosts
• I Know What You Did Last Summer--mad killer
• Descent--trolls
• The Hills Have Eyes--mutant cannibals
• Them!--giant ants
• The Blob--extraterrestrial
• Texas Chainsaw Massacre--mad killer
• The Ring--ghost
• The Shining--ghosts
• The Thing--extraterrestrial
• The Abominable Dr. Phibes--mad killer
• Burn, Witch, Burn--witch
• Needful Things--devil
• ‘Salem’s Lot--vampires
• Halloween--bogeyman
• A Nightmare on Elm Street--bogeyman
• Night of the Living Dead--zombies
• Saw--mad killer
• Jaws--shark

After listing as many horror films as you can think of, perform step two, which is to group. Think of a way to group the movies on your list. For example, they could be listed by the type of monster or antagonist (natural, paranormal, or supernatural) that each film has.

At this point, one may ask what is the difference between the paranormal and the supernatural. The answer is that the paranormal is considered an aspect of the natural world (the universe) but that its basis is currently unknown and, therefore, cannot be explained scientifically at present. The supernatural also cannot be explained scientifically, but it is believed to belong to a reality that is above and beyond, outside of, and transcendent to the natural world, or universe. A materialist (one who believes that only matter and energy, which are interchangeable states or substances, exist) will not accept the possibility of supernatural powers, forces, or entities. A dualist (one who believes in both matter and energy and spirit) can, and frequently does, accept the possibility of supernatural powers, forces, and entities. (“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” the dualist, paraphrasing Hamlet, might tell the materialist, to which the materialist might reply, “There is no ghost in the machine.”) A good place to make clear the distinction between the paranormal and the supernatural would be your introductory paragraph.

With this matter settled, we can now decide which of the horror movie monsters or antagonists belongs to each of these three types, natural (N), paranormal (P), or supernatural (S), but, remember, nature to the scientist, includes everything in the universe, the universe itself included:

• Alien--extraterrestrial (N)
• The Exorcist--devil (S)
• The Birds--birds (N)
• Psycho--mad killer (N)
• Carrie--telekinetic girl (P)
• The Howling--werewolves (S)
• Dracula--vampire (S)
• Frankenstein--monster assembled from parts of dead bodies (N)
• The Mummy’s Curse--mummy (S)
• Poltergeist--poltergeist (P)
• The Others--ghosts (P)
• I Know What You Did Last Summer--mad killer (N)
• Descent--trolls (N)
• The Hills Have Eyes--mutant cannibals (N)
• Them!--giant ants (N)
• The Blob--extraterrestrial (N)
• Texas Chainsaw Massacre--mad killer (N)
• The Ring--ghost (P)
• The Shining--ghosts (P)
• The Thing--extraterrestrial (N)
• The Abominable Dr. Phibes--mad killer (N)
• Burn, Witch, Burn--witch (S)
• Needful Things--devil (S)
• ‘Salem’s Lot--vampires (S)
• Halloween--bogeyman (S)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street--spirit (P)
• Night of the Living Dead--zombies (S)
• Saw--mad killer (N)
• Jaws--shark (N)

Now, during step three, we imagine a situation that would give us a reason, or purpose, for writing about such a topic. Let’s assume that cousin Melba, who lives abroad and who has heard of, but never seen, a horror movie is coming to the United States to visit. Upon her arrival, you ask her what she would like to do, and she says, “See the scariest horror movie ever made!” Consider your three types of horror monsters or villains: natural, paranormal, and supernatural. Which is likely to be the most frightening of all? (I have used this exercise in several composition classes, and the answers tend to vary; at least one class has picked each type at one time or another. They vote, and the majority wins. After the issue has been thus decided, I ask for three reasons as to why the majority considers the type of monster or antagonist they chose as most frightening is, in their view, the scariest.)

Let’s say that you decide that the natural horror movie villain is the most frightening. Now, give three reasons as to why you think this is true:

• It is believable.
• It is realistic.
• It could be encountered in the everyday world.

Viola! You now have a thesis for an evaluation essay, in which, contrasting three types of horror movie monster or villain, you will argue that the natural antagonist is more frightening than the paranormal or supernatural alternatives. (Important! Remember that your thesis must have a purpose; it can't be simply a list of related points; the purpose of this thesis is to suggest why one type of horror movie villain is more frighetning than others, and your essay will use reasons and examples to make this claim clear and persuasive to your reader.) Your thesis (with the three points, each in a different color and underlined) might read:

Although paranormal and supernatural horror movie monsters are frightening, the natural villain is more terrifying still, because it is realistic, it is believable, and it could be encountered in everyday life.

But, as they say in infomercials, That’s not all!

You also have quite a list of examples of horror films and their respective monsters or antagonists that you can use, once you expand upon them, as material to support and develop your essay’s thesis and topic sentences.

Remember the three steps:

1. List
2. Group
3. Use your imagination to create a situation that provides a purpose for your essay to create your thesis

These steps can be used to generate a thesis for any type of essay, whether the essay is:

• Analysis
• Argumentation
• Causal analysis (cause-effect)
• Classification (usually used with division)\
• Comparison (usually used with contrast)
• Contrast (usually used with comparison)
• Definition
• Description
• Division (usually used with classification)
• Evaluation
• Exemplification, or illustration'
• Narration
• Persuasion
• Process analysis (“how to”)