I’ve heard many complaints from professors in various disciplines about students who have taken first-year writing but still can’t summarize a text. There are other complaints, but this one seems legit and easy enough to fix.
Summary, as a rhetorical move, is one of those essential “building block” types of writing that every student should know because it finds its way into so many genres: case studies, research papers, reading responses, annotated bibliographies, bibliographic essays, analyses—you name it. If you use information in your writing that comes from another text (another source) then you should be engaging in the art of summarizing.
It can be difficult deciding how in-depth your summary should be. There is no magic formula, but a good rule of thumb is that if your use or analysis of the information is brief, then your summary should likewise be brief—a couple sentences will do. If your use or analysis of the text is extensive, then your summary should be thorough.
A summary of any text—including movies, interview transcripts, books, articles, or pamphlets—can usually be accomplished in just one paragraph.
The first thing your summary needs to include is contextual information. Write with the assumption that your reader isn't already familiar with whatever text you're summarizing. To help establish context, you could include things like the author’s name, the full title of the text, where it came from, when it was written, why it was written, and so on. I should point out, though, that the more recognizable the text, the less contextualizing information you will need to include. If you are summarizing a speech given by 1876 presidential candidate Samuel Tilden, you will need to explain who he was and why he was speaking. If you are summarizing the Gettysburg address, however, you might not need to explain who President Lincoln was nor why he was in Gettysburg (but it all depends on your audience; if you’re writing to middle-school students, then maybe you do need to explain some of this).
Your summary should avoid self-referential language, such as “this week’s reading,” or “the article we read in class,” or, “the movie we watched last week,” or, “the book I’m reviewing for this paper,” and so on. This type of language refers to the assignment instructions and activities in class, which usually don’t need to be mentioned in the paper. Again, write the summary as if you want someone who has never been in the class to understand it. I like to use the phrase, "as if someone found it in the gutter." Whatever you are writing, do it so that if someone found your paper in the gutter, having no idea who you are or what class it was for, they could both understand it and enjoy it.
Example of a Summary with Poor Context:
This week’s reading was about a kid who used to make cologne in some weird-guy’s basement.
Example of a Summary with Adequate Context:
“All-Purpose Girl,” an essay written by Vladimir Teague (from his 2007 collection, Smelly Boy), is a personal narrative about the author's apprenticeship in a Bulgarian haberdashery.
Once you have provided a bit of context, summarize the text by including the main arguments and any key supporting points. The summary should be objective, meaning you don’t include your opinion anywhere. In theory, someone who loves the text and someone who hates the text could both summarize it in roughly the same way. They might disagree on what key points to include, but in the summary phase, their opinion is irrelevant.
Poor Summary:
This week’s reading was weird, but cool I guess. I liked the story because the main character is a normal guy but he’s constantly fantasizing and daydreaming. He wants to be a surgeon and a repair technician and a marksman and a captain. My favorite was when he wants to be a surgeon. It’s funny and really makes you think. But when he dreams about being a marksman it starts to feel kind of dragged out. The story was a bit too long for my taste, and I found myself wondering if I was reading a novel. But I think it would make a great movie, perhaps something staring Jude Law.
Why it doesn’t work
There is no context. The writer assumes you, as a reader, have read the story.
There is little actual summary. From the first sentence, the student is offering his opinion interspersed with a few plot points from the story.
Revised Summary:
In the short story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty," the author, James Thurber, humorously presents a character who fantasizes about himself as a hero enduring incredibly challenging circumstances. In his real life, Walter Mitty lives an ordinary, plain life; he is a husband under the control of an overbearing, critical wife. Thurber uses lively dialogue to give readers an understanding of Mitty's character. The story takes place over a period of about twenty minutes; during this brief time, Mitty drives his wife to the hairdresser and runs errands that his wife has given him while he waits for her. In between his worrying that he is not doing what she wants him to do, he daydreams about himself as a great surgeon, brilliant repair technician, expert marksman, and brave military captain. This story shows that fantasy is often a good alternative to reality.
Why it works:
The student gives some context about the story (i.e. the title and who wrote it).
Without offering his opinion, the student summarizes the plot. He is well positioned now to write a paragraph or two of his own analysis of the story.
Poor Summary:
Michael Moore is at it again slandering everyone that crosses his path. This article is another hodge-podge mess of lies and accusations. He is unfair. He makes the CEO of GM look like some money-grubbing warmonger who will do anything for a dollar, even if it destroys America or even the world. And Moore’s brilliant solution is to subject corporations to the government. He obviously hates America, and this article, just like everything else he writes, reeks of his socialist fantasies.
Why it doesn’t work:
Again, there is no context. I don’t know what article or book or documentary she’s referring to.
The student needs to withhold her judgment until after the summary, and then she needs to be sure to include actual lines from the text to back up the claims she’s making (for example, she could list one or two of the so-called "lies" that Moore makes in the article).
Revised Summary:
In the article "Why Doesn't GM Sell Crack?" Michael Moore argues that companies need to be regulated so that they do not take actions that hurt the community or environment. He explains that many people believe that companies should have the right to do whatever will make the most money. However, he disagrees with this philosophy. He gives the example of selling crack, which would be very profitable for companies but bad for the consumers and community. This example shows how the government does make some laws to restrict companies and protect society. Moore points out that most Americans agree that a company should not be able to sell crack just to make a profit. Therefore, he argues, we might extend this reasoning to other harmful actions, such as polluting the environment or treating workers unfairly. Moore believes that companies should be restricted from committing actions that hurt society.
Why it works:
This summary is objective (no opinion is given), and it contains adequate context.
This summary could now lead into the writer’s opinionated analysis of Moore being “at it again.”
Poor Summary:
“Little Red Riding Hood” is the story of the girl who wanders through the woods to get to her grandmother’s house and meets a wolf along the way. It teaches girls about the dangers of immorality. The wolf, obviously, is a sexual predator. There are a lot of versions of the story. The Grimm one is my favorite for obvious reasons. Most recently, there was a movie, but it took a lot of liberties and didn’t really follow the story line.
Why it doesn’t work:
“Little Red Riding Hood” is a commonly known tale, but the writer could mention which version he’s summarizing.
The writer intersperses his analysis of the tale in the middle of the summary (“the wolf is, obviously, a sexual predator”).
Overall, it is vague. The writer says the Grimm version is his favorite “for obvious reasons.” They aren’t obvious to me!
Revised Summary:
The Brother’s Grimm version of the traditional tale “Little Red Riding Hood” is a story about a girl who wears a red riding hood and who is asked by her mother to take some food to her ailing grandmother who lives across the woods. Little Red Riding Hood, who is quite young, walks from her house, through the woods from her house to her grandmother’s house, carrying a basket of food. On the way to her grandmother’s house, she meets a wolf who asks her many questions about what she’s doing and where she’s going. After a bit, the wolf goes on his way, leaving Red Riding Hood to continue on her way alone. Once at her grandmother’s house, Little Red Riding Hood, notices that her grandmother looks different, that her eyes, ears, nose, and teeth are much bigger than she remembers. After a long conversation about the “grandmother’s appearance,” the wolf, who had eaten Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother and had dressed in her clothing, jumps from the bed and eats Little Red Riding Hood. At the very end of the story, a hunter comes by the grandmother’s house and cuts the grandmother and Little Red Riding Hood from the wolf’s stomach and they are removed alive.
Why it works:
We now know which version the student is using.
It is pure plot summary without any analysis of immorality or sexual predators (all of that could now follow this summary in a dynamite analysis).
Summary is a decidedly unartistic rhetorical mode. It can seem overly formulaic and basic, but a good summary creates a stable base for launching into your opinion, analysis, or argument.