Structure & Exposition (ci-structure-and-exposition)
A Critical Inquiry essay is long-form humanistic prose, not an IMRaD report — there is no
Methods–Results–Discussion skeleton. The architecture is rhetorical: how you bring a reader from
another field into a conversation, build pressure, turn to your claim, and leave the field changed.
This skill shapes that arc within the ~9,500-word budget (notes included).
When to trigger
- Outlining the essay or reordering a draft that does not flow
- The argument is sound but the reader gets lost or bored
- The introduction buries the stakes, or the close fizzles
- Sections read as disconnected set pieces
The CI arc (a flexible template, not IMRaD)
-
Opening that earns attention. Begin with a scene, object, problem, or provocation that a
non-specialist can feel — then surface the question and the stakes quickly.
-
Stakes and intervention up front. By the end of the opening movement, the reader knows what is
at issue, what you will argue, and why it matters across fields (see
ci-argument-and-intervention).
-
The conversation. Locate the debate and your pressure point without a dead "lit review" block
(see
ci-scholarly-positioning).
-
The build. Read the objects and develop the concept in an order that tightens the screw — each
section advancing the claim, not parading examples (see
ci-evidence-and-objects).
-
The turn. The pivot where setup becomes intervention; make it unmistakable.
-
The close. Don't summarize — extend. Name what is now thinkable, the new questions, the reach
beyond the case.
Exposition for a cross-field reader
-
Signpost without bureaucracy. Guide with prose transitions, not "Section 3 will…" scaffolding.
-
Define on first use. A philosopher should follow a film essay; gloss field-specific terms.
-
One spine. Every section answers to the central claim; cut the brilliant tangent that does not.
-
Sections as movements. Use section breaks (and titles, if used) to mark argumentative shifts,
not topical bins.
Budget the length (notes count)
- The cap includes discursive notes and all bibliographical information — long footnote essays eat
the budget (see
ci-writing-style, ci-citation-and-style).
- Cut the second example that makes the same point; deepen the first.
Anti-patterns
- Forcing IMRaD or a "literature review → analysis → discussion" template onto an essay
- An introduction that withholds the claim to create false suspense
- Disconnected set-piece readings with no through-line
- A conclusion that restates rather than opens
- Throat-clearing preamble before the reader knows why to care
Operating pass for Critical Inquiry
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the object, theoretical stakes, interpretive turn, and permission/citation discipline; then test whether the manuscript addresses humanities reviewers who expect a strong interpretive intervention rather than an empirical-results narrative.
-
Primary move: Return a claim-evidence-risk ledger; every recommendation must point to a manuscript location or missing artifact.
-
Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
-
Neighbor test: compare against PMLA for literary-field reach, New Literary History for theory/history, Representations for historically grounded cultural analysis; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
-
Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name any live-check fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Opening hook】scene / object / problem
【Stakes by end of opening?】[Y/N]
【Arc】conversation → build → turn → close (sketch)
【Through-line】the one claim every section serves
【Cross-field legibility】terms glossed on first use? [Y/N]
【Next】ci-writing-style
Supplementary resources
