Category Archives: Teaching

How to use the styles menu in Word to edit and arrange a manuscript.

So you have your Word document. It’s a manuscript of poems, let’s say, a collection of 50, 60 individual works. You spend hours, days, years trying to arrange the order of these poems to make the manuscript just right.

If you’re like me, you’ve arranged your manuscript the old school way: you printed out that puppy, re-ordered poems, sections in different ways, maybe spread them out on the floor of the room, then cut and pasted your Word document to reflect that new order.

This method is fine. It works. For the more visual and tactile members of my tribe, this will continue to be the manuscript-ordering method forever.

But I’m here to tell you: there’s another way.

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.00.03.png

I never used the Styles section of Word. I thought it was an annoying extra to a program I already regarded as larded with stupid features added to each update, all to line Bill Gates’s pockets. In the last couple of years, however, I have learned that Word, and the Styles feature in particular, is a lifesaver for writers who work with manuscripts–be it chapters, poem or essay titles, or even sections of a longer piece.

Here’s an tutorial.

Open your Word document. The Home tab should open with the “Styles” group in the toolbar. If you don’t see it, then you will have to open it manually (I use keyboard shortcuts: CTL + ALT + SHIFT + S).

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.12.26.png

The generic, stock template of Word gives you several Style options. For this, stick with the headings: Heading 1, Heading 2, and Heading 3.

In your manuscript go through all your chapter and poem titles, and assign it a style. Use Heading 2 or, preferably Heading 3. Why? Trust me. I will explain later, but you may want to have sections in your manuscript, or will want to group sections of your manuscript, and to do that you will need a hierarchy of styles.

So you have all your poem/chapter titles assigned to Heading 3. That’s great. Awesome. You can do a lot of things now, things you weren’t able to do with just a plain old Word document without styles.

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.13.42.png

You can make a Table of Contents, for starters.

From the References tab, hit “Table of Contents.” On the drop-down menu, you will see a couple of what are called built-in templates for a TOC. Select one–I’ll pick the one called “Table of Contents.”

Shazam! Pasted into your documents will be a Table of Contents, one that you can update by selecting and hitting the “Update table” feature, or right-clicking and using the “update field” feature. You get a choice to update the page numbers only or the entire table, the former when you want to re-paginate or if you’ve switch a chapter/poem or two, the latter if you’re made more major additions/cuts/changes to your manuscript.

This Table of Contents feature is cool and all, and I’ve used it for years. I would use it in concert with the old school, throw-pages-on-the-floor-and-edit-my-manuscript method.

But then, one day, I used that CTL-F feature and something happened.

I must have hit something randomly with my mouse or typed something in wrong, because I could couldn’t see the search results in the Navigation bar that normally pops up to the left of my document.

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.14.15.png

Instead, I saw all the titles in my manuscript, all in a row.

See it there, on the left?

For what follows, I would like you to hear the 2001: A Space Odyssey music.


Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.15.02.png

I started dorking around with the Navigation box. I selected one and moved one above the other. Then I moved another one below.

Slowly, I realized moving the titles changed the document to the right. I wasn’t just moving the titles. I was moving the title and the text to another part of the Word document.

I was, in short, rearranging my manuscript without cutting and pasting.

This made editing and rearranging manuscripts much a much more organized, efficient process.

The one trick is to make sure you use Styles religiously. Don’t insert a section without a Heading, for example, lest it become part of another section.


Used correctly, Styles and Headings work great. I tell my students who are working on a thesis or larger paper about these features, and the more computer-literate ones have their minds blown for the Table of Contents feature alone.

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.21.35.png

For me, it’s the rearranging manuscript business that’s been a life-saver.

For my latest book, Shader, which you should buy, I had 99 chapters. That’s 99 chapters, an introduction, acknowledgements. I also used three sections, or Acts as I call them. I used the Heading 1 style for those.

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.23.26.png

Using the Heading 1, 2, 3 hierarchy, I could move whole sections of the manuscript in a single move. I could also close up whole sections of the manuscript in the Navigation bar while working another one. In the screenshot above, I’ve closed up Acts One and Two and am showing only the chapters from Act Three.

This is all especially handy if you’re working with a large screen. You can even pop the Navigation over to second monitor if, like me, you’re a complete nerd who is not effing around.

Screenshot 2016-03-08 13.31.45.png

Here’s a screenshot of an essay collection I’m putting together. A couple years ago, I’d be printing out the whole manuscript, shuffling chapters. That works, but nowadays I’m using the Navigation almost exclusively.

I’ll keep working on this post to make it more clear, but I am so glad to get this off my chest. Tell the others!

Comments Off on How to use the styles menu in Word to edit and arrange a manuscript.

Filed under Teaching

Come to my Pecha Kucha talk at Sage’s Opalka Gallery on October 16.


For years, I’ve been assigning students at The College of Saint Rose to do Pecha Kucha (or PechaKucha) presentations. It’s the Japanese phrase for “chit chat,” and is a presentation format that’s quick and tidy: 20 slides that are up on screen for 20 seconds each: it’s quick, it’s succinct, and it doesn’t suffer from Death by PowerPoint.

Just about every city/region has an official Pecha Kucha night. Our area has had one for about a year. And, next week, I get to do one myself at The Sage Colleges’ Opalka Gallery–thanks to Elizabeth Greenberg, the gallery director, for asking me to do it.

I decided to do my Pecha Kucha talk on my most recent essay, on Max Ehrmann’s famous poem “Desiderata,” since that’s what I’ve been living for the past couple of months. I think the article will have been published by then, but that’s not completely certain. There will be other talks as well.

October 16, 6:30pm, y’all. Drinks will be served. Go.

Here’s the Facebook event page. If you’re in the area, come! I think it will also be streamed live, which is both frightening and cool at the same time. I’ll post the link here, or look out for a tweet on that.


Comments Off on Come to my Pecha Kucha talk at Sage’s Opalka Gallery on October 16.

Filed under Saint Rose, Shameless Self-Promotion, Teaching

Education destroys something: Stray notes on class, college, and that Gawker piece

Coat Hooks4One afternoon in August 2005, my first day on-campus as a full-time college professor, I was mistaken for someone from the maintenance department. I wore blue jeans, a Carhartt shortsleeved shirt, and Doc Martens. Pretty much my uniform walking around New York City. Upstate, however, with a wide stocky frame and facial hair, my look indicated something else.

One secretary mistook me. Then another. Were people not accustomed to an academic in blue jeans and a work shirt? Maybe it was something else, something deeper. Was it the way I carried myself, talked? Was it my class?


Class distinctions have always fascinated me. Growing up in a blue collar town, a truck driver’s son who worked at a car wash since he was 13, the very idea of college was alien, exotic. Walking the hallways of a college–from Rutgers to NYU, New School and my current college–I can’t help but wonder how I ended up there, and how can I navigate this new, supposedly post-class world of the academy.

“Even among my colleagues and friends, many of them Ivy League graduates, I have trouble finding the same cultural anchors,” Naton Leslie, the late Siena professor, writes in his essay, “You Were Raised Better Than That.” “I have learned about the social assumptions of private schools and preparatory schools, the social conventions of the daughters and sons of the well-off who in becoming academics are self-consciously downwardly mobile. I’ve somehow met them in the middle.”

Meeting in the middle. The story of my life.


It’s just a fact that academics, most academics, come from a different background than mine. For the most part, I find it refreshing. But there is a different attitude toward the actual work that I still can’t pinpoint. It’s not entitlement, not exactly. Neither does that overused word, privilege. Genteel, or gentility, comes closer. This different attitude manifests itself in many ways, the most basic of which is body language.

Maybe my body language in 2005 said  I am here to work on your HVAC system rather than I am here to get oriented on Blackboard.


Two weeks ago, I published an essay on Gawker called “Why Professors Complain So Much.” It had a couple working titles before that. “Syllabusting My Balls” was by far my favorite, followed by “In Defense of 24/7 Professoring” and “On That Professor Who Banned Students From Emailing Her.” It’s about how professors have found new ways to complain about their jobs, to fend off students from emailing them, among other things.

I stopped reading the comments as soon as the trolls kicked in, most notably the contingent that made the flimsy non-connection of the adjunct union vote at my college (they won, which is great) and my essay’s attempt to de-value … what exactly I don’t know. Before I got a full-time tenure-track job, I worked as an underpaid adjunct for nine years in New York City, and so I am down with the cause. My main point was to examine, and come up with some answers to, the question of why academics complain about their work so much, no matter full-time, adjunct, or graduate student.

There was another comment about my irreverent tone, which confuses me, since Gawker is famous for that. What’s interesting is that it led this person to misread what I wrote about trigger warnings, and how professors complain about having to use them, to warn their worthless and weak students about controversial content. I could go either way on the trigger warning debate, but my point was how professors complain, from both sides, about them. This comment-writer couldn’t get past the tone, and my guess is that that person was very middle class, born and bred. There, I said it.


“Man hands on misery to man,” poet Philip Larkin famously writes, a philosophy academics take up eagerly to complain about their jobs. Many of my fellow professors have refined handing on misery into an art form.

“In the collective eye of the academy,” Stanley Fish writes in “The Unbearable Ugliness of Volvos, “sloppiness, discourtesy, indifference, and inefficiency are virtues, signs of an admirable disdain for the mere surfaces of things, a disdain that is itself a sign of a dedication to higher, if invisible, values.” Fish wouldn’t be such a divisive figure in my tribe if he hadn’t touched a nerve when he wrote that piece than 20 years ago.

As a working class academic, I am a tasker, a worker-bee. I know I’ll never be administrative material and run college-wide meetings. If there’s one thing I disdain, it’s not getting the job done. Which gives me away.


Rebecca Schuman, education columnist at Slate, has built up a cottage industry of complaining about modern college student impulses. She berates, then regrets, a student for poking around on Facebook in a lecture class. Let them find out it’s a mistake on their own, she concludes. She bemoans grade inflation, which as these things go, is worthy of discussion, but instead uses the topic as an excuse to post up professors’ tweet-complaints about obnoxious grade-grubbing student. She then wraps her argument around the flag of adjuncts’ insecure place in academe, instead of addressing how students grades are determined (papers and exams, mostly). It’s not only Schulman, of course. But just what, exactly, is wrong with getting an email from a student with an informal tone?

And now someone over at Inside Higher Ed has taken a look at Schuman’s work, which has irked and annoyed me for its feelings of entitlement and privilege for years now. Charles Green takes the genteel academic’s approach, breaking down her take on peer review, her cherry-picking of crowdsourced tweets to prove her sweeping generalizations about everything from grade inflation to people’s general cluelessness about the Academic Life. It’s concern-trolling as think piece, and while it can be entertaining to most, it’s not exactly the spot-on portrayal of academics it purports to be.


I wore a black shirt on my first day in 2005 to hide any sweat stains that might accrue from lugging boxes of books from my car. Never someone who followed trends in male facial hair, I hadn’t shaved off my beard that morning. I splashed my face with Old Spice. I might, if memory serves, applied under-eye cream before putting on my glasses. I’ve always wanted to blend in, and for the most part it’s worked. Except for class.

In Limbo: Blue Collare Roots, White Collar Dreams, Alfred Lubrano talks about Straddlers, people who were born working class and are now middle class, and how those two worlds often conflict collide. “Professors are the most self-conscious Straddlers,” Lubrano writes, “working with middle class colleagues who don’t understand them, all the while teaching mostly middle-class kids how to become the bosses of their parents, siblings, cousins, and childhood friends.”

There are a few books about class in academia, but most of them address teaching economic class in the classroom, and are rife with academese. Which is a shame. The perception I have is that, in academe, dealing with issues from the perspective of the working class folks isn’t important. It’s usually a top-down affair, with activists taking working class people by the ear and telling them what’s good for them. Protest, they say, occupy this, read that, vote for this candidate. That’s been the story since the Bolsheviks and before and it’s not likely to stop anytime soon.

We’re always going to have wide-eyed Patricians taking pity on the working class rather than talking to them. That would be too difficult; or, to use one of my favorite middle class words, uncomfortable.


When I explain my job to people from my hometown–the classes, committees, rubrics, papers, emails, accreditations, assessments, curriculums vitae–I always fill up the silence at the end–for there always is silence, since most people on the outside, working class or not, cannot believe what our jobs comprise–with the following phrase: it beats real work.

What do I mean by that? Am I embarrassed for doing what I do? I think that’s part of it. Call it survivor guilt, straddling, meeting in the middle; it might not need a name. But it’s there.


Education destroys something. That’s true. For me, it’s destroyed many of the links to who I once was, where I came from. I can no longer relate to people I grew up with or near.

It also builds something else. I’m now in this other world of ideas and papers and syllabi, which I love. I love being in a classroom and teaching about critical thinking, commas, quotes and summaries. It’s the only job I’ve had–and I have had many, from church janitor, car washer, library book shelver, proofreader, and all things in between–that I am actually good at doing.

For the better part of two decades, I’ve met people in the middle and that’s fine. But education does destroy something.


Working class isn’t the same as being eccentric or having a father who moved from one used car sales job to another. Whenever someone self-identifies as “working class,” “dirt poor,” or, worse, “white trash,” we’re talking primarily about a breed of person who self-brands, who sells out their class to advance a new identity.

I sometimes feel like a misfit in both worlds: the world of quizzes and reading lists and the non-academic, non-quiz world.

Most working-class people, I suspect, when they leave the working class and enter academia, simply deny their class. They adopt another identity and leave the other behind. That’s fine. To be working class is always to deny being working class. You’re middle class. That’s what you say you are. People who are upper class never say they’re upper class. They say they’re middle class.

Others struggle. They perform class, as academics like to put it. I lecturing freshmen about getting their work done and going through drafts, because it’s their job as new college students to do so.


To admit to being working class means you’re at the mercy of someone else’s time, some boss’s schedule. You’re not in charge. Working class is something you simply are; you don’t perform it. It’s not something to analyze or parse.

In graduate school, my poems were called “white trash poems” by two people in my workshop: a dude from a rich southern family who kept his blonde hair in a ponytail, and a woman whose parents were from India and Pakistan, and often talked about servants and traveling to Europe.  At the time, I brushed both of them off, but it’s stuck in my craw for years now. What could I have said in response to that, as I sat there with a poem about my grandfather? I can only think of combinations of curse words.


With each year I have taught as a college professor, I feel more distanced from where I came. This isn’t good or bad. It’s just a fact. This is my version of the complaining professor, so I feel more at home.



Filed under Teaching

Boundlessness limited by skin: Americana and artifice in Alice Fulton’s “Unwanting.”

In The Poet’s Notebook, a 1997 collection of excerpts from 26 contemporary American poets’ notebooks, Alice Fulton transcribes a rather famous quotation from country singer Dolly Parton: “Most people spend so much time looking natural, when somebody like me takes less time to look artificial.”

Because the timeline is approximately right, I have always liked to think that Fulton was sketching out a study for her poem “Unwanting,” which first appeared in the literary journal Epoch and later published in her 1995 collection Sensual Math.  On the surface, the Parton quotation is similar to “Unwanting” in its use of comic relief to address the rather serious subject matters.  Both also raise very potent questions of what is “natural” and “artificial” in an American experience rife with excess and artifice.  Fulton addresses these themes in “Unwanting,” and pits descriptions of Middle Americana against what I will say is the thing represented: reality, memory, and ultimately, death, what the poem calls the “exdream.”

Continue reading


Filed under Creative Nonfiction, Teaching

Excerpt from Ulric Neisser, “Five Kinds of Self-knowledge.”

Neisser, Ulric. “The Five Kinds of Self-Knowledge.” Philosophical Psychology 1.1 (1988): 35-59.

Comments Off on Excerpt from Ulric Neisser, “Five Kinds of Self-knowledge.”

Filed under Beyond Camp, Creative Nonfiction, Saint Rose, Teaching, The Teaching Blog