The ‘Uneven U’

Breaking Down the Uneven U

One of the writing strategies I have found useful is the Uneven U. The Uneven U is especially helpful for my academic writing, but I think it offers practical principles for all kinds of writing genres.

Dr. Eric Hayot, a Professor of Comparative Literature at Penn State, develops the simple but powerful idea of the Uneven U:

“Imagine a system or a continuum that, across five levels, divides one major function of a piece of literary critical prose: its proximity to a piece of evidence” (p. 59)

These five levels range from the most abstract level from the evidence to the most concrete level of raw evidence itself:

5 — abstract idea that orients the reader towards a solution or conclusion

4 — less abstract level that brings ideas together to set up a problem for the reader.

3 — summary of the main idea that introduces the reader to two or more broad examples

2 — detailed interpretation or description that provides framing for raw example

1 — the raw, unmediated data of facts, information or concrete observation.

Now why would these five levels, as a continuum for structuring your writing, be called the Uneven U? The main point is to finish your paragraph with a sentence at a more abstract or ‘big picture’ conceptual level than the sentence you started with. This is useful when writing paragraphs that seek to capture a single idea, generally starting with level 4, dipping down to 3, 2, and 1, and then concluding at level 5.

In actual practice, writing is not really this linear. You might find you have multiple sentences at level 2, 2.5, or 3. Or even levels combined in a single sentence. But again, what is important is that you finish your paragraph at a higher level of abstraction than you started it with.

You also don’t need to label your sentences with these numbers, just keep in mind how your current sentence or paragraph fits into the wider context of your piece.

The Uneven U in Action

To give an example, consider this excerpt from Cal Newport’s recent book “Digital Minimalism” where he describes the ‘mix of harm and benefit’ of social media technology. I’ve labeled each sentence with a corresponding 1–5 level of the Uneven U:

“(4) One of the first things that became clear during this exploration is that our culture’s relationship with these tools is complicated by the fact that they mix harm with benefits.

(2.5) Smartphones, ubiquitous wireless internet, digital platforms that connect billions of people — (3) these are triumphant innovations!

(4) Few serious commentators think we’d be better off retreating to an earlier technological age.

(4) But at the same time, people are tired of feeling like they’ve become a slave to their devices.

(4) This reality creates a jumbled emotional landscape (3) where you can simultaneously cherish your ability to discover inspiring photos on Instagram while fretting about this app’s ability to invade the evening hours you used to spend talking with friends or reading….”

….(5) In my work on this topic, I’ve become convinced that what you need instead is a full-fledged philosophy of technology use, rooted in your deep values, that provides clear answers to the questions of what tools you should use and how you should use them and, equally important, enables you to confidently ignore everything else.”

My labeling may not coincide perfectly, but the point is to recognize the relation between concreteness and abstractness that Newport builds across his sentences. As Newport begins the paragraph, we get his framing of the problem. This quickly descends into his key examples. We then make our wake back up to level 4 which he started the paragraph with (technology’s mix of harms and benefits), before finally getting to his overall conclusion which also forms the thesis of his entire book: we need a “full-fledged philosophy of technology use.”

While this excerpt is not necessarily a straightforward ‘down-up’ Uneven U, the important principle is that we are end at a higher level of conceptual abstraction than we started with at the beginning of the paragraph. This isn’t to say you should leave your reader in the dark, making them puzzle at what you’re getting at right from the start. In certain genres of writing, immersing readers in the raw details of evidence right off the bat can work well.

But in other genres, like academic writing, or Medium posts for that matter, it can be a frustrating quality of writing that assumes readers will love what you’re saying so much they’re willing to follow you even without the promise of any resolution.

The point rather is to make a statement in the beginning that injects the reader into your narrative or argument, but that triggers curiosity about more to come.

This has to do with the challenging art of the opening sentence, a strategy I’m still very much figuring out (but Stephen King’s got some tips for that).

But going back to the excerpt from Newport’s book, as we are transported across falling, then rising levels of themes, evidence and arguments, we are also made to travel beyond a single paragraph to get to a higher level of abstraction than we started with: his main thesis.

The Fractal Nature of the Uneven U

This leads to another important point about the fractal nature of the Uneven U. Hayot writes,

“I have been calling the Uneven U a “structure” or “arrangement” because it is more than simply just a way to build paragraphs. It is an essentially fractal or scalable model for any unit of argumentative or narrative prose larger than a paragraph: a sub-section, a section, an essay, or a book as a whole.”

In other words, a sentence or paragraph used as a level 1 can be embedded later on in your piece as a level 4 or 5. This is how I use the Uneven U as a strategy keep track of where I’m leading my readers across the different levels of ideas in my writing. The Uneven U can also be a great strategy to keep people reading as they await that level 5 resolution you hinted at in the beginning with your level 4 opening. While not necessarily an earth-shattering revelation, the Uneven U is a simple but effective strategy to map out and thread together your writing from one idea to the next.

References cited:

Hayot, E. (2014). The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities. Columbia University Press.

Newport, C. (2019). Digital Minimalism: Choosing a Focused Life in a Noisy World. Penguin.

If you find my writing helpful in your own life and work and would like to support me as a writer, consider signing up to become a Medium member. It’s $5 a month, giving you access to all my writing and all stories on Medium. If you sign up using my link, I earn a portion of your membership fee. Thank you for your support!😊