Well it’s not very often you hear me referring to Greek drama. My main connection was being involved in productions of Aristophanes’ plays when I was at university. Yes, yes, I pranced about the stage in some kind of draped confection that bore no resemblance to any known historical wardrobe. As above. Why were we wearing tinsel halos I wonder? And I think this must have been a rehearsal as everyone has their hair down, not up, I’m wearing specs and I always went myopic for actual performances. And, thank the Goddess, I’m being right royally upstaged and I can’t actually see the costume on me.

Enough of that. Back to now. So why am I thinking about Greek drama…? Well a lot of the ways we think about writing can be traced back to Greek traditions. And today I’ve been thinking about The Chorus.

So here’s how I know The Chorus. Regardless of whether the play is a comedy or a tragedy, The Chorus usually comes on stage first and explains the background to the story, and situates it within a relevant wider social and political context. During the play, The Chorus appears and reappears at judicious places, helpfully summing up what has just happened, just in case the audience hasn’t entirely got it. The Chorus makes the thinking processes of characters clear and even anticipates the kinds of issues and consequences that might be coming up. The Chorus gets to speak throughout the play, offering clues and guidance about the ways in which the audience should react.

Aristotle wrote a book about drama and in it he talked about The Chorus – a group of masked actors who sang and danced throughout the play. Aristotle stressed that The Chorus was one of the actors, part of the whole and had to be seen as part of the overall action. The Chorus was not an entertaining interlude, a bit of entertainment between the real show. The Chorus was the show, it was integral to the overall development of the story/plot/action.

Now why is The Chorus important? Well, academic writing also has a chorus. It is often called meta-commentary. Meta commentary has the same kind of role as the Greek drama chorus.

Academic uses of meta-commentary include text which you use to:

• elaborate on ideas, 
• distinguish your views on and from what other people have said, 
• anticipate and answer questions,
• signpost what is about to happen,
• sum up what you’ve said, 
• connect ideas, explain debates, compare views
• make clear to the reader where you stand,
• situate events in the wider social or academic context
• remind the reader what the text is about.

Sounds useful eh? But a lot of people see meta commentary as a tiresome necessity, a kind of ritual that is required in English academic writing. Well it is a kind of ritual practice to be sure, and one that is culturally loaded. Meta commentary isn’t used extensively in all academic writing in all cultural contexts and languages. Even writing in English, its usage varies. But the English language academic tradition, which draws strongly on Greek rhetorical traditions, does generally expect and rely on meta commentary.

Rather than think if it as an extra compositional burden you just have to bear, it is helpful to think of meta commentary as a Greek Chorus. It is an indispensable actor in your text. It is not an add on. It is part of the narrative arc you are constructing. The academic meta commentary as Greek Chorus does important work, it doesn’t just appear in the text for no reason.

The meta commentary keeps the reader on track by helping them remember what has happened and where it fits. Meta commentary can clarify and/or avoid potential mis-readings. And the meta commentary as Chorus does important work for the overall argument you, the writer, are making too. Judicious use of meta commentary allows you to develop your ideas further, to make connections, and to get more out of your analysis. Arguments can be more fully explored and relevant implications drawn out.

Seeing meta-commentary as part of the overall thesis instead of a senseless but required add on is important. if you understand meta commentary as one of your writing tools, you can choose how to use it. Rather than simply reaching for an academic phrase book – these are usually full of phrases that are useful in meta commentary and some people use them because they think it makes their work “sound academic” – it’s better to think about what the text needs. And how some meta commentary, how a Chorus might help.

If you want to experiment with the idea of your text as a play and the meta commentary as Chorus, read through a section of your text, asking yourself for example

• Is a Chorus needed here? Why? What is missing? 
• Do I need a choral summing up for the reader? 
• Would my argument benefit if I use a Chorus to explicitly make the link back to something I wrote about earlier? 
• Could a Chorus make a helpful connection or comparison which would expand what I am arguing?
• Does the Chorus say how these literatures are relevant to my research?
• Can a Chorus make the text sound more authoritative?
• Would a Chorus situating this section in context be a good idea?

These kinds of questions focus on the meaning you are trying to make. They also position you to think about the reader and the argument you are making/story you are telling. The questions are about what the Chorus/meta-commentary might do, where it is needed, and how it will move what you are saying forward, helping you to go deeper and become more nuanced.

This is meta commentary as part of the writing process, not as an additional and undesirable, tiresome and boring bolt on. This is not meta commentary for the sake of it, but meta commentary that has a role, a part to play.

Read more: You can’t go past Graff and Berkenstein for an entrée to all things meta commentary.