LMD Async Tutoring

Again from The Selfish Gene:

The selfish gene theory is Darwin’s theory, expressed in a way that Darwin did not choose but whose aptness, I should like to think, he would instantly have recognized and delighted in. It is in fact a logical outgrowth of orthodox neo-Darwinism, but expressed as a novel image. Rather than focus on the individual organism, it takes a gene’s eye view of nature. It is a different way of seeing, not a different theory. In the opening pages of The Extended Phenotype I explained this using the metaphor of the Necker cube.

The selfish gene theory is Darwin’s theory, expressed in a way that Darwin did not choose but whose aptness, I should like to think, he would instantly have recognized and delighted in.

  • The selfish gene theory is Darwins theory but expressed in a different way.

It is in fact a logical outgrowth of orthodox neo-Darwinism, but expressed as a novel image.

  • It is a consequence of neo-Darwinism.

Rather than focus on the individual organism, it takes a gene’s eye view of nature.

  • It focuses on genes rather than organisms.

It is a different way of seeing, not a different theory.

  • It is a different way to look at the same theory. (I noticed as I went to post this that I don’t think this is an accurate paraphrase anymore.)

In the opening pages of The Extended Phenotype I explained this using the metaphor of the Necker cube.

  • In my other book I explained this using the metaphor of the Necker cube.

Again from The Selfish Gene:

I recently learned a disagreeable fact: there are influential scientists in the habit of putting their names to publications in whose composition they have played no part. Apparently some senior scientists claim joint authorship of a paper when all that they have contributed is bench space, grant money and an editorial readthrough of the manuscript. For all I know, entire scientific reputations may have been built on the work of students and colleagues! I don’t know what can be done to combat this dishonesty. Perhaps journal editors should require signed testimony of what each author contributed. But that is by the way. My reason for raising the matter here is to make a contrast. Helena Cronin has done so much to improve every line—every word—that she should, but for her adamant refusal, be named as joint author of all the new portions of this book. I am deeply grateful to her, and sorry that my acknowledgment must be limited to this. I also thank Mark Ridley, Marian Dawkins and Alan Grafen for advice and for constructive criticism of particular sections. Thomas Webster, Hilary McGlynn and others at Oxford University Press cheerfully tolerated my whims and procrastinations.

I recently learned a disagreeable fact: there are influential scientists in the habit of putting their names to publications in whose composition they have played no part.

  • I learned that there are scientists who put their names on work they didn’t do.

Apparently some senior scientists claim joint authorship of a paper when all that they have contributed is bench space, grant money and an editorial readthrough of the manuscript.

  • Apparently some scientists claim part authorship for things that aren’t authorship.

For all I know, entire scientific reputations may have been built on the work of students and colleagues!

  • There may be entire scientific reputations built on the work of others.

I don’t know what can be done to combat this dishonesty.

  • I don’t know what can be done about this.

Perhaps journal editors should require signed testimony of what each author contributed.

  • Maybe editors should have authors testify to their contributions.

But that is by the way.

  • But that’s not my point.

My reason for raising the matter here is to make a contrast.

  • I only bring it up to make a contrast.

Helena Cronin has done so much to improve every line—every word—that she should, but for her adamant refusal, be named as joint author of all the new portions of this book.

  • Helena Cronin helped me so much that she deserves to be named co-author of the new portions.

I am deeply grateful to her, and sorry that my acknowledgment must be limited to this.

  • I am grateful to her.

I also thank Mark Ridley, Marian Dawkins and Alan Grafen for advice and for constructive criticism of particular sections.

  • I too thank Mark Ridley, Marian Dawkins and Alan Grafen for feedback.

Thomas Webster, Hilary McGlynn and others at Oxford University Press cheerfully tolerated my whims and procrastinations.

  • Thomas Webster, Hilary McGlynn and others at Oxford University Press tolerated my whims.

How do you think those trees are?

I just had a quick look over them, and they seem fine to me. In the last one I am kinda unsure about where the last 5-6 nodes sit, but I think 8 thru 11 are siblings. I don’t know if they work higher in the tree.

Two of the paragraphs had sentences that weren’t clauses. This and this. I had them as children of what they seemed to be part of.

The hard/slow part for these was definitely the paraphrasing step.

I agree. Good enough. No agonizing about the details needed.

Oh interesting. Paraphrasing can be quick. Do you want to practice it more now (paraphrasing by itself without trees) or save that for later and do more trees (with or without paraphrasing)? If trees, I think the focus should be on doing a larger number, quickly (at least for the actual tree making part), good enough, with more variety of paragraph sources (including both fiction and non-fiction authors you dislike).

1 Like

Perhaps practising paraphrasing? I think making the trees with paraphrases helped me understand the paragraph better and make the tree quicker. So I think if I got better at paraphrasing, it might also help with doing trees more efficiently? I could try a bit of both and see. I haven’t tried making trees quickly without paraphrasing yet. I made both the paraphrasing and tree speed changes at the time I made them.

OK, try paraphrasing some fiction paragraphs.

1 Like

From 1984 by George Orwell

The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a colored poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a meter wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine, and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. Big Brother Is Watching You, the caption beneath it ran.

[1] The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats.

  • The hallway smelt of cabbage.

[2] At one end of it a colored poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall.

  • There was a large poster on the wall at one end of the hall.

[3] It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a meter wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features.

  • On the poster was the face of a man.

[4] Winston made for the stairs.

  • Winston headed for the stairs.

[5] It was no use trying the lift.

One thing I’ve noticed myself doing kind of unconsciously, is to filter things that are just swapping in synonyms. For example:

[6] It was no use trying the lift

  • There was no point trying the elevator.

I noticed that I came up with that but I then I noticed I thought that’d be cheating or something. What do you think? It doesn’t really condense or help understand further. It’s a pretty simple sentence, and so maybe can’t be usefully simplified much further. I’m worried about forming a bad habit of just using synonyms.

Also, with this sentence in particular, the implied meaning is: the lift is broken, so it’s not worth trying. Would substituting in what a sentence is meant to imply count as a paraphrase? For example:

  • The lift was probably broken.

Hmm actually I can see that the next sentence tell us it doesn’t work. Maybe that’s not such a good idea.

[7] Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours.

  • The lift rarely worked, and besides the power was off during the day.

[8] It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week.

seems simple enough already? I suppose you could have:

  • It was part of an economy drive.

[9] The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine, and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way.

I can paraphrase this into the action that is outlined. It misses some of the details they gave. You could paraphrase it into two sentences too.

  • Resting occasionally, Winston walked up 7 flights of stairs to his flat.

[10] On each landing, opposite the lift shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall.

  • There was a poster on each landing opposite the lift shaft.

[11] It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move.

  • It was one of those pictures whose eyes followed you.

[12] BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.

  • Its caption was: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

If paraphrasing is meant to help you focus/condense information, is it often good to be aware of the context before you start to paraphrase? I’m thinking that I should for example read the whole paragraph first before paraphrasing. Sometimes I paraphrase a sentence and by the time I’ve done a paragraph there are things I would’ve done a little differently.

Again from 1984

Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig iron and the overfulfillment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

[1] Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig iron and the overfulfillment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan.

  • Behind Winston the telescreen was still babbling.

[2] The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously.

  • The telescreen both transmitted and received.

[3] Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard.

  • The telescreen could hear anything more than soft whispers and see things in front of it.

[4] There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.

  • There was no way to know if you were being watched.

[5] How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.

  • How the Thought Police decided to watch you was unknown.

[6] It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time.

  • They could even be watching all the time.

[7] But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.

  • They could watch whenever they wanted.

[8] You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

  • You lived expecting that your every sound and movement was being watched.

From To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee:

When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow. When it healed, and Jem’s fears of never being able to play football were assuaged, he was seldom self-conscious about his injury. His left arm was somewhat shorter than his right; when he stood or walked, the back of his hand was at right angles to his body, his thumb parallel to his thigh. He couldn’t have cared less, so long as he could pass and punt.

[1] When he was nearly thirteen, my brother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow.

  • Jem broke his arm when he was 12.

[2] When it healed, and Jem’s fears of never being able to play football were assuaged, he was seldom self-conscious about his injury.

  • After it healed, Jem was rarely self-conscious about it.

[3] His left arm was somewhat shorter than his right; when he stood or walked, the back of his hand was at right angles to his body, his thumb parallel to his thigh.

  • The broken arm was somewhat shorter, and his hand stuck out.

[4] He couldn’t have cared less, so long as he could pass and punt.

  • He didn’t care as long as he could play football with it.

The usual way to paraphrase is to paraphrase something as a whole, not individual parts.

Paraphrases of a paragraph often leave out information from sentences entirely, and may combine information from multiple sentences (which don’t have to be adjacent) in one new sentence.

Paraphrases of a book chapter usually don’t include anything to cover the majority of paragraphs in the chapter.

Paraphrasing individual sentences or clauses for trees makes sense because they are wholes in that context: whole nodes in the tree, none of which should be left out.

A big part of paraphrasing is understanding what’s essential and inessential, so you figure out what to mention in the shortened version and what to leave out.

When paraphrasing longer things, like short stories, a good approach is to brainstorm a big list of things that might be worth including, then go through it and select a minority which still don’t leave out any key points. The brainstormed ideas don’t need to correspond to specific sentences, paragraphs or scenes from the story.

When paraphrasing shorter things, there may only be one main point.

How much detail to include in paraphrases depends on your goal. Things to consider include what’s relevant to the goal and how long the final version should be. A default goal is to make things shorter and more condensed without leaving out something important. Sometimes you’ll have a more specific goal like to highlight parts relevant to a specific theme or topic.

A good exercise would be to paraphrase the same thing 3 different ways: short, medium and long.

For example:

Short:

Winston had poor health and lived in a shabby building with many posters.

Medium:

Winston had an ulcer but had to walk up seven flights of stairs to his home because of poor building maintenance and electricity shortages. Every floor had a oversized poster of a handsome face referred to as “Big Brother”.

Long:

Winston’s apartment building smelled, wasn’t maintained well, and had only intermittent electricity. Electricity was limited for economic reasons to prepare for Hate Week. Walking up seven flights of stairs, Winston had to rest multiple times and was pained by his ulcer. Every floor had a poster of a handsome man’s face with the caption “Big Brother Is Watching You”. Each poster’s eyes appeared to follow viewers as they moved.

I realise that I may have misinterpreted your assignment:

What I did was take paragraphs and paraphrase their sentences. Not paraphrase the paragraphs themselves. I’ll try that.

I’ll try this!

Short:

  • Jem didn’t care how his healed broken arm looked.

Medium:

  • The way that Jem’s broken arm healed looked funny, but he didn’t care so long as he could still play football.

Long:

  • When Jem was younger he broke his arm. It healed such that it was shorter, and his hand stuck out. But since he could still use it to play football, he didn’t care how it looked.

I estimate this took about 10 minutes. I’ll time the next one.

From To Kill A Mockingbird:

When enough years had gone by to enable us to look back on them, we sometimes discussed the events leading to his accident. I maintain that the Ewells started it all, but Jem, who was four years my senior, said it started long before that. He said it began the summer Dill came to us, when Dill first gave us the idea of making Boo Radley come out.

short:

  • Jem and I disagree on when the events leading to his accident began.

medium:

  • When considering the events that lead to Jem’s accident, I thought that it started with the Ewells, but Jem thinks it began the summer that Dill came.

long:

  • Eventually Jem and I looked back on the events that lead to his accident. I still think it started with the Ewells. But Jem said it started that summer that Dill came and gave us the idea of trying making Boo Radley come out of his house.

I forgot to time this one. It took about twice as long maybe and it more closely resembles the original paragraph, which I didn’t like.

From 1984:

As he put his hand to the door-knob Winston saw that he had left the diary open on the table. DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER was written all over it, in letters almost big enough to be legible across the room. It was an inconceivably stupid thing to have done. But, he realized, even in his panic he had not wanted to smudge the creamy paper by shutting the book while the ink was wet.

short:

  • Winston stupidly left the diary open as he went to open the door.

medium:

  • Winston went to open the door. Stupidly, the diary in which Winston had written in large letters ‘DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER’ was left open on the table.

long:

  • Winston realised as he was about to open the door that he had left his diary open on the table. In large writing, ‘DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER’ was almost readable from the other side of the room. It was incredibly stupid, but even in his panic, he couldn’t bare to ruin it’s fresh pages with undried ink.

Again from 1984

The Parsons’ flat was bigger than Winston’s, and dingy in a different way. Everything had a battered, trampled-on look, as though the place had just been visited by some large violent animal. Games impedimenta—hockeysticks, boxing-gloves, a burst football, a pair of sweaty shorts turned inside out—lay all over the floor, and on the table there was a litter of dirty dishes and dog-eared exercise-books. On the walls were scarlet banners of the Youth League and the Spies, and a full-sized poster of Big Brother. There was the usual boiled-cabbage smell, common to the whole building, but it was shot through by a sharper reek of sweat, which— one knew this at the first sniff, though it was hard to say how—was the sweat of some person not present at the moment. In another room someone with a comb and a piece of toilet paper was trying to keep tune with the military music which was still issuing from the telescreen.

short:

  • The Parson’s flat was messy and smelled of sweat.

medium:

  • The Parson’s flat was larger than Winstons, but cluttered with sports and exercise equipment. It smelt of sweat.

long:

  • Sharing the smell of boiled cabbage common to the building, but with a distinct and pungent scent of sweat, the Parson’s flat was bigger yet more cluttered than Winston’s. Sports equipment and dirty clothes lay across the floor. Banners of the Youth League, and a Big Brother poster hung on the wall. A resident tried to play along with the telescreen’s military music with a comb and tissue.

Try this a few times:

Read a paragraph out loud, once. Then wait silently for ten seconds. Then say out loud what it said like you’re telling a friend.

Then consider: was what you just said reasonably coherent and correct, or was it awful?

I think you have an intuitive ability to paraphrase immediately, but you’re not using it and instead doing much slower intellectual analysis as a separate process.

You can time and/or record yourself if you want to, but it’s not necessary.

Also, it looks to me like you’re better at the short and medium paraphrases than the long ones. I wonder if the long ones took most of the time though.

I did a number of 1984 paragraphs in a row. I read each aloud, paused, then spoke and recorded my paraphrase, then transcribed the recording of my paraphrase.

1984:

In the low-ceilinged canteen, deep underground, the lunch queue jerked slowly forward. The room was already very full and deafeningly noisy. From the grille at the counter the steam of stew came pouring forth, with a sour metallic smell which did not quite overcome the fumes of Victory Gin. On the far side of the room there was a small bar, a mere hole in the wall, where gin could be bought at ten cents the large nip.

What I said:

Underground there was a cafeteria that sold stew and gin.

I think what I said was reasonably correct.


1984:

He turned round. It was his friend Syme, who worked in the Research Department. Perhaps ‘friend’ was not exactly the right word. You did not have friends nowadays, you had comrades: but there were some comrades whose society was pleasanter than that of others. Syme was a philologist, a specialist in Newspeak. Indeed, he was one of the enormous team of experts now engaged in compiling the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary. He was a tiny creature, smaller than Winston, with dark hair and large, protuberant eyes, at once mournful and derisive, which seemed to search your face closely while he was speaking to you.

What I said:

Winston’s friend Syme interrupted him and said hello. Syme was a philologist working on the Newspeak dictionary.

I think what I said was reasonable.


1984:

Everyone kept asking you for razor blades. Actually he had two unused ones which he was hoarding up. There had been a famine of them for months past. At any given moment there was some necessary article which the Party shops were unable to supply. Sometimes it was buttons, sometimes it was darning wool, sometimes it was shoelaces; at present it was razor blades. You could only get hold of them, if at all, by scrounging more or less furtively on the ‘free’ market.

What I said:

There was a shortage of razorblades. Winston had two saved.

Good I think.


1984:

His mocking eyes roved over Winston’s face. ‘I know you,’ the eyes seemed to say, ‘I see through you. I know very well why you didn’t go to see those prisoners hanged.’ In an intellectual way, Syme was venomously orthodox. He would talk with a disagreeable gloating satisfaction of helicopter raids on enemy villages, and trials and confessions of thought-criminals, the executions in the cellars of the Ministry of Love. Talking to him was largely a matter of getting him away from such subjects and entangling him, if possible, in the technicalities of Newspeak, on which he was authoritative and interesting. Winston turned his head a little aside to avoid the scrutiny of the large dark eyes.

What I said:

He could tell why Winston didn’t want to go to the hanging. Winston knew not to try to talk politics with him and to get him onto a topic for which he more interesting and authoritative like Newspeak. He was very politically orthodox.

It’s a bit rougher than I’d like, but I don’t think it’s awful. I’d forgotten Symes name.


1984:

The gin was served out to them in handleless china mugs. They threaded their way across the crowded room and unpacked their trays on to the metal-topped table, on one corner of which someone had left a pool of stew, a filthy liquid mess that had the appearance of vomit. Winston took up his mug of gin, paused for an instant to collect his nerve, and gulped the oilytasting stuff down. When he had winked the tears out of his eyes he suddenly discovered that he was hungry. He began swallowing spoonfuls of the stew, which, in among its general sloppiness, had cubes of spongy pinkish stuff which was probably a preparation of meat. Neither of them spoke again till they had emptied their pannikins. From the table at Winston’s left, a little behind his back, someone was talking rapidly and continuously, a harsh gabble almost like the quacking of a duck, which pierced the general uproar of the room.

What I said:

Winston and Syme took their meals and their drinks and sat down and began to eat. Someone talked loudly next to them.

I think this is reasonable.

I tried a longer one:

Winston and Syme took their gin and walked across the crowded room to a metal topped table. The table was dirty and had spilled stew on it. Winston drank his gin, blinked back the tears, and noticed he was hungry. They ate in silence while someone to Winstons left talked loudly.


1984:

Syme looked up. ‘Here comes Parsons,’ he said. Something in the tone of his voice seemed to add, ‘that bloody fool’. Parsons, Winston’s fellow-tenant at Victory Mansions, was in fact threading his way across the room— a tubby, middle-sized man with fair hair and a froglike face. At thirty-five he was already putting on rolls of fat at neck and waistline, but his movements were brisk and boyish. His whole appearance was that of a little boy grown large, so much so that although he was wearing the regulation overalls, it was almost impossible not to think of him as being dressed in the blue shorts, grey shirt, and red neckerchief of the Spies. In visualizing him one saw always a picture of dimpled knees and sleeves rolled back from pudgy forearms. Parsons did, indeed, invariably revert to shorts when a community hike or any other physical activity gave him an excuse for doing so. He greeted them both with a cheery ‘Hullo, hullo!’ and sat down at the table, giving off an intense smell of sweat. Beads of moisture stood out all over his pink face. His powers of sweating were extraordinary. At the Community Centre you could always tell when he had been playing table-tennis by the dampness of the bat handle. Syme had produced a strip of paper on which there was a long column of words, and was studying it with an ink-pencil between his fingers.

I said:

Parson’s approached Winston and Syme at their table. He was a large man but he moved quite quickly. His ability to sweat was extraordinary. He said hullo lightly.

I think this was reasonable.


1984:

He looked round the canteen again. Nearly everyone was ugly, and would still have been ugly even if dressed otherwise than in the uniform blue overalls. On the far side of the room, sitting at a table alone, a small, curiously beetle-like man was drinking a cup of coffee, his little eyes darting suspicious glances from side to side. How easy it was, thought Winston, if you did not look about you, to believe that the physical type set up by the Party as an ideal—tall muscular youths and deep-bosomed maidens, blond-haired, vital, sunburnt, carefree—existed and even predominated. Actually, so far as he could judge, the majority of people in Airstrip One were small, dark, and ill-favoured. It was curious how that beetle-like type proliferated in the Ministries: little dumpy men, growing stout very early in life, with short legs, swift scuttling movements, and fat inscrutable faces with very small eyes. It was the type that seemed to flourish best under the dominion of the Party.

What I said:

Winston looks around the cafeteria and notices a small beady eyed man sitting at a table whose eyes are darting around. He notices that the people devoted to the party, the kind of people he sees, are not the kinds of people in the party’s propaganda films that are like, carefree and strong and beautiful, but they’re actually fat little goblin-type bureaucrats.

I think this was okay. I think the main point was the difference between the Party’s physical ideal and the kind of people who flourished under the party.


1984:

The quacking voice from the next table, temporarily silenced during the Ministry’s announcement, had started up again, as loud as ever. For some reason Winston suddenly found himself thinking of Mrs Parsons, with her wispy hair and the dust in the creases of her face. Within two years those children would be denouncing her to the Thought Police. Mrs Parsons would be vaporized. Syme would be vaporized. Winston would be vaporized. O’Brien would be vaporized. Parsons, on the other hand, would never be vaporized. The eyeless creature with the quacking voice would never be vaporized. The little beetle-like men who scuttle so nimbly through the labyrinthine corridors of Ministries they, too, would never be vaporized. And the girl with dark hair, the girl from the Fiction Department —she would never be vaporized either. It seemed to him that he knew instinctively who would survive and who would perish: though just what it was that made for survival, it was not easy to say.

I said:

Winston thought of Mrs Parsons and the people around him. He somehow knew instinctively who would be vaporised and who wouldn’t.

Not awful.


1984:

At this moment he was dragged out of his reverie with a violent jerk. The girl at the next table had turned partly round and was looking at him. It was the girl with dark hair. She was looking at him in a sidelong way, but with curious intensity. The instant she caught his eye she looked away again.

I said:

The girl who was listening to the man that was talking loudly turned around and looked at Winston. Once Winston caught her eye she quickly turn back again.

Not awful.


1984:

The sweat started out on Winston’s backbone. A horrible pang of terror went through him. It was gone almost at once, but it left a sort of nagging uneasiness behind. Why was she watching him? Why did she keep following him about? Unfortunately he could not remember whether she had already been at the table when he arrived, or had come there afterwards. But yesterday, at any rate, during the Two Minutes Hate, she had sat immediately behind him when there was no apparent need to do so. Quite likely her real object had been to listen to him and make sure whether he was shouting loudly enough.

I said:

Winston had a pang of terror and began to consider why she might’ve been near him on two occasions recently. He thought it could only be to investigate him.

Reasonable, not awful.


1984:

His earlier thought returned to him: probably she was not actually a member of the Thought Police, but then it was precisely the amateur spy who was the greatest danger of all. He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in New-speak: FACECRIME, it was called.

I said:

He wondered how long she had been looking at him and whether any of his facial expressions had given away something about his thoughts. One’s facial expressions needed to be under strict control in order to not make others think you had something to hide.


1984:

For the moment it was too difficult to go on. He shut his eyes and pressed his fingers against them, trying to squeeze out the vision that kept recurring. He had an almost overwhelming temptation to shout a string of filthy words at the top of his voice. Or to bang his head against the wall, to kick over the table, and hurl the inkpot through the window—to do any violent or noisy or painful thing that might black out the memory that was tormenting him.

I said:

Winston pushed his fingers against his eyes and tried violently to withhold a memory.

So you can paraphrase quickly. You don’t need 10 minutes. The paraphrases can then be consciously checked for clear errors if desired, which also doesn’t take long.

Think about what extra or unnecessary steps you were doing when it took 10 minutes. Maybe brainstorm a list. Can you see what the differences are? Maybe the goal was different. I think you (and lots of other people) do some similar things with many topics, so if you can see what’s going on you could apply those lessons to other activities too.

And try writing some paraphrases quickly and see if you can write intuitively now that you have recent experience with what intuitive paraphrasing is like.