They Say/ I Say
This reading brought our argument assignment into a new light for me. The amount of information given to us through this reading was tremendous. From the very beginning the authors state that the most important part of writing is that it have a point. And that to have this the writer must "state his or her thesis but also what the larger conversation around it is."
The part of this reading i found to be most helpful was the section dealing with the order in which things are said. I think that we are mislead, as writers, into stating our thesis to soon and not giving time to develop the larger picture that we are responding to. This advice really helped me get my head pointed in the right direction for this paper.
The other important aspect to this reading i found on page 52. It talks about stating, clearly, whether you agree or disagree with the subject and also stating why. Often times when you are reading an essay or even listening to a speech, you are left wondering why. Why did i need to listen or read that? What was the driving factor in producing this work? The most important thing we are learning in this English class is the process of inquiry and how it drives us.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
They Say I Say
The point of this assignment is to give the writer some insight on how to structure his or her argument. Make a point to take a side and don’t waiver as many people are prone to do. Make sure you make a summary of your point early on so the reader of your work knows what is it you are trying to get across to the audience. Don’t assume that every one of the readers is going to know what your argument is about. I have read a lot of articles that I have wondered what the point of author is.
If you agree, disagree or hold the stance of both sides just make sure that your data is in line with what it is you are siding with. Don’t get caught making claims and contradicting yourself later in the paper; it just discredits the soundness of the paper. Also be careful not to belittle or criticize the points that others have said. Merely state your own rebuttals and move on, it should always be ok for others to have different opinions and more likely than not there will be differences in opinions.
Another key point of the article is to explain yourself in your words, not the words of others. Spend some time on paper telling your story on your stance with why you believe the way you do. As mentioned in the article, if you simply cite your feelings with all of the rest then what is it you are arguing about. Is it just to argue, because you haven’t really taken a stance you have just taken someone else’s stance.
Again, this is just another piece of the puzzle that helps us with the assignment that we are faced with. This will no doubt stop me with where I am at in putting my writing information together and reorganize it more to the suggested structure. And using as many of the examples as I can fit in to my work. This article will be useful for me as I look at my premises and decide how to use them in setting up my conclusions in a way that doesn’t confuse the reader. Should be interesting getting there.
If you agree, disagree or hold the stance of both sides just make sure that your data is in line with what it is you are siding with. Don’t get caught making claims and contradicting yourself later in the paper; it just discredits the soundness of the paper. Also be careful not to belittle or criticize the points that others have said. Merely state your own rebuttals and move on, it should always be ok for others to have different opinions and more likely than not there will be differences in opinions.
Another key point of the article is to explain yourself in your words, not the words of others. Spend some time on paper telling your story on your stance with why you believe the way you do. As mentioned in the article, if you simply cite your feelings with all of the rest then what is it you are arguing about. Is it just to argue, because you haven’t really taken a stance you have just taken someone else’s stance.
Again, this is just another piece of the puzzle that helps us with the assignment that we are faced with. This will no doubt stop me with where I am at in putting my writing information together and reorganize it more to the suggested structure. And using as many of the examples as I can fit in to my work. This article will be useful for me as I look at my premises and decide how to use them in setting up my conclusions in a way that doesn’t confuse the reader. Should be interesting getting there.
They Say, I Say Response
I felt this reading was extremely useful on many levels. I have always been able to articulate arguments fairly clearly, having been a debater in high school. However, I have never really understood how you should address opposing points of view without making your own position seem weaker, so I think the main thing I took out of the reading was a better understanding of how to address the opposition without undermining yourself. I especially liked how the authors gave templates and examples to illustrate what they were talking about.
I also liked that there was a template given illustrating how to introduce a point of view that is nearly unanimous--the argument I’m focusing on for my paper is almost a common knowledge viewpoint and there aren’t many people arguing the opposing point of view. The reading actually answered my questions about how to approach that kind of situation by agreeing, but drawing some difference between the established position and your stance, or moderating your agreement with a little disagreement on some points. Besides, if you don’t bring anything new to the discussion, you might as well just let people read articles by others and save yourself the trouble of contributing to the conversation. It’s only valuable if you have something original to say.
In the context of this class, I thought that this reading could be applied to all kinds of writing--rather than just the argument essay. I think all writers would benefit from the advice regarding understanding the position of your audience and from the section about stating your topic clearly. I think we’ve all read articles or paper where the author has difficulty getting to any kind of point, and it just makes you feel you’ve wasted your time as a reader. Understanding how to clearly state your point prevents your reader from getting bored before they even get to the relevant portion of your writing.
I also liked that there was a template given illustrating how to introduce a point of view that is nearly unanimous--the argument I’m focusing on for my paper is almost a common knowledge viewpoint and there aren’t many people arguing the opposing point of view. The reading actually answered my questions about how to approach that kind of situation by agreeing, but drawing some difference between the established position and your stance, or moderating your agreement with a little disagreement on some points. Besides, if you don’t bring anything new to the discussion, you might as well just let people read articles by others and save yourself the trouble of contributing to the conversation. It’s only valuable if you have something original to say.
In the context of this class, I thought that this reading could be applied to all kinds of writing--rather than just the argument essay. I think all writers would benefit from the advice regarding understanding the position of your audience and from the section about stating your topic clearly. I think we’ve all read articles or paper where the author has difficulty getting to any kind of point, and it just makes you feel you’ve wasted your time as a reader. Understanding how to clearly state your point prevents your reader from getting bored before they even get to the relevant portion of your writing.
Response to They Say, I Say
I enjoyed this article much more than Orwell’s. The writing was more to the point and,
I thought, more openly helpful to writing an argument paper.
The opening story showed the need for clarity and in getting to the point so your readers don’t
lose interest or become fuddled as to the position you are taking on a subject. As is stated on
page 18, “…that to give writing the most important thing of all –namely, a point – a writer needs
to indicate clearly not only for his…thesis…but also what…that thesis is responding to.”
The suggestions throughout the article were excellent, especially the pointers on starting the
Article. “…you could start with an illustrative quotation, a revealing fact or statistic, or…a
relative anecdote.”
The chapter on Three Ways to Respond also shed light on the “…agreeing, disagreeing, or
some combination of both…” viewpoints. The ability to illustrate the differences between
positions of pro, con, or both, was clear and extremely informative. The instructions to give
reason to your agreement or disagreement instead of just agreeing or disagreeing illuminated
an obvious but much overlooked point, that your argument should always be backed up with
substance.
Chapter three also brings up the use of the “twist it” move and shows how studies and
information can be used by the writer in a number of ways to support their particular viewpoint.
This can be extremely important to keep in mind when researching your paper. You might be
inclined to disregard a source (article, interview and such) because it disagrees with your
position on a topic, but this chapter shows you how you might be able to use an opposing
argument in your favor. This is a tactic I have found very useful when stating a position
because it not only supports your view, but undermines your opponents view. Sort of like killing
two birds with one stone, you add members of the audience to your side while subtracting
members from their side.
I enjoyed this article much more than Orwell’s. The writing was more to the point and,
I thought, more openly helpful to writing an argument paper.
The opening story showed the need for clarity and in getting to the point so your readers don’t
lose interest or become fuddled as to the position you are taking on a subject. As is stated on
page 18, “…that to give writing the most important thing of all –namely, a point – a writer needs
to indicate clearly not only for his…thesis…but also what…that thesis is responding to.”
The suggestions throughout the article were excellent, especially the pointers on starting the
Article. “…you could start with an illustrative quotation, a revealing fact or statistic, or…a
relative anecdote.”
The chapter on Three Ways to Respond also shed light on the “…agreeing, disagreeing, or
some combination of both…” viewpoints. The ability to illustrate the differences between
positions of pro, con, or both, was clear and extremely informative. The instructions to give
reason to your agreement or disagreement instead of just agreeing or disagreeing illuminated
an obvious but much overlooked point, that your argument should always be backed up with
substance.
Chapter three also brings up the use of the “twist it” move and shows how studies and
information can be used by the writer in a number of ways to support their particular viewpoint.
This can be extremely important to keep in mind when researching your paper. You might be
inclined to disregard a source (article, interview and such) because it disagrees with your
position on a topic, but this chapter shows you how you might be able to use an opposing
argument in your favor. This is a tactic I have found very useful when stating a position
because it not only supports your view, but undermines your opponents view. Sort of like killing
two birds with one stone, you add members of the audience to your side while subtracting
members from their side.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
The point that I got from this reading was keeping your paper rather simple. Don’t try to fluff it up with vague passages. The truth is that the English language allows us to write with a lot of fluff in which many writers do perhaps to fill space or even to sound more sophisticated. It was somewhat comforting to have Orwell site poor passages that as I read them had to agree myself. Some of my difficulties with reading philosophy is trying to decipher what the philosopher is trying to say. If they would just say it in laymen’s terms they might reach more of an audience. Stick to the basics as stated near the end of the essay in the rules section and based on how I write I couldn’t agree more.
After getting through most of this essay I couldn’t help but think this could be construed as an argument paper. I got the feeling that Orwell was trying to persuade me not to write in a certain way. He backed it up with examples, took his stance and cited information towards his claim and in turn also gave me some insight on writing. So there you have it, two birds with one stone. Maybe this essay could be a good example of an argument paper?
The advice given in this essay on keeping it simple, clear and concise will help prepare my thoughts on my argument paper. The point to stay clear of vague meanings is well taken. As a writer you want to write to a point and make it clear so the reader knows how to react to the writing without be confused. Don’t look for big fancy words to dramatize the significance of what’s being said. Try to stay away from the same ole cliché when writing; you never know when one of your readers may associate a totally different image of the cliché than what you are trying to get across. After all, it’s not how you impress your audience but whether or not you left them with the right impressions.
After getting through most of this essay I couldn’t help but think this could be construed as an argument paper. I got the feeling that Orwell was trying to persuade me not to write in a certain way. He backed it up with examples, took his stance and cited information towards his claim and in turn also gave me some insight on writing. So there you have it, two birds with one stone. Maybe this essay could be a good example of an argument paper?
The advice given in this essay on keeping it simple, clear and concise will help prepare my thoughts on my argument paper. The point to stay clear of vague meanings is well taken. As a writer you want to write to a point and make it clear so the reader knows how to react to the writing without be confused. Don’t look for big fancy words to dramatize the significance of what’s being said. Try to stay away from the same ole cliché when writing; you never know when one of your readers may associate a totally different image of the cliché than what you are trying to get across. After all, it’s not how you impress your audience but whether or not you left them with the right impressions.
In response to Orwell’s Politics and the English Language
Orwell has brought up a great many points is this article. I find the most helpful were the four points, followed by two more, he made about the scrupulous writer. Orwell states “1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?” followed by two add-ons, “Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?” I believe these questions sum up the majority of what the article has to say and at the same time offers good advice.
Another interesting part of the article is the comments on political speeches and there need for “…sheer cloudy vagueness.” and how this contributes to the deterioration of the English language. As other here politicians speak, they take it as acceptable and imitate it in their own speech or writing
I also enjoyed Orwell’s use of his own brand of euphemisms, such as how certain phrases “…are a continuous temptation, like a pack of aspirins always at one’s elbow.”
So often we resort to extemporary words trying to paint a picture that couldn’t be contained in a photograph. As Orwell points out, sometimes the best way to say something is simple and straightforward.
One thing I disagreed with though. His complaints about the letter written to the Tribune in Great Britain he labeled as paragraph 5. I lived in Great Britain for two years and this letter was as standard a speech I heard while I was there. It was my experience they really do form their sentence structure that way (unfortunately).
As a side note, and to end this response, while reading this article two things immediately jumped to mind even before I had finished reading the second page.
One is how Orwell’s other writings might be perceived today, and the other was about a book I read by Robert A. Heinlein called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. That book kept coming to mind as I read Politics because Mistress’ writing style is how we text messages today on our cell phones. I would love to see what Orwell has to say about that, and how we use spellcheck.
Orwell has brought up a great many points is this article. I find the most helpful were the four points, followed by two more, he made about the scrupulous writer. Orwell states “1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?” followed by two add-ons, “Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?” I believe these questions sum up the majority of what the article has to say and at the same time offers good advice.
Another interesting part of the article is the comments on political speeches and there need for “…sheer cloudy vagueness.” and how this contributes to the deterioration of the English language. As other here politicians speak, they take it as acceptable and imitate it in their own speech or writing
I also enjoyed Orwell’s use of his own brand of euphemisms, such as how certain phrases “…are a continuous temptation, like a pack of aspirins always at one’s elbow.”
So often we resort to extemporary words trying to paint a picture that couldn’t be contained in a photograph. As Orwell points out, sometimes the best way to say something is simple and straightforward.
One thing I disagreed with though. His complaints about the letter written to the Tribune in Great Britain he labeled as paragraph 5. I lived in Great Britain for two years and this letter was as standard a speech I heard while I was there. It was my experience they really do form their sentence structure that way (unfortunately).
As a side note, and to end this response, while reading this article two things immediately jumped to mind even before I had finished reading the second page.
One is how Orwell’s other writings might be perceived today, and the other was about a book I read by Robert A. Heinlein called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. That book kept coming to mind as I read Politics because Mistress’ writing style is how we text messages today on our cell phones. I would love to see what Orwell has to say about that, and how we use spellcheck.
Orwell: Politics and The English Language
This is an astounding piece. This is my first encounter with George Orwell’s writing and I will not be my last. In the very beginning of this piece he illustrates the main point, although the written and even spoken English has deteriorated we can fix it. His analogy of the man who starts drinking draws a vivid picture of where we are with the English language and where we are headed.
Our writing and speaking has become so convoluted that we spend more time trying to come up with clever ways of not saying something. In this essay it was easy to see his point of view and determine what his argument was. That all derives from him avoiding all the, “Dying Metaphors, Operators or Verbal False Limbs, Pretentious Diction, etc. “ I think that this convulsion has occurred mainly due to societies movement toward the ease of communication. We use text messaging instead of calling to communicate, or even email instead of letters. Our “need for speed” is causing us to develop lazy communication habits.
It is a novel idea that, as he states “It is often easier to make up words of this kind….than to think up the English words that will cover one’s meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.” It is easier for us to make stuff up than to just say what we mean. We then dilute the meaning of our message and sometimes destroy it all together.
Orwell also states “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” If we don’t truly, sincerely, mean what we are trying to convey, than the meaning is lost and we are just rambling. He says never use a long word where a short one will do, be active, and so on.” Basically all we need do is simplify our English and our message will come out loud and clear.
I think that a goal we should all have is to learn from Orwell and discover how to communicate effectively especially through writing. Learn to state our intent and stick to it, using clear effective language. If we can do this, our society will prosper. Communication is the answer to a lot of the problems our nation faces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)