They Say, I Say

Brandon Eller

ENGL 9:40

The first part of the reading was there to get us to think about how to make readers interested. One cannot just have a paper, or a speech talking about something. There has to be a purpose, a reason why someone would want to write/ speak, and why others would want to read/listen. This is best summed up with the opening antidote about the speaker talking about “Dr. X” and how he just spoke. There was nothing to keep people interested, no explaining why, just talking about “Dr. X” and his work. It is then described that if it was mentioned about how some dispute “Dr. X” and his findings, and talked a little about that, things would have been better for all. The speech would have been stronger, and attention would have been given. The second part of the reading has to do with the “They say, I say” part of an argument. This is indeed important because it gives the audience the views of the speaker, and of those who oppose them, or only partially agree with them.

This reading pertains to the class since we are going to be writing a persuasive paper, and we need to be able to give a reason for writing our papers, and state our views. As in the reading we will need to state what we feel, but we will need to give a specific side, not being able to use the neutral stand point where both sides are right. With this reading we will be able to fairly state what others believe, while putting our own rebuttal to argue their findings, or beliefs and show what we think. Our readers will (hopefully) be sucked in and want to read more, knowing why we write, and be able to see our point of view, even if they don’t agree with it. Just getting our views out there will be enough, and hopefully persuade them to think both sides through at the least.

Reading Response 10/30/09

This purpose of this reading was to point out some helpful tips while writing an argument paper. The main point I found most helpful was that you need to be clear about your argument in your paper. Don't just hide the argument deep in the paper but rather come right out and state it. Also, to be clear about which side you are arguing and support your argument to the best of your ability. This reading also points out the format of an argument paper.
This reading applies to our class because we are currently writing an argument paper. The points discussed in this reading will help us with the format of our paper and also will help us to be clear about our arguments as we continue to write.

I say

In the reading of 'They Say, I say' it talks a lot about how while writing a paper that that has opposing view points that you should give your view point on the entire subject early on so that the reader isn't confused about which side of the fence you are on. On page 18 of "They Say" it says that the most important thing in writing is a point, i think this is key, because your not just doing a free write, your writing a argument paper for a reason. Also on page 19 they go on to say that it is suggested that as a writer you sumarize what "they say" at the beggining and then sparadically remind the reader of your point throughout the text.

I think this is important because we are in the middle of writing our own argument papers and we will have to put both sides of the argument into ours. This reading will help me because it gives examples of how to word things so that they made sense and get your point across. Overall this reading is going to be very helpful in writing my own argument paper.

they say/ I say, response ?

I'm just going to respond in two parts as they discussed two different things, though interrelated. they first few pages of They Say, I Say, I thought made a lot of sense. The whole time I was reading it I was thinking about past papers and writings, and I wondered how something as obvious as stating the reverse of what your arguing could have gone unnoticed for years. I really like the idea of putting the argument out in plain view right at the start instead of hiding it deep in the paper so that your position is overwhelmingly dominant. I feel this is some good advice that I intend to use.
The second part of the readings I had mixed feelings about. I think instruction on how to format a disagreement or an agreement can be very helpful, especially if someone is very early in their education, but it seemed sort of common sense at this point in writing. None of the points made seemed really new or helpful, just reiteration of what everyone was probably already doing. "state your stance... back it up," seems like a pretty basic format to follow. The author did get a bit deeper into more complex agreements, and disagreements, but it seemed like they all pretty much fit together. I feel the ideas presented in this second part really didnt advance my concept of writing or affect how I'm going to write in the future.

Micah Andersen

G.O. P.A.T.E.L

The main purpose of Orwell's essay is to show the reader how the English language can be, and is often, misused in everyday writing. One of his main points is that when a writer is trying to describe something he/she will often water down their statement because of the all the overused metaphors and descriptive words in their writing. He blames this mainly on poor habit patterns of the modern English writer and say that, if practiced, quality and truely descriptive English writing is achievable. Another main point that Orwell makes is that poor writing is often used in politics to disguise the true meaning/purpose of a statement. I find this to be accurate because it seems like politicians will sometimes hide behind long, vague statements to avoid exposing the truth of what they are actually saying.

This reading is very useful because in this unit we will be writing a lengthy argument paper. Orwell's advice on writing will help when writing the paper. I personally will try to not use the metaphors and other words he says are overused. I think by reading this essay it will cause writers to think more carefully about the words and metaphors they use in their writings instead of just plugging in descriptive words that might not even accurately describe what they are talking about.

Orwell Response

In this reading it talks about how while arguing you don't have to attack the other persons point. This is important because while writing an argument paper, you wont only have people with the same opinion reading your paper, and if you attack what that person thinks then they will automatically be turned off during you paper and wont want to read anymore.
This essay is important to what we are doing in class since we have our argument papers due in a couple weeks.This essay will be helpful because while writing you don't want to go after one side or the other, you want to give your opinions in the correct way. Overall I think that this essay will help me while writing my own.

"Argument" response

The main point of this reading is that arguing a point doesn't have to be an attack on someone else’s views. There are many ways to argue, or persuade without a direct attack. According to the reading, Aristotle had "three arenas for persuasion-before the courts, before legislators and others who make public policy, and at social occasions." This is the best way to separate the different ways to persuade, and make them understandable. There is court persuasion, "defending or accusing someone, or arguing about past events", legislature persuasion, "to exhort or dissuade about a future action", and social occasions, "focused on praise or blame, or arguments about the present." I had never really thought about it like that until this reading, persuasion no longer seems like an obnoxious argument from one person trying to convince you otherwise, it is different depending on where it is used.

This is obviously elated to our class, since we will be writing a persuasive paper in the upcoming weeks. This reading will enable us to think about what we are trying to convince people of, or at least make people consider our point of view. Hopefully this will lead to papers no longer shooting down the views of others, and smack talking them, but rather an informal type of persuasion to help better understand everyone’s point of view.