Chapter 4
In continuation of Graff and Birkenstein’s, “They say I say”, chapter four discusses different ways to respond to a text. The previous chapters address giving the background of what someone else is saying, also known as the “they say” portion of a text. Doing this, presents an argument that now the author may respond to, bringing us to the “I say” part. The most common ways to respond to an argument or idea will be to either agree, disagree, or both. The goal to establishing the general response is to let the reader know where the author stands.
Disagreeing with a text
Disagreeing seems to be the simpler technique right? Not entirely. Disagreeing uses a large sense of critical thinking, of course. The author has to do more than just disagree with an argument, view, or idea. They must also provide a persuasive explanation to why disagreeing is valid or correct. For example, referenced directly from Graff and Birkenstein, the counter statement, “Women’s rights are not improving.” Such a “dull explanatory response” fails to add anything interesting nor new, rendering it useless to even read. Readers don’t want no boring sh*t! The author need to bring relevant factors (that are based on inaccurate, insufficient evidence) to attention. Factors such as questionable assumptions, proof that a statement uses flawed logic, counter evidence, essentially, make it juicy. To move a conversation or argument forward, the author must bring something to contribute. In general, if you’re going to start an intellectual argument, make it interesting, please.
One move that Graff and Birkenstein introduce is the “duh” move. The “Duh, you JUST figured that out right now?” Type of vibe. This is one technique to disagree by first agreeing with evidence, but then adding a twist of logic in a way that it supports the author’s contrary position. This gives me the “Um, you just contradicted yourself. Allow me to explain it to you.” Using Graff and Birkenstein’s example, “X argues for stricter gun laws because of the rise in crime….”, here’s the twist, “That’s precisely why we need guns to protect ourselves from the criminals.”. First, the author agrees that yes, there is a rise in crime, then argues that because of that increase, it is in fact valid to oppose the need for stricter gun regulations so that the community may protect themselves.
Of course writers may be afraid to disagree to a text, because who wants to be vulnerable to being proved wrong, or be disagreed with? I would agree to this because there are authors out there that will tear my words to shred. However, in the realm of writing and intellectual conversations, there is a given respect that writers have for one another, or so I would hope, according to Graff and Birkenstein. How can your questions be answered if one doesn’t ask them? The point of mentioning disagreements or bringing questions to light is to have them answered, spread awareness, promote casual, civil debates over text. I mean, that’s the point of writing right? To share the fascinating cognition and perceptions of human beings amongst one another. However, don’t allow arguments take form of “personal putdowns”, according to Graff and Birkenstein. In my own words, when assessing what another author expresses why they disagree with you, take what you need, leave out the rest.
Agreeing with a text
As mentioned before, agreeing seems easy too, however the author needs to do more than “mirror” that they agree with a statement, idea, or argument. When agreeing with a text, this is where another writer may point out evidence or logic that further supports the author’s claim that they failed to mention. I like to think of it like having another pair of eyes to support you. Agreeing may also provide further understanding that could help other readers. Graff and Birkenstein also make clear that there is no reason to fear being unoriginal when agreeing, it’s good that others can agree and provide credibility to another’s writing, but don’t be a mere “copycat” or “bandwagon”. Lastly, keep in mind when agreeing with one’s text, you are also disagreeing with someone else.
Graff and Birkenstein’s “favorite way of responding” is to agree and disagree, simultaneously. This is when the author agrees or disagrees, but up to a certain point. Then the writer can lean more towards one or the other, making the argument complex and interesting in its own way.
Another way to agree and disagree at the same time is the, “I am of two minds”, or “having mixed feelings”, type of move. This technique can become especially useful when responding to new or challenging information. Instead of decisively choosing for or against an argument, this provides a “speculative investigation” of weighing out pros and cons. Whichever more the writer is leaning towards, I guess a basic rule of thumb is to simply be clear as possible.
Now, there is the case when writers are undecided about a text. Graff and Birkenstein express that it is common that writers become reluctant when expressing ambivalence because it makes them come off as unsure of themselves, wishy washy, or that it is frustrating to readers. Not to fret though, because declaring mixed feelings “can be impressive” in the world of academic writing. I guess in a way it makes reinforces one’s position as their own sophisticated person because not they cannot be persuaded to one’s side or another after assessing particular contradicting positions.
Chapter 5
The previous chapters have discussed how to present an argument and respond to one. Now, the next step, is ensure that readers are able to distinguish who is saying what. Graff and Birkenstein introduce “voice markers” or “voice-identifying devices” to smoothly move from “they say”, to “I say”. In other words, when the audience can clearly identify when the writer is expressing the writer’s view and when they are stating or quoting someone else’s view, it avoids confusion.
Other than using really obvious voice markers, another way to present a “they say”, is to embed the quote into the author’s statement. This technique is a “smooth” way to present someone else’s quote smoothly, and without having to write unnecessary, tedious sentences. Using their example:
Earlier in this chapter, we coined the term “voice markers”. We would argue that such markers are extremely important for reading comprehension.
We would argue that “voice markers” as we identified them earlier, are extremely important for reading comprehension.
The next concept presented in this chapter is to use “I”. It is common advice to never use first person in academic writing, for it promotes a subjective opinion rather than an objective argument. Just use it. Just use “I”. “Well supported arguments are grounded on persuasive reasons and evidence”, no matter what person (first person, third person, etc.) the author chooses to write in. Feel free to use “I”, but avoid being monotonous throughout the argument.
Chapter 6
“Planting a Naysayer in Your text”, now what does that mean exactly?
Another concept to incorporate in writing, is to use what you can to your advantage, and that implies, anticipated criticism. Giving voice to possible naysayers make one’s writing more interesting and better yet, stronger. Graff and Birkenstein urge writers to bring possible objections and or opposing arguments to enhance their credibility. The more open one is to possible objections, and the more voice and presence the writer presents from the naysayers, it gives the writer the opportunity to disarm them in convincing ways. Doing so, entertains the counter arguments, respectfully, of course. I mean that’s what writing is basically about, right? Creatively and openly conversing about diverse perceptions about anything. Plus, it helps writers hit or even exceed page minimums.
Chapter 7
Now the end goal of writing a text is essentially, convince the audience why they should care. To efficiently do so, writers must directly ask, “Who cares? Why does my argument matter?”, then address both questions as a whole, and identify such reasons, explicitly. You don’t want to lose the audience, and you don’t want them meandering around the text wondering, “so what’s the point, why does this even matter?” Furthermore, as a writer you should know your audience, and should predict what may already appeal to them. Doing so will make it easier to establish why, the claims of the writer, matters.
What did I learn? Questions?
As I noticed the closer to the end of this assignment I got, the shorter my responses had gotten. However, I did learn quite a lot these few chapters. One is to never hesitate to reference an opposing text or statements, for incorporating them establishes further credibility to the writer and opportunity to convince the audience otherwise. Another was that when choosing a response to a text, disagreeing and or agreeing both seem easy, but each have their own complexity. Do I have any questions? No.
Platinum thoughts... 