Chapter 3 Discussion Question Response

     In chapter three of They Say/I Say, the authors Graff and Birkenstein mention what one of their colleagues calls “hit-and-run” quotations. These types of quotations are ones that are just placed in a paper without giving general information about the person who stated it or even how it is relevant to the rest of the writer's paper. “Hit-and-Run” quotations are just deposited in a paper without further explanation, it's like the writer positions the quotation there, just to speed off and not take responsibility for the slight blemish and inadequacy in the paper. I think some strategies to make certain that a writer frames a quotation would be to jot down notes about the quotation and it's relevancy to the rest of the paper as soon as they discover it or realize that it will be beneficial to be included in the their paper. I think that another simple solution to guarantee that a writer frames his or her quotation is to have someone, who may not be familiar with the topic, review it. And if they can understand the introduction of the quotation and can say that it flows well with the rest of the writer's paper, then the writer did a decent job. I believe that an effective integration of a quotation is present when it is exquisitely coherent with the rest of the paper. When a outsider who is naive to a writers topic can see the relevancy between a writers thesis and a quotation, then the quotation integration is effective.

Chapter 2 Discussion Question Response

     This book has already taught me things that I have never heard of or thought about using in my academic writing like that writing is a response to someone's claims and that templates don't, in fact, stifle the writer's creativity. However, the most important aspect of academic writing that I have learned thus far is how to properly summarize someone's opinions or arguments. I think that this balancing act is intriguing but seems quite complicated. I believe that the authors of this book are absolutely correct in saying that there needs to be a balance between the writers ideas and the ideas of the person who wrote the works that you are summarizing. If there isn't a balance in the writers paper it would be biased and there would be no controversy which, in my opinion, would make the paper boring. I think that writing with a balancing act would be difficult because you have to put your ideas and voice on the back burner, while still morphing your summary of another persons ideas so that it fits in with the main idea of your paper. On a side note, I also think that using signal verbs like extol, repudiate, and exhort really make a paper powerful and make it stand out from the rest.

Chapter 1 Response to Discussion Question #1 "They Say/I Say"

     In chapter one of They Say/I Say the authors state that writers should always respond on the controversial issue they are addressing before stating their opinion or shortly thereafter. The authors claim that in doing so, readers are more engaged because they are reading the material in the best way for their brain to comprehend.

     But experienced writers have gradually acquired the ability to introduce sources into the middle and even the conclusion of their papers and still produce a organized and understandable paper. How do they do this you ask? I believe that writers can bring sources into the middle and ends of papers successfully in a few ways. First, they can insert supporting sources into the middle of papers. When they introduce their main source and respond to that, they can bring reinforcing sources to prove their point. Second, although putting your predominant source towards the end is frowned upon by many, I think that doing so can build up curiosity and cause the reader to continue reading so that they can determine what the writer is responding to. By stating the I say before the they say, you evoke questions from the reader that could keep them interested in reading the whole paper.

     All in all, I don't think that order in which writers address the argument in their paper really matters. As long as they include all the necessary elements of a substantial paper they will do a fine job.

Preface/Introduction Response to Discussion Question #1 "They Say/I Say"

     After reading and contemplating this passage I have found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the ideas displayed by the authors of this book. I believe that, when writing academic pieces, people and especially students follow the structural guidelines without considering the need for counter-intuitive and argumentative statements. They have been taught over and over how to write a five paragraph essay with a thesis statement and supporting evidence but they aren't aware that they are, in a way, holding a conversation with someone. As stated in the last paragraph on page 3, “It (academic writing) is deeply engaged in some way with other people's views.” I consider social relevancy and placing outside sources in papers very beneficial to comprehending having “conversations” within papers and incorporating others opinions. For when writers use these tools they become aware of just how influential utilizing others opinions can be on the quality of papers.

     However, I don't think that the ideas of the other person to which writers are “responding” to should be very prevalent in their papers. In my opinion the idea that the writers are “replying” to should be mentioned twice, maybe three times, in the writer's paper. I believe Martin Luther King Jr.'s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” is too structural and summarizes his critic’s words too often. Although some may believe that this makes his letter have a strong voice, I think that his words get lost in his critics articulations.

     All in all, I believe that writers should be more aware of the “conversation(s)” in their papers, but I don't think that they should make too much of a deal out of it, to the point where is overwhelms the paper and blocks out the writer's voice.