They Say/I Say Intro & Chp 1

Intro:

In the introduction to “They Say/I Say: The Moves that Mater in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provides templates designed to clearly state the view of others and the writer’s clearly. The writing templates given are structures/formats people should follow. Although some people believe these templates limit their creativity, Graff and Birkenstein insist that it helps the writers be more creative.

I have mixed feelings about these templates as do many others. The templates given shouldn’t be specific ways to write. However I just take them into consideration and as suggestions. Nonetheless they do help write clear and concise statements while  both explaining the opinion of others and the writer’s.

Chapter One:

Chapter one focuses on the introduction of the passage the writer is writing. They say to always state what the point of the passage is, as a result the readers may be engaged. The thesis needs to be clear and precise so the readers understand what the point of the passage is. Therefore they list several templates which can help introduce several topics. For instance,”Templates for introducing something implied or assumed.”

Quotes:

“the story illustrates an important lesson: that to give writing the most important thing of all-namely, a point…”

“to keep an audience engaged, a writer needs to explain what he or she is responding to…”

“To be responsive to others and the conversation you’re entering, you need to start with what others are saying and continue keeping it in the reader’s view.”

Question:

How would I be able to tell if I’m giving off too much information in the introduction or saying too little?

 

Acts of Revision

Personally doing revisions is something I do nonchalantly. I truly do understand the process and why we do it, however I just think it’s a bad process. One of my professors in high school made me do several draft/revisions before I got to write the final draft. There was always something left to add or take away.  I usually write all my drafts to the full extent, meeting the criteria etc. Therefore the revision process was a bore to me. Revising, editing, and proofreading the same exact thing over and over, very dreadful. The revising part was most of the work because I felt I said everything I needed in the “first draft”. I usually alter it while writing, making corrections etc. Editing is mostly correcting grammar mistakes, fixing the flow of words. Proofreading on the other hand is what I usually do and thus I hate writing drafts. It’s the last step in which you’re mostly done just checking for errors you might have glanced over. Nevertheless I do understand Brock Dethier’s piece on revision. I like how he presented the point of view of the audience. He knows everyone dreads the experience and thus I agree with him. Several resistances he listed to come to my mind when I try to revise. Specifically “3.Revision makes things worse.” stops me from revising. I don’t want to regret making changes. However I guess you must take risks to improve your writing.

Writers Note : Rhetorical Analysis

So far i have finished my outline/zero draft for the essay. I have also started to write my introduction, in doing so I have noticed a couple of changes I have to make already. My outline was really straightforward into where to write what. However as I started to write I noticed all the parts got intertwined. The different parts of the essay, whether it be ethos,logos and pathos, they all connect. Hence I can’t write them in separate paragraphs or in any order. I have to reorganize my outline in a way that would connect all my ideas flawlessly. For instance I started writing about the audience and I noticed I started writing about the language used and who was speaking. Therefore mixing everything together instead of separately.