Graff Guide

User Manual:

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 353

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

what they’re saying about “they say / i say”
“The best book that’s happened to teaching composition—
ever!”
—Karen Gaffney, Raritan Valley Community College
“A brilliant book. . . . It’s like a membership card in the academic club.”
—Eileen Seifert, DePaul University
“This book demystifies rhetorical moves, tricks of the trade that
many students are unsure about. It’s reasonable, helpful, nicely
written . . . and hey, it’s true. I would have found it immensely
helpful myself in high school and college.”
—Mike Rose, University of California, Los Angeles

“The argument of this book is important—that there are
‘moves’ to academic writing . . . and that knowledge of them
can be generative. The template format is a good way to teach
and demystify the moves that matter. I like this book a lot.”
—David Bartholomae, University of Pittsburgh

“Students need to walk a fine line between their work and that
of others, and this book helps them walk that line, providing
specific methods and techniques for introducing, explaining,
and integrating other voices with their own ideas.”
—Libby Miles, University of Rhode Island

“A beautifully lucid way to approach argument—different from
any rhetoric I’ve ever seen.”
—Anne-Marie Thomas, Austin Community College, Riverside

“It offers students the formulas we, as academic writers, all carry
in our heads.”
—Karen Gardiner, University of Alabama
“Many students say that it is the first book they’ve found that
actually helps them with writing in all disciplines.”
—Laura Sonderman, Marshall University

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd i

12/24/13 6:03 PM

“As a WPA, I’m constantly thinking about how I can help
instructors teach their students to make specific rhetorical
moves on the page. This book offers a powerful way of teaching students to do just that.” —Joseph Bizup, Boston University
“The best tribute to ‘They Say / I Say’ I’ve heard is this, from a
student: ‘This is one book I’m not selling back to the bookstore.’
Nods all around the room. The students love this book.”
—Christine Ross, Quinnipiac University

“What effect has ‘They Say’ had on my students’ writing? They
are finally entering the Burkian Parlor of the university. This
book uncovers the rhetorical conventions that transcend disciplinary boundaries, so that even freshmen, newcomers to the
academy, are immediately able to join in the conversation.”
—Margaret Weaver, Missouri State University

“It’s the anti-composition text: Fun, creative, humorous, brilliant, effective.”
—Perry Cumbie, Durham Technical Community College

“Loved by students, reasonable priced, manageable size, readable.”
—Roxanne Munch, Joliet Junior College

“This book explains in clear detail what skilled writers take for
granted.”
—John Hyman, American University
“The ability to engage with the thoughts of others is one of the
most important skills taught in any college-level writing course,
and this book does as good a job teaching that skill as any text I
have ever encountered.” —William Smith, Weatherford College
“A fabulous resource for my students (and for me). I like that
it’s small, and not overwhelming. It’s very practical, and really
demystifies the new kind of writing students have to figure out
as they transition to college.” —Sara Glennon, Landmark College

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd ii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

THIRD EDITION

“THEY SAY I SAY”
The Moves That Matter
in Academic Writing

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd iii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd iv

12/24/13 6:03 PM

THIRD EDITION

“THEY SAY I SAY”
The Moves That Matter
in Academic Writing

H
GERALD GRAFF
CATHY BIRKENSTEIN
both of the University of Illinois at Chicago

B
w. w. norton & company
new york | london

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd v

12/24/13 6:03 PM

For
Aaron David
W. W. Norton & Company has been independent since its founding in 1923, when
William Warder Norton and Mary D. Herter Norton first published lectures delivered
at the People’s Institute, the adult education division of New York City’s Cooper
Union. The firm soon expanded its program beyond the Institute, publishing books by
celebrated academics from America and abroad. By mid-century, the two major pillars of
Norton’s publishing program—trade books and college texts—were firmly established.
In the 1950s, the Norton family transferred control of the company to its employees,
and today—with a staff of four hundred and a comparable number of trade, college,
and professional titles published each year—W. W. Norton & Company stands as the
largest and oldest publishing house owned wholly by its employees.
Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2009, 2006, by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
Third Edition
Composition: Cenveo® Publisher Services
Book design: Jo Anne Metsch
Production manager: Andrew Ensor
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Graff, Gerald.
“They say / I say” : the Moves that Matter in Academic Writing / Gerald Graff,
Cathy Birkenstein, Both of the University of Illinois at Chicago.—Third Edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-393-93584-4 (paperback)
1. English language—Rhetoric—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Persuasion
(Rhetoric)—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Report writing—Handbooks, manuals,
etc. I. Birkenstein, Cathy. II. Title.
PE1431.G73 2013
808'.042—dc23
2013039137
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110
www.wwnorton.com
W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., Castle House, 75/76 Wells Street,
London W1T 3QT
1234567890

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd vi

12/24/13 6:03 PM

brief contents
preface to the third edition

x iii

preface: Demystifying Academic Conversation
introduction: Entering the Conversation

xvi

PART 1 . “THE Y SAY”

“they say”: Starting with What Others Are Saying 19
“her point is”: The Art of Summarizing 30
3 “as he himself puts it”: The Art of Quoting 42
1

PART 2 . “I SAY”

“yes / no / okay, but”: Three Ways to Respond 55
“and yet”: Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say 68
6 “skeptics may object”: Planting a Naysayer in Your Text 78
7 “so what? who cares?”: Saying Why It Matters 92
4

PART 3. T YING IT ALL TOG ETHE R

“as a result”: Connecting the Parts 105
“a in’t so / is not”: Academic Writing Doesn’t Always
Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice 121
10 “but don’t get me wrong”: The Art of Metacommentary
11 “he says contends”: Using the Templates to Revise 139
8

129

PART 4. IN SPECIFIC ACADEMIC CONTE X TS
12
13
14
15
16
17

“i take your point”: Entering Class Discussions 163
“imho”: Is Digital Communication Good or Bad—or Both?
“what’s motivating this writer?”:
Reading for the Conversation 173
“on closer examination”: Entering Conversations
about Literature 184
“the data suggest”: Writing in the Sciences 202
“analyze this”: Writing in the Social Sciences 221

readings

167

239

index of templates

293

vii

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd vii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd viii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

contents
preface to the third edition
preface

xiii

xvi

Demystifying Academic Conversation
introduction

Entering the Conversation
PA R T 1 . “ T H E Y S AY ”

one “they say” 19
Starting with What Others Are Saying
two “her point is”
The Art of Summarizing

three “as he himself puts it”
The Art of Quoting
PA R T 2 . “ I S AY ”

four “yes / no / okay, but”
Three Ways to Respond

five “and yet” 68
Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say
six “skeptics may object”
Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

seven “so what? who cares?”
Saying Why It Matters

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd ix

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Contents

PA R T 3 . T Y I N G I T A L L TO G E T H E R
eight “as a result”
Connecting the Parts

103

105

nine “ain’t so / is not” 121
Academic Writing Doesn’t Always Mean
Setting Aside Your Own Voice
ten “but don’t get me wrong”
The Art of Metacommentary
eleven “he says contends”
Using the Templates to Revise

129

139

PA R T 4 . I N S P E C I F I C AC A D E M I C
C O N T E X T S 161
163

twelve “i take your point”
Entering Class Discussions

thirteen “imho” 167
Is Digital Communication Good or Bad—or Both?
fourteen “what’s motivating this
writer?” 173
Reading for the Conversation
fifteen “on closer examination”
Entering Conversations about Literature
sixteen “the data suggest”
Writing in the Sciences
seventeen “analyze this”
Writing in the Social Sciences

184

202

221

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd x

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Contents

readings

239

Don’t Blame the Eater
David Zinczenko

241

Hidden Intellectualism
Gerald Graff

244

Nuclear Waste 252
Richard A. Muller
The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream
Barbara Ehrenreich
Everything That Rises Must Converge
Flannery O’Connor
index of templates
credits

260

272

293

311

acknowledgments

313

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xi

12/24/13 6:03 PM

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

preface
to the third edition

H
We continue to be thrilled by the reception of our
book, which has now sold over a million copies and is assigned
in more than 1,500 (over half) the colleges and universities in
the United States. We are also delighted that while the audience for our book in composition courses continues to grow,
the book is increasingly being adopted in disciplines across the
curriculum, confirming our view that the moves taught in the
book are central to every academic discipline.
At the same time, we continue to adapt our approach to
the specific ways the “they say / I say” moves are deployed
in different disciplines. To that end, this edition adds a new
chapter on writing about literature to the chapters already
in the Second Edition on writing in the sciences and social
sciences. In this new chapter, “Entering Conversations about
Literature,” we suggest ways in which students and teachers
can move beyond the type of essay that analyzes literary works
in isolation from the conversations and debates about those
works. One of our premises here is that writing about literature,
as about any subject, gains in urgency, motivation, and engagement when the writer responds to the work not in a vacuum, but
in conversation with other readers and critics. We believe that
engaging with other readers, far from distracting attention from
the literary text itself, should help bring that text into sharper

xiii

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xiii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

PR E FAC E TO TH E TH I R D E D ITI O N

focus. Another premise is that the class discussions that are a
daily feature of literature courses can be a rich and provocative
source of “they says” that student writers can respond to in
generating their own interpretations. Throughout the chapter
are numerous templates that provide writers with language for
entering into conversations and debates with these “they says”:
published critics, classmates and teachers, their own previous
interpretations, and the authors of literary works themselves.
This new edition also includes a chapter on “Using the
Templates to Revise,” which grew out of our own teaching
experience, where we found that the templates in this book had
the unexpected benefit of helping students when they revise.
We found that when students read over their drafts with an eye
for the rhetorical moves represented by the templates they were
able to spot gaps in their argument, concessions they needed
to make, disconnections among ideas, inadequate summaries,
poorly integrated quotations, and other questions they needed
to address when revising. Have they incorporated the views of
naysayers with their own? If not, our brief revision guidelines
can help them do so. The new chapter includes a full essay
written by a student, annotated to show how the student used
all the rhetorical moves taught in this book.
Finally, this edition adds a new chapter on writing online
exploring the debate about whether digital technologies
improve or degrade the way we think and write, and whether
they foster or impede the meeting of minds. And given the
importance of online communication, we’re pleased that our
book now has its own blog, theysayiblog. Updated monthly
with current articles from across media, this blog provides
a space where students and teachers can literally join the
conversation.

xiv

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xiv

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Preface to the Third Edition

Even as we have revised and added to “They Say / I Say,” our
basic goals remain unchanged: to demystify academic writing
and reading by identifying the key moves of persuasive argument and representing those moves in forms that students can
put into practice. We hope this Third Edition will get us even
closer to these goals, equipping students with the writing skills
they need to enter the academic world and beyond.

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xv

12/24/13 6:03 PM

preface
Demystifying Academic Conversation

H
Experienced writing instructors have long recognized
that writing well means entering into conversation with others.
Academic writing in particular calls upon writers not simply to
express their own ideas, but to do so as a response to what others
have said. The first-year writing program at our own university,
according to its mission statement, asks “students to participate in ongoing conversations about vitally important academic
and public issues.” A similar statement by another program
holds that “intellectual writing is almost always composed in
response to others’ texts.” These statements echo the ideas
of rhetorical theorists like Kenneth Burke, Mikhail Bakhtin,
and Wayne Booth as well as recent composition scholars like
David Bartholomae, John Bean, Patricia Bizzell, Irene Clark,
Greg Colomb, Lisa Ede, Peter Elbow, Joseph Harris, Andrea
Lunsford, Elaine Maimon, Gary Olson, Mike Rose, John Swales
and Christine Feak, Tilly Warnock, and others who argue that
writing well means engaging the voices of others and letting
them in turn engage us.
Yet despite this growing consensus that writing is a social,
conversational act, helping student writers actually participate in these conversations remains a formidable challenge.
This book aims to meet that challenge. Its goal is to demystify academic writing by isolating its basic moves, explaining
them clearly, and representing them in the form of templates.
xvi

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xvi

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Demystifying Academic Conversation

In this way, we hope to help students become active participants in the important conversations of the academic world
and the wider public sphere.

highlights
• Shows that writing well means entering a conversation, summarizing others (“they say”) to set up one’s own argument
(“I say”).
• Demystifies academic writing, showing students “the moves
that matter” in language they can readily apply.
• Provides user-friendly templates to help writers make those
moves in their own writing.
• Shows that reading is a way of entering a conversation—not just
of passively absorbing information but of understanding and
actively entering dialogues and debates.

how this book came to be
The original idea for this book grew out of our shared interest in democratizing academic culture. First, it grew out of
arguments that Gerald Graff has been making throughout his
career that schools and colleges need to invite students into
the conversations and debates that surround them. More specifically, it is a practical, hands-on companion to his recent
book, Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of
the Mind, in which he looks at academic conversations from the
perspective of those who find them mysterious and proposes
ways in which such mystification can be overcome. Second,
xvii

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxvi.indd xvii

1/3/14 1:39 PM

PR E FAC E

this book grew out of writing templates that Cathy Birkenstein
developed in the 1990s, for use in writing and literature courses
she was teaching. Many students, she found, could readily grasp
what it meant to support a thesis with evidence, to entertain
a counterargument, to identify a textual contradiction, and
ultimately to summarize and respond to challenging arguments,
but they often had trouble putting these concepts into practice
in their own writing. When Cathy sketched out templates on
the board, however, giving her students some of the language
and patterns that these sophisticated moves require, their
writing—and even their quality of thought—significantly
improved.
This book began, then, when we put our ideas together and
realized that these templates might have the potential to open
up and clarify academic conversation. We proceeded from the
premise that all writers rely on certain stock formulas that they
themselves didn’t invent—and that many of these formulas
are so commonly used that they can be represented in model
templates that students can use to structure and even generate
what they want to say.
As we developed a working draft of this book, we began using
it in first-year writing courses that we teach at UIC. In classroom exercises and writing assignments, we found that students
who otherwise struggled to organize their thoughts, or even to
think of something to say, did much better when we provided
them with templates like the following.
j In discussions of

, a controversial issue is whether

. While some argue that
that

, others contend

j This is not to say that

xviii

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxvi.indd xviii

1/3/14 1:39 PM

Demystifying Academic Conversation

One virtue of such templates, we found, is that they focus
writers’ attention not just on what is being said, but on the
forms that structure what is being said. In other words, they
make students more conscious of the rhetorical patterns that
are key to academic success but often pass under the classroom
radar.

the centrality of “they say / i say”
The central rhetorical move that we focus on in this book is
the “they say / I say” template that gives our book its title. In our
view, this template represents the deep, underlying structure,
the internal DNA as it were, of all effective argument. Effective
persuasive writers do more than make well-supported claims
(“I say”); they also map those claims relative to the claims of
others (“they say”).
Here, for example, the “they say / I say” pattern structures a
passage from an essay by the media and technology critic Steven
Johnson.
For decades, we’ve worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-commondenominator standards, presumably because the “masses” want
dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the
masses what they want. But . . . the exact opposite is happening:
the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less.
Steven Johnson, “Watching TV Makes You Smarter”

In generating his own argument from something “they say,”
Johnson suggests why he needs to say what he is saying: to
correct a popular misconception.
xix

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xix

12/24/13 6:03 PM

PR E FAC E

Even when writers do not explicitly identify the views they
are responding to, as Johnson does, an implicit “they say” can
often be discerned, as in the following passage by Zora Neale
Hurston.
I remember the day I became colored.
Zora Neale Hurston, “How It Feels to Be Colored Me”

In order to grasp Hurston’s point here, we need to be able to
reconstruct the implicit view she is responding to and questioning: that racial identity is an innate quality we are simply born
with. On the contrary, Hurston suggests, our race is imposed
on us by society—something we “become” by virtue of how
we are treated.
As these examples suggest, the “they say / I say” model can
improve not just student writing, but student reading comprehension as well. Since reading and writing are deeply reciprocal activities, students who learn to make the rhetorical moves
represented by the templates in this book figure to become more
adept at identifying these same moves in the texts they read. And
if we are right that effective arguments are always in dialogue
with other arguments, then it follows that in order to understand
the types of challenging texts assigned in college, students need
to identify the views to which those texts are responding.
Working with the “they say / I say” model can also help with
invention, finding something to say. In our experience, students
best discover what they want to say not by thinking about a
subject in an isolation booth, but by reading texts, listening
closely to what other writers say, and looking for an opening
through which they can enter the conversation. In other words,
listening closely to others and summarizing what they have to
say can help writers generate their own ideas.
xx

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xx

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Demystifying Academic Conversation

the usefulness of templates
Our templates also have a generative quality, prompting students to make moves in their writing that they might not otherwise make or even know they should make. The templates
in this book can be particularly helpful for students who are
unsure about what to say, or who have trouble finding enough
to say, often because they consider their own beliefs so
self-evident that they need not be argued for. Students like this
are often helped, we’ve found, when we give them a simple template like the following one for entertaining a counterargument
(or planting a naysayer, as we call it in Chapter 6).
j Of course some might object that
that

, I still maintain that

. Although I concede
.

What this particular template helps students do is make the
seemingly counterintuitive move of questioning their own
beliefs, of looking at them from the perspective of those who
disagree. In so doing, templates can bring out aspects of students’ thoughts that, as they themselves sometimes remark,
they didn’t even realize were there.
Other templates in this book help students make a host of
sophisticated moves that they might not otherwise make: summarizing what someone else says, framing a quotation in one’s
own words, indicating the view that the writer is responding to,
marking the shift from a source’s view to the writer’s own view,
offering evidence for that view, entertaining and answering
counterarguments, and explaining what is at stake in the first
place. In showing students how to make such moves, templates
do more than organize students’ ideas; they help bring those
ideas into existence.
xxi

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xxi

12/24/13 6:03 PM

PR E FAC E

okay, but templates?
We are aware, of course, that some instructors may have reservations about templates. Some, for instance, may object that
such formulaic devices represent a return to prescriptive forms
of instruction that encourage passive learning or lead students
to put their writing on automatic pilot.
This is an understandable reaction, we think, to kinds of rote
instruction that have indeed encouraged passivity and drained
writing of its creativity and dynamic relation to the social world.
The trouble is that many students will never learn on their own
to make the key intellectual moves that our templates represent. While seasoned writers pick up these moves unconsciously
through their reading, many students do not. Consequently, we
believe, students need to see these moves represented in the
explicit ways that the templates provide.
The aim of the templates, then, is not to stifle critical
thinking but to be direct with students about the key rhetorical moves that it comprises. Since we encourage students to
modify and adapt the templates to the particularities of the
arguments they are making, using such prefabricated formulas
as learning tools need not result in writing and thinking that
are themselves formulaic. Admittedly, no teaching tool can
guarantee that students will engage in hard, rigorous thought.
Our templates do, however, provide concrete prompts that can
stimulate and shape such thought: What do “they say” about my
topic? What would a naysayer say about my argument? What
is my evidence? Do I need to qualify my point? Who cares?
In fact, templates have a long and rich history. Public orators
from ancient Greece and Rome through the European Renaissance studied rhetorical topoi or “commonplaces,” model passages
and formulas that represented the different strategies available
xxii

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xxii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Demystifying Academic Conversation

to public speakers. In many respects, our templates echo this
classical rhetorical tradition of imitating established models.
The journal Nature requires aspiring contributors to follow
a guideline that is like a template on the opening page of their
manuscript: “Two or three sentences explaining what the main
result [of their study] reveals in direct comparison with what was
thought to be the case previously, or how the main result adds to
previous knowledge.” In the field of education, a form designed
by the education theorist Howard Gardner asks postdoctoral
fellowship applicants to complete the following template: “Most
scholars in the field believe
. As a result of my study,
.” That these two examples are geared toward postdoctoral fellows and veteran researchers shows that it is not
only struggling undergraduates who can use help making these
key rhetorical moves, but experienced academics as well.
Templates have even been used in the teaching of personal
narrative. The literary and educational theorist Jane Tompkins
devised the following template to help student writers make the
often difficult move from telling a story to explaining what it
means: “X tells a story about
to make the point that
. My own experience with
yields a point
that is similar/different/both similar and different. What I take
away from my own experience with
is
. As
a result, I conclude
.” We especially like this template
because it suggests that “they say / I say” argument need not be
mechanical, impersonal, or dry, and that telling a story and making an argument are more compatible activities than many think.

why it’s okay to use “i”
But wait—doesn’t the “I” part of “they say / I say” flagrantly
encourage the use of the first-person pronoun? Aren’t we aware
xxiii

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xxiii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

PR E FAC E

that some teachers prohibit students from using “I” or “we,”
on the grounds that these pronouns encourage ill-considered,
subjective opinions rather than objective and reasoned arguments? Yes, we are aware of this first-person prohibition, but
we think it has serious flaws. First, expressing ill-considered,
subjective opinions is not necessarily the worst sin beginning
writers can commit; it might be a starting point from which they
can move on to more reasoned, less self-indulgent perspectives.
Second, prohibiting students from using “I” is simply not an
effective way of curbing students’ subjectivity, since one can
offer poorly argued, ill-supported opinions just as easily without
it. Third and most important, prohibiting the first person tends
to hamper students’ ability not only to take strong positions but
to differentiate their own positions from those of others, as we
point out in Chapter 5. To be sure, writers can resort to various circumlocutions—“it will here be argued,” “the evidence
suggests,” “the truth is”—and these may be useful for avoiding a monotonous series of “I believe” sentences. But except
for avoiding such monotony, we see no good reason why “I”
should be set aside in persuasive writing. Rather than prohibit
“I,” then, we think a better tactic is to give students practice
at using it well and learning its use, both by supporting their
claims with evidence and by attending closely to alternative
perspectives—to what “they” are saying.

how this book is organized
Because of its centrality, we have allowed the “they say / I say”
format to dictate the structure of this book. So while Part 1
addresses the art of listening to others, Part 2 addresses how
to offer one’s own response. Part 1 opens with a chapter on
xxiv

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xxiv

12/24/13 6:03 PM

Demystifying Academic Conversation

“Starting with What Others Are Saying” that explains why it is
generally advisable to begin a text by citing others rather than
plunging directly into one’s own views. Subsequent chapters
take up the arts of summarizing and quoting what these others
have to say. Part 2 begins with a chapter on different ways of
responding, followed by chapters on marking the shift between
what “they say” and what “I say,” on introducing and answering
objections, and on answering the all-important questions: “so
what?” and “who cares?” Part 3 offers strategies for “Tying It All
Together,” beginning with a chapter on connection and coherence; followed by a chapter on formal and informal language,
arguing that academic discourse is often perfectly compatible
with the informal language that students use outside school;
and concluding with a chapter on the art of metacommentary,
showing students how to guide the way readers understand a
text. Part 4 offers guidance for entering conversations in specific
academic contexts, with chapters on entering class discussions,
writing online, reading, and writing in literature courses, the
sciences, and social sciences. Finally, we provide five readings
and an index of templates.

what this book doesn’t do
There are some things that this book does not try to do. We do
not, for instance, cover logical principles of argument such as
syllogisms, warrants, logical fallacies, or the differences between
inductive and deductive reasoning. Although such concepts
can be useful, we believe most of us learn the ins and outs of
argumentative writing not by studying logical principles in the
abstract, but by plunging into actual discussions and debates,
trying out different patterns of response, and in this way getting
xxv

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxvi.indd xxv

1/8/14 3:47 PM

PR E FAC E

a sense of what works to persuade different audiences and what
doesn’t. In our view, people learn more about arguing from
hearing someone say, “You miss my point. What I’m saying
is not
, but
,” or “I agree with you that
, and would even add that
,” than they do
from studying the differences between inductive and deductive
reasoning. Such formulas give students an immediate sense of
what it feels like to enter a public conversation in a way that
studying abstract warrants and logical fallacies does not.

engaging with the ideas of others
One central goal of this book is to demystify academic writing
by returning it to its social and conversational roots. Although
writing may require some degree of quiet and solitude, the “they
say / I say” model shows students that they can best develop
their arguments not just by looking inward but by doing what
they often do in a good conversation with friends and family—
by listening carefully to what others are saying and engaging
with other views.
This approach to writing therefore has an ethical dimension,
since it asks writers not simply to keep proving and reasserting
what they already believe but to stretch what they believe by
putting it up against beliefs that differ, sometimes radically,
from their own. In an increasingly diverse, global society, this
ability to engage with the ideas of others is especially crucial
to democratic citizenship.
Gerald Graff
Cathy Birkenstein

xxvi

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxvi.indd xxvi

1/3/14 1:39 PM

THIRD EDITION

“THEY SAY I SAY”
The Moves That Matter
in Academic Writing

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xxvii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

01_GRA_93584_FM_i_xxviii.indd xxviii

12/24/13 6:03 PM

introduction
Entering the Conversation

Think about an activity that you do particularly well:
cooking, playing the piano, shooting a basketball, even something as basic as driving a car. If you reflect on this activity, you’ll
realize that once you mastered it you no longer had to give much
conscious thought to the various moves that go into doing it.
Performing this activity, in other words, depends on your having
learned a series of complicated moves—moves that may seem
mysterious or difficult to those who haven’t yet learned them.
The same applies to writing. Often without consciously realizing it, accomplished writers routinely rely on a stock of established moves that are crucial for communicating sophisticated
ideas. What makes writers masters of their trade is not only
their ability to express interesting thoughts but their mastery
of an inventory of basic moves that they probably picked up
by reading a wide range of other accomplished writers. Less
experienced writers, by contrast, are often unfamiliar with these
basic moves and unsure how to make them in their own writing. This book is intended as a short, user-friendly guide to the
basic moves of academic writing.
One of our key premises is that these basic moves are so
common that they can be represented in templates that you
can use right away to structure and even generate your own
1

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 1

12/24/13 11:05 AM

INTRODUCTION

writing. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of this book is
its presentation of many such templates, designed to help you
successfully enter not only the world of academic thinking and
writing, but also the wider worlds of civic discourse and work.
Instead of focusing solely on abstract principles of writing,
then, this book offers model templates that help you put those
principles directly into practice. Working with these templates
can give you an immediate sense of how to engage in the kinds
of critical thinking you are required to do at the college level
and in the vocational and public spheres beyond.
Some of these templates represent simple but crucial moves
like those used to summarize some widely held belief.
j Many Americans assume that

Others are more complicated.
j On the one hand,

. On the other hand,

j Author X contradicts herself. At the same time that she argues
, she also implies

j I agree that

j This is not to say that

It is true, of course, that critical thinking and writing go deeper
than any set of linguistic formulas, requiring that you question
assumptions, develop strong claims, offer supporting reasons
and evidence, consider opposing arguments, and so on. But
these deeper habits of thought cannot be put into practice
unless you have a language for expressing them in clear, organized ways.
2

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 2

12/24/13 11:05 AM

Entering the Conversation

state your own ideas as a
response to others
The single most important template that we focus on in this
book is the “they say
; I say
” formula that
gives our book its title. If there is any one point that we hope
you will take away from this book, it is the importance not only
of expressing your ideas (“I say”) but of presenting those ideas
as a response to some other person or group (“they say”). For us,
the underlying structure of effective academic writing—and of
responsible public discourse—resides not just in stating our own
ideas but in listening closely to others around us, summarizing
their views in a way that they will recognize, and responding
with our own ideas in kind. Broadly speaking, academic writing is argumentative writing, and we believe that to argue well
you need to do more than assert your own position. You need
to enter a conversation, using what others say (or might say)
as a launching pad or sounding board for your own views. For
this reason, one of the main pieces of advice in this book is to
write the voices of others into your text.
In our view, then, the best academic writing has one underlying feature: it is deeply engaged in some way with other people’s views. Too often, however, academic writing is taught as
a process of saying “true” or “smart” things in a vacuum, as if
it were possible to argue effectively without being in conversation with someone else. If you have been taught to write a
traditional five-paragraph essay, for example, you have learned
how to develop a thesis and support it with evidence. This is
good advice as far as it goes, but it leaves out the important
fact that in the real world we don’t make arguments without
being provoked. Instead, we make arguments because someone has said or done something (or perhaps not said or done
3

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 3

12/24/13 11:05 AM

INTRODUCTION

something) and we need to respond: “I can’t see why you like
the Lakers so much”; “I agree: it was a great film”; “That argument is contradictory.” If it weren’t for other people and our
need to challenge, agree with, or otherwise respond to them,
there would be no reason to argue at all.
To make an impact as a writer, you need to do more than
make statements that are logical, well supported, and consistent. You must also find a way of entering a conversation with
others’ views—with something “they say.” If your own argument doesn’t identify the “they say” that you’re responding
to, it probably won’t make sense. As the figure above suggests,
what you are saying may be clear to your audience, but why
you are saying it won’t be. For it is what others are saying and
thinking that motivates our writing and gives it a reason for
being. It follows, then, as the figure on the next page suggests,
that your own argument—the thesis or “I say” moment of your
text—should always be a response to the arguments of others.
Many writers make explicit “they say / I say” moves in their
writing. One famous example is Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter
4

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 4

12/24/13 11:05 AM

Entering the Conversation

from Birmingham Jail,” which consists almost entirely of King’s
eloquent responses to a public statement by eight clergy-men
deploring the civil rights protests he was leading. The letter—
which was written in 1963, while King was in prison for leading
a demonstration against racial injustice in Birmingham—is
structured almost entirely around a framework of summary and
response, in which King summarizes and then answers their
criticisms. In one typical passage, King writes as follows.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But
your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern
for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.
Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

King goes on to agree with his critics that “It is unfortunate that
demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham,” yet he hastens
5

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 5

12/24/13 11:06 AM

INTRODUCTION

to add that “it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white
power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.”
King’s letter is so thoroughly conversational, in fact, that it
could be rewritten in the form of a dialogue or play.
King’s critics:
King’s response:
Critics:
Response:

Clearly, King would not have written his famous letter were
it not for his critics, whose views he treats not as objections
to his already-formed arguments but as the motivating source
of those arguments, their central reason for being. He quotes
not only what his critics have said (“Some have asked: ‘Why
didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?’ ”), but
also things they might have said (“One may well ask: ‘How can
you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ ”)—all
to set the stage for what he himself wants to say.
A similar “they say / I say” exchange opens an essay about
American patriotism by the social critic Katha Pollitt, who uses
her own daughter’s comment to represent the national fervor
of post-9/11 patriotism.
My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks
from the former World Trade Center, thinks we should fly the
American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands
for jingoism and vengeance and war. She tells me I’m wrong—the
flag means standing together and honoring the dead and saying no
to terrorism. In a way we’re both right. . . .
Katha Pollitt, “Put Out No Flags”

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 6

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Entering the Conversation

As Pollitt’s example shows, the “they” you respond to in
crafting an argument need not be a famous author or someone
known to your audience. It can be a family member like
Pollitt’s daughter, or a friend or classmate who has made a
provocative claim. It can even be something an individual or
a group might say—or a side of yourself, something you once
believed but no longer do, or something you partly believe
but also doubt. The important thing is that the “they” (or
“you” or “she”) represent some wider group with which readers might identify—in Pollitt’s case, those who patriotically
believe in flying the flag. Pollitt’s example also shows that
responding to the views of others need not always involve
unqualified opposition. By agreeing and disagreeing See Chapter
4 for more
with her daughter, Pollitt enacts what we call the “yes on agreeing,
with a
and no” response, reconciling apparently incompatible but
difference.
views.
While King and Pollitt both identify the views they are
responding to, some authors do not explicitly state their views
but instead allow the reader to infer them. See, for instance, if
you can identify the implied or unnamed “they say” that the
following claim is responding to.
I like to think I have a certain advantage as a teacher of literature
because when I was growing up I disliked and feared books.
Gerald Graff, “Disliking Books at an Early Age”

In case you haven’t figured it out already, the phantom “they
say” here is the common belief that in order to be a good
teacher of literature, one must have grown up liking and enjoying books.

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 7

12/24/13 11:06 AM

INTRODUCTION

As you can see from these examples, many writers use the
“they say / I say” format to agree or disagree with others, to challenge standard ways of thinking, and thus to stir up controversy.
This point may come as a shock to you if you have always had
the impression that in order to succeed academically you need
to play it safe and avoid controversy in your writing, making
statements that nobody can possibly disagree with. Though this
view of writing may appear logical, it is actually a recipe for flat,
lifeless writing and for writing that fails to answer what we call
the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions. “William Shakespeare
wrote many famous plays and sonnets” may be a perfectly true
statement, but precisely because nobody is likely to disagree with
it, it goes without saying and thus would seem pointless if said.

ways of responding
Just because much argumentative writing is driven by disagreement, it does not follow that agreement is ruled out. Although
argumentation is often associated with conflict and opposition,
the type of conversational “they say / I say” argument that we
focus on in this book can be just as useful when you agree as
when you disagree.
j She argues

, and I agree because

j Her argument that
showing that

is supported by new research
.

Nor do you always have to choose between either simply agreeing or disagreeing, since the “they say / I say” format also works
to both agree and disagree at the same time, as Pollitt illustrates
above.
8

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 8

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Entering the Conversation
j He claims that

, and I have mixed feelings about it.

On the one hand, I agree that
I still insist that

. On the other hand,

This last option—agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously—is
one we especially recommend, since it allows you to avoid a
simple yes or no response and present a more complicated argument, while containing that complication within a clear “on
the one hand / on the other hand” framework.
While the templates we offer in this book can be used to
structure your writing at the sentence level, they can also be
expanded as needed to almost any length, as the following
elaborated “they say / I say” template demonstrates.
j In recent discussions of

, a controversial issue has

been whether
that

. On the one hand, some argue
. From this perspective,

. On the other

hand, however, others argue that

. In the words of

, one of this view’s main proponents, “
According to this view,
whether

My own view is that

. Though I concede that

, I still maintain that

. For example,

. Although some might object that
reply that

.”

. In sum, then, the issue is

. The issue is important because

, I would
.

If you go back over this template, you will see that it helps you
make a host of challenging moves (each of which is taken up
in forthcoming chapters in this book). First, the template helps
you open your text by identifying an issue in some ongoing
conversation or debate (“In recent discussions of
,
9

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 9

12/24/13 11:06 AM

INTRODUCTION

a controversial issue has been
”), and then to map
some of the voices in this controversy (by using the “on the
one hand / on the other hand” structure). The template also
helps you introduce a quotation (“In the words of ”), to explain
the quotation in your own words (“According to this view”),
and—in a new paragraph—to state your own argument (“My
own view is that”), to qualify your argument (“Though I concede that”), and then to support your argument with evidence
(“For example”). In addition, the template helps you make one
of the most crucial moves in argumentative writing, what we
call “planting a naysayer in your text,” in which you summarize
and then answer a likely objection to your own central claim
(“Although it might be objected that
, I reply
”).
Finally, this template helps you shift between general, overarching claims (“In sum, then”) and smaller-scale, supporting
claims (“For example”).
Again, none of us is born knowing these moves, especially
when it comes to academic writing. Hence the need for this book.

do templates stifle creativity?
If you are like some of our students, your initial response to
templates may be skepticism. At first, many of our students
complain that using templates will take away their originality
and creativity and make them all sound the same. “They’ll turn
us into writing robots,” one of our students insisted. Another
agreed, adding, “Hey, I’m a jazz musician. And we don’t play by
set forms. We create our own.” “I’m in college now,” another
student asserted; “this is third-grade-level stuff.”
In our view, however, the templates in this book, far from
being “third-grade-level stuff,” represent the stock in trade of
10

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 10

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Entering the Conversation

sophisticated thinking and writing, and they often require a
great deal of practice and instruction to use successfully. As
for the belief that pre-established forms undermine creativity,
we think it rests on a very limited vision of what creativity is
all about. In our view, the above template and the others in
this book will actually help your writing become more original
and creative, not less. After all, even the most creative forms
of expression depend on established patterns and structures.
Most songwriters, for instance, rely on a time-honored versechorus-verse pattern, and few people would call Shakespeare
uncreative because he didn’t invent the sonnet or the dramatic
forms that he used to such dazzling effect. Even the most avantgarde, cutting-edge artists (like improvisational jazz musicians)
need to master the basic forms that their work improvises on,
departs from, and goes beyond, or else their work will come
across as uneducated child’s play. Ultimately, then, creativity
and originality lie not in the avoidance of established forms
but in the imaginative use of them.
Furthermore, these templates do not dictate the content of
what you say, which can be as original as you can make it, but
only suggest a way of formatting how you say it. In addition,
once you begin to feel comfortable with the templates in this
book, you will be able to improvise creatively on them to fit
new situations and purposes and find others in your reading.
In other words, the templates offered here are learning tools to
get you started, not structures set in stone. Once you get used
to using them, you can even dispense with them altogether,
for the rhetorical moves they model will be at your fingertips
in an unconscious, instinctive way.
But if you still need proof that writing templates do not stifle
creativity, consider the following opening to an essay on the
fast-food industry that we’ve included at the back of this book.
11

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 11

12/24/13 11:06 AM

INTRODUCTION

Although Zinczenko relies on a version of the “they say / I
say” formula, his writing is anything but dry, robotic, or uncreative. While Zinczenko does not explicitly use the words
“they say” and “I say,” the template still gives the passage its
underlying structure: “They say that kids suing fast-food companies for making them fat is a joke; but I say such lawsuits
are justified.”

but isn’t this plagiarism?
“But isn’t this plagiarism?” at least one student each year will
usually ask. “Well, is it?” we respond, turning the question
around into one the entire class can profit from. “We are, after
all, asking you to use language in your writing that isn’t your
own—language that you ‘borrow’ or, to put it less delicately,
steal from other writers.”
Often, a lively discussion ensues that raises important
questions about authorial ownership and helps everyone
better understand the frequently confusing line between plagiarism and the legitimate use of what others say and how
they say it. Students are quick to see that no one person
owns a conventional formula like “on the one hand . . . on
the other hand . . . ” Phrases like “a controversial issue”
12

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 12

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Entering the Conversation

are so commonly used and recycled that they are generic—
community property that can be freely used without fear of
committing plagiarism. It is plagiarism, however, if the words
used to fill in the blanks of such formulas are borrowed from
others without proper acknowledgment. In sum, then, while
it is not plagiarism to recycle conventionally used formulas, it
is a serious academic offense to take the substantive content
from others’ texts without citing the author and giving him
or her proper credit.

putting in your oar
Though the immediate goal of this book is to help you become a
better writer, at a deeper level it invites you to become a certain
type of person: a critical, intellectual thinker who, instead of sitting passively on the sidelines, can participate in the debates and
conversations of your world in an active and empowered way.
Ultimately, this book invites you to become a critical thinker
who can enter the types of conversations described eloquently
by the philosopher Kenneth Burke in the following widely cited
passage. Likening the world of intellectual exchange to a neverending conversation at a party, Burke writes:
You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you,
and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated
for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. . . . You
listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor
of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you
answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself
against you. . . . The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do
depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress.
Kenneth Burke, The Philosophy of Literary Form
13

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 13

12/24/13 11:06 AM

INTRODUCTION

What we like about this passage is its suggestion that stating
an argument and “putting in your oar” can only be done in
conversation with others; that we all enter the dynamic world
of ideas not as isolated individuals but as social beings deeply
connected to others who have a stake in what we say.
This ability to enter complex, many-sided conversations has
taken on a special urgency in today’s diverse, post-9/11 world,
where the future for all of us may depend on our ability to put
ourselves in the shoes of those who think very differently from
us. The central piece of advice in this book—that we listen
carefully to others, including those who disagree with us, and
then engage with them thoughtfully and respectfully—can
help us see beyond our own pet beliefs, which may not be
shared by everyone. The mere act of crafting a sentence that
begins “Of course, someone might object that
” may
not seem like a way to change the world; but it does have the
potential to jog us out of our comfort zones, to get us thinking
critically about our own beliefs, and perhaps even to change
our minds.
Exercises
1. Read the following paragraph from an essay by Emily Poe, a
student at Furman University. Disregarding for the moment
what Poe says, focus your attention on the phrases she uses
to structure what she says (italicized here). Then write a new
paragraph using Poe’s as a model but replacing her topic,
vegetarianism, with one of your own.
The term “vegetarian” tends to be synonymous with “tree-hugger”
in many people’s minds. They see vegetarianism as a cult that
brainwashes its followers into eliminating an essential part of their
14

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 14

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Entering the Conversation
daily diets for an abstract goal of “animal welfare.” However, few
vegetarians choose their lifestyle just to follow the crowd. On the
contrary, many of these supposedly brainwashed people are actually independent thinkers, concerned citizens, and compassionate
human beings. For the truth is that there are many very good reasons
for giving up meat. Perhaps the best reasons are to improve the
environment, to encourage humane treatment of livestock, or to
enhance one’s own health. In this essay, then, closely examining a
vegetarian diet as compared to a meat-eater’s diet will show that
vegetarianism is clearly the better option for sustaining the Earth
and all its inhabitants.

2. Write a short essay in which you first summarize our rationale
for the templates in this book and then articulate your own
position in response. If you want, you can use the template
below to organize your paragraphs, expanding and modifying
it as necessary to fit what you want to say.
In the Introduction to “They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in
Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed to

. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein

argue that the types of writing templates they offer
the authors themselves put it, “
believe

. As

.” Although some people

, Graff and Birkenstein insist that

In sum, then, their view is that

I [agree/disagree/have mixed feelings]. In my view, the types
of templates that the authors recommend
instance,

. In addition,

of course, on the grounds that
that

. Yet I would argue

. Overall, then, I believe

point to make given

. For
. Some might object,
—an important

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 15

12/24/13 11:06 AM

02_GRA_93584_Intro_001_016.indd 16

12/24/13 11:06 AM

1
H
“THEY SAY”

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 17

12/24/13 11:06 AM

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 18

12/24/13 11:06 AM

ONE

“they say”
Starting with What Others Are Saying

Not long ago we attended a talk at an academic conference
where the speaker’s central claim seemed to be that a certain
sociologist—call him Dr. X—had done very good work in a
number of areas of the discipline. The speaker proceeded to
illustrate his thesis by referring extensively and in great detail
to various books and articles by Dr. X and by quoting long passages from them. The speaker was obviously both learned and
impassioned, but as we listened to his talk we found ourselves
somewhat puzzled: the argument—that Dr. X’s work was very
important—was clear enough, but why did the speaker need to
make it in the first place? Did anyone dispute it? Were there
commentators in the field who had argued against X’s work or
challenged its value? Was the speaker’s interpretation of what
X had done somehow novel or revolutionary? Since the speaker
gave no hint of an answer to any of these questions, we could
only wonder why he was going on and on about X. It The hypothetical
was only after the speaker finished and took questions audience in
from the audience that we got a clue: in response to the figure on
p. 4 reacts
one questioner, he referred to several critics who had similarly.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 19

12/24/13 11:06 AM

one

“ T H E Y S AY ”

vigorously questioned Dr. X’s ideas and convinced many sociologists that Dr. X’s work was unsound.
This story illustrates an important lesson: that to give writing the most important thing of all—namely, a point—a writer
needs to indicate clearly not only what his or her thesis is,
but also what larger conversation that thesis is responding to.
Because our speaker failed to mention what others had said about
Dr. X’s work, he left his audience unsure about why he felt the
need to say what he was saying. Perhaps the point was clear to
other sociologists in the audience who were more familiar with
the debates over Dr. X’s work than we were. But even they, we
bet, would have understood the speaker’s point better if he’d
sketched in some of the larger conversation his own claims were
a part of and reminded the audience about what “they say.”
This story also illustrates an important lesson about the order
in which things are said: to keep an audience engaged, a writer
needs to explain what he or she is responding to—either before
offering that response or, at least, very early in the discussion.
Delaying this explanation for more than one or two paragraphs
in a very short essay or blog entry, three or four pages in a
longer work, or more than ten or so pages in a book reverses
the natural order in which readers process material—and in
which writers think and develop ideas. After all, it seems very
unlikely that our conference speaker first developed his defense
of Dr. X and only later came across Dr. X’s critics. As someone
knowledgeable in his field, the speaker surely encountered the
criticisms first and only then was compelled to respond and, as
he saw it, set the record straight.
Therefore, when it comes to constructing an argument
(whether orally or in writing), we offer you the following
advice: remember that you are entering a conversation and
therefore need to start with “what others are saying,” as the
20

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 20

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Starting with What Others Are Saying

title of this chapter recommends, and then introduce your own
ideas as a response. Specifically, we suggest that you summarize
what “they say” as soon as you can in your text, and remind
readers of it at strategic points as your text unfolds. Though
it’s true that not all texts follow this practice, we think it’s
important for all writers to master it before they depart from it.
This is not to say that you must start with a detailed list of
everyone who has written on your subject before you offer your
own ideas. Had our conference speaker gone to the opposite
extreme and spent most of his talk summarizing Dr. X’s critics
with no hint of what he himself had to say, the audience probably
would have had the same frustrated “why-is-he-going-on-likethis?” reaction. What we suggest, then, is that as soon as possible
you state your own position and the one it’s responding to together,
and that you think of the two as a unit. It is generally best to
summarize the ideas you’re responding to briefly, at the start of
your text, and to delay detailed elaboration until later. The point
is to give your readers a quick preview of what is motivating your
argument, not to drown them in details right away.
Starting with a summary of others’ views may seem to contradict the common advice that writers should lead with their
own thesis or claim. Although we agree that you shouldn’t keep
readers in suspense too long about your central argument, we also
believe that you need to present that argument as part of some
larger conversation, indicating something about the arguments
of others that you are supporting, opposing, amending, complicating, or qualifying. One added benefit of summarizing others’
views as soon as you can: you let those others do some of the
work of framing and clarifying the issue you’re writing about.
Consider, for example, how George Orwell starts his famous
essay “Politics and the English Language” with what others are
saying.
21

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 21

12/24/13 11:06 AM

one

“ T H E Y S AY ”

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the
English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that
we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language—so the argument runs—must
inevitably share in the general collapse. . . .
[But] the process is reversible. Modern English . . . is full of
bad habits . . . which can be avoided if one is willing to take the
necessary trouble.
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”

Orwell is basically saying, “Most people assume that we cannot
do anything about the bad state of the English language. But
I say we can.”
Of course, there are many other powerful ways to begin.
Instead of opening with someone else’s views, you could start
with an illustrative quotation, a revealing fact or statistic, or—
as we do in this chapter—a relevant anecdote. If you choose
one of these formats, however, be sure that it in some way
illustrates the view you’re addressing or leads you to that view
directly, with a minimum of steps.
In opening this chapter, for example, we devote the first paragraph to an anecdote about the conference speaker and then
move quickly at the start of the second paragraph to the misconception about writing exemplified by the speaker. In the following opening, from an opinion piece in the New York Times Book
Review, Christina Nehring also moves quickly from an anecdote
illustrating something she dislikes to her own claim—that book
lovers think too highly of themselves.
“I’m a reader!” announced the yellow button. “How about you?” I
looked at its bearer, a strapping young guy stalking my town’s Festival
of Books. “I’ll bet you’re a reader,” he volunteered, as though we were
22

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 22

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Starting with What Others Are Saying
two geniuses well met. “No,” I replied. “Absolutely not,” I wanted to
yell, and fling my Barnes & Noble bag at his feet. Instead, I mumbled
something apologetic and melted into the crowd.
There’s a new piety in the air: the self congratulation of book
lovers.
Christina Nehring, “Books Make You a Boring Person”

Nehring’s anecdote is really a kind of “they say”: book lovers
keep telling themselves how great they are.

templates for introducing
what “they say”
There are lots of conventional ways to introduce what others
are saying. Here are some standard templates that we would
have recommended to our conference speaker.
j A number of sociologists have recently suggested that X’s work
has several fundamental problems.

j It has become common today to dismiss

j In their recent work, Y and Z have offered harsh critiques of
for

templates for introducing
“standard views”
The following templates can help you make what we call the
“standard view” move, in which you introduce a view that has
become so widely accepted that by now it is essentially the
conventional way of thinking about a topic.
23

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 23

12/24/13 11:06 AM

one

“ T H E Y S AY ”

j Americans have always believed that individual effort can
triumph over circumstances.

j Conventional wisdom has it that

j Common sense seems to dictate that

j The standard way of thinking about topic X has it that
j It is often said that

j My whole life I have heard it said that
j You would think that

j Many people assume that

These templates are popular because they provide a quick
and efficient way to perform one of the most common moves
that writers make: challenging widely accepted beliefs, placing
them on the examining table, and analyzing their strengths
and weaknesses.

templates for making what “they say”
something you say
Another way to introduce the views you’re responding to is
to present them as your own. That is, the “they say” that you
respond to need not be a view held by others; it can be one that
you yourself once held or one that you are ambivalent about.
j I’ve always believed that museums are boring.
j When I was a child, I used to think that

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 24

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Starting with What Others Are Saying
j Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking
that

j At the same time that I believe

, I also believe

templates for introducing
something implied or assumed
Another sophisticated move a writer can make is to summarize
a point that is not directly stated in what “they say” but is
implied or assumed.
j Although none of them have ever said so directly, my teachers
have often given me the impression that education will open doors.

j One implication of X’s treatment of

is that

j Although X does not say so directly, she apparently assumes
that

j While they rarely admit as much,
granted that

often take for

These are templates that can help you think analytically—to
look beyond what others say explicitly and to consider their
unstated assumptions, as well as the implications of their views.

templates for introducing
an ongoing debate
Sometimes you’ll want to open by summarizing a debate
that presents two or more views. This kind of opening

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 25

12/24/13 11:06 AM

one

“ T H E Y S AY ”

demonstrates your awareness that there are conflicting ways
to look at your subject, the clear mark of someone who knows
the subject and therefore is likely to be a reliable, trustworthy
guide. Furthermore, opening with a summary of a debate can
help you explore the issue you are writing about before declaring your own view. In this way, you can use the writing
process itself to help you discover where you stand instead
of having to commit to a position before you are ready to
do so.
Here is a basic template for opening with a debate.
j In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been
argues

On the one hand,
contends

hand,

. On the other
. Others even maintain

. My own view is

The cognitive scientist Mark Aronoff uses this kind of template
in an essay on the workings of the human brain.
Theories of how the mind/brain works have been dominated
for centuries by two opposing views. One, rationalism, sees the
human mind as coming into this world more or less fully formed—
preprogrammed, in modern terms. The other, empiricism, sees the
mind of the newborn as largely unstructured, a blank slate.
Mark Aronoff, “Washington Sleeped Here”

Another way to open with a debate involves starting with a
proposition many people agree with in order to highlight the
point(s) on which they ultimately disagree.
j When it comes to the topic of
ily agree that

, most of us will read-

. Where this agreement usually ends,

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 26

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Starting with What Others Are Saying
however, is on the question of
convinced that

. Whereas some are

, others maintain that

The political writer Thomas Frank uses a variation on this
move.
That we are a nation divided is an almost universal lament of
this bitter election year. However, the exact property that divides
us—elemental though it is said to be—remains a matter of some
controversy.
Thomas Frank, “American Psyche”

keep what “they say” in view
We can’t urge you too strongly to keep in mind what “they say”
as you move through the rest of your text. After summarizing
the ideas you are responding to at the outset, it’s very important to continue to keep those ideas in view. Readers won’t be
able to follow your unfolding response, much less any complications you may offer, unless you keep reminding them what
claims you are responding to.
In other words, even when presenting your own claims,
you should keep returning to the motivating “they say.”
The longer and more complicated your text, the greater the
chance that readers will forget what ideas originally motivated it—no matter how clearly you lay them out at the
beginning. At strategic moments throughout your text, we
recommend that you include what we call “return sentences.”
Here is an example.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 27

12/24/13 11:06 AM

one

“ T H E Y S AY ”

j In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of
can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that
is contradicted by their claim that

We ourselves use such return sentences at every opportunity in
this book to remind you of the view of writing that our book
questions—that good writing means making true or smart or
logical statements about a given subject with little or no reference to what others say about it.
By reminding readers of the ideas you’re responding to,
return sentences ensure that your text maintains a sense of
mission and urgency from start to finish. In short, they help
ensure that your argument is a genuine response to others’ views
rather than just a set of observations about a given subject. The
difference is huge. 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.
Exercises
1. The following is a list of arguments that lack a “they say”—
any sense of who needs to hear these claims, who might
think otherwise. Like the speaker in the cartoon on page 4
who declares that The Sopranos presents complex characters,
these one-sided arguments fail to explain what view they
are responding to—what view, in effect, they are trying to
correct, add to, qualify, complicate, and so forth. Your job
in this exercise is to provide each argument with such a
counterview. Feel free to use any of the templates in this
chapter that you find helpful.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 28

12/24/13 11:06 AM

Starting with What Others Are Saying

a. Our experiments suggest that there are dangerous levels
of chemical X in the Ohio groundwater.
b. Material forces drive history.
c. Proponents of Freudian psychology question standard
notions of “rationality.”
d. Male students often dominate class discussions.
e. The film is about the problems of romantic relationships.
f. I’m afraid that templates like the ones in this book will
stifle my creativity.
2. Below is a template that we derived from the opening of
David Zinczenko’s “Don’t Blame the Eater” (p. 241). Use
the template to structure a passage on a topic of your own
choosing. Your first step here should be to find an idea
that you support that others not only disagree with but
actually find laughable (or, as Zinczenko puts it, worthy of
a Jay Leno monologue). You might write about one of the
topics listed in the previous exercise (the environment,
gender relations, the meaning of a book or movie) or any
other topic that interests you.
If ever there was an idea custom-made for a Jay Leno monologue,
. Isn’t that like

this was it:
pened to

I happen to sympathize with
because

? Whatever hap-

?
, though, perhaps

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 29

12/24/13 11:06 AM

TWO

“her point is”
The Art of Summarizing

If it is true, as we claim in this book, that to argue
persuasively you need to be in dialogue with others, then summarizing others’ arguments is central to your arsenal of basic
moves. Because writers who make strong claims need to map
their claims relative to those of other people, it is important
to know how to summarize effectively what those other people
say. (We’re using the word “summarizing” here to refer to any
information from others that you present in your own words,
including that which you paraphrase.)
Many writers shy away from summarizing—perhaps because
they don’t want to take the trouble to go back to the text in
question and wrestle with what it says, or because they fear that
devoting too much time to other people’s ideas will take away
from their own. When assigned to write a response to an article,
such writers might offer their own views on the article’s topic
while hardly mentioning what the article itself argues or says. At
the opposite extreme are those who do nothing but summarize.
Lacking confidence, perhaps, in their own ideas, these writers so
overload their texts with summaries of others’ ideas that their
own voice gets lost. And since these summaries are not animated
30

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 30

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Summarizing

by the writers’ own interests, they often read like mere lists of
things that X thinks or Y says—with no clear focus.
As a general rule, a good summary requires balancing what
the original author is saying with the writer’s own focus.
Generally speaking, a summary must at once be true to what
the original author says while also emphasizing those aspects
of what the author says that interest you, the writer. Striking this delicate balance can be tricky, since it means facing
two ways at once: both outward (toward the author being
summarized) and inward (toward yourself). Ultimately, it
means being respectful of others but simultaneously structuring how you summarize them in light of your own text’s
central argument.

on the one hand,
put yourself in their shoes
To write a really good summary, you must be able to suspend your
own beliefs for a time and put yourself in the shoes of someone
else. This means playing what the writing theorist Peter Elbow
calls the “believing game,” in which you try to inhabit the worldview of those whose conversation you are joining—and whom you
are perhaps even disagreeing with—and try to see their argument
from their perspective. This ability to temporarily suspend one’s
own convictions is a hallmark of good actors, who must convincingly “become” characters whom in real life they may detest. As
a writer, when you play the believing game well, readers should
not be able to tell whether you agree or disagree with the ideas
you are summarizing.
If, as a writer, you cannot or will not suspend your own
beliefs in this way, you are likely to produce summaries that are
31

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 31

12/24/13 11:06 AM

two

“HER POINT IS”

so obviously biased that they undermine your credibility with
readers. Consider the following summary.
David Zinczenko’s article, “Don’t Blame the Eater,” is nothing
more than an angry rant in which he accuses the fast-food companies of an evil conspiracy to make people fat. I disagree because
these companies have to make money. . . .

If you review what Zinczenko actually says (pp. 241–43), you
should immediately see that this summary amounts to an unfair
distortion. While Zinczenko does argue that the practices of
the fast-food industry have the effect of making people fat, his
tone is never “angry,” and he never goes so far as to suggest
that the fast-food industry conspires to make people fat with
deliberately evil intent.
Another tell-tale sign of this writer’s failure to give
Zinczenko a fair hearing is the hasty way he abandons the summary after only one sentence and rushes on to his own response.
So eager is this writer to disagree that he not only caricatures
what Zinczenko says but also gives the article a hasty, superficial reading. Granted, there are many writing situations in
which, because of matters of proportion, a one- or two-sentence
summary is precisely what you want. Indeed, as writing professor Karen Lunsford (whose own research focuses on argument
theory) points out, it is standard in the natural and social sciences to summarize the work of others quickly, in one pithy
sentence or phrase, as in the following example.
Several studies (Crackle, 2012; Pop, 2007; Snap, 2006) suggest that
these policies are harmless; moreover, other studies (Dick, 2011;
Harry, 2007; Tom, 2005) argue that they even have benefits.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 32

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Summarizing

But if your assignment is to respond in writing to a single author
like Zinczenko, you will need to tell your readers enough about
his or her argument so they can assess its merits on their own,
independent of you.
When a writer fails to provide enough summary or to engage
in a rigorous or serious enough summary, he or she often falls
prey to what we call “the closest cliché syndrome,” in which
what gets summarized is not the view the author in question has
actually expressed but a familiar cliché that the writer mistakes
for the author’s view (sometimes because the writer believes it
and mistakenly assumes the author must too). So, for example,
Martin Luther King Jr.’s passionate defense of civil disobedience in “Letter from Birmingham Jail” might be summarized
not as the defense of political protest that it actually is but as
a plea for everyone to “just get along.” Similarly, Zinczenko’s
critique of the fast-food industry might be summarized as a call
for overweight people to take responsibility for their weight.
Whenever you enter into a conversation with others in your
writing, then, it is extremely important that you go back to
what those others have said, that you study it very closely, and
that you not confuse it with something you already believe. A
writer who fails to do this ends up essentially conversing with
imaginary others who are really only the products of his or her
own biases and preconceptions.

on the other hand,
know where you are going
Even as writing an effective summary requires you to temporarily adopt the worldview of another, it does not mean ignoring

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 33

12/24/13 11:06 AM

two

“HER POINT IS”

your own view altogether. Paradoxically, at the same time that
summarizing another text requires you to represent fairly what
it says, it also requires that your own response exert a quiet
influence. A good summary, in other words, has a focus or spin
that allows the summary to fit with your own agenda while still
being true to the text you are summarizing.
Thus if you are writing in response to the essay by Zinczenko,
you should be able to see that an essay on the fast-food industry
in general will call for a very different summary than will an
essay on parenting, corporate regulation, or warning labels. If
you want your essay to encompass all three topics, you’ll need
to subordinate these three issues to one of Zinczenko’s general
claims and then make sure this general claim directly sets up
your own argument.
For example, suppose you want to argue that it is parents, not
fast-food companies, who are to blame for children’s obesity.
To set up this argument, you will probably want to compose a
summary that highlights what Zinczenko says about the fastfood industry and parents. Consider this sample.
In his article “Don’t Blame the Eater,” David Zinczenko blames
the fast-food industry for fueling today’s so-called obesity epidemic,
not only by failing to provide adequate warning labels on its
high-calorie foods but also by filling the nutritional void in children’s lives left by their overtaxed working parents. With many
parents working long hours and unable to supervise what their
children eat, Zinczenko claims, children today are easily victimized
by the low-cost, calorie-laden foods that the fast-food chains are all
too eager to supply. When he was a young boy, for instance, and his
single mother was away at work, he ate at Taco Bell, McDonald’s,
and other chains on a regular basis, and ended up overweight.
Zinczenko’s hope is that with the new spate of lawsuits against
34

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 34

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Summarizing
the food industry, other children with working parents will have
healthier choices available to them, and that they will not, like
him, become obese.
In my view, however, it is the parents, and not the food chains,
who are responsible for their children’s obesity. While it is true
that many of today’s parents work long hours, there are still several
things that parents can do to guarantee that their children eat
healthy foods. . . .

The summary in the first paragraph succeeds because it points
in two directions at once—both toward Zinczenko’s own text
and toward the second paragraph, where the writer begins to
establish her own argument. The opening sentence gives a sense
of Zinczenko’s general argument (that the fast-food chains are
to blame for obesity), including his two main supporting claims
(about warning labels and parents), but it ends with an emphasis on the writer’s main concern: parental responsibility. In this
way, the summary does justice to Zinczenko’s arguments while
also setting up the ensuing critique.
This advice—to summarize authors in light of your own
arguments—may seem painfully obvious. But writers often
summarize a given author on one issue even though their text
actually focuses on another. To avoid this problem, you need to
make sure that your “they say” and “I say” are well matched. In
fact, aligning what they say with what you say is a good thing
to work on when revising what you’ve written.
Often writers who summarize without regard to their own
interests fall prey to what might be called “list summaries,”
summaries that simply inventory the original author’s various
points but fail to focus those points around any larger overall
claim. If you’ve ever heard a talk in which the points were connected only by words like “and then,” “also,” and “in addition,”
35

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 35

12/24/13 11:06 AM

two

“HER POINT IS”

you know how such lists can put listeners to sleep—as shown
in the figure above. A typical list summary sounds like this.
The author says many different things about his subject. First he
says. . . . Then he makes the point that. . . . In addition he says. . . .
And then he writes. . . . Also he shows that. . . . And then he says. . . .

It may be boring list summaries like this that give summaries
in general a bad name and even prompt some instructors to
discourage their students from summarizing at all.
In conclusion, writing a good summary means not just representing an author’s view accurately, but doing so in a way that
fits your own composition’s larger agenda. On the one hand,
it means playing Peter Elbow’s believing game and doing justice to the source; if the summary ignores or misrepresents the

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 36

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Summarizing

source, its bias and unfairness will show. On the other hand,
even as it does justice to the source, a summary has to have a
slant or spin that prepares the way for your own claims. Once
a summary enters your text, you should think of it as joint
property—reflecting both the source you are summarizing and
your own views.

summarizing satirically
Thus far in this chapter we have argued that, as a general rule,
good summaries require a balance between what someone else
has said and your own interests as a writer. Now, however, we
want to address one exception to this rule: the satiric summary,
in which a writer deliberately gives his or her own spin to someone else’s argument in order to reveal a glaring shortcoming in
it. Despite our previous comments that well-crafted summaries
generally strike a balance between heeding what someone else
has said and your own independent interests, the satiric mode
can at times be a very effective form of critique because it lets
the summarized argument condemn itself without overt editorializing by you, the writer. If you’ve ever watched The Daily
Show, you’ll recall that it often merely summarizes silly things
political leaders have said or done, letting their words or actions
undermine themselves.
Consider another example. In September 2001, thenPresident George W. Bush in a speech to Congress urged
the nation’s “continued participation and confidence in the
American economy” as a means of recovering from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The journalist Allan Sloan criticized this
proposal simply by summarizing it, observing that the president

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 37

12/24/13 11:06 AM

two

“HER POINT IS”

had equated “patriotism with shopping. Maxing out your credit
cards at the mall wasn’t self indulgence, it was a way to get back
at Osama bin Laden.” Sloan’s summary leaves no doubt where
he stands—he considers Bush’s proposal ridiculous, or at least
too simple.

use signal verbs that fit the action
In introducing summaries, try to avoid bland formulas like “she
says,” or “they believe.” Though language like this is sometimes
serviceable enough, it often fails to reflect accurately what’s been
said. In some cases, “he says” may even drain the passion out of
the ideas you’re summarizing.
We suspect that the habit of ignoring the action in what we
summarize stems from the mistaken belief we mentioned earlier
that writing is about playing it safe and not making waves, a
matter of piling up truths and bits of knowledge rather than
a dynamic process of doing things to and with other people.
People who wouldn’t hesitate to say “X totally misrepresented,”
“attacked,” or “loved” something when chatting with friends
will in their writing often opt for far tamer and even less accurate phrases like “X said.”
But the authors you summarize at the college level seldom
simply “say” or “discuss” things; they “urge,” “emphasize,”
and “complain about” them. David Zinczenko, for example,
doesn’t just say that fast-food companies contribute to obesity;
he complains or protests that they do; he challenges, chastises,
and indicts those companies. The Declaration of Independence
doesn’t just talk about the treatment of the colonies by the
British; it protests against it. To do justice to the authors you cite,

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 38

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Summarizing

we recommend that when summarizing—or when introducing
a quotation—you use vivid and precise signal verbs as often as
possible. Though “he says” or “she believes” will sometimes be
the most appropriate language for the occasion, your text will
often be more accurate and lively if you tailor your verbs to
suit the precise actions you’re describing.

templates for introducing
summaries and quotations
j She advocates a radical revision of the juvenile justice system.
j They celebrate the fact that
j

, he admits.

verbs for introducing
summaries and quotations
verbs for making a claim
argue
assert
believe
claim
emphasize

insist
observe
remind us
report
suggest

verbs for expressing agreement
acknowledge
admire
agree

endorse
extol
praise

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 39

12/24/13 11:06 AM

two

“HER POINT IS”

verbs for expressing agreement
celebrate the fact that
corroborate
do not deny

reaffirm
support
verify

verbs for questioning or disagreeing
complain
complicate
contend
contradict
deny
deplore the tendency to

qualify
question
refute
reject
renounce
repudiate

verbs for making recommendations
advocate
call for
demand
encourage
exhort

implore
plead
recommend
urge
warn

Exercises
1. To get a feel for Peter Elbow’s “believing game,” write a summary of some belief that you strongly disagree with. Then
write a summary of the position that you actually hold on
this topic. Give both summaries to a classmate or two, and
see if they can tell which position you endorse. If you’ve
succeeded, they won’t be able to tell.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 40

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Summarizing

2. Write two different summaries of David Zinczenko’s “Don’t
Blame the Eater” (pp. 241–43). Write the first one for an
essay arguing that, contrary to what Zinczenko claims, there
are inexpensive and convenient alternatives to fast-food
restaurants. Write the second for an essay that questions
whether being overweight is a genuine medical problem
rather than a problem of cultural stereotypes. Compare your
two summaries: though they are about the same article, they
should look very different.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 41

12/24/13 11:06 AM

THREE

“as he himself puts it”
The Art of Quoting

A key premise of this book is that to launch an effective
argument you need to write the arguments of others into your
text. One of the best ways to do so is by not only summarizing
what “they say,” as suggested in Chapter 2, but by quoting their
exact words. Quoting someone else’s words gives a tremendous
amount of credibility to your summary and helps ensure that
it is fair and accurate. In a sense, then, quotations function as
a kind of proof of evidence, saying to readers: “Look, I’m not
just making this up. She makes this claim and here it is in her
exact words.”
Yet many writers make a host of mistakes when it comes to
quoting, not the least of which is the failure to quote enough
in the first place, if at all. Some writers quote too little—
perhaps because they don’t want to bother going back to
the original text and looking up the author’s exact words, or
because they think they can reconstruct the author’s ideas from
memory. At the opposite extreme are writers who so overquote
that they end up with texts that are short on commentary of
their own—maybe because they lack confidence in their ability to comment on the quotations, or because they don’t fully
42

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 42

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Quoting

understand what they’ve quoted and therefore have trouble
explaining what the quotations mean.
But the main problem with quoting arises when writers
assume that quotations speak for themselves. Because the
meaning of a quotation is obvious to them, many writers assume
that this meaning will also be obvious to their readers, when
often it is not. Writers who make this mistake think that their
job is done when they’ve chosen a quotation and inserted it
into their text. They draft an essay, slap in a few quotations,
and whammo, they’re done.
Such writers fail to see that quoting means more than simply enclosing what “they say” in quotation marks. In a way,
quotations are orphans: words that have been taken from their
original contexts and that need to be integrated into their new
textual surroundings. This chapter offers two key ways to produce this sort of integration: (1) by choosing quotations wisely,
with an eye to how well they support a particular part of your
text, and (2) by surrounding every major quotation with a frame
explaining whose words they are, what the quotation means,
and how the quotation relates to your own text. The point we
want to emphasize is that quoting what “they say” must always
be connected with what you say.

quote relevant passages
Before you can select appropriate quotations, you need to have
a sense of what you want to do with them—that is, how they
will support your text at the particular point where you insert
them. Be careful not to select quotations just for the sake of
demonstrating that you’ve read the author’s work; you need to
make sure they support your own argument.
43

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 43

12/24/13 11:06 AM

three

“A S H E H I M S E LF P U T S I T ”

However, finding relevant quotations is not always easy. In
fact, sometimes quotations that were initially relevant to your
argument, or to a key point in it, become less so as your text
changes during the process of writing and revising. Given the
evolving and messy nature of writing, you may sometimes think
that you’ve found the perfect quotation to support your argument, only to discover later on, as your text develops, that your
focus has changed and the quotation no longer works. It can be
somewhat misleading, then, to speak of finding your thesis and
finding relevant quotations as two separate steps, one coming
after the other. When you’re deeply engaged in the writing and
revising process, there is usually a great deal of back-and-forth
between your argument and any quotations you select.

frame every quotation
Finding relevant quotations is only part of your job; you also
need to present them in a way that makes their relevance and
meaning clear to your readers. Since quotations do not speak
for themselves, you need to build a frame around them in which
you do that speaking for them.
Quotations that are inserted into a text without such a
frame are sometimes called “dangling” quotations for the way
they’re left dangling without any explanation. One teacher
we’ve worked with, Steve Benton, calls these “hit-and-run”
quotations, likening them to car accidents in which the driver
speeds away and avoids taking responsibility for the dent in
your fender or the smashed taillights, as in the figure that
follows.
On the following page is a typical hit-and-run quotation
by a writer responding to an essay by the feminist philosopher
44

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 44

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Quoting

Susan Bordo, who laments that media pressures on young
women to diet are spreading to previously isolated regions of
the world like the Fiji islands.
Susan Bordo writes about women and dieting. “Fiji is just one
example. Until television was introduced in 1995, the islands had
no reported cases of eating disorders. In 1998, three years after
programs from the United States and Britain began broadcasting
there, 62 percent of the girls surveyed reported dieting.”
I think Bordo is right. Another point Bordo makes is that. . . .

Since this writer fails to introduce the quotation adequately or
explain why he finds it worth quoting, readers will have a hard
time reconstructing what Bordo argued. Besides neglecting to
say who Bordo is or even that the quoted words are hers, the
writer does not explain how her words connect with anything
he is saying or even what she says that he thinks is so “right.”
He simply abandons the quotation in his haste to zoom on to
another point.
45

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 45

12/24/13 11:06 AM

three

“A S H E H I M S E LF P U T S I T ”

To adequately frame a quotation, you need to insert it into
what we like to call a “quotation sandwich,” with the statement
introducing it serving as the top slice of bread and the explanation following it serving as the bottom slice. The introductory
or lead-in claims should explain who is speaking and set up what
the quotation says; the follow-up statements should explain
why you consider the quotation to be important and what you
take it to say.

templates for introducing quotations
j X states, “not all steroids should be banned from sports.”
j As the prominent philosopher X puts it, “
j According to X, “

.”

j X himself writes, “
j In her book,

.”

.”
, X maintains that “

.”

j Writing in the journal Commentary, X complains that “
j In X’s view, “

.”

j X agrees when she writes, “

.”

j X disagrees when he writes, “

.”

j X complicates matters further when she writes, “

.”

templates for explaining quotations
The one piece of advice about quoting that our students say
they find most helpful is to get in the habit of following every
46

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 46

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Quoting

major quotation by explaining what it means, using a template
like one of the ones below.
j Basically, X is warning that the proposed solution will only make
the problem worse.

j In other words, X believes

j In making this comment, X urges us to

j X is corroborating the age-old adage that
j X’s point is that

j The essence of X’s argument is that

When offering such explanations, it is important to use language that accurately reflects the spirit of the quoted passage. It
is quite serviceable to write “Bordo states” or “asserts” in introducing the quotation about Fiji. But given the fact that Bordo
is clearly alarmed by the extension of the media’s See pp. 39–40
for a list of
reach to Fiji, it is far more accurate to use language action verbs for
that reflects her alarm: “Bordo is alarmed that” or “is summarizing
what others
say.
disturbed by” or “complains.”
Consider, for example, how the earlier passage on Bordo
might be revised using some of these moves.
The feminist philosopher Susan Bordo deplores Western media’s
obsession with female thinness and dieting. Her basic complaint is
that increasing numbers of women across the globe are being led to
see themselves as fat and in need of a diet. Citing the islands of Fiji
as a case in point, Bordo notes that “until television was introduced
in 1995, the islands had no reported cases of eating disorders. In
1998, three years after programs from the United States and Britain
47

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 47

12/24/13 11:06 AM

three

“A S H E H I M S E LF P U T S I T ”

began broadcasting there, 62 percent of the girls surveyed reported
dieting” (149–50). Bordo’s point is that the Western cult of dieting
is spreading even to remote places across the globe. Ultimately,
Bordo complains, the culture of dieting will find you, regardless
of where you live.
Bordo’s observations ring true to me because, now that I think
about it, many women I know, regardless of where they are from,
worry about their weight. . . .

This framing of the quotation not only better integrates Bordo’s
words into the writer’s text, but also serves to demonstrate the
writer’s interpretation of what Bordo is saying. While “the feminist philosopher” and “Bordo notes” provide information that
readers need to know, the sentences that follow the quotation
build a bridge between Bordo’s words and those of the writer.
The reference to 62 percent of Fijian girls dieting is no longer
an inert statistic (as it was in the flawed passage presented
earlier) but a quantitative example of how “the Western cult
of dieting is spreading . . . across the globe.” Just as important, these sentences explain what Bordo is saying in the writer’s own words—and thereby make clear that the quotation is
being used purposefully to set up the writer’s own argument
and has not been stuck in just for padding the essay or the
works-cited list.

blend the author’s words
with your own
The above framing material also works well because it accurately represents Bordo’s words while giving those words the
writer’s own spin. Notice how the passage refers several times
48

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 48

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Quoting

to the key concept of dieting, and how it echoes Bordo’s references to “television” and to U.S. and British “broadcasting” by
referring to “culture,” which is further specified as “Western.”
Instead of simply repeating Bordo word for word, the follow-up
sentences echo just enough of her language while still moving
the discussion in the writer’s own direction. In effect, the framing creates a kind of hybrid mix of Bordo’s words and those of
the writer.

can you overanalyze a quotation?
But is it possible to overexplain a quotation? And how do you
know when you’ve explained a quotation thoroughly enough?
After all, not all quotations require the same amount of explanatory framing, and there are no hard-and-fast rules for knowing
how much explanation any quotation needs. As a general rule,
the most explanatory framing is needed for quotations that may
be hard for readers to process: quotations that are long and
complex, that are filled with details or jargon, or that contain
hidden complexities.
And yet, though the particular situation usually dictates when
and how much to explain a quotation, we will still offer one piece
of advice: when in doubt, go for it. It is better to risk being overly
explicit about what you take a quotation to mean than to leave
the quotation dangling and your readers in doubt. Indeed, we
encourage you to provide such explanatory framing even when
writing to an audience that you know to be familiar with the
author being quoted and able to interpret your quotations on
their own. Even in such cases, readers need to see how you interpret the quotation, since words—especially those of controversial
figures—can be interpreted in various ways and used to support
49

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 49

12/24/13 11:06 AM

three

“A S H E H I M S E LF P U T S I T ”

different, sometimes opposing, agendas. Your readers need to see
what you make of the material you’ve quoted, if only to be sure
that your reading of the material and theirs is on the same page.

how not to introduce quotations
We want to conclude this chapter by surveying some ways
not to introduce quotations. Although some writers do so,
you should not introduce quotations by saying something like
“Orwell asserts an idea that” or “A quote by Shakespeare says.”
Introductory phrases like these are both redundant and misleading. In the first example, you could write either “Orwell asserts
that” or “Orwell’s assertion is that,” rather than redundantly
combining the two. The second example misleads readers, since
it is the writer who is doing the quoting, not Shakespeare (as
“a quote by Shakespeare” implies).
The templates in this book will help you avoid such mistakes. Once you have mastered templates like “as X puts it,”
or “in X’s own words,” you probably won’t even have to think
about them—and will be free to focus on the challenging ideas
that templates help you frame.

Exercises
1. Find a published piece of writing that quotes something that
“they say.” How has the writer integrated the quotation into
his or her own text? How has he or she introduced the quotation, and what, if anything, has the writer said to explain it
and tie it to his or her own text? Based on what you’ve read
in this chapter, are there any changes you would suggest?
50

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 50

12/24/13 11:06 AM

The Art of Quoting

2. Look at something you have written for one of your classes.
Have you quoted any sources? If so, how have you integrated
the quotation into your own text? How have you introduced
it? Explained what it means? Indicated how it relates to
your text? If you haven’t done all these things, revise your
text to do so, perhaps using the Templates for Introducing
Quotations (p. 46) and Explaining Quotations (pp. 46–47).
If you’ve not written anything with quotations, try revising
some academic text you’ve written to do so.

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 51

12/24/13 11:06 AM

03_GRA_93584_part1_017_052.indd 52

12/24/13 11:06 AM

2
H
“I SAY”

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 53

12/24/13 11:07 AM

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 54

12/24/13 11:07 AM

F O UR

“yes / no / okay, but”
Three Ways to Respond

The first three chapters of this book discuss the “they
say” stage of writing, in which you devote your attention to the
views of some other person or group. In this chapter we move
to the “I say” stage, in which you offer your own argument as
a response to what “they” have said.
Moving to the “I say” stage can be daunting in academia,
where it often may seem that you need to be an expert in a field
to have an argument at all. Many students have told us that they
have trouble entering some of the high-powered conversations
that take place in college or graduate school because they do not
know enough about the topic at hand, or because, they say, they
simply are not “smart enough.” Yet often these same students,
when given a chance to study in depth the contribution that
some scholar has made in a given field, will turn around and
say things like “I can see where she is coming from, how she
makes her case by building on what other scholars have said.
Perhaps had I studied the situation longer I could have come up
with a similar argument.” What these students came to realize
is that good arguments are based not on knowledge that only
a special class of experts has access to, but on everyday habits
55

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 55

12/24/13 11:07 AM

four

“ Y E S / N O / O K AY, B U T ”

of mind that can be isolated, identified, and used by almost
anyone. Though there’s certainly no substitute for expertise
and for knowing as much as possible about one’s topic, the
arguments that finally win the day are built, as the title of this
chapter suggests, on some very basic rhetorical patterns that
most of us use on a daily basis.
There are a great many ways to respond to others’ ideas,
but this chapter concentrates on the three most common and
recognizable ways: agreeing, disagreeing, or some combination
of both. Although each way of responding is open to endless
variation, we focus on these three because readers come to any
text needing to learn fairly quickly where the writer stands, and
they do this by placing the writer on a mental map consisting
of a few familiar options: the writer agrees with those he or
she is responding to, disagrees with them, or presents some
combination of both agreeing and disagreeing.
When writers take too long to declare their position relative
to views they’ve summarized or quoted, readers get frustrated,
wondering, “Is this guy agreeing or disagreeing? Is he for what
this other person has said, against it, or what?” For this reason,
this chapter’s advice applies to reading as well as to writing.
Especially with difficult texts, you need not only to find the
position the writer is responding to—the “they say”—but also
to determine whether the writer is agreeing with it, challenging
it, or some mixture of the two.

only three ways to respond?
Perhaps you’ll worry that fitting your own response into one of
these three categories will force you to oversimplify your argument or lessen its complexity, subtlety, or originality. This is
56

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 56

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Three Ways to Respond

certainly a serious concern for academics who are rightly skeptical of writing that is simplistic and reductive. We would argue,
however, that the more complex and subtle your argument is,
and the more it departs from the conventional ways people
think, the more your readers will need to be able to place it
on their mental map in order to process the complex details
you present. That is, the complexity, subtlety, and originality
of your response are more likely to stand out and be noticed
if readers have a baseline sense of where you stand relative to
any ideas you’ve cited. As you move through this chapter, we
hope you’ll agree that the forms of agreeing, disagreeing, and
both agreeing and disagreeing that we discuss, far from being
simplistic or one-dimensional, are able to accommodate a high
degree of creative, complex thought.
It is always a good tactic to begin your response not by
launching directly into a mass of details but by stating
clearly whether you agree, disagree, or both, using a direct,
no-nonsense formula such as: “I agree,” “I disagree,” or “I am
of two minds. I agree that
, but I cannot agree
.” Once you have offered one of these straightthat
forward statements (or one of the many variations dis- See p. 21 for
cussed below), readers will have a strong grasp of your suggestions
on previewing
position and then be able to appreciate the complica- where you
stand.
tions you go on to offer as your response unfolds.
Still, you may object that these three basic ways of responding don’t cover all the options—that they ignore interpretive or
analytical responses, for example. In other words, you might think
that when you interpret a literary work you don’t necessarily agree
or disagree with anything but simply explain the work’s meaning,
style, or structure. Many essays about literature and the arts, it
might be said, take this form—they interpret a work’s meaning,
thus rendering matters of agreeing or disagreeing irrelevant.
57

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 57

12/24/13 11:07 AM

four

“ Y E S / N O / O K AY, B U T ”

We would argue, however, that the most interesting interpretations in fact tend to be those that agree, disagree, or
both—that instead of being offered solo, the best interpretations take strong stands relative to other interpretations. In fact,
there would be no reason to offer an interpretation of a work
of literature or art unless you were responding to the interpretations or possible interpretations of others. Even when you
point out features or qualities of an artistic work that others
have not noticed, you are implicitly disagreeing with what
those interpreters have said by pointing out that they missed
or overlooked something that, in your view, is important. In
any effective interpretation, then, you need not only to state
what you yourself take the work of art to mean but to do so
relative to the interpretations of other readers—be they professional scholars, teachers, classmates, or even hypothetical
readers (as in, “Although some readers might think that this
, it is in fact about
”).
poem is about

disagree—and explain why
Disagreeing may seem like one of the simpler moves a writer
can make, and it is often the first thing people associate with
critical thinking. Disagreeing can also be the easiest way to
generate an essay: find something you can disagree with in what
has been said or might be said about your topic, summarize
it, and argue with it. But disagreement in fact poses hidden
challenges. You need to do more than simply assert that you
disagree with a particular view; you also have to offer persuasive
reasons why you disagree. After all, disagreeing means more
than adding “not” to what someone else has said, more than
just saying, “Although they say women’s rights are improving,
58

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 58

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Three Ways to Respond

I say women’s rights are not improving.” Such a response merely
contradicts the view it responds to and fails to add anything
interesting or new. To turn it into an argument, you need to
give reasons to support what you say: because another’s argument fails to take relevant factors into account; because it is
based on faulty or incomplete evidence; because it rests on
questionable assumptions; or because it uses flawed logic, is
contradictory, or overlooks what you take to be the real issue.
To move the conversation forward (and, indeed, to justify your
very act of writing), you need to demonstrate that you have
something to contribute.
You can even disagree by making what we call the “duh”
move, in which you disagree not with the position itself but
with the assumption that it is a new or stunning revelation.
Here is an example of such a move, used to open an essay on
the state of American schools.
According to a recent report by some researchers at Stanford University, high school students with college aspirations “often lack
crucial information on applying to college and on succeeding academically once they get there.”
Well, duh. . . . It shouldn’t take a Stanford research team to tell
us that when it comes to “succeeding academically,” many students
don’t have a clue.
Gerald Graff, “Trickle-Down Obfuscation”

Like all of the other moves discussed in this book, the “duh”
move can be tailored to meet the needs of almost any writing
situation. If you find the expression “duh” too brash to use with
your intended audience, you can always dispense with the term
itself and write something like “It is true that
; but
we already knew that.”
59

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 59

12/24/13 11:07 AM

four

“ Y E S / N O / O K AY, B U T ”

templates for disagreeing, with reasons
j X is mistaken because she overlooks recent fossil discoveries in
the South.

j X’s claim that

rests upon the questionable assumption

that

j I disagree with X’s view that

because, as recent

research has shown,

j X contradicts herself/can’t have it both ways. On the one
hand, she argues
says

j By focusing on
of

. On the other hand, she also

.
, X overlooks the deeper problem

You can also disagree by making what we call the “twist
it” move, in which you agree with the evidence that someone
else has presented but show through a twist of logic that this
evidence actually supports your own, contrary position. For
example:
X argues for stricter gun control legislation, saying that the crime
rate is on the rise and that we need to restrict the circulation of
guns. I agree that the crime rate is on the rise, but that’s precisely
why I oppose stricter gun control legislation. We need to own guns
to protect ourselves against criminals.

In this example of the “twist it” move, the writer agrees with
X’s claim that the crime rate is on the rise but then argues that
this increasing crime rate is in fact a valid reason for opposing
gun control legislation.
60

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 60

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Three Ways to Respond

At times you might be reluctant to express disagreement,
for any number of reasons—not wanting to be unpleasant,
to hurt someone’s feelings, or to make yourself vulnerable to
being disagreed with in return. One of these reasons may in fact
explain why the conference speaker we described at the start of
Chapter 1 avoided mentioning the disagreement he had with
other scholars until he was provoked to do so in the discussion
that followed his talk.
As much as we understand such fears of conflict and have
experienced them ourselves, we nevertheless believe it is better
to state our disagreements in frank yet considerate ways than to
deny them. After all, suppressing disagreements doesn’t make
them go away; it only pushes them underground, where they
can fester in private unchecked. Nevertheless, disagreements
do not need to take the form of personal put-downs. Furthermore, there is usually no reason to take issue with every aspect
of someone else’s views. You can single out for criticism only
those aspects of what someone else has said that are troubling,
and then agree with the rest—although such an approach, as
we will see later in this chapter, leads to the somewhat more
complicated terrain of both agreeing and disagreeing at the
same time.

agree—but with a difference
Like disagreeing, agreeing is less simple than it may appear. Just
as you need to avoid simply contradicting views you disagree
with, you also need to do more than simply echo views you agree
with. Even as you’re agreeing, it’s important to bring something
new and fresh to the table, adding something that makes you
a valuable participant in the conversation.
61

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 61

12/24/13 11:07 AM

four

“ Y E S / N O / O K AY, B U T ”

There are many moves that enable you to contribute something of your own to a conversation even as you agree with
what someone else has said. You may point out some unnoticed evidence or line of reasoning that supports X’s claims that
X herself hadn’t mentioned. You may cite some corroborating
personal experience, or a situation not mentioned by X that
her views help readers understand. If X’s views are particularly
challenging or esoteric, what you bring to the table could be an
accessible translation—an explanation for readers not already in
the know. In other words, your text can usefully contribute to
the conversation simply by pointing out unnoticed implications
or explaining something that needs to be better understood.
Whatever mode of agreement you choose, the important
thing is to open up some difference or contrast between your
position and the one you’re agreeing with rather than simply
parroting what it says.

templates for agreeing
j I agree that diversity in the student body is educationally valuable
because my experience at Central University confirms it.

j X is surely right about

because, as she may not be

aware, recent studies have shown that

j X’s theory of

is extremely useful because it sheds

light on the difficult problem of

j Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested
to know that it basically boils down to

Some writers avoid the practice of agreeing almost as much as
others avoid disagreeing. In a culture like America’s that prizes
62

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 62

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Three Ways to Respond

originality, independence, and competitive individualism, writers sometimes don’t like to admit that anyone else has made the
same point, seemingly beating them to the punch. In our view,
however, as long as you can support a view taken by someone
else without merely restating what he or she has said, there is
no reason to worry about being “unoriginal.” Indeed, there is
good reason to rejoice when you agree with others since those
others can lend credibility to your argument. While you don’t
want to present yourself as a mere copycat of someone else’s
views, you also need to avoid sounding like a lone voice in
the wilderness.
But do be aware that whenever you agree with one person’s
view, you are likely disagreeing with someone else’s. It is hard
to align yourself with one position without at least implicitly
positioning yourself against others. The psychologist Carol
Gilligan does just that in an essay in which she agrees with
scientists who argue that the human brain is “hard-wired”
for cooperation, but in so doing aligns herself against anyone who believes that the brain is wired for selfishness and
competition.

These findings join a growing convergence of evidence across the
human sciences leading to a revolutionary shift in consciousness.
. . . If cooperation, typically associated with altruism and selfsacrifice, sets off the same signals of delight as pleasures commonly
associated with hedonism and self-indulgence; if the opposition
between selfish and selfless, self vs. relationship biologically makes
no sense, then a new paradigm is necessary to reframe the very
terms of the conversation.
Carol Gilligan, “Sisterhood Is Pleasurable:
A Quiet Revolution in Psychology”
63

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 63

12/24/13 11:07 AM

four

“ Y E S / N O / O K AY, B U T ”

In agreeing with some scientists that “the opposition between
selfish and selfless . . . makes no sense,” Gilligan implicitly
disagrees with anyone who thinks the opposition does make
sense. Basically, what Gilligan says could be boiled down to a
template.
j I agree that

, a point that needs emphasizing since

so many people still believe

j If group X is right that

, as I think they are, then we

need to reassess the popular assumption that

What such templates allow you to do, then, is to agree with
one view while challenging another—a move that leads into
the domain of agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously.

agree and disagree simultaneously
This last option is often our favorite way of responding. One
thing we particularly like about agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously is that it helps us get beyond the kind of “is too” / “is
not” exchanges that often characterize the disputes of young
children and the more polarized shouting matches of talk radio
and TV.

templates for agreeing
and disagreeing simultaneously
“Yes and no.” “Yes, but . . . ” “Although I agree up to a point, I
still insist . . . ” These are just some of the ways you can make
your argument complicated and nuanced while maintaining a
64

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 64

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Three Ways to Respond

clear, reader-friendly framework. The parallel structure—“yes
and no”; “on the one hand I agree, on the other I disagree”—
enables readers to place your argument on that map of positions
we spoke of earlier in this chapter while still keeping your argument sufficiently complex.
Another aspect we like about this option is that it can be
tipped subtly toward agreement or disagreement, depending on
where you lay your stress. If you want to stress the disagreement
end of the spectrum, you would use a template like the one below.
j Although I agree with X up to a point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that religion is no longer a major force today.

Conversely, if you want to stress your agreement more than your
disagreement, you would use a template like this one.
j Although I disagree with much that X says, I fully endorse his
final conclusion that

The first template above might be called a “yes, but . . . ” move,
the second a “no, but . . . ” move. Other versions include the
following.
j Though I concede that

, I still insist that

j X is right that

, but she seems on more dubious ground

when she claims that

j While X is probably wrong when she claims that
is right that

, she

j Whereas X provides ample evidence that
Z’s research on

and

, Y and
convinces me that

instead.
65

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 65

12/24/13 11:07 AM

four

“ Y E S / N O / O K AY, B U T ”

Another classic way to agree and disagree at the same time
is to make what we call an “I’m of two minds” or a “mixed
feelings” move.
j I’m of two minds about X’s claim that
hand, I agree that
if

. On the one

. On the other hand, I’m not sure

j My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support X’s position
that

, but I find Y’s argument about

Z’s research on

and

to be equally persuasive.

This move can be especially useful if you are responding to new
or particularly challenging work and are as yet unsure where
you stand. It also lends itself well to the kind of speculative
investigation in which you weigh a position’s pros and cons
rather than come out decisively either for or against. But again,
as we suggest earlier, whether you are agreeing, disagreeing, or
both agreeing and disagreeing, you need to be as clear as possible, and making a frank statement that you are ambivalent
is one way to be clear.

is being undecided okay?
Nevertheless, writers often have as many concerns about
expressing ambivalence as they do about expressing disagreement or agreement. Some worry that by expressing ambivalence
they will come across as evasive, wishy-washy, or unsure of
themselves. Others worry that their ambivalence will end up
confusing readers who require decisive clear-cut conclusions.

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 66

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Three Ways to Respond

The truth is that in some cases these worries are legitimate.
At times ambivalence can frustrate readers, leaving them
with the feeling that you failed in your obligation to offer the
guidance they expect from writers. At other times, however,
acknowledging that a clear-cut resolution of an issue is impossible can demonstrate your sophistication as a writer. In an
academic culture that values complex thought, forthrightly
declaring that you have mixed feelings can be impressive,
especially after having ruled out the one-dimensional positions
on your issue taken by others in the conversation. Ultimately,
then, how ambivalent you end up being comes down to a judgment call based on different readers’ responses to your drafts,
on your knowledge of your audience, and on the challenges of
your particular argument and situation.

Exercises
1. Read one of the essays in the back of this book or on
theysayiblog.com, identifying those places where the author
agrees with others, disagrees, or both.
2. Write an essay responding in some way to the essay that
you worked with in the preceding exercise. You’ll want to
summarize and/or quote some of the author’s ideas and make
clear whether you’re agreeing, disagreeing, or both agreeing
and disagreeing with what he or she says. Remember that
there are templates in this book that can help you get started;
see Chapters 1–3 for templates that will help you represent
other people’s ideas, and Chapter 4 for templates that will
get you started with your response.

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 67

12/24/13 11:07 AM

F I VE

“and yet”
Distinguishing What You Say
from What They Say

If good academic writing involves putting yourself into
dialogue with others, it is extremely important that readers be
able to tell at every point when you are expressing your own
view and when you are stating someone else’s. This chapter
takes up the problem of moving from what they say to what
you say without confusing readers about who is saying what.

determine who is saying what
in the texts you read
Before examining how to signal who is saying what in your
own writing, let’s look at how to recognize such signals when
they appear in the texts you read—an especially important skill
when it comes to the challenging works assigned in school.
Frequently, when students have trouble understanding difficult texts, it is not just because the texts contain unfamiliar
ideas or words, but because the texts rely on subtle clues to let

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 68

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

readers know when a particular view should be attributed to
the writer or to someone else. Especially with texts that present a true dialogue of perspectives, readers need to be alert to
the often subtle markers that indicate whose voice the writer
is speaking in.
Consider how the social critic and educator Gregory Mantsios uses these “voice markers,” as they might be called, to
distinguish the different perspectives in his essay on America’s
class inequalities.
“We are all middle-class,” or so it would seem. Our national consciousness, as shaped in large part by the media and our political
leadership, provides us with a picture of ourselves as a nation of
prosperity and opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class
life-style. As a result, our class differences are muted and our collective character is homogenized.
Yet class divisions are real and arguably the most significant
factor in determining both our very being in the world and the
nature of the society we live in.
Gregory Mantsios, “Rewards and Opportunities:
The Politics and Economics of Class in the U.S.”

Although Mantsios makes it look easy, he is actually making
several sophisticated rhetorical moves here that help him distinguish the common view he opposes from his own position.
In the opening sentence, for instance, the phrase “or so it
would seem” shows that Mantsios does not necessarily agree
with the view he is describing, since writers normally don’t present views they themselves hold as ones that only “seem” to be
true. Mantsios also places this opening view in quotation marks
to signal that it is not his own. He then further distances

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 69

12/24/13 11:07 AM

five

“A N D Y E T ”

himself from the belief being summarized in the opening paragraph by attributing it to “our national consciousness, as shaped
in large part by the media and our political leadership,” and
then further attributing to this “consciousness” a negative,
undesirable “result”: one in which “our class differences” get
“muted” and “our collective character” gets “homogenized,”
stripped of its diversity and distinctness. Hence, even before
Mantsios has declared his own position in the second paragraph, readers can get a pretty solid sense of where he probably
stands.
Furthermore, the second paragraph opens with the word
“yet,” indicating that Mantsios is now shifting to his own view
(as opposed to the common view he has thus far been describing). Even the parallelism he sets up between the first and
second paragraphs—between the first paragraph’s claim that
class differences do not exist and the second paragraph’s claim
that they do—helps throw into sharp relief the differences
between the two voices. Finally, Mantsios’s use of a direct,
authoritative, declarative tone in the second paragraph also
suggests a switch in voice. Although he does not use the words
“I say” or “I argue,” he clearly identifies the view he holds by
presenting it not as one that merely seems to be true or that
others tell us is true, but as a view that is true or, as Mantsios
puts it, “real.”
Paying attention to these voice markers is an important
aspect of reading comprehension. Readers who fail to notice
these markers often take an author’s summaries of what someone else believes to be an expression of what the author himself
or herself believes. Thus when we teach Mantsios’s essay, some
students invariably come away thinking that the statement “we
are all middle-class” is Mantsios’s own position rather than the
perspective he is opposing, failing to see that in writing these
70

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 70

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

words Mantsios acts as a kind of ventriloquist, mimicking what
others say rather than directly expressing what he himself is
thinking.
To see how important such voice markers are, consider what
the Mantsios passage looks like if we remove them.
We are all middle-class. . . . We are a nation of prosperity and
opportunity with an ever expanding middle-class life-style. . . .
Class divisions are real and arguably the most significant factor
in determining both our very being in the world and the nature of
the society we live in.

In contrast to the careful delineation between voices in Mantsios’s original text, this unmarked version leaves it hard to tell
where his voice begins and the voices of others end. With the
markers removed, readers cannot tell that “We are all middleclass” represents a view the author opposes, and that “Class
divisions are real” represents what the author himself believes.
Indeed, without the markers, especially the “Yet,” readers might
well miss the fact that the second paragraph’s claim that “Class
divisions are real” contradicts the first paragraph’s claim that
“We are all middle-class.”

templates for signaling who is saying what
in your own writing
To avoid confusion in your own writing, make sure that at every
point your readers can clearly tell who is saying what. To do so,
you can use as voice-identifying devices many of the templates
presented in previous chapters.
71

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 71

12/24/13 11:07 AM

five

“A N D Y E T ”

j Although X makes the best possible case for universal,
government-funded health care, I am not persuaded.

j My view, however, contrary to what X has argued, is that
.

j Adding to X’s argument, I would point out that
j According to both X and Y,

j Politicians, X argues, should

j Most athletes will tell you that

but i’ve been told not to use “i”
Notice that the first three templates above use the first-person
“I” or “we,” as do many of the templates in this book, thereby
contradicting the common advice about avoiding the first
person in academic writing. Although you may have been
told that the “I” word encourages subjective, self-indulgent
opinions rather than well-grounded arguments, we believe
that texts using “I” can be just as well supported—or just as
self-indulgent—as those that don’t. For us, well-supported arguments are grounded in persuasive reasons and evidence, not in
the use or nonuse of any particular pronouns.
Furthermore, if you consistently avoid the first person in
your writing, you will probably have trouble making the key
move addressed in this chapter: differentiating your views from
those of others, or even offering your own views in the first
place. But don’t just take our word for it. See for yourself how
freely the first person is used by the writers quoted in this book,
and by the writers assigned in your courses.
72

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 72

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

Nevertheless, certain occasions may warrant avoiding the
first person and writing, for example, that “she is correct” instead
of “I think that she is correct.” Since it can be monotonous to read
an unvarying series of “I” statements (“I believe . . . I think . . .
I argue”), it is a good idea to mix first-person assertions with ones
like the following.
j X is right that certain common patterns can be found in the
communities .

j The evidence shows that
j X’s assertion that

.
does not fit the facts.

j Anyone familiar with

should agree that

One might even follow Mantsios’s lead, as in the following
template.
j But

are real, and are arguably the most significant

factor in

On the whole, however, academic writing today,
even in the sciences and social sciences, makes use
of the first person fairly liberally.

See pp. 252–59
for an example
of the way a
physicist uses
the first person.

another trick for identifying
who is speaking
To alert readers about whose perspective you are describing at
any given moment, you don’t always have to use overt voice
markers like “X argues” followed by a summary of the argument. Instead, you can alert readers about whose voice you’re

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 73

12/24/13 11:07 AM

five

“A N D Y E T ”

speaking in by embedding a reference to X’s argument in your
own sentences. Hence, instead of writing:
Liberals believe that cultural differences need to be respected. I
have a problem with this view, however.

you might write:
I have a problem with what liberals call cultural differences.
There is a major problem with the liberal doctrine of so-called
cultural differences.

You can also embed references to something you yourself have
previously said. So instead of writing two cumbersome sentences like:
Earlier in this chapter we coined the term “voice markers.” We
would argue that such markers are extremely important for reading
comprehension.

you might write:
We would argue that “voice markers,” as we identified them earlier,
are extremely important for reading comprehension.

Embedded references like these allow you to economize your
train of thought and refer to other perspectives without any
major interruption.

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 74

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

templates for embedding voice markers
j X overlooks what I consider an important point about cultural
differences.

j My own view is that what X insists is a
a

is in fact

j I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls
j These conclusions, which X discusses in
to the argument that

.
, add weight

When writers fail to use voice-marking devices like the ones
discussed in this chapter, their summaries of others’ views tend to
become confused with their own ideas—and vice versa. When
readers cannot tell if you are summarizing your own views or
endorsing a certain phrase or label, they have to stop and think:
“Wait. I thought the author disagreed with this claim. Has she
actually been asserting this view all along?” or “Hmmm, I thought
she would have objected to this kind of phrase. Is she actually
endorsing it?” Getting in the habit of using voice markers will
keep you from confusing your readers and help alert you to similar
markers in the challenging texts you read.

Exercises
1. To see how one writer signals when she is asserting her
own views and when she is summarizing those of someone
else, read the following passage by the social historian Julie
Charlip. As you do so, identify those spots where Charlip
refers to the views of others and the signal phrases she uses
to distinguish her views from theirs.
75

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 75

12/24/13 11:07 AM

five

“A N D Y E T ”

Marx and Engels wrote: “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly
facing each other—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat” (10). If
only that were true, things might be more simple. But in late
twentieth-century America, it seems that society is splitting more
and more into a plethora of class factions—the working class, the
working poor, lower-middle class, upper-middle class, lower uppers,
and upper uppers. I find myself not knowing what class I’m from.
In my days as a newspaper reporter, I once asked a sociology professor what he thought about the reported shrinking of the middle
class. Oh, it’s not the middle class that’s disappearing, he said, but
the working class. His definition: if you earn thirty thousand dollars
a year working in an assembly plant, come home from work, open a
beer and watch the game, you are working class; if you earn twenty
thousand dollars a year as a school teacher, come home from work
to a glass of white wine and PBS, you are middle class.
How do we define class? Is it an issue of values, lifestyle, taste?
Is it the kind of work you do, your relationship to the means of
production? Is it a matter of how much money you earn? Are we
allowed to choose? In this land of supposed classlessness, where
we don’t have the tradition of English society to keep us in our
places, how do we know where we really belong? The average
American will tell you he or she is “middle class.” I’m sure that’s
what my father would tell you. But I always felt that we were in
some no man’s land, suspended between classes, sharing similarities with some and recognizing sharp, exclusionary differences
from others. What class do I come from? What class am I in
now? As an historian, I seek the answers to these questions in
the specificity of my past.
Julie Charlip, “A Real Class Act: Searching
for Identity in the Classless Society”

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 76

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Distinguishing What You Say from What They Say

2. Study a piece of your own writing to see how many perspectives you account for and how well you distinguish your
own voice from those you are summarizing. Consider the
following questions:
a. How many perspectives do you engage?
b. What other perspectives might you include?
c. How do you distinguish your views from the other views
you summarize?
d. Do you use clear voice-signaling phrases?
e. What options are available to you for clarifying who is
saying what?
f. Which of these options are best suited for this particular
text?
If you find that you do not include multiple views or clearly
distinguish between others’ views and your own, revise your
text to do so.

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 77

12/24/13 11:07 AM

SI X

“skeptics may object”
Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

The writer Jane Tompkins describes a pattern that repeats
itself whenever she writes a book or an article. For the first
couple of weeks when she sits down to write, things go relatively
well. But then in the middle of the night, several weeks into the
writing process, she’ll wake up in a cold sweat, suddenly realizing that she has overlooked some major criticism that readers
will surely make against her ideas. Her first thought, invariably,
is that she will have to give up on the project, or that she will
have to throw out what she’s written thus far and start over.
Then she realizes that “this moment of doubt and panic is where
my text really begins.” She then revises what she’s written in a
way that incorporates the criticisms she’s anticipated, and her
text becomes stronger and more interesting as a result.
This little story contains an important lesson for all writers,
experienced and inexperienced alike. It suggests that even though
most of us are upset at the idea of someone criticizing our work,
such criticisms can actually work to our advantage. Although it’s
naturally tempting to ignore criticism of our ideas, doing so may
in fact be a big mistake, since our writing improves when we not
only listen to these objections but give them an explicit hearing
78

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 78

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

in our writing. Indeed, no single device more quickly improves a
piece of writing than planting a naysayer in the text—saying, for
example, that “although some readers may object” to something
in your argument, you “would reply that
.”

anticipate objections
But wait, you say. Isn’t the advice to incorporate critical views
a recipe for destroying your credibility and undermining your
argument? Here you are, trying to say something that will hold
up, and we want you to tell readers all the negative things
someone might say against you?
Exactly. We are urging you to tell readers what others
might say against you, but our point is that doing so will actually enhance your credibility, not undermine it. As we argue
throughout this book, writing well does not mean piling up
uncontroversial truths in a vacuum; it means engaging others
in a dialogue or debate—not only by opening your text with
a summary of what others have said, as we suggest in Chapter 1,
but also by imagining what others might say against your argument as it unfolds. Once you see writing as an act of entering
a conversation, you should also see how opposing arguments
can work for you rather than against you.
Paradoxically, the more you give voice to your critics’ objections, the more you tend to disarm those critics, especially if you
go on to answer their objections in convincing ways. When you
entertain a counterargument, you make a kind of preemptive
strike, identifying problems with your argument before others can point them out for you. Furthermore, by entertaining
counterarguments, you show respect for your readers, treating
them not as gullible dupes who will believe anything you say
79

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 79

12/24/13 11:07 AM

six

“ S K E P T I C S M AY O B J E C T ”

but as independent, critical thinkers who are aware that your
view is not the only one in town. In addition, by imagining
what others might say against your claims, you come across as
a generous, broad-minded person who is confident enough to
open himself or herself to debate—like the writer in the figure
on the following page.
Conversely, if you don’t entertain counterarguments, you may
very likely come across as closed-minded, as if you think your
beliefs are beyond dispute. You might also leave important questions hanging and concerns about your arguments unaddressed.
Finally, if you fail to plant a naysayer in your text, you may
find that you have very little to say. Our own students often say
that entertaining counterarguments makes it easier to generate
enough text to meet their assignment’s page-length requirements.
Planting a naysayer in your text is a relatively simple move,
as you can see by looking at the following passage from a book
by the writer Kim Chernin. Having spent some thirty pages
complaining about the pressure on American women to be
thin, Chernin inserts a whole chapter entitled “The Skeptic,”
opening it as follows.
At this point I would like to raise certain objections that have been
inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring
some of the most common assumptions we all make about our bodies and these she wishes to see addressed. For example: “You know
perfectly well,” she says to me, “that you feel better when you lose
weight. You buy new clothes. You look at yourself more eagerly in
the mirror. When someone invites you to a party you don’t stop
and ask yourself whether you want to go. You feel sexier. Admit
it. You like yourself better.”
Kim Chernin, The Obsession:
Reflections on the Tyranny of Slenderness
80

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 80

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 81

12/24/13 11:07 AM

six

“ S K E P T I C S M AY O B J E C T ”

The remainder of Chernin’s chapter consists of her answers
to this inner skeptic. In the face of the skeptic’s challenge to
her book’s central premise (that the pressure to diet seriously
harms women’s lives), Chernin responds neither by repressing
the skeptic’s critical voice nor by giving in to it and relinquishing her own position. Instead, she embraces that voice and
writes it into her text. Note too that instead of dispatching
this naysaying voice quickly, as many of us would be tempted
to do, Chernin stays with it and devotes a full paragraph to
it. By borrowing some of Chernin’s language, we can come up
with templates for entertaining virtually any objection.

templates for entertaining objections
j At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been
inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring
the complexities of the situation.

j Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that
.

j Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds that
.

Note that the objections in the above templates are
attributed not to any specific person or group, but to “skeptics,” “readers,” or “many.” This kind of nameless, faceless
naysayer is perfectly appropriate in many cases. But the ideas
that motivate arguments and objections often can—and, where
possible, should—be ascribed to a specific ideology or school
of thought (for example, liberals, Christian fundamentalists,
neopragmatists) rather than to anonymous anybodies. In other
82

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 82

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

words, naysayers can be labeled, and you can add precision and
impact to your writing by identifying what those labels are.

templates for naming your naysayers
j Here many feminists would probably object that gender does
influence language.

j But social Darwinists would certainly take issue with the argument that

j Biologists, of course, may want to question whether

j Nevertheless, both followers and critics of Malcolm X will probably suggest otherwise and argue that

To be sure, some people dislike such labels and may even
resent having labels applied to themselves. Some feel that
labels put individuals in boxes, stereotyping them and glossing
over what makes each of us unique. And it’s true that labels
can be used inappropriately, in ways that ignore individuality
and promote stereotypes. But since the life of ideas, including many of our most private thoughts, is conducted through
groups and types rather than solitary individuals, intellectual
exchange requires labels to give definition and serve as a
convenient shorthand. If you categorically reject all labels,
you give up an important resource and even mislead readers
by presenting yourself and others as having no connection to
anyone else. You also miss an opportunity to generalize the
importance and relevance of your work to some larger conversation. When you attribute a position you are summarizing
to liberalism, say, or historical materialism, your argument is
no longer just about your own solitary views but about the
83

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 83

12/24/13 11:07 AM

six

“ S K E P T I C S M AY O B J E C T ”

intersection of broad ideas and habits of mind that many
readers may already have a stake in.
The way to minimize the problem of stereotyping, then, is
not to categorically reject labels but to refine and qualify their
use, as the following templates demonstrate.
j Although not all Christians think alike, some of them will probably dispute my claim that

j Non-native English speakers are so diverse in their views that it’s
hard to generalize about them, but some are likely to object on
the grounds that

Another way to avoid needless stereotyping is to qualify labels
carefully, substituting “pro bono lawyers” for “lawyers” in general, for example, or “quantitative sociologists” for all “social
scientists,” and so on.

templates for introducing objections
informally
Objections can also be introduced in more informal ways. For
instance, you can frame objections in the form of questions.
j But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually
being adopted?

j Yet is it necessarily true that

? Is it always the case,

as I have been suggesting, that

j However, does the evidence I’ve cited prove conclusively
that

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 84

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

You can also let your naysayer speak directly.
j “Impossible,” some will say. “You must be reading the research
selectively.”

Moves like this allow you to cut directly to the skeptical voice
itself, as the singer-songwriter Joe Jackson does in the following excerpt from a New York Times article complaining about
the restrictions on public smoking in New York City bars and
restaurants.
I like a couple of cigarettes or a cigar with a drink, and like many
other people, I only smoke in bars or nightclubs. Now I can’t go to
any of my old haunts. Bartenders who were friends have turned into
cops, forcing me outside to shiver in the cold and curse under my
breath. . . . It’s no fun. Smokers are being demonized and victimized all out of proportion.
“Get over it,” say the anti-smokers. “You’re the minority.” I
thought a great city was a place where all kinds of minorities could
thrive. . . . “Smoking kills,” they say. As an occasional smoker
with otherwise healthy habits, I’ll take my chances. Health consciousness is important, but so are pleasure and freedom of choice.
Joe Jackson, “Want to Smoke? Go to Hamburg”

Jackson could have begun his second paragraph, in which
he shifts from his own voice to that of his imagined naysayer, more formally, as follows: “Of course anti-smokers will
object that since we smokers are in the minority, we should
simply stop complaining and quietly make the sacrifices we are
being called on to make for the larger social good.” Or “Antismokers might insist, however, that the smoking minority

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 85

12/24/13 11:07 AM

six

“ S K E P T I C S M AY O B J E C T ”

should submit to the non-smoking majority.” We think,
though, that Jackson gets the job done in a far more lively
way with the more colloquial form he chooses. Borrowing
a standard move of playwrights and novelists, Jackson cuts
directly to the objectors’ view and then to his own retort, then
back to the objectors’ view and then to his own retort again,
thereby creating a kind of dialogue or miniature play within
his own text. This move works well for Jackson, but
See Chapter 5
only because he uses quotation marks and other voice
for more
advice on
markers to make clear at every point whose voice
using voice
he is in.
markers.

represent objections fairly
Once you’ve decided to introduce a differing or opposing view
into your writing, your work has only just begun, since you
still need to represent and explain that view with fairness and
generosity. Although it is tempting to give opposing views
short shrift, to hurry past them, or even to mock them, doing
so is usually counterproductive. When writers make the best
case they can for their critics (playing Peter Elbow’s “believing game”), they actually bolster their credibility with
See pp. 31–32
for more on
readers rather than undermine it. They make readers
the believing
game.
think, “This is a writer I can trust.”
We recommend, then, that whenever you entertain objections in your writing, you stay with them for several sentences
or even paragraphs and take them as seriously as possible. We
also recommend that you read your summary of opposing views
with an outsider’s eye: put yourself in the shoes of someone who
disagrees with you and ask if such a reader would recognize
himself in your summary. Would that reader think you have
86

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 86

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

taken his views seriously, as beliefs that reasonable people might
hold? Or would he detect a mocking tone or an oversimplification of his views?
There will always be certain objections, to be sure, that you
believe do not deserve to be represented, just as there will be
objections that seem so unworthy of respect that they inspire
ridicule. Remember, however, that if you do choose to mock a
view that you oppose, you are likely to alienate those readers
who don’t already agree with you—likely the very readers you
want to reach. Also be aware that in mocking another’s view
you may contribute to a hostile argument culture in which
someone may ridicule you in return.

answer objections
Do be aware that when you represent objections successfully,
you still need to be able to answer those objections persuasively.
After all, when you write objections into a text, you take the
risk that readers will find those objections more convincing
than the argument you yourself are advancing. In the editorial quoted above, for example, Joe Jackson takes the risk that
readers will identify more with the anti-smoking view he summarizes than with the pro-smoking position he endorses.
This is precisely what Benjamin Franklin describes happening to himself in The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
(1793), when he recalls being converted to Deism (a religion
that exalts reason over spirituality) by reading anti-Deist books.
When he encountered the views of Deists being negatively
summarized by authors who opposed them, Franklin explains,
he ended up finding the Deist position more persuasive.
To avoid having this kind if unintentional reverse effect on
87

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 87

12/24/13 11:07 AM

six

“ S K E P T I C S M AY O B J E C T ”

readers, you need to do your best to make sure that any counterarguments you address are not more convincing than your own
claims. It is good to address objections in your writing, but only
if you are able to overcome them.
One surefire way to fail to overcome an objection is to dismiss it out of hand—saying, for example, “That’s just wrong.”
The difference between such a response (which offers no supporting reasons whatsoever) and the types of nuanced responses
we’re promoting in this book is the difference between bullying
your readers and genuinely persuading them.
Often the best way to overcome an objection is not to try
to refute it completely but to agree with part of it while challenging only the part you dispute. In other words, in answering counterarguments, it is often best to say “yes, but” or “yes
and no,” treating the counterview as an opportunity to
See pp. 61–64
for more on
revise and refine your own position. Rather than build
agreeing, with
a difference.
your argument into an impenetrable fortress, it is often
best to make concessions while still standing your ground, as
Kim Chernin does in the following response to the counterargument quoted above. While in the voice of the “skeptic,”
Chernin writes: “Admit it. You like yourself better when you’ve
lost weight.” In response, Chernin replies as follows.
Can I deny these things? No woman who has managed to lose
weight would wish to argue with this. Most people feel better about
themselves when they become slender. And yet, upon reflection,
it seems to me that there is something precarious about this wellbeing. After all, 98 percent of people who lose weight gain it back.
Indeed, 90 percent of those who have dieted “successfully” gain
back more than they ever lost. Then, of course, we can no longer
bear to look at ourselves in the mirror.

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 88

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text

In this way, Chernin shows how you can use a counterview to
improve and refine your overall argument by making a concession. Even as she concedes that losing weight feels good in the
short run, she argues that in the long run the weight always
returns, making the dieter far more miserable.

templates for making concessions
while still standing your ground
j Although I grant that the book is poorly organized, I still maintain
that it raises an important issue.

j Proponents of X are right to argue that

. But they

exaggerate when they claim that

j While it is true that
that

, it does not necessarily follow

j On the one hand, I agree with X that
other hand, I still insist that

. But on the
.

Templates like these show that answering naysayers’ objections does not have to be an all-or-nothing affair in which you
either definitively refute your critics or they definitively refute
you. Often the most productive engagements among differing
views end with a combined vision that incorporates elements
of each one.
But what if you’ve tried out all the possible answers you can
think of to an objection you’ve anticipated and you still have
a nagging feeling that the objection is more convincing than
your argument itself? In that case, the best remedy is to go
back and make some fundamental revisions to your argument,

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 89

12/24/13 11:07 AM

six

“ S K E P T I C S M AY O B J E C T ”

even reversing your position completely if need be. Although
finding out late in the game that you aren’t fully convinced by
your own argument can be painful, it can actually make your
final text more intellectually honest, challenging, and serious.
After all, the goal of writing is not to keep proving that whatever you initially said is right, but to stretch the limits of your
thinking. So if planting a strong naysayer in your text forces
you to change your mind, that’s not a bad thing. Some would
argue that that is what the academic world is all about.

Exercises
1. Read the following passage by the cultural critic Eric
Schlosser. As you’ll see, he hasn’t planted any naysayers
in this text. Do it for him. Insert a brief paragraph stating
an objection to his argument and then responding to the
objection as he might.
The United States must declare an end to the war on drugs. This
war has filled the nation’s prisons with poor drug addicts and smalltime drug dealers. It has created a multibillion-dollar black market,
enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of
government officials throughout the world. And it has not stemmed
the widespread use of illegal drugs. By any rational measure, this
war has been a total failure.
We must develop public policies on substance abuse that are
guided not by moral righteousness or political expediency but by
common sense. The United States should immediately decriminalize the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for
personal use. Marijuana should no longer be classified as a Schedule I narcotic, and those who seek to use marijuana as medicine
90

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 90

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Planting a Naysayer in Your Text
should no longer face criminal sanctions. We must shift our entire
approach to drug abuse from the criminal justice system to the
public health system. Congress should appoint an independent
commission to study the harm-reduction policies that have been
adopted in Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. The
commission should recommend policies for the United States based
on one important criterion: what works.
In a nation where pharmaceutical companies advertise powerful
antidepressants on billboards and where alcohol companies run amusing beer ads during the Super Bowl, the idea of a “drug-free society”
is absurd. Like the rest of American society, our drug policy would
greatly benefit from less punishment and more compassion.
Eric Schlosser, “A People’s Democratic Platform”

2. Look over something you’ve written that makes an argument. Check to see if you’ve anticipated and responded to
any objections. If not, revise your text to do so. If so, have
you anticipated all the likely objections? Who if anyone
have you attributed the objections to? Have you represented
the objections fairly? Have you answered them well enough,
or do you think you now need to qualify your own argument? Could you use any of the language suggested in this
chapter? Does the introduction of a naysayer strengthen your
argument? Why, or why not?

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 91

12/24/13 11:07 AM

SE VE N

“so what? who cares?”
Saying Why It Matters

Baseball is the national pastime. Bernini was the best
sculptor of the baroque period. All writing is conversational.
So what? Who cares? Why does any of this matter?
How many times have you had reason to ask these questions? Regardless of how interesting a topic may be to you as a
writer, readers always need to know what is at stake in a text
and why they should care. All too often, however, these questions are left unanswered—mainly because writers and speakers
assume that audiences will know the answers already or will
figure them out on their own. As a result, students come away
from lectures feeling like outsiders to what they’ve just heard,
just as many of us feel left hanging after talks we’ve attended.
The problem is not necessarily that the speakers lack a clear,
well-focused thesis or that the thesis is inadequately supported
with evidence. Instead, the problem is that the speakers don’t
address the crucial question of why their arguments matter.
That this question is so often left unaddressed is unfortunate
since the speakers generally could offer interesting, engaging
answers. When pressed, for instance, most academics will tell
you that their lectures and articles matter because they address
92

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 92

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Saying Why It Matters

some belief that needs to be corrected or updated—and because
their arguments have important, real-world consequences. Yet
many academics fail to identify these reasons and consequences
explicitly in what they say and write. Rather than assume that
audiences will know why their claims matter, all writers need
to answer the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions up front.
Not everyone can claim to have a cure for cancer or a solution
to end poverty. But writers who fail to show that others should
care or already do care about their claims will ultimately lose
their audiences’ interest.
This chapter focuses on various moves that you can make to
answer the “who cares?” and “so what?” questions in your own
writing. In one sense, the two questions get at the same thing: the
relevance or importance of what you are saying. Yet they get at this
significance in different ways. Whereas “who cares?” literally asks
you to identify a person or group who cares about your claims, “so
what?” asks about the real-world applications and consequences of
those claims—what difference it would make if they were accepted.
We’ll look first at ways of making clear who cares.

“who cares?”
To see how one writer answers the “who cares?” question,
consider the following passage from the science writer Denise
Grady. Writing in the New York Times, she explains some of
the latest research into fat cells.
Scientists used to think body fat and the cells it was made of
were pretty much inert, just an oily storage compartment. But
within the past decade research has shown that fat cells act like
chemical factories and that body fat is potent stuff: a highly active
93

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 93

12/24/13 11:07 AM

seven

“ S O W H AT ? W H O C A R E S ? ”

tissue that secretes hormones and other substances with profound
and sometimes harmful effects. . . .
In recent years, biologists have begun calling fat an “endocrine
organ,” comparing it to glands like the thyroid and pituitary, which
also release hormones straight into the bloodstream.
Denise Grady, “The Secret Life of a Potent Cell”

Notice how Grady’s writing reflects the central advice we
give in this book, offering a clear claim and also framing that
claim as a response to what someone else has said. In so doing,
Grady immediately identifies at least one group with a stake
in the new research that sees fat as “active,” “potent stuff ”:
namely, the scientific community, which formerly believed
that body fat is inert. By referring to these scientists, Grady
implicitly acknowledges that her text is part of a larger conversation and shows who besides herself has an interest in
what she says.
Consider, however, how the passage would read had Grady
left out what “scientists used to think” and simply explained
the new findings in isolation.
Within the past few decades research has shown that fat cells act
like chemical factories and that body fat is potent stuff: a highly
active tissue that secretes hormones and other substances. In recent
years, biologists have begun calling fat an “endocrine organ,” comparing it to glands like the thyroid and pituitary, which also release
hormones straight into the bloodstream.

Though this statement is clear and easy to follow, it lacks any
indication that anyone needs to hear it. Okay, one nods while
reading this passage, fat is an active, potent thing. Sounds plausible enough; no reason to think it’s not true. But does anyone
really care? Who, if anyone, is interested?
94

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 94

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Saying Why It Matters

templates for indicating who cares
To address “who cares?” questions in your own writing, we
suggest using templates like the following, which echo Grady
in refuting earlier thinking.
j Parents used to think spanking was necessary. But recently
[or within the past few decades] experts suggest that it can be
counterproductive.

j This interpretation challenges the work of those critics who have
long assumed that

j These findings challenge the work of earlier researchers, who
tended to assume that

j Recent studies like these shed new light on

, which

previous studies had not addressed.

Grady might have been more explicit by writing the “who cares?”
question directly into her text, as in the following template.
j But who really cares? Who besides me and a handful of recent
researchers has a stake in these claims? At the very least, the
researchers who formerly believed

should care.

To gain greater authority as a writer, it can help to name specific people or groups who have a stake in your claims and to
go into some detail about their views.
j Researchers have long assumed that

. For instance,

one eminent scholar of cell biology,

, assumed

in
that fat cells

, her seminal work on cell structures and functions,
. As

herself put it, “

(2012). Another leading scientist,

”

, argued that fat

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 95

12/24/13 11:07 AM

seven
cells “

“ S O W H AT ? W H O C A R E S ? ”

” (2011). Ultimately, when it came to the nature

of fat, the basic assumption was that

But a new body of research shows that fat cells are far more
complex and that

In other cases, you might refer to certain people or groups who
should care about your claims.
j If sports enthusiasts stopped to think about it, many of them
might simply assume that the most successful athletes
. However, new research shows

j These findings challenge neoliberals’ common assumption
that

j At first glance, teenagers might say
inspection

. But on closer

As these templates suggest, answering the “who cares?” question
involves establishing the type of contrast between what others
say and what you say that is central to this book. Ultimately,
such templates help you create a dramatic tension or clash of
views in your writing that readers will feel invested in and want
to see resolved.

“so what?”
Although answering the “who cares?” question is crucial, in
many cases it is not enough, especially if you are writing for
general readers who don’t necessarily have a strong investment
in the particular clash of views you are setting up. In the case of
Grady’s argument about fat cells, such readers may still wonder
why it matters that some researchers think fat cells are active,
96

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 96

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Saying Why It Matters

while others think they’re inert. Or, to move to a different field
of study, American literature, so what if some scholars disagree
about Huck Finn’s relationship with the runaway slave Jim
in Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? Why should
anyone besides a few specialists in the field care about such
disputes? What, if anything, hinges on them?
The best way to answer such questions about the larger consequences of your claims is to appeal to something that your
audience already figures to care about. Whereas the “who cares?”
question asks you to identify an interested person or group, the
“so what?” question asks you to link your argument to some larger
matter that readers already deem important. Thus in analyzing
Huckleberry Finn, a writer could argue that seemingly narrow
disputes about the hero’s relationship with Jim actually shed light
on whether Twain’s canonical, widely read novel is a critique of
racism in America or is itself marred by it.
Let’s see how Grady invokes such broad, general concerns
in her article on fat cells. Her first move is to link researchers’
interest in fat cells to a general concern with obesity and health.
Researchers trying to decipher the biology of fat cells hope to find
new ways to help people get rid of excess fat or, at least, prevent
obesity from destroying their health. In an increasingly obese world,
their efforts have taken on added importance.

Further showing why readers should care, Grady’s next move
is to demonstrate the even broader relevance and urgency of
her subject matter.
Internationally, more than a billion people are overweight. Obesity
and two illnesses linked to it, heart disease and high blood pressure,
are on the World Health Organization’s list of the top 10 global health
risks. In the United States, 65 percent of adults weigh too much,
97

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 97

12/24/13 11:07 AM

seven

“ S O W H AT ? W H O C A R E S ? ”

compared with about 56 percent a decade ago, and government
researchers blame obesity for at least 300,000 deaths a year.

What Grady implicitly says here is “Look, dear reader, you may
think that these questions about the nature of fat cells I’ve been
pursuing have little to do with everyday life. In fact, however,
these questions are extremely important—particularly in our
‘increasingly obese world’ in which we need to prevent obesity
from destroying our health.”
Notice that Grady’s phrase “in an increasingly
world”
can be adapted as a strategic move to address the “so what?”
question in other fields as well. For example, a sociologist analyzing back-to-nature movements of the past thirty years might
make the following statement.
In a world increasingly dominated by cellphones and sophisticated
computer technologies, these attempts to return to nature appear
futile.

This type of move can be readily applied to other disciplines
because no matter how much disciplines may differ from one
another, the need to justify the importance of one’s concerns
is common to them all.

templates for establishing
why your claims matter
j Huckleberry Finn matters/is important because it is one of the
most widely taught novels in the American school system.

j Although X may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s
concern over

.
98

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 98

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Saying Why It Matters
j Ultimately, what is at stake here is

j These findings have important implications for the broader
domain of

j If we are right about
low for

, then major consequences fol-

j These conclusions/This discovery will have significant applications in

as well as in

Finally, you can also treat the “so what?” question as a related
aspect of the “who cares?” question.
j Although X may seem of concern to only a small group
of

, it should in fact concern anyone who cares

about

All these templates help you hook your readers. By suggesting
the real-world applications of your claims, the templates not only
demonstrate that others care about your claims but also tell your
readers why they should care. Again, it bears repeating that simply
stating and proving your thesis isn’t enough. You also need to
frame it in a way that helps readers care about it.

what about readers who already
know why it matters?
At this point, you might wonder if you need to answer the
“who cares?” and “so what?” questions in everything you write.
Is it really necessary to address these questions if you’re proposing something so obviously consequential as, say, a treatment
for autism or a program to eliminate illiteracy? Isn’t it obvious
99

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 99

12/24/13 11:07 AM

seven

“ S O W H AT ? W H O C A R E S ? ”

that everyone cares about such problems? Does it really need
to be spelled out? And what about when you’re writing for
audiences who you know are already interested in your claims
and who understand perfectly well why they’re important? In
other words, do you always need to address the “so what?” and
“who cares?” questions?
As a rule, yes—although it’s true that you can’t keep
answering them forever and at a certain point must say enough
is enough. Although a determined skeptic can infinitely ask why
something matters—“Why should I care about earning a salary?
And why should I care about supporting a family?”—you have
to stop answering at some point in your text. Nevertheless, we
urge you to go as far as possible in answering such questions.
If you take it for granted that readers will somehow intuit the
answers to “so what?” and “who cares?” on their own, you may
make your work seem less interesting than it actually is, and
you run the risk that readers will dismiss your text as irrelevant
and unimportant. By conrast, when you are careful to explain
who cares and why, it’s a little like bringing a cheerleading
squad into your text. And though some expert readers might
already know why your claims matter, even they need to be
reminded. Thus the safest move is to be as explicit as possible
in answering the “so what?” question, even for those already
in the know. When you step back from the text and explain
why it matters, you are urging your audience to keep reading,
pay attention, and care.

Exercises
1. Find several texts (scholarly essays, newspaper articles,
emails, memos, blogs, etc.) and see whether they answer
100

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 100

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Saying Why It Matters

the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions. Probably some do,
some don’t. What difference does it make whether they do
or do not? How do the authors who answer these questions
do so? Do they use any strategies or techniques that you
could borrow for your own writing? Are there any strategies
or techniques recommended in this chapter, or that you’ve
found or developed on your own, that you’d recommend to
these authors?
2. Look over something you’ve written yourself. Do you indicate “so what?” and “who cares”? If not, revise your text to
do so. You might use the following template to get started.
My point here (that

) should interest those who

. Beyond this limited audience, however, my point
should speak to anyone who cares about the larger issue of
.

101

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 101

12/24/13 11:07 AM

04_GRA_93584_part2_053_102.indd 102

12/24/13 11:07 AM

3
H
TYING IT ALL TOGETHER

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 103

12/24/13 11:07 AM

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 104

12/24/13 11:07 AM

E I GHT

“as a result”
Connecting the Parts

We once had a student named Bill, whose characteristic
sentence pattern went something like this.
Spot is a good dog. He has fleas.

“Connect your sentences,” we urged in the margins of Bill’s
papers. “What does Spot being good have to do with his fleas?”
“These two statements seem unrelated. Can you connect them
in some logical way?” When comments like these yielded no
results, we tried inking in suggested connections for him.
Spot is a good dog, but he has fleas.
Spot is a good dog, even though he has fleas.

But our message failed to get across, and Bill’s disconnected
sentence pattern persisted to the end of the semester.
And yet Bill did focus well on his subjects. When he mentioned Spot the dog (or Plato, or any other topic) in one sentence, we could count on Spot (or Plato) being the topic of
the following sentence as well. This was not the case with
105

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 105

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

some of Bill’s classmates, who sometimes changed topic from
sentence to sentence or even from clause to clause within a
single sentence. But because Bill neglected to mark his connections, his writing was as frustrating to read as theirs. In all
these cases, we had to struggle to figure out on our own how
the sentences and paragraphs connected or failed to connect
with one another.
What makes such writers so hard to read, in other words,
is that they never gesture back to what they have just said or
forward to what they plan to say. “Never look back” might be
their motto, almost as if they see writing as a process of thinking of something to say about a topic and writing it down, then
thinking of something else to say about the topic and writing
that down too, and on and on until they’ve filled the assigned
number of pages and can hand the paper in. Each sentence
basically starts a new thought, rather than growing out of or
extending the thought of the previous sentence.
When Bill talked about his writing habits, he acknowledged that he never went back and read what he had written.
Indeed, he told us that, other than using his computer software
to check for spelling errors and make sure that his tenses were
all aligned, he never actually reread what he wrote before turning it in. As Bill seemed to picture it, writing was something one
did while sitting at a computer, whereas reading was a separate
activity generally reserved for an easy chair, book in hand. It
had never occurred to Bill that to write a good sentence he had
to think about how it connected to those that came before and
after; that he had to think hard about how that sentence fit
into the sentences that surrounded it. Each sentence for Bill
existed in a sort of tunnel isolated from every other sentence
on the page. He never bothered to fit all the parts of his essay

106

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 106

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

together because he apparently thought of writing as a matter
of piling up information or observations rather than building
a sustained argument. What we suggest in this chapter, then,
is that you converse not only with others in your writing but
with yourself: that you establish clear relations between one
statement and the next by connecting those statements.
This chapter addresses the issue of how to connect all the
parts of your writing. The best compositions establish a sense
of momentum and direction by making explicit connections
among their different parts, so that what is said in one sentence
(or paragraph) both sets up what is to come and is clearly
informed by what has already been said. When you write a
sentence, you create an expectation in the reader’s mind that
the next sentence will in some way echo and extend it, even
if—especially if—that next sentence takes your argument in a
new direction.
It may help to think of each sentence you write as having arms
that reach backward and forward, as the figure below suggests.
When your sentences reach outward like this, they establish connections that help your writing flow smoothly in a way readers
appreciate. Conversely, when writing lacks such connections and
moves in fits and starts, readers repeatedly have to go back over
the sentences and guess at the connections on their own. To prevent such disconnection and make your writing flow, we advise

107

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 107

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

following a “do it yourself ” principle, which means that it is your
job as a writer to do the hard work of making the connections
rather than, as Bill did, leaving this work to your readers.
This chapter offers several strategies you can use to put this
principle into action: (1) using transition terms (like “therefore” and “as a result”); (2) adding pointing words (like “this”
or “such”); (3) developing a set of key terms and phrases for
each text you write; and (4) repeating yourself, but with a
difference—a move that involves repeating what you’ve said,
but with enough variation to avoid being redundant. All these
moves require that you always look back and, in crafting any
one sentence, think hard about those that precede it.
Notice how we ourselves have used such connecting devices
thus far in this chapter. The second paragraph of this chapter,
for example, opens with the transitional “And yet,” signaling
a change in direction, while the opening sentence of the third
includes the phrase “in other words,” telling you to expect a
restatement of a point we’ve just made. If you look through this
book, you should be able to find many sentences that contain
some word or phrase that explicitly hooks them back to something said earlier, to something about to be said, or both. And
many sentences in this chapter repeat key terms related to the
idea of connection: “connect,” “disconnect,” “link,” “relate,”
“forward,” and “backward.”

use transitions
For readers to follow your train of thought, you need not only
to connect your sentences and paragraphs to each other, but
also to mark the kind of connection you are making. One of
the easiest ways to make this move is to use transitions (from
108

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 108

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

the Latin root trans, “across”), which help you cross from one
point to another in your text. Transitions are usually placed
at or near the start of sentences so they can signal to readers
where your text is going: in the same direction it has been
moving, or in a new direction. More specifically, transitions
tell readers whether your text is echoing a previous sentence or
paragraph (“in other words”), adding something to it (“in addition”), offering an example of it (“for example”), generalizing
from it (“as a result”), or modifying it (“and yet”).
The following is a list of commonly used transitions, categorized according to their different functions.
addition
also
and
besides
furthermore
in addition

indeed
in fact
moreover
so too

elaboration
actually
by extension
in other words
in short
that is

to put it another way
to put it bluntly
to put it succinctly
ultimately

example
after all
as an illustration
consider
for example

for instance
specifically
to take a case in point

109

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 109

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

cause and effect
accordingly
as a result
consequently
hence
since

so
then
therefore
thus

comparison
along the same lines
in the same way

likewise
similarly

contrast
although
but
by contrast
conversely
despite
even though
however
in contrast

nevertheless
nonetheless
on the contrary
on the other hand
regardless
whereas
while yet

concession
admittedly
although it is true
granted

naturally
of course
to be sure

conclusion
as a result
consequently
hence
in conclusion
in short

in sum
therefore
thus
to sum up
to summarize
110

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 110

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

Ideally, transitions should operate so unobtrusively in a piece
of writing that they recede into the background and readers
do not even notice that they are there. It’s a bit like what
happens when drivers use their turn signals before turning
right or left: just as other drivers recognize such signals almost
unconsciously, readers should process transition terms with
a minimum of thought. But even though such terms should
function unobtrusively in your writing, they can be among the
most powerful tools in your vocabulary. Think how your heart
sinks when someone, immediately after praising you, begins a
sentence with “but” or “however.” No matter what follows, you
know it won’t be good.
Notice that some transitions can help you not only to move
from one sentence to another, but to combine two or more sentences into one. Combining sentences in this way helps prevent
the choppy, staccato effect that arises when too many short sentences are strung together, one after the other. For instance, to
combine Bill’s two choppy sentences (“Spot is a good dog. He
has fleas.”) into one, better-flowing sentence, we suggested that
he rewrite them as “Spot is a good dog, even though he has fleas.”
Transitions like these not only guide readers through the
twists and turns of your argument but also help ensure that you
have an argument in the first place. In fact, we think of words
like “but,” “yet,” “nevertheless,” “besides,” and others as argument words, since it’s hard to use them without making some
kind of argument. The word “therefore,” for instance, commits
you to making sure that the claims preceding it lead logically to
the conclusion that it introduces. “For example” also assumes an
argument, since it requires the material you are introducing to
stand as an instance or proof of some preceding generalization.
As a result, the more you use transitions, the more you’ll be able
not only to connect the parts of your text but also to construct
111

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 111

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

a strong argument in the first place. And if you draw on them
frequently enough, using them should eventually become second nature.
To be sure, it is possible to overuse transitions, so take time to
read over your drafts carefully and eliminate any transitions that
are unnecessary. But following the maxim that you need to learn
the basic moves of argument before you can deliberately depart
from them, we advise you not to forgo explicit transition terms
until you’ve first mastered their use. In all our years of teaching,
we’ve read countless essays that suffered from having few or no
transitions, but cannot recall one in which the transitions were
overused. Seasoned writers sometimes omit explicit transitions,
but only because they rely heavily on the other types of connecting devices that we turn to in the rest of this chapter.
Before doing so, however, let us warn you about inserting
transitions without really thinking through their meanings—
using “therefore,” say, when your text’s logic actually requires
“nevertheless” or “however.” So beware. Choosing transition
terms should involve a bit of mental sweat, since the whole
point of using them is to make your writing more reader-friendly,
not less. The only thing more frustrating than reading Bill-style
passages like “Spot is a good dog. He has fleas” is reading misconnected sentences like “Spot is a good dog. For example, he
has fleas.”

use pointing words
Another way to connect the parts of your argument is by using
pointing words—which, as their name implies, point or refer
backward to some concept in the previous sentence. The most
common of these pointing words include “this,” “these,” “that,”
112

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 112

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

“those,” “their,” and “such” (as in “these pointing words” near
the start of this sentence) and simple pronouns like “his,” “he,”
“her,” “she,” “it,” and “their.” Such terms help you create the
flow we spoke of earlier that enables readers to move effortlessly
through your text. In a sense, these terms are like an invisible
hand reaching out of your sentence, grabbing what’s needed in
the previous sentences and pulling it along.
Like transitions, however, pointing words need to be used
carefully. It’s dangerously easy to insert pointing words into
your text that don’t refer to a clearly defined object, assuming
that because the object you have in mind is clear to you it will
also be clear to your readers. For example, consider the use of
“this” in the following passage.
Alexis de Tocqueville was highly critical of democratic societies, which he saw as tending toward mob rule. At the same time,
he accorded democratic societies grudging respect. This is seen in
Tocqueville’s statement that . . .

When “this” is used in such a way it becomes an ambiguous or
free-floating pointer, since readers can’t tell if it refers to Tocqueville’s critical attitude toward democratic societies, his grudging
respect for them, or some combination of both. “This what?”
readers mutter as they go back over such passages and try to
figure them out. It’s also tempting to try to cheat with pointing
words, hoping that they will conceal or make up for conceptual
confusions that may lurk in your argument. By referring to a
fuzzy idea as “this” or “that,” you might hope the fuzziness will
somehow come across as clearer than it is.
You can fix problems caused by a free-floating pointer by
making sure there is one and only one possible object in the
vicinity that the pointer could be referring to. It also often helps
113

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 113

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

to name the object the pointer is referring to at the same time
that you point to it, replacing the bald “this” in the example
above with a more precise phrase like “this ambivalence toward
democratic societies” or “this grudging respect.”

repeat key terms and phrases
A third strategy for connecting the parts of your argument is
to develop a constellation of key terms and phrases, including
their synonyms and antonyms, that you repeat throughout your
text. When used effectively, your key terms should be items
that readers could extract from your text in order to get a solid
sense of your topic. Playing with key terms also can be a good
way to come up with a title and appropriate section headings
for your text.
Notice how often Martin Luther King Jr. uses the key words
“criticism,” “statement,” “answer,” and “correspondence” in the
opening paragraph of his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across
your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and
untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and
ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk,
my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such
correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time
for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine
good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to
try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and
reasonable terms.
Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
114

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 114

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

Even though King uses the terms “criticism” and “answer” three
times each and “statement” twice, the effect is not overly repetitive. In fact, these key terms help build a sense of momentum
in the paragraph and bind it together.
For another example of the effective use of key terms, consider the following passage, in which the historian Susan Douglas develops a constellation of sharply contrasting key terms
around the concept of “cultural schizophrenics”: women like
herself who, Douglas claims, have mixed feelings about the
images of ideal femininity with which they are constantly bombarded by the media.
In a variety of ways, the mass media helped make us the cultural
schizophrenics we are today, women who rebel against yet submit
to prevailing images about what a desirable, worthwhile woman
should be. . . . [T]he mass media has engendered in many women a
kind of cultural identity crisis. We are ambivalent toward femininity on the one hand and feminism on the other. Pulled in opposite
directions—told we were equal, yet told we were subordinate; told
we could change history but told we were trapped by history—we
got the bends at an early age, and we’ve never gotten rid of them.
When I open Vogue, for example, I am simultaneously infuriated and seduced. . . . I adore the materialism; I despise the
materialism. . . . I want to look beautiful; I think wanting to look
beautiful is about the most dumb-ass goal you could have. The
magazine stokes my desire; the magazine triggers my bile. And this
doesn’t only happen when I’m reading Vogue; it happens all the
time. . . . On the one hand, on the other hand—that’s not just
me—that’s what it means to be a woman in America.
To explain this schizophrenia . . .
Susan Douglas, Where the Girls Are:
Growing Up Female with the Mass Media
115

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 115

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

In this passage, Douglas establishes “schizophrenia” as a key
concept and then echoes it through synonyms like “identity
crisis,” “ambivalent,” “the bends”—and even demonstrates it
through a series of contrasting words and phrases:
rebel against / submit
told we were equal / told we were subordinate
told we could change history / told we were trapped by history
infuriated / seduced
I adore / I despise
I want / I think wanting . . . is about the most dumb-ass goal
stokes my desire / triggers my bile
on the one hand / on the other hand

These contrasting phrases help flesh out Douglas’s claim that
women are being pulled in two directions at once. In so doing,
they bind the passage together into a unified whole that, despite
its complexity and sophistication, stays focused over its entire
length.

repeat yourself—but with a difference
The last technique we offer for connecting the parts of your
text involves repeating yourself, but with a difference—which
basically means saying the same thing you’ve just said, but in
a slightly different way that avoids sounding monotonous. To
effectively connect the parts of your argument and keep it moving forward, be careful not to leap from one idea to a different
idea or introduce new ideas cold. Instead, try to build bridges
between your ideas by echoing what you’ve just said while
simultaneously moving your text into new territory.
116

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 116

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

Several of the connecting devices discussed in this chapter
are ways of repeating yourself in this special way. Key terms,
pointing terms, and even many transitions can be used in a
way that not only brings something forward from the previous
sentence but in some way alters it. When Douglas, for instance,
uses the key term “ambivalent” to echo her earlier reference
to schizophrenics, she is repeating herself with a difference—
repeating the same concept, but with a different word that adds
new associations.
In addition, when you use transition phrases like “in other
words” and “to put it another way,” you repeat yourself with a
difference, since these phrases help you restate earlier claims but
in a different register. When you open a sentence with “in other
words,” you are basically telling your readers that in case they
didn’t fully understand what you meant in the last sentence,
you are now coming at it again from a slightly different angle,
or that since you’re presenting a very important idea, you’re
not going to skip over it quickly but will explore it further to
make sure your readers grasp all its aspects.
We would even go so far as to suggest that after your first
sentence, almost every sentence you write should refer back
to previous statements in some way. Whether you are writing
a “furthermore” comment that adds to what you have just said
or a “for example” statement that illustrates it, each sentence
should echo at least one element of the previous sentence in
some discernible way. Even when your text changes direction
and requires transitions like “in contrast,” “however,” or “but,”
you still need to mark that shift by linking the sentence to
the one just before it, as in the following example.
Cheyenne loved basketball. Nevertheless, she feared her height
would put her at a disadvantage.
117

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 117

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

These sentences work because even though the second sentence changes course and qualifies the first, it still echoes key
concepts from the first. Not only does “she” echo “Cheyenne,”
since both refer to the same person, but “feared” echoes “loved”
by establishing the contrast mandated by the term “nevertheless.” “Nevertheless,” then, is not an excuse for changing subjects radically. It too requires repetition to help readers shift
gears with you and follow your train of thought.
Repetition, in short, is the central means by which you can
move from point A to point B in a text. To introduce one last
analogy, think of the way experienced rock climbers move up a
steep slope. Instead of jumping or lurching from one handhold
to the next, good climbers get a secure handhold on the position
they have established before reaching for the next ledge. The
same thing applies to writing. To move smoothly from point to
point in your argument, you need to firmly ground what you say
in what you’ve already said. In this way, your writing remains
focused while simultaneously moving forward.
“But hold on,” you may be thinking. “Isn’t repetition precisely what sophisticated writers should avoid, on the grounds
that it will make their writing sound simplistic—as if they are
belaboring the obvious?” Yes and no. On the one hand, writers
certainly can run into trouble if they merely repeat themselves
and nothing more. On the other hand, repetition is key to creating continuity in writing. It is impossible to stay on track in a
piece of writing if you don’t repeat your points throughout the
length of the text. Furthermore, writers would never make an
impact on readers if they didn’t repeat their main points often
enough to reinforce those points and make them stand out above
subordinate points. The trick therefore is not to avoid repeating
yourself but to repeat yourself in varied and interesting enough
ways that you advance your argument without sounding tedious.
118

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 118

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Connecting the Parts

Exercises
1. Read the following opening to Chapter 2 of The Road to
Wigan Pier, by George Orwell. Annotate the connecting
devices by underlining the transitions, circling the key
terms, and putting boxes around the pointing terms.
Our civilisation . . . is founded on coal, more completely than
one realises until one stops to think about it. The machines that
keep us alive, and the machines that make the machines, are
all directly or indirectly dependent upon coal. In the metabolism
of the Western world the coal-miner is second in importance
only to the man who ploughs the soil. He is a sort of grimy caryatid upon whose shoulders nearly everything that is not grimy
is supported. For this reason the actual process by which coal is
extracted is well worth watching, if you get the chance and are
willing to take the trouble.
When you go down a coal-mine it is important to try and get
to the coal face when the “fillers” are at work. This is not easy,
because when the mine is working visitors are a nuisance and
are not encouraged, but if you go at any other time, it is possible
to come away with a totally wrong impression. On a Sunday, for
instance, a mine seems almost peaceful. The time to go there
is when the machines are roaring and the air is black with coal
dust, and when you can actually see what the miners have to
do. At those times the place is like hell, or at any rate like my
own mental picture of hell. Most of the things one imagines in
hell are there—heat, noise, confusion, darkness, foul air, and,
above all, unbearably cramped space. Everything except the fire,
for there is no fire down there except the feeble beams of Davy
lamps and electric torches which scarcely penetrate the clouds
of coal dust.
119

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 119

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eight

“A S A R E S U LT ”

When you have finally got there—and getting there is a job in
itself: I will explain that in a moment—you crawl through the last
line of pit props and see opposite you a shiny black wall three or
four feet high. This is the coal face. Overhead is the smooth ceiling
made by the rock from which the coal has been cut; underneath is
the rock again, so that the gallery you are in is only as high as the
ledge of coal itself, probably not much more than a yard. The first
impression of all, overmastering everything else for a while, is the
frightful, deafening din from the conveyor belt which carries the
coal away. You cannot see very far, because the fog of coal dust
throws back the beam of your lamp, but you can see on either side
of you the line of half-naked kneeling men, one to every four or
five yards, driving their shovels under the fallen coal and flinging
it swiftly over their left shoulders. . . .
George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

2. Read over something you’ve written with an eye for the
devices you’ve used to connect the parts. Underline all
the transitions, pointing terms, key terms, and repetition.
Do you see any patterns? Do you rely on certain devices
more than others? Are there any passages that are hard to
follow—and if so, can you make them easier to read by trying
any of the other devices discussed in this chapter?

120

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 120

12/24/13 11:07 AM

NI NE

“ain’t so / is not”
Academic Writing Doesn’t Always Mean
Setting Aside Your Own Voice

Have you ever gotten the impression that writing well in
college means setting aside the kind of language you use in
everyday conversation? That to impress your instructors you
need to use big words, long sentences, and complex sentence
structures? If so, then we’re here to tell you that it ain’t necessarily so. On the contrary, academic writing can—and in our
view should—be relaxed, easy to follow, and even a little bit
fun. Although we don’t want to suggest that you avoid using
sophisticated, academic terms in your writing, we encourage
you to draw upon the kinds of expressions and turns of phrase
that you use every day when texting or conversing with family
and friends. In this chapter, we want to show you how you can
write effective academic arguments while holding on to some
of your own voice.
This point is important, since you may well become turned
off from writing if you think your everyday language practices
have to be checked at the classroom door. You may end up
feeling like a student we know who, when asked how she felt
121

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 121

12/24/13 11:07 AM

nine

“A I N ’ T S O / I S N OT ”

about the writing she does in college, answered, “I do it because
I have to, but it’s just not me!”
This is not to suggest that any language you use among
friends has a place in academic writing. Nor is it to suggest
that you may fall back on colloquial usage as an excuse for not
learning more rigorous forms of expression. After all, learning
these more rigorous forms of expression and developing a more
intellectual self is a major reason for getting an education. We
do, however, wish to suggest that relaxed, colloquial language
can often enliven academic writing and even enhance its rigor
and precision. Such informal language also helps you connect
with readers in a personal as well as an intellectual way. In our
view, then, it is a mistake to assume that the academic and the
everyday are completely separate languages that can never be
used together.

mix academic and colloquial styles
Many successful writers blend academic, professional language
with popular expressions and sayings. Consider, for instance, the
following passage from a scholarly article about the way teachers
respond to errors in student writing.
Marking and judging formal and mechanical errors in student
papers is one area in which composition studies seems to have
a multiple-personality disorder. On the one hand, our mellow,
student-centered, process-based selves tend to condemn marking formal errors at all. Doing it represents the Bad Old Days.
Ms. Fidditch and Mr. Flutesnoot with sharpened red pencils, spilling innocent blood across the page. Useless detail work. Inhumane,
perfectionist standards, making our students feel stupid, wrong,
122

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 122

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Academic Writing Doesn’t Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice
trivial, misunderstood. Joseph Williams has pointed out how arbitrary and context-bound our judgments of formal error are. And
certainly our noting of errors on student papers gives no one any
great joy; as Peter Elbow says, English is most often associated
either with grammar or with high literature—“two things designed
to make folks feel most out of it.”
Robert Connors and Andrea Lunsford,
“Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing,
or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research”

This passage blends writing styles in several ways. First, it places
informal, relaxed expressions like “mellow,” “the Bad Old
Days,” and “folks” alongside more formal, academic phrases like
“multiple-personality disorder,” “student-centered,” “processbased,” and “arbitrary and context-bound.” Even the title of
the piece, “Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College
Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research,” blends formal,
academic usage on the left side of the comma with a popularculture reference to the fictional movie characters Ma and
Pa Kettle on the right. Second, to give vivid, concrete form
to their discussion of grading disciplinarians, Connors and
Lunsford conjure up such archetypal, imaginary figures as the
stuffy, old-fashioned taskmasters Ms. Fidditch and Mr. Flutesnoot. Through such imaginative uses of language, Connors and
Lunsford inject greater force into what might otherwise have
been dry, scholarly prose.
Formal/informal mixings like this can be found in countless
other texts, though more frequently in the humanities than the
sciences, and more frequently still in journalism. Notice how
the food industry critic Eric Schlosser describes some changes
in the city of Colorado Springs in his best-selling book on fast
foods in the United States.
123

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 123

12/24/13 11:07 AM

nine

“A I N ’ T S O / I S N OT ”

The loopiness once associated with Los Angeles has come full
blown to Colorado Springs—the strange, creative energy that crops
up where the future’s consciously being made, where people walk
the fine line separating a visionary from a total nutcase.
Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation

Schlosser could have played it safe and referred not to the
“loopiness” but to the “eccentricity” associated with Los Angeles, or to “the fine line separating a visionary from a lunatic”
instead of “ . . . a total nutcase.” His decision, however, to go
with the more adventuresome, colorful terms gives a liveliness
to his writing that would have been lacking with the more
conventional terms.
Another example of writing that blends the informal with
the formal comes from an essay on the American novelist Willa
Cather by the literary critic Judith Fetterley. Discussing “how
very successful Cather has been in controlling how we think
about her,” Fetterley, building on the work of another scholar,
writes as follows.
As Merrill Skaggs has put it, “She is neurotically controlling and
self-conscious about her work, but she knows at all points what she
is doing. Above all else, she is self-conscious.”
Without question, Cather was a control freak.
Judith Fetterley, “Willa Cather and the
Question of Sympathy: The Unofficial Story”

This passage demonstrates not only that specialized phrases
from psychology like “self-conscious” and “neurotically controlling” are compatible with everyday, popular expressions like
“control freak,” but also that translating the one type of language into the other, the specialized into the everyday, can help
124

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 124

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Academic Writing Doesn’t Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice

drive home a point. By translating Skaggs’s polysyllabic See p. 244
for an essay
description of Cather as “neurotically controlling and that mixes
self-conscious” into the succinct, if blunt, claim that colloquial
and academic
“Without question, Cather was a control freak,” Fetter- styles.
ley suggests that one need not choose between rarified,
academic ways of talking and the everyday language of casual conversation. Indeed, her passage offers a simple recipe for blending
the high and the low: first make your point in the language of a
professional field, and then make it again in everyday language—a
great trick, we think, for underscoring a point.
While one effect of blending languages like this is to give your
writing more punch, another is to make a political statement—
about the way, for example, society unfairly overvalues some
dialects and devalues others. For instance, in the titles of two of
her books, Talkin and Testifyin: The Language of Black America
and Black Talk: Words and Phrases from the Hood to the Amen
Corner, the language scholar Geneva Smitherman mixes African
American vernacular phrases with more scholarly language in
order to suggest, as she explicitly argues in these books, that
black English vernacular is as legitimate a variety of language
as “standard” English. Here are three typical passages.
In Black America, the oral tradition has served as a fundamental vehicle for gittin ovuh. That tradition preserves the AfroAmerican heritage and reflects the collective spirit of the race.
Blacks are quick to ridicule “educated fools,” people who done
gone to school and read all dem books and still don’t know nothin!
. . . it is a socially approved verbal strategy for black rappers to talk
about how bad they is.
Geneva Smitherman, Talkin and Testifyin:
The Language of Black America
125

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 125

12/24/13 11:07 AM

nine

“A I N ’ T S O / I S N OT ”

In these examples, Smitherman blends the standard written
English of phrases like “oral tradition” and “fundamental vehicle” with black oral vernacular like “gittin ovuh,” “dem books,”
and “how bad they is.” Indeed, she even blends standard English
spelling with that of black English variants like “dem” and
“ovuh,” thus mimicking what some black English vernacular
actually sounds like. Although some scholars might object to
these unconventional practices, this is precisely Smitherman’s
point: that our habitual language practices need to be opened
up, and that the number of participants in the academic conversation needs to be expanded.
Along similar lines, the writer and activist Gloria Anzaldúa
mixes standard English with Tex-Mex, a hybrid blend of
English, Castilian Spanish, a North Mexican dialect, and the
Indian language Nahuatl, to make a political point about the
suppression of the Spanish language in the United States.
From this racial, ideological, cultural, and biological crosspollinization, an “alien” consciousness is presently in the making—
a new mestiza consciousness, una conciencia de mujer.
Gloria Anzaldúa,
Borderlands / La Frontera: The New Mestiza

Like Smitherman, Anzaldúa gets her point across not only
through what she says but through the way she says it, literally showing that the new hybrid, or mestiza, consciousness that
she describes is, as she puts it, “presently in the making.”
Ultimately, these passages suggest that blending languages—
what Vershawn Ashanti Young calls “code meshing”—can call
into question the very idea that the languages are distinct and
separate.

126

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 126

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Academic Writing Doesn’t Mean Setting Aside Your Own Voice

when to mix styles?
consider your audience and purpose
Because there are so many options in writing, you should never
feel limited in your choice of words, as if such choices are set
in stone. You can always experiment with your language and
improve it. You can always dress it up, dress it down, or some
combination of both. In dressing down your language, for example, you can make the claim that somebody “failed to notice”
something by saying instead that it “flew under the radar.” Or
you can state that the person was “unaware” of something by
saying that he was “out to lunch.” You could even recast the
title of this book, “They Say / I Say,” as a teenager might say it:
“She Goes / I’m Like.”
But how do you know when it is better to play things straight
and stick to standard English, and when to be more adventuresome and mix things up? When, in other words, should you
write “failed to notice” and when is it okay (or more effective)
to write “flew under the radar”? Is it always appropriate to mix
styles? And when you do so, how do you know when enough
is enough?
In all situations, think carefully about your audience and
purpose. When you write a letter applying for a job, for instance,
or submit a grant proposal, where your words will be weighed by
an official screening body, using language that’s too colloquial
or slangy may well jeopardize your chances of success. On such
occasions, it is usually best to err on the safe side, conforming
as closely as possible to the conventions of standard written
English. In other situations for other audiences, however, there
is room to be more creative—in this book, for example. Ultimately, your judgments about the appropriate language for the

127

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 127

12/24/13 11:07 AM

nine

“A I N ’ T S O / I S N OT ”

situation should always take into account your likely audience
and your purpose in writing.
Although it may have been in the past, academic writing in
most disciplines today is no longer the linguistic equivalent of a
black-tie affair. To succeed as a writer in college, then, you need
not always limit your language to the strictly formal. Although
academic writing does rely on complex sentence patterns and
on specialized, disciplinary vocabularies, it is surprising how
often such writing draws on the languages of the street, popular
culture, our ethnic communities, and home. It is by blending
these languages that what counts as “standard” English changes
over time and the range of possibilities open to academic writers
continues to grow.

Exercises
1. Take a paragraph from this book and dress it down, rewriting it in informal colloquial language. Then rewrite the same
paragraph again by dressing it up, making it much more formal. Then rewrite the paragraph one more time in a way that
blends the two styles. Share your paragraphs with a classmate,
and discuss which versions are most effective and why.
2. Find something you’ve written for a course, and study it to see
whether you’ve used any of your own everyday expressions,
any words or structures that are not “academic.” If by chance
you don’t find any, see if there’s a place or two where shifting
into more casual or unexpected language would help you make
a point, get your reader’s attention, or just add liveliness to
your text. Be sure to keep your audience and purpose in mind,
and use language that will be appropriate to both.
128

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 128

12/24/13 11:07 AM

TEN

“but don’t get me wrong”
The Art of Metacommentary

When we tell people that we are writing a chapter on the
art of metacommentary, they often give us a puzzled look and
tell us that they have no idea what “metacommentary” is. “We
know what commentary is,” they’ll sometimes say, “but what
does it mean when it’s meta?” Our answer is that whether or
not they know the term, they practice the art of metacommentary on a daily basis whenever they make a point of explaining something they’ve said or written: “What I meant to say
was
,” “My point was not
, but
,”
or “You’re probably not going to like what I’m about to say,
but
.” In such cases, they are not offering new points
but telling an audience how to interpret what they have already
said or are about to say. In short, then, metacommentary is a
way of commenting on your claims and telling others how—and
how not—to think about them.
It may help to think of metacommentary as being like
the chorus in a Greek play that stands to the side of the
drama unfolding on the stage and explains its meaning to the
audience—or like a voice-over narrator who comments on

129

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 129

12/24/13 11:07 AM

ten

“BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG”

and explains the action in a television show or movie. Think
of metacommentary as a sort of second text that stands alongside your main text and explains what it means. In the main
text you say something; in the metatext you guide your readers
in interpreting and processing what you’ve said.
What we are suggesting, then, is that you think of your text
as two texts joined at the hip: a main text in which you make
your argument and another in which you “work” your ideas,
distinguishing your views from others they may be confused
with, anticipating and answering objections, connecting one
point to another, explaining why your claim might be controversial, and so forth. The figure below demonstrates what we
mean.

ALL
WRITING IS
CONVERSATIONAL.

NOW, DON’T GET ME
WRONG. I’M NOT
SAYING...

THE MAIN TEXT SAYS SOMETHING, THE
METATEXT TELLS READERS HO
HOW
W — A ND HOW
NOT
NO
T — T O THINK ABOUT IT.
130

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 130

12/24/13 11:07 AM

The Art of Metacommentary

use metacommentary to clarify
and elaborate
But why do you need metacommentary to tell readers what you
mean and guide them through your text? Can’t you just clearly
say what you mean up front? The answer is that, no matter
how clear and precise your writing is, readers can still fail to
understand it in any number of ways. Even the best writers
can provoke reactions in readers that they didn’t intend, and
even good readers can get lost in a complicated argument or
fail to see how one point connects with another. Readers may
also fail to see what follows from your argument, or they may
follow your reasoning and examples yet fail to see the larger
conclusion you draw from them. They may fail to see your
argument’s overall significance, or mistake what you are saying
for a related argument that they have heard before but that
you want to distance yourself from. As a result, no matter how
straightforward a writer you are, readers still need you to help
them grasp what you really mean. Because the written word is
prone to so much mischief and can be interpreted in so many
different ways, we need metacommentary to keep misinterpretations and other communication misfires at bay.
Another reason to master the art of metacommentary is that
it will help you develop your ideas and generate more text. If you
have ever had trouble producing the required number of pages
for a writing project, metacommentary can help you add both
length and depth to your writing. We’ve seen many students
who try to produce a five-page paper sputter to a halt at two or
three pages, complaining they’ve said everything they can think
of about their topic. “I’ve stated my thesis and presented my
reasons and evidence,” students have told us. “What else is there
to do?” It’s almost as if such writers have generated a thesis and
131

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 131

12/24/13 11:07 AM

ten

“BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG”

don’t know what to do with it. When these students learn to use
metacommentary, however, they get more out of their ideas and
write longer, more substantial texts. In sum, metacommentary
can help you extract the full potential from your ideas, drawing out important implications, explaining ideas from different
perspectives, and so forth.
So even when you may think you’ve said everything possible in an argument, try inserting the following types of
metacommentary.
j In other words, she doesn’t realize how right she is.
j What
j My point is not

really means is
but

.
.

j Ultimately, then, my goal is to demonstrate that

Ideally, such metacommentary should help you recognize some
implications of your ideas that you didn’t initially realize were
there.
Let’s look at how the cultural critic Neil Postman uses metacommentary in the following passage describing the shift in
American culture when it began to move from print and reading to television and movies.
It is my intention in this book to show that a great . . . shift has
taken place in America, with the result that the content of much
of our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense. With this
in view, my task in the chapters ahead is straightforward. I must,
first, demonstrate how, under the governance of the printing
press, discourse in America was different from what it is now—
generally coherent, serious and rational; and then how, under the

132

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 132

12/24/13 11:07 AM

The Art of Metacommentary
governance of television, it has become shriveled and absurd.
But to avoid the possibility that my analysis will be interpreted as
standard-brand academic whimpering, a kind of elitist complaint
against “junk” on television, I must first explain that . . . I appreciate junk as much as the next fellow, and I know full well that the
printing press has generated enough of it to fill the Grand Canyon
to overflowing. Television is not old enough to have matched
printing’s output of junk.
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death:
Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

To see what we mean by metacommentary, look at the phrases
above that we have italicized. With these moves, Postman
essentially stands apart from his main ideas to help readers
follow and understand what he is arguing.
He previews what he will argue: It is my intention in this book
to show . . .
He spells out how he will make his argument: With this in
view, my task in these chapters . . . is. . . . I must, first, demonstrate . . . and then . . .
He distinguishes his argument from other arguments it may
easily be confused with: But to avoid the possibility that my
analysis will be interpreted as . . . I must first explain that . . .

titles as metacommentary
Even the title of Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death:
Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, functions as a form
of metacommentary since, like all titles, it stands apart from

133

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 133

12/24/13 11:07 AM

ten

“BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG”

the text itself and tells readers the book’s main point: that
the very pleasure provided by contemporary show business is
destructive.
Titles, in fact, are one of the most important forms of
metacommentary, functioning rather like carnival barkers
telling passersby what they can expect if they go inside. Subtitles, too, function as metacommentary, further explaining
or elaborating on the main title. The subtitle of this book,
for example, not only explains that it is about “the moves
that matter in academic writing,” but indicates that “they
say / I say” is one of these moves. Thinking of a title as
metacommentary can actually help you develop sharper
titles, ones that, like Postman’s, give readers a hint of what
your argument will be. Contrast such titles with unhelpfully
open-ended ones like “Shakespeare” or “Steroids” or “English
Essay,” or essays with no titles at all. Essays with vague titles
(or no titles) send the message that the writer has simply
not bothered to reflect on what he or she is saying and is
uninterested in guiding or orienting readers.

use other moves as metacommentary
Many of the other moves covered in this book function as
metacommentary: entertaining objections, adding transitions,
framing quotations, answering “so what?” and “who cares?”
When you entertain objections, you stand outside of your text
and imagine what a critic might say; when you add transitions,
you essentially explain the relationship between various claims.
And when you answer the “so what?” and “who cares?” questions, you look beyond your central argument and explain who
should be interested in it and why.
134

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 134

12/24/13 11:07 AM

The Art of Metacommentary

templates for introducing
metacommentary
to ward off potential misunderstandings

The following moves help you differentiate certain views from
ones they might be mistaken for.
j Essentially, I am arguing not that we should give up the policy,
but that we should monitor effects far more closely.

j This is not to say

, but rather

j X is concerned less with

than with

to elaborate on a previous idea

The following moves elaborate on a previous point, saying to
readers: “In case you didn’t get it the first time, I’ll try saying
the same thing in a different way.”
j In other words,

j To put it another way,

j What X is saying here is that

to provide a roadmap to your text

This move orients readers, clarifying where you have been and
where you are going—and making it easier for them to process
and follow your text.
j Chapter 2 explores

, while Chapter 3 examines

j Having just argued that
point by

, I want now to complicate the

.
135

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 135

12/24/13 11:07 AM

ten

“BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG”

to move from a general claim to a specific example

These moves help you explain a general point by providing a
concrete example that illustrates what you’re saying.
j For example,

, for instance, demonstrates

j
j Consider

, for example.

j To take a case in point,

to indicate that a claim is more, less, or equally important

The following templates help you give relative emphasis to the
claim that you are introducing, showing whether that claim is
of more or less weight than the previous one, or equal to it.
j Even more important,

j But above all,

j Incidentally, we will briefly note,
j Just as important,

j Equally,
j Finally,

.
.

to explain a claim when you anticipate objections

Here’s a template to help you anticipate and respond to possible objections.
j Although some readers may object that
answer that

, I would

.
136

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 136

12/24/13 11:07 AM

The Art of Metacommentary
to guide readers to your most general point

These moves show that you are wrapping things up and
tying up various subpoints previously made.
j In sum, then,

j My conclusion, then, is that
j In short,

Chapter 6
has more
templates for
anticipating
objections.

In this chapter we have tried to show that the most persuasive
writing often doubles back and comments on its own claims in
ways that help readers negotiate and process them. Instead of
simply piling claim upon claim, effective writers are constantly
“stage managing” how their claims will be recieved. It’s true of
course that to be persuasive a text has to have strong claims
to argue in the first place. But even the strongest arguments
will flounder unless writers use metacommentary to prevent
potential misreadings and make their arguments shine.
Exercises
1. Read an essay or article and annotate it to indicate the
different ways the author uses metacommentary. Use the
templates on pp. 135–37 as your guide. For example, you
may want to circle transitional phrases and write “trans” in
the margins, to put brackets around sentences that elaborate
on earlier sentences and mark them “elab,” or underline
sentences in which the author sums up what he or she has
been saying, writing “sum” in the margins.
How does the author use metacommentary? Does the
author follow any of the templates provided in this book
137

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 137

12/24/13 11:07 AM

ten

“BUT DON’T GET ME WRONG”

word for word? Did you find any forms of metacommentary
not discussed in this chapter? If so, can you identify them,
name them, and perhaps devise templates based on them for
use in your own writing? And finally, how do you think the
author’s use of metacommentary enhances (or harms) his or
her writing?
2. Complete each of the following metacommentary templates
in any way that makes sense.
j In making a case for the medical use of marijuana, I am not
saying that

j But my argument will do more than prove that one particular
industrial chemical has certain toxic properties. In this article,
I will also

j My point about the national obsessions with sports reinforces
the belief held by many

that

j I believe, therefore, that the war is completely unjustified.
But let me back up and explain how I arrived at this conclusion:

. In this way, I came to believe that this war is

a big mistake.

138

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 138

12/24/13 11:07 AM

E L EVEN

“he says contends”
Using the Templates to Revise

One of the most important stages of the writing process
is revision, when you look at a draft with an eye for how well
you’ve made your argument and what you need to do make it
better. The challenge is to figure out what needs work—and
then what exactly you need to do.
Sometimes you’ll have specific comments and suggestions
from a teacher, noting that you need to state your position more
explicitly, that your point is unclear, that you’ve misunderstood
an author you’re summarizing, and so forth. But what if you
don’t have any such guidance, or aren’t sure what to do with
it? The list of guidelines below offers help and points you back
to relevant advice and templates in this book.
Do you present your argument as a response to what others
say? Do you make reference to other views besides your own? Do
you use voice markers to distinguish clearly for readers between
your views and those of others? In order to make your argument
as convincing as possible, would it help to add more concessions
to opposing views, using “yes but” templates?

139

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 139

12/24/13 11:07 AM

eleven

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

Asking yourself these large-scale revision questions will
help you see how well you’ve managed the “they say / I say”
framework and this in turn should help you see where further
revisions are needed. The checklist below follows the order of
chapters in this book.
How Do You Represent What Others Say?
Do you start with what others say? If not, try revising to do so.
See pp. 23–26 for templates that can help.
Do you summarize or paraphrase what they’ve said? If so, have you
represented their views accurately—and adequately?
Do you quote others? Do you frame each quotation successfully,
integrating it into your text? Does the quotation support your
argument? Have you introduced each quotation adequately,
naming the person you’re quoting (and saying who that person is if your readers won’t know)? Do you explain in your own
words what the quotation means? Do you then clearly indicate
how the quotation bears on your own argument? See pp. 44–46
for tips on creating a “quotation sandwich.”
Check the verbs you use to introduce any summaries and quotations: do they express accurately what was said? If you’ve
used common signal phrases such as “X said” or “Y believes,”
is there a verb that reflects more accurately what was said?
See pp. 39–40 for a list of verbs for introducing summaries
and quotations.
Have you documented all summaries and quotations, both with
parenthetical documentation in your text and a references or
works cited list?

140

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 140

1/3/14 1:59 PM

Using the Templates to Revise

Do you remind readers of what others say at various points
throughout your text? If not, see pp. 27–28 for help revising
in order to do so.

What Do You Say?
Do you agree, disagree, or both with those you’re responding to?
Have you said so explicitly?
If you disagree, do you give reasons why you disagree? If you
agree, what more have you added to the conversation? If you
both agree and disagree, do you do so without confusing readers
or seeming evasive?
Have you stated your position and the one it responds to as a
connected unit?
What reasons and evidence do you offer to support your “I say”?
In other words, do your argument and the argument you are
responding to—your “I say” and “they say”—address the same
topic or issue, or does a switch occur that takes you on a tangent that will confuse readers? One way to ensure that your
“I say” and “they say” are aligned rather than seeming like ships
passing in the night is to use the same key terms in both. See
Chapter 8 for tips on how to do so.
Will readers be able to distinguish what you say from what
others say? See Chapter 5 for advice about using voice
markers to make that distinction clear, especially at moments
when you are moving from your view to someone else’s view
or back.

141

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 141

1/3/14 1:59 PM

eleven

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

Have You Introduced Any Naysayers?
Have you acknowledged likely objections to your argument?
If so, have you represented these views fairly—and responded
to them persuasively? See Chapter 6 for tips on how to do so.
If not, think about what other perspectives exist on your topic,
and incorporate them into your draft.

Have You Used Metacommentary to Clarify What You
Do or Don’t Mean?
No matter how clearly you’ve explained your points, it’s a good
idea to explain what you mean—or don’t mean—with phrases
like “in other words” or “don’t get me wrong.” See Chapter 10
for examples of how to do so.
Do you have a title? If so, does it tell readers what your main
point or issue is, and does it do so in a lively manner? Should
you add a subtitle to elaborate on the title?

Have You Tied It All Together?
Can readers follow your argument from one sentence and paragraph to the next and see how each successive point supports
your overall argument?
Check your use of transitions, words like “however” and “therefore.”
Such words make clear how your ideas relate to one another; if
you need to add transitions, see pp.109–10 for a complete list.
Check your use of pointing words. Do you use common pointers
like “this” and “that,” which help lead readers from one sentence

142

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 142

1/3/14 1:59 PM

Using the Templates to Revise

to the next? If so, is it always clear what “this” and “that” refer
to, or do you need to add nouns in order to avoid ambiguity?
See pp. 112–14 for help working with pointing words.
Have you used what we call “repetition with a difference” to help
connect parts of your argument? See pp. 114–18 for examples
of how to do so.

Have You Shown Why Your Argument Matters?
Don’t assume that readers will see why your argument is
important—or why they should care. Be sure that you have
told them why. See Chapter 7 if you need help.

a revised student essay
Here is an example of how one student, Antonia Peacocke,
used this book to revise an essay. Starting with an article she’d
written for her high school newspaper, Peacocke then followed
the advice in our book as she turned her article into a college
level academic essay. Her original article was a brief account of
why she liked Family Guy, and her first step in revising was to
open with a “they say” and an “I say,” previewing her overall
argument in brief form at the essay’s beginning. While her
original version had acknowledged that many find the show
“objectionable,” she hadn’t named these people or indicated
why they didn’t like the show. In her revised version, after
doing further research, Peacocke identified those with whom
she disagreed and responded to them at length, as the essay
itself illustrates.

143

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 143

1/3/14 1:59 PM

eleven

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

In addition, Peacocke strengthened existing transitions,
added new ones, and clarified the stakes of her argument, saying
more explicitly why readers should care about whether Family
Guy is good or bad. In making these revisions she gave her own
spin to several templates in this book.
We’ve annotated Peacocke’s essay in the margins to point
out particular rhetorical moves discussed in our book and the
chapters in which those discussions appear. We hope studying
her essay and our annotations will suggest how you might craft
and revise your own writing.
Antonia Peacocke wrote this essay in the summer between
high school and her first year at Harvard. She is now a
PhD student in philosophy at the University of California at
Berkeley.

144

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 144

12/24/13 11:07 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and
Their Relation to the Unconscious
antonia peacocke

While slouching in front of the television after a
long day, you probably don’t think a lot about famous
psychologists of the twentieth century. Somehow, these
figures don’t come up often in prime-time—or even
daytime—TV programming. Whether you’re watching
Living Lohan or the NewsHour, the likelihood is that you
are not thinking of Sigmund Freud, even if you’ve heard
of his book Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.
I say that you should be.
What made me think of Freud in the first place,
actually, was Family Guy, the cartoon created by Seth
MacFarlane. (Seriously—stay with me here.) Any of
my friends can tell you that this program holds endless
fascination for me; as a matter of fact, my high school
rag-sheet “perfect mate” was the baby Stewie Griffin, a
character on the show (see Fig. 1). Embarrassingly enough,
I have almost reached the point at which I can perform

Starts with
what others
are saying
(Chapter 1)

Responds to
what they say
(Chapter 4)

Metacommentary wards
off potential
skepticism
(Chapter 10)

145

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 145

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

Quotes and
summarizes
what others
say (Chapters
2 and 3)

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

one-woman versions of several episodes. I know every
website that streams the show for free, and I still refuse to
return the five Family Guy DVDs a friend lent me in 2006.
Before I was such a devotee, however, I was adamantly
opposed to the program for its particular brand of humor.
It will come as no surprise that I was not alone in this
view; many still denounce Family Guy as bigoted and crude.
New York Times journalist Stuart Elliott claimed just this
year that “the characters on the Fox television series Family
Guy . . . purposely offen[d] just about every group of people

Fig 1. Peter and Stewie Griffin (Everett Collection)

146

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 146

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

you could name.” Likewise Stephen Dubner, co-author of
Freakonomics, called Family Guy “a cartoon comedy that
packs more gags per minute about race, sex, incest, bestiality,
etc. than any other show [he] can think of.” Comparing its
level of offense to that of Don Imus’s infamous comments
about the Rutgers women’s basketball team in the same year,
comments that threw the popular CBS radio talk-show host
off the air, Dubner said he wondered why Imus couldn’t get
away with as much as Family Guy could.
Dubner did not know about all the trouble Family Guy
has had. In fact, it must be one of the few television shows
in history that has been canceled not just once, but twice.
After its premiere in April 1999, the show ran until August
2000, but was besieged by so many complaints, some of
them from MacFarlane’s old high school headmaster, Rev.
Richardson W. Schell, that Fox shelved it until July 2001
(Weinraub). Still afraid of causing a commotion, though,
Fox had the cartoon censored and irregularly scheduled;
as a result, its ratings fell so low that 2002 saw its second
cancellation (Weinraub). But then it came back with a
vengeance—I’ll get into that later.
Family Guy has found trouble more recently, too. In
2007, comedian Carol Burnett sued Fox for 6 million dollars, claiming that the show’s parody of the Charwoman,
a character that she had created for The Carol Burnett
Show, not only violated copyright but also besmirched the

147

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 147

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

Represents
a naysayer’s
objections
fairly
(Chapter 6)

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

character’s name in revenge for Burnett’s refusal to grant
permission to use her theme song (“Carol Burnett Sues
over Family Guy Parody”). The suit came after MacFarlane
had made the Charwoman into a cleaning woman for a
pornography store in one episode of Family Guy. Burnett
lost, but U.S. district judge Dean Pregerson agreed that he
could “fully appreciate how distasteful and offensive the
segment [was] to Ms. Burnett” (qtd. in Grossberg).
I must admit, I can see how parts of the show might
seem offensive if taken at face value. Look, for example,
at the mock fifties instructional video that features in the
episode “I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar.”
[The screen becomes black and white. Vapid music
plays in the background. The screen reads “WOMEN IN
THE WORKPLACE ca. 1956,” then switches to a shot of
an office with various women working on typewriters.
A businessman speaks to the camera.]
businessman : Irrational and emotionally fragile by
nature, female coworkers are a peculiar animal. They
are very insecure about their appearance. Be sure to
tell them how good they look every day, even if they’re
homely and unkempt. [He turns to an unattractive female
typist.] You’re doing a great job, Muriel, and you’re
prettier than Mamie van Doren! [She smiles. He grins
at the camera, raising one eyebrow knowingly, and winks.]

148

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 148

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

And remember, nothing says “Good job!” like a firm
open-palm slap on the behind. [He walks past a woman
bent over a file cabinet and demonstrates enthusiastically.
She smiles, looking flattered. He grins at the camera again
as the music comes to an end.]
Laughing at something so blatantly sexist could cause
anyone a pang of guilt, and before I thought more about
the show this seemed to be a huge problem. I agreed with
Dubner, and I failed to see how anyone could laugh at such
jokes without feeling at least slightly ashamed.
Soon, though, I found myself forced to give Family Guy
a chance. It was simply everywhere: my brother and many of
my friends watched it religiously, and its devoted fans relentlessly proselytized for it. In case you have any doubts about
its immense popularity, consider these facts. On Facebook,
the universal forum for my generation, there are currently
23 separate Family Guy fan groups with a combined membership of 1,669 people (compared with only 6 groups protesting
against Family Guy, with 105 members total). Users of the
well-respected Internet Movie Database rate the show 8.8
out of 10. The box-set DVDs were the best-selling television
DVDs of 2003 in the United States (Moloney). Among the
public and within the industry, the show receives fantastic
acclaim; it has won eight awards, including three primetime Emmys (IMDb). Most importantly, each time it was
cancelled fans provided the brute force necessary to get it

Agrees,
but with a
difference
(Chapter 4)

Anticipates
a naysayer’s
skepticism
(Chapter 6)

149

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 149

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

Distinguishes
between what
others say and
what she says
(Chapter 5)

Mixes
academic and
colloquial
styles
(Chapter 9)

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

back on the air. In 2000, online campaigns did the trick; in
2002, devotees demonstrated outside Fox Studios, refused to
watch the Fox network, and boycotted any companies that
advertised on it (Moloney). Given the show’s high profile,
both with my friends and family and in the world at large, it
would have been more work for me to avoid the Griffin family than to let myself sink into their animated world.
With more exposure, I found myself crafting a more positive view of Family Guy. Those who don’t often watch the
program, as Dubner admits he doesn’t, could easily come to
think that the cartoon takes pleasure in controversial humor
just for its own sake. But those who pay more attention and
think about the creators’ intentions can see that Family Guy
intelligently satirizes some aspects of American culture.
Some of this satire is actually quite obvious. Take, for
instance, a quip Brian the dog makes about Stewie’s literary choices in a fourth-season episode, “PTV.” (Never mind
that a dog and a baby can both read and hold lengthy
conversations.)
[The Griffins are in their car. Brian turns to Stewie, who
sits reading in his car seat.]

Uses a
quotation
sandwich
to explicate
this excerpt
(Chapter 3)

brian : East of Eden? So you, you, you pretty much do
whatever Oprah tells you to, huh?
stewie : You know, this book’s been around for fifty
years. It’s a classic.

150

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 150

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

brian : But you just got it last week. And there’s a giant
Oprah sticker on the front.
stewie : Oh—oh—oh, is that what that is? Oh, lemme
just peel that right off,
brian : So, uh, what are you gonna read after that one?
stewie : Well, she hasn’t told us yet—damn!
Brian and Stewie demonstrate insightfully and comically
how Americans are willing to follow the instructions of a
celebrity blindly—and less willing to admit that they are
doing so.
The more off-color jokes, though, those that give
Family Guy a bad name, attract a different kind of viewer.
Such viewers are not “rats in a behaviorist’s maze,” as
Distinguishes
Slate writer Dana Stevens labels modern American televi- what others
say from what
sion consumers in her article “Thinking Outside the Idiot she says
(Chapter 5)
Box.” They are conscious and critical viewers, akin to the
“screenagers” identified by Douglas Rushkoff in an essay
entitled “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence” (294). They
are not—and this I cannot stress enough, self-serving as it
may seem—immoral or easily manipulated people.
Rushkoff’s piece analyzes the humor of The Simpsons, a
show criticized for many of the same reasons as Family Guy.
“The people I call ‘screenagers,’ ” Rushkoff explains, “. . .
speak the media language better than their parents do and
they see through clumsy attempts to program them into
submission” (294). He claims that gaming technology has

151

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 151

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

Uses
transitions
to connect
the parts
(Chapter 8)

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

made my generation realize that television is programmed
for us with certain intentions; since we can control
characters in the virtual world, we are more aware that
characters on TV are similarly controlled. “Sure, [these
‘screenagers’] might sit back and watch a program now and
again,” Rushkoff explains, “but they do so voluntarily, and
with full knowledge of their complicity. It is not an involuntary surrender” (294). In his opinion, our critical eyes
and our unwillingness to be programmed by the programmers make for an entirely new relationship with the shows
we watch. Thus we enjoy The Simpsons’ parodies of mass
media culture since we are skeptical of it ourselves.
Rushkoff’s argument about The Simpsons actually
applies to Family Guy as well, except in one dimension: Rushkoff writes that The Simpsons’ creators do “not
comment on social issues as much as they [do on] the
media imagery around a particular social issue” (296).
MacFarlane and company seem to do the reverse. Trusting
in their viewers’ ability to analyze what they are watching, the creators of Family Guy point out the weaknesses
and defects of U.S. society in a mocking and sometimes
intolerant way.
Taken in this light, the “instructional video” quoted
above becomes not only funny but also insightful. In its satire, viewers can recognize the sickly sweet and falsely sensitive sexism of the 1950s in observing just how conveniently

152

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 152

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

self-serving the speaker of the video appears. The message
of the clip denounces and ridicules sexism rather than
condoning it. It is an excerpt that perfectly exemplifies the
bold-faced candor of the show, from which it derives a lot of
its appeal.
Making such comically outrageous remarks on the air
also serves to expose certain prejudiced attitudes as outrageous themselves. Taking these comments at face value
would be as foolish as taking Jonathan Swift’s “Modest
Proposal” seriously. Furthermore, while they put bigoted
words into the mouths of their characters, the show’s
writers cannot be accused of portraying these characters
positively. Peter Griffin, the “family guy” of the show’s
title, probably says and does the most offensive things of
all—but as a lazy, overweight, and insensitive failure of a
man, he is hardly presented as someone to admire. Nobody
in his or her right mind would observe Peter’s behavior and
deem it worth emulation.
Family Guy has its own responses to accusations
of crudity. In the episode “PTV,” Peter sets up his own
television station broadcasting from home and the Griffin
family finds itself confronting the Federal Communications
Commission directly (see Fig. 2 for a picture of the whole
family). The episode makes many tongue-in-cheek jabs
at the FCC, some of which are sung in a rousing musical
number, but also sneaks in some of the creator’s own

153

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 153

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

Fig 2. The Griffin family watches TV. (Everett Collection)

opinions. The plot comes to a climax when the FCC
begins to censor “real life” in the town of Quahog; officials
place black censor bars in front of newly showered Griffins
and blow foghorns whenever characters curse. MacFarlane
makes an important point: that no amount of television
censorship will ever change the harsh nature of reality—
and to censor reality is mere folly. Likewise, he puts explicit
arguments about censorship into lines spoken by his

154

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 154

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

characters, as when Brian says that “responsibility lies with
the parents [and] there are plenty of things that are much
worse for children than television.”
It must be said too that not all of Family Guy’s humor
could be construed as offensive. Some of its jokes are more
tame and insightful, the kind you might expect from the
New Yorker. The following light commentary on the usefulness of high school algebra from “When You Wish Upon a
Weinstein” could hardly be accused of upsetting anyone—
except, perhaps, a few high school math teachers.
[Shot of Peter on the couch and his son Chris lying at his
feet and doing homework.]
chris : Dad, can you help me with my math? [My
teacher] says if I don’t learn it, I won’t be able to function in the real world.
[Shot of Chris standing holding a map in a run-down gas
station next to an attendant in overalls and a trucker cap
reading “PUMP THIS.” The attendant speaks with a
Southern accent and gestures casually to show the different
road configurations.]
attendant : Okay, now what you gotta do is go down
the road past the old Johnson place, and you’re gonna
find two roads, one parallel and one perpendicular.
Now keep going until you come to a highway that

155

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 155

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

bisects it at a 45-degree angle. [Crosses his arms.] Solve
for x.
[Shot of Chris lying on the ground next to the attendant in
fetal position, sucking his thumb. His map lies abandoned
near him.]

Uses
transitions
to connect
the parts
(Chapter 8)

Agrees and
disagrees;
makes
concessions
while standing
her ground
(Chapters 4
and 6)

In fact, Family Guy does not aim to hurt, and its creators
take certain measures to keep it from hitting too hard.
In an interview on Access Hollywood, Seth MacFarlane
plainly states that there are certain jokes too upsetting to
certain groups to go on the air. Similarly, to ensure that
the easily misunderstood show doesn’t fall into the hands
of those too young to understand it, Fox will not license
Family Guy rights to any products intended for children
under the age of fourteen (Elliott).
However, this is not to say that MacFarlane’s mission
is corrective or noble. It is worth remembering that he
wants only to amuse, a goal for which he was criticized
by several of his professors at the Rhode Island School of
Design (Weinraub). For this reason, his humor can be dangerous. On the one hand, I don’t agree with George Will’s
reductive and generalized statement in his article “Reality
Television: Oxymoron” that “entertainment seeking a mass
audience is ratcheting up the violence, sexuality, and degradation, becoming increasingly coarse and trying to be . . .
shocking in an unshockable society.” I believe Family Guy

156

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 156

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

has its intelligent points, and some of its seemingly “coarse”
scenes often have hidden merit. I must concede, though,
that a few of the show’s scenes seem to be doing just what
Will claims; sometimes the creators do seem to cross—or,
perhaps, eagerly race past—the line of indecency. In one
such crude scene, an elderly dog slowly races a paraplegic
and Peter, who has just been hit by a car, to get to a severed finger belonging to Peter himself (“Whistle While
Your Wife Works”). Nor do I find it particularly funny
when Stewie physically abuses Brian in a bloody fight over
gambling money (“Patriot Games”).
Thus, while Family Guy can provide a sort of relief by
breaking down taboos, we must still wonder whether or not
these taboos exist for a reason. An excess of offensive jokes,
especially those that are often misconstrued, can seem to
Concludes by
showing who
grant tacit permission to think offensively if it’s done for
cares and why
her argument
comedy— and laughing at others’ expense can be cruel,
matters
no matter how funny. Jokes all have their origins, and the (Chapter 7)
funniest ones are those that hit home the hardest; if we
listen to Freud, these are the ones that let our animalistic
and aggressive impulses surface from the unconscious. The
distinction between a shamelessly candid but insightful joke
and a merely shameless joke is a slight but important one.
While I love Family Guy as much as any fan, it’s important
not to lose sight of what’s truly unfunny in real life—even
as we appreciate what is hilarious in fiction.

157

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 157

1/13/14 11:04 AM

eleven

“ H E S AY S C O N T E N D S ”

Works Cited
“Carol Burnett Sues over Family Guy Parody.” CBC.com.
Canadian Broadcasting Centre, 16 Mar. 2007. Web.
14 July 2008.
Dubner, Stephen J. “Why Is Family Guy Okay When Imus
Wasn’t?” Web log post. Freakonomics: The Hidden
Side of Everything, 3 Dec. 2007. Web. 14 July 2008.
Elliott, Stuart. “Crude? So What? These Characters Still
Find Work in Ads.” New York Times. New York
Times, 18 June 2008. Web. 14 July 2008.
Facebook. Search for Family Guy under “Groups.” 14 July
2008.
Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relation to the
Unconscious. 1905. Trans. James Strachey. New York:
Norton, 1989. Print.
Grossberg, Josh. “Carol Burnett Can’t Stop Stewie.”
E! Online. E! Entertainment Television, 5 June 2007.
Web. 14 Jul. 2008.
“I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar.” Family Guy. Prod. Seth
MacFarlane. Twentieth Century Fox. 28 Mar. 2000.
Web. 14 July 2008.
Internet Movie Database. Family Guy. Ed. unknown. Last
update date unknown. Web. 14 July 2008.
MacFarlane, Seth. Interview. Access Hollywood. Online
posting on YouTube. 8 May 2007. Web. 14 July 2008.

158

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 158

1/13/14 11:04 AM

Using the Templates to Revise

Moloney, Ben Adam. “Family Guy—The TV Series.”
British Broadcasting Corporation. 30 Sept. 2004.
Web. 14 Jul. 2008.
“Patriot Games.” Family Guy. Prod. Seth MacFarlane. Twentieth Century Fox. 29 Jan. 2006. Web. 22 July 2008.
“PTV.” Family Guy. Prod. Seth MacFarlane. Twentieth
Century Fox. 6 Nov. 2005. Web. 14 July 2008.
Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.”
Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility
of Oppositional Culture. Ed. John Alberti. Detroit:
Wayne State UP, 2004. 292–301. Print.
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box.” Slate.
Slate, 25 Mar. 2005. Web. 14 Jul. 2008.
Weinraub, Bernard. “The Young Guy of ‘Family Guy’:
A 30-Year-Old’s Cartoon Hit Makes an Unexpected
Comeback.” New York Times. New York Times, 7 Jul.
2004. Web. 14 July 2008.
“When You Wish Upon a Weinstein.” Family Guy. Prod.
Seth MacFarlane. Twentieth Century Fox. 9 Nov.
2003. Web. 22 July 2008.
“Whistle While Your Wife Works.” Family Guy. Prod. Seth
MacFarlane. Twentieth Century Fox. 12 Nov. 2006.
Web. 14 July 2008.
Will, George F. “Reality Television: Oxymoron.”
Washington Post 21 June 2001: A25. Print.

159

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 159

1/13/14 11:04 AM

05_GRA_93584_part3_103_160.indd 160

12/24/13 11:07 AM

4
H
IN SPECIFIC
ACADEMIC CONTEXTS

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 161

12/24/13 11:08 AM

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 162

12/24/13 11:08 AM

TWE LV E

“i take your point”
Entering Class Discussions

Have you ever been in a class discussion that feels less like
a genuine meeting of the minds than like a series of discrete,
disconnected monologues? You make a comment, say, that
seems provocative to you, but the classmate who speaks after
you makes no reference to what you said, instead going off in
an entirely different direction. Then, the classmate who speaks
next makes no reference either to you or to any one else, making
it seem as if everyone in the conversation is more interested in
their own ideas than in actually conversing with anyone else.
We like to think that the principles this book advances can
help improve class discussions, which increasingly include various
forms of online communication. Particularly important for class
discussion is the point that our own ideas become more cogent
and powerful the more responsive we are to others, and the more
we frame our claims not in isolation but as responses to what
others before us have said. Ultimately, then, a good face-to-face
classroom discussion (or online communication) doesn’t just happen spontaneously. It requires the same sorts of disciplined moves
and practices used in many writing situations, particularly that of
identifying to what and to whom you are responding.
163

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 163

12/24/13 11:08 AM

twelve

“ I TA K E YO U R P O I N T ”

frame your comments as a response
to something that has already been said
The single most important thing you need to do when joining a
class discussion is to link what you are about to say to something
that has already been said.
j I really liked Aaron’s point about the two sides being closer than
they seem. I’d add that both seem rather moderate.

j I take your point, Nadia, that

. Still . . .

j Though Sheila and Ryan seem to be at odds about

they may actually not be all that far apart.

In framing your comments this way, it is usually best to name
both the person and the idea you’re responding to. If you name
the person alone (“I agree with Aaron because
”),
it may not be clear to listeners what part of what Aaron
said you are referring to. Conversely, if you only summarize what Aaron said without naming him, you’ll probably
leave your classmates wondering whose comments you’re
referring to.
But won’t you sound stilted and deeply redundant in
class if you try to restate the point your classmate just made?
After all, in the case of the first template above, the entire
class will have just heard Aaron’s point about the two sides
being closer than they seem. Why then would you need to
restate it?
We agree that in oral situations, it does often sound artificial
to restate what others just said precisely because they just said
it. It would be awkward if, on being asked to pass the salt at
164

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 164

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Class Discussions

lunch, one were to reply: “If I understand you correctly, you
have asked me to pass the salt. Yes, I can, and here it is.” But
in oral discussions about complicated issues that are open to
multiple interpretations, we usually do need to resummarize
what others have said to make sure that everyone is on the
same page. Since Aaron may have made several points when
he spoke and may have been followed by other commentators,
the class will probably need you to summarize which point of his
you are referring to. And even if Aaron made only one point,
restating that point is helpful, not only to remind the group
what his point was (since some may have missed or forgotten it)
but also to make sure that he, you, and others have interpreted
his point in the same way.

to change the subject,
indicate explicitly that you are doing so
It is fine to try to change the conversation’s direction. There’s
just one catch: you need to make clear to listeners that this is
what you are doing. For example:
j So far we have been talking about the characters in the film. But
isn’t the real issue here the cinematography?

j I’d like to change the subject to one that hasn’t yet been
addressed.

You can try to change the subject without indicating that you
are doing so. But you risk that your comment will come across as
irrelevant rather than as a thoughtful contribution that moves
the conversation forward.
165

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 165

12/24/13 11:08 AM

twelve

“ I TA K E YO U R P O I N T ”

be even more explicit
than you would be in writing
Because listeners in an oral discussion can’t go back and reread
what you just said, they are more easily overloaded than are
readers of a print text. For this reason, in a class discussion you
will do well to take some extra steps to help listeners follow
your train of thought. (1) When you make a comment, limit
yourself to one point only though you can elaborate on this
point, fleshing it out with examples and evidence. If you feel
you must make two points, either unite them under one larger
umbrella point, or make one point first and save the other for
later. Trying to bundle two or more claims into one comment
can result in neither getting the attention it deserves. (2) Use
metacommentary to highlight your key point so that listeners
can readily grasp it.
j In other words, what I’m trying to get at here is
j My point is this:

j My point, though, is not

, but

j This distinction is important because

.
.

166

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 166

12/24/13 11:08 AM

THI RTEE N

“imho”
Is Digital Communication
Good or Bad—or Both?

You may wonder what our advice in this book about entering conversations and debates has to do with one of the major
innovations in our society, the online technologies through
which we now do much of our reading and writing. You may
have heard parents and journalists complain that smartphones,
iPads, and other electronic devices that seem almost wired into
our brains are destroying our ability to think, communicate,
and interact with others. At the same time, you’ve also probably heard counterarguments to the effect that, on the contrary, these digital technologies actually stretch the mind, bring
people together, and even make us better writers.
These arguments are part of a set of interrelated debates
that are taking place today, sometimes in the blogosphere itself,
among journalists, academic researchers, and other commentators. In some of these debates, those who extol their virtues
argue that today’s new online technologies make us smarter by

167

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 167

12/24/13 11:08 AM

thirteen

“IMHO”

exposing us to a wide range of perspectives and giving us instant
access to massive stores of new information. Whereas once we
would have had to spend hours burrowing through dusty library
shelves to find the information we need, today we can access
the same information with a click of a mouse in the comfort
of our homes. Thanks to the internet, our potential knowledge
is now thousands of times greater than ever before. How could
such a development not be a huge plus for any writer?
The critics, however, retort that, far from making us smarter,
online technologies are actually making us dumber, even in
our capacity as writers. According to these critics, many online
researchers end their investigations at the first entry that comes
up in a Google search (often in Wikipedia), and the constraints
of email, text messaging, and tweeting force us to communicate
in reductive sound-bites and inane abbreviations (OMG! LOL!
IMHO!). The critics also charge that the very volume of new
information that the web makes so easily available overwhelms
us and prevents us from thinking clearly. So much comes at
us so fast from electronic sources that we can no longer think
straight or organize our thoughts into clear writing. The greater
the mountain of information we have at our fingertips, say the
critics, the less chance there is that we will find the fraction of
it that is most valuable and useful to focus on and respond to.
As a result, according to one critic, researcher Clifford Nass,
the multitasking encouraged by the web and other digital technologies is making student writers less able to sustain a “big
idea” in an essay and more prone to write in “little bursts and
snippets” (Nass).
Yet many challenge this pessimistic view. Rhetoric and
composition professor Andrea Lunsford rejects the notion
that “Google is making us stupid,” that “Facebook is frying our

168

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 168

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Is Digital Communication Good or Bad—or Both?

brains,” and that the web is depriving students of the ability to
express ideas (qtd. in Haven). According to Lunsford, reporting
on a five-year research project, the Stanford Study of Writing,
student writers today are remarkably “adept at crafting messages
that will reach their intended audience because of their constant use of social media” (Lunsford). That is, today’s students
are proficient “at what rhetoricians call kairos—assessing their
audience and adapting their tone and technique to best get
their point across” (Thompson).
There is also disagreement over whether online technologies create or undermine genuine conversation and community. On the one hand, some praise the web for its ability to
bring people from distant places together who otherwise would
remain strangers, enabling them to interact more easily with
others through such mediums as email, blogs, videochat, and
social networking sites. Those who make this argument might
claim that our advice in this book to present your ideas as a
response to the ideas of others lends itself well to online communication. After all, the internet allows us to post something
and then get quick, even instantaneous responses. It also allows
us more easily to access multiple perspectives on any topic and
then directly insert the voices of others into our text in links
that readers can click on.
Critics on the other hand question the quality of the conversations that take place online, arguing that these conversations
are rarely genuine meetings of minds and noting that online
writers often speak past rather than to or with one another.
Because online writers can hit “send” before reflecting, as writers more likely would using slower and more deliberate print
media, these critics charge that true debate in which the various parties really listen to one another is exceedingly rare on

169

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 169

12/24/13 11:08 AM

thirteen

“IMHO”

the web. In other words, communicating online tends to undermine true conversation because writers can too easily dismiss
or ignore other points of view, and thus are more likely to
engage in egotistical monologues in which they use what others
say as a pretext for expounding their own already established
opinions.
So go some of the arguments pro and con about the impact
of online technologies on our thinking and our communicative
habits, including our writing. Though we agree that the internet
has given us access to previously unimaginable stores of information and greatly expanded our range of communication—
and that it potentially broadens our perspectives—we think
the critics have a point in noting that many conversations on
the web are not exchanges so much as monologues in which
writers pass one another without intersecting. We ourselves
have been dismayed when our own online articles have drawn
comments that begin, “I haven’t read Graff and Birkenstein’s
article, but in my opinion. . . .” In our view, the best remedy
for such failures of communication is to improve the listening
and summarizing skills we emphasize in this book, whether
these skills are practiced online, offline, or even on a stone
tablet.
As for how these digital technologies have influenced student writing, our own view, based on the writing we have seen
in our combined seventy years of teaching, is that that this
influence is neither disastrous, as the critics fear, nor wonderfully revolutionary, as the proponents claim. Contrary to
Nass, student writers found it challenging to sustain a “big idea”
long before the advent of the worldwide web, and, contrary to
Lunsford, we see no evidence that tweeting and posting have
made writers more adept at reaching audiences. As we see it,

170

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 170

1/3/14 2:05 PM

Is Digital Communication Good or Bad—or Both?

online technologies only recycle any difficulties writers have
reaching audiences; if a writer has trouble reaching audiences
in one medium, he or she will have it in another. A student
of ours, for example, writing to an audience of his classmates
on a course listserv, began a post in the following way:
“Going off what Meg said, I would argue…”

His audience was mystified, since nobody, including Meg
herself, could remember what she had said. As this incident
illustrates, the immediacy of online writing—not just in course
listservs, but in emails, social media, and so forth—makes it
appear so much like oral communication that we are seduced
into forgetting that it is still a form of writing and therefore very
often requires the mastery of formal conventions, in this case
that of summarizing what has previously been said. It is hard
to imagine any writer, as we have already suggested, who does
not struggle with the rhetorical moves of argument, from summarizing, explaining, and quoting what others say to responding
to what they say, and the myriad other competencies covered
in this book.
Our purpose in this brief chapter, however, is not to try
to settle these debates, but to invite you to think about how
digital technologies affect your work as a reader and writer.
Do these technologies make it easier to join conversations?
Do they improve or degrade your thinking and writing? What
is your opinion and why? To help you answer these questions,
we conclude, then, with a couple of exercises that invite you
to pick up where we have left off—and, as Kenneth Burke said,
to put in your own oar.

171

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 171

1/3/14 2:05 PM

thirteen

“IMHO”

Works Cited
Haven, Cynthia. “The New Literacy: Stanford Study Finds Richness and
Complexity in Students’ Writing.” Stanford Report. Stanford University,
12 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.
Lunsford, Andrea. “Everyone’s an Author.” Presentation to Norton travelers,
Park City. 6 Aug. 2012. Lecture.
Nass, Clifford. Interview. Frontline. PBS. WGBH, Boston, 1 Dec. 2009. Web.
14 Nov. 2013.
Thompson, Clive. “Clive Thompson on the New Literacy.” Wired. Condé
Nast, 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.

Exercises
1. Have we formulated the debatable issues above in a useful
way? Have we left out anything important? Write an essay
in which you summarize some of our commentary as your
“they say” and offer your own response, whether to disagree,
agree with a difference, or reframe the issues in some way.
2. As a test case for thinking about the questions raised in
this chapter, go to the blog that accompanies this book,
theysayiblog.com. Examine some of the exchanges that
appear there and evaluate the quality of the responses. For
example, how well do the participants in these exchanges
summarize one another’s claims before making their own
responses? How would you characterize any discussion? Is
there a true meeting of the minds or are writers sometimes
caricatured or treated as straw men? How do these online discussions compare with the face to face discussions you have
in class? What advantages does each offer? Go to other blogs
on topics that interest you and ask these same questions.
172

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 172

12/24/13 11:08 AM

F O URTEE N

“what’s motivating this writer?”
Reading for the Conversation

“What is the author’s argument? What is he or she
trying to say?” For many years, these were the first questions we
would ask our classes in a discussion of an assigned reading. The
discussion that resulted was often halting, as our students struggled to get a handle on the argument, but eventually, after some
awkward silences, the class would come up with something we
could all agree was an accurate summary of the author’s main
thesis. Even after we’d gotten over that hurdle, however, the
discussion would often still seem forced, and would limp along
as we all struggled with the question that naturally arose next:
Now that we had determined what the author was saying, what
did we ourselves have to say?
For a long time we didn’t worry much about these halting
discussions, justifying them to ourselves as the predictable result
of assigning difficult, challenging readings. Several years ago,
however, as we started writing this book and began thinking
about writing as the art of entering conversations, we latched
onto the idea of leading with some different questions: “What
other argument(s) is the writer responding to?” “Is the writer

173

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 173

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fourteen

“ W H AT ’ S M OT I VAT I N G T H I S W R I T E R ? ”

disagreeing or agreeing with something, and if so what?” “What
is motivating the writer’s argument?” “Are there other ideas
that you have encountered in this class or elsewhere that might
be pertinent?” The results were often striking. The discussions
that followed tended to be far livelier and to draw in a greater
number of students. We were still asking students to look for
the main argument, but we were now asking them to see that
argument as a response to some other argument that provoked
it, gave it a reason for being, and helped all of us see why we
should care about it.
What had happened, we realized, was that by changing
the opening question, we changed the way our students
approached reading, and perhaps the way they thought about
academic work in general. Instead of thinking of the argument of a text as an isolated entity, they now thought of that
argument as one that responded to and provoked other arguments. Since they were now dealing not with one argument
but at least two (the author’s argument and the one[s] he or
she was responding to), they now had alternative ways of seeing the topic at hand. This meant that, instead of just trying
to understand the view presented by the author, they were
more able to question that view intelligently and engage in
the type of discussion and debate that is the hallmark of a
college education. In our discussions, animated debates often
arose between students who found the author’s argument convincing and others who were more convinced by the view it
was challenging. In the best of these debates, the binary positions would be questioned by other students, who suggested
each was too simple, that both might be right or that a third
alternative was possible. Still other students might object that
the discussion thus far had missed the author’s real point and

174

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 174

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Reading for the Conversation

suggest that we all go back to the text and pay closer attention
to what it actually said.
We eventually realized that the move from reading for the
author’s argument in isolation to reading for how the author’s
argument is in conversation with the arguments of others helps
readers become active, critical readers rather than passive recipients of knowledge. On some level, reading for the conversation is more rigorous and demanding than reading for what
one author says. It asks that you determine not only what the
author thinks, but how what the author thinks fits with what
others think, and ultimately with what you yourself think. Yet
on another level, reading this way is a lot simpler and more
familiar than reading for the thesis alone, since it returns writing to the familiar, everyday act of communicating with other
people about real issues.

deciphering the conversation
We suggest, then, that when assigned a reading, you imagine
the author not as sitting alone in an empty room hunched
over a desk or staring at a screen, but as sitting in a crowded
coffee shop talking to others who are making claims that he
or she is engaging with. In other words, imagine the author as
participating in an ongoing, multisided, conversation in which
everyone is trying to persuade others to agree or at least to take
his or her position seriously.
The trick in reading for the conversation is to figure out
what views the author is responding to and what the author’s own
argument is—or, to put it in the terms used in this book, to
determine the “they say” and how the author responds to it.

175

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 175

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fourteen

“ W H AT ’ S M OT I VAT I N G T H I S W R I T E R ? ”

One of the challenges in reading for the “they say” and “I say”
can be figuring out which is which, since it may not be obvious
when writers are summarizing others and when they are speaking for themselves. Readers need to be alert for any changes in
voice that a writer might make, since instead of using explicit
road-mapping phrases like “although many believe,” authors
may simply summarize the view that they want to engage with
and indicate only subtly that it is not their own.
Consider again the opening to the selection by David
Zinczenko on p. 241.
If ever there were a newspaper headline custom made for Jay Leno’s
monologue, this was it. Kids taking on McDonald’s this week, suing
the company for making them fat. Isn’t that like middle-aged men
suing Porsche for making them get speeding tickets? Whatever
happened to personal responsibility?
I tend to sympathize with these portly fast-food patrons, though.
Maybe that’s because I used to be one of them.
David Zinczenko, “Don’t Blame the Eater”

Whenever we teach this passage, some students inevitably
assume that Zinczenko must be espousing the view expressed
in his first paragraph: that suing McDonald’s is ridicuSee Chapter 6
for more
lous. When their reading is challenged by their classdiscussion of
naysayers.
mates, these students point to the page and reply,
“Look. It’s right here on the page. This is what Zinczenko
wrote. These are his exact words.” The assumption these students are making is that if something appears on the page,
the author must endorse it. In fact, however, we ventriloquize views that we don’t believe in, and may in fact passionately disagree with, all the time. The central clues that
Zinczenko disagrees with the view expressed in his opening
176

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 176

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Reading for the Conversation

paragraph come in the second paragraph, when he finally
offers a first-person declaration and uses a constrastive transition, “though,” thereby resolving any questions about where
he stands.

when the “they say” is unstated
Another challenge can be identifying the “they say” when it is
not explicitly identified. Whereas Zinczenko offers an up-front
summary of the view he is responding to, other writers assume
that their readers are so familiar with these views that they need
not name or summarize them. In such cases, you the reader
have to reconstruct the unstated “they say” that is motivating
the text through a process of inference.
See, for instance, if you can reconstruct the position that
Tamara Draut is challenging in the opening paragraph of her
essay “The Growing College Gap.”
“The first in her family to graduate from college.” How many times
have we heard that phrase, or one like it, used to describe a successful American with a modest background? In today’s United States, a
four-year degree has become the all-but-official ticket to middle-class
security. But if your parents don’t have much money or higher education in their own right, the road to college—and beyond—looks
increasingly treacherous. Despite a sharp increase in the proportion of
high school graduates going on to some form of postsecondary education, socio-economic status continues to exert a powerful influence on
college admission and completion; in fact, gaps in enrollment by class
and race, after declining in the 1960s and 1970s, are once again as
wide as they were thirty years ago, and getting wider, even as college
has become far more crucial to lifetime fortunes.
Tamara Draut, “The Growing College Gap”
177

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 177

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fourteen

“ W H AT ’ S M OT I VAT I N G T H I S W R I T E R ? ”

You might think that the “they say” here is embedded in the
third sentence: They say (or we all think) that a four-year
degree is “the all-but-official ticket to middle-class security,”
and you might assume that Draut will go on to disagree.
If you read the passage this way, however, you would be
mistaken. Draut is not questioning whether a college degree has
become “the ticket to middle-class security,” but whether most
Americans can obtain that ticket, whether college is within the
financial reach of most American families. You may have been
thrown off by the “but” following the statement that college
has become a prerequisite for middle-class security. However,
unlike the “though” in Zinczenko’s opening, this “but” does
not signal that Draut will be disagreeing with the view she has
just summarized, a view that in fact she takes as a given. What
Draut disagrees with is that this ticket to middle-class security
is still readily available to the middle and working classes.
Were one to imagine Draut in a room talking with others
with strong views on this topic, one would need to picture her
challenging not those who think college is a ticket to financial
security (something she agrees with and takes for granted), but
those who think the doors of college are open to anyone willing
to put forth the effort to walk through them. The view that
Draut is challenging, then, is not summarized in her opening.
Instead, she assumes that readers are already so familiar with
this view that it need not be stated.
Draut’s example suggests that in texts where the central “they
say” is not immediately identified, you have to construct it yourself based on the clues the text provides. You have to start by
locating the writer’s thesis and then imagine some of the arguments that might be made against it. What would it look like
to disagree with this view? In Draut’s case, it is relatively easy
to construct a counterargument: it is the familiar faith in the
178

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 178

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Reading for the Conversation

American Dream of equal opportunity when it comes to access
to college. Figuring out the counterargument not only reveals
what motivated Draut as a writer but helps you respond to her
essay as an active, critical reader. Constructing this counterargument can also help you recognize how Draut challenges
your own views, questioning opinions that you previously took
for granted.

when the “they say” is about something
“nobody has talked about”
Another challenge in reading for the conversation is that writers sometimes build their arguments by responding to a lack
of discussion. These writers build their case not by playing off
views that can be identified (like faith in the American Dream
or the idea that we are responsible for our body weight), but by
pointing to something others have overlooked. As the writing
theorists John M. Swales and Christine B. Feak point out, one
effective way to “create a research space” and “establish a niche”
in the academic world is “by indicating a gap in . . . previous
research.” Much research in the sciences and humanities takes
this “Nobody has noticed X” form.
In such cases, the writer may be responding to scientists,
for example, who have overlooked an obscure plant that offers
insights into global warming, or to literary critics who have been
so busy focusing on the lead character in a play that they have
overlooked something important about the minor characters.

reading particularly challenging texts
Sometimes it is difficult to figure out the views that writers
are responding to not because these writers do not identify
179

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 179

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fourteen

“ W H AT ’ S M OT I VAT I N G T H I S W R I T E R ? ”

those views but because their language and the concepts they
are dealing with are particularly challenging. Consider, for
instance, the first two sentences of Gender Trouble: Feminism
and the Subversion of Identity, a book by the feminist philosopher
and literary theorist Judith Butler, thought by many to be a
particularly difficult academic writer.

Contemporary feminist debates over the meaning of gender lead
time and again to a certain sense of trouble, as if the indeterminacy
of gender might eventually culminate in the failure of feminism.
Perhaps trouble need not carry such a negative valence.
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble:
Feminism and the Subversion of Identity

There are many reasons readers may stumble over this relatively
short passage, not the least of which is that Butler does not
explicitly indicate where her own view begins and the view
she is responding to ends. Unlike Zinczenko, Butler does not
use the first-person “I” or a phrase such as “in my own view” to
show that the position in the second sentence is her own. Nor
does Butler offer a clear transition such as “but” or “however” at
the start of the second sentence to indicate, as Zinczenko does
with “though,” that in the second sentence she is questioning
the argument she has summarized in the first. And finally, like
many academic writers, Butler uses abstract, unfamiliar words
that many readers may need to look up, like “gender” (sexual
identity, male or female), “indeterminacy” (the quality of being
impossible to define or pin down), “culminate” (finally result
in), and “negative valence” (a term borrowed from chemistry,
roughly denoting “negative significance” or “meaning”). For all
180

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 180

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Reading for the Conversation

these reasons, we can imagine many readers feeling intimidated
before they reach the third sentence of Butler’s book.
But readers who break down this passage into its essential
parts will find that it is actually a lucid piece of writing that
conforms to the classic “they say / I say” pattern. Though it can
be difficult to spot the clashing arguments in the two sentences,
close analysis reveals that the first sentence offers a way of
looking at a certain type of “trouble” in the realm of feminist
politics that is being challenged in the second.
To understand difficult passages of this kind, you need to
translate them into your own words—to build a bridge, in effect,
between the passage’s unfamiliar terms and ones more familiar
to you. Building such a bridge should help you connect what
you already know to what the author is saying—and will then
help you move from reading to writing, providing you with
some of the language you will need to summarize the text. One
major challenge in translating the author’s words into your own,
however, is to stay true to what the author is actually saying,
avoiding what we call “the closest cliché syndrome,” in which
one mistakes a commonplace idea for an author’s more complex
one (mistaking Butler’s critique of the concept of “woman,” for
instance, for the common idea that women must have equal
rights). The work of complex writers like Butler, who frequently
challenge conventional thinking, cannot always be For more on the
cliché
collapsed into the types of ideas most of us are already closest
syndrome,
see
Chapter
2.
familiar with. Therefore, when you translate, do not
try to fit the ideas of such writers into your preexisting beliefs,
but instead allow your own views to be challenged. In building
a bridge to the writers you read, it is often necessary to meet
those writers more than halfway.
So what, then, does Butler’s opening say? Translating Butler’s words into terms that are easier to understand, we can
181

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 181

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fourteen

“ W H AT ’ S M OT I VAT I N G T H I S W R I T E R ? ”

see that the first sentence says that for many feminists today,
“the indeterminacy of gender”—the inability to define the
essence of sexual identity—spells the end of feminism; that
for many feminists the inability to define “gender,” presumably
the building block of the feminist movement, means serious
“trouble” for feminist politics. In contrast, the second sentence suggests that this same “trouble” need not be thought of
in such “negative” terms, that the inability to define femininity, or “gender trouble” as Butler calls it in her book’s title,
may not be such a bad thing—and, as she goes on to argue
in the pages that follow, may even be something that feminist activists can profit from. In other words, Butler suggests,
highlighting uncertainties about masculinity and femininity
can be a powerful feminist tool.
Pulling all these inferences together, then, the opening sentences can be translated as follows: “While many contemporary feminists believe that uncertainty about what it means to
be a woman will undermine feminist politics, I, Judith Butler,
believe that this uncertainty can actually help strengthen feminist politics.” Translating Butler’s point into our own book’s
basic move: “They say that if we cannot define ‘woman,’ feminism is in big trouble. But I say that this type of trouble is
precisely what feminism needs.” Despite its difficulty, then,
we hope you agree that this initially intimidating passage does
make sense if you stay with it.
We hope it is clear that critical reading is a two-way street.
It is just as much about being open to the way that writers
can challenge you, maybe even transform you, as it is about
questioning those writers. And if you translate a writer’s argument into your own words as you read, you should allow the
text to take you outside the ideas that you already hold and
to introduce you to new terms and concepts. Even if you end
182

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 182

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Reading for the Conversation

up disagreeing with an author, you first have to show that you
have really listened to what he or she is saying, have fully
grasped his or her arguments, and can accurately summarize
those arguments. Without such deep, attentive listening, any
critique you make will be superficial and decidedly uncritical.
It will be a critique that says more about you than about the
writer or idea you’re supposedly responding to.
In this chapter we have tried to show that reading for the
conversation means looking not just for the thesis of a text in
isolation but for the view or views that motivate that thesis—
the “they say.” We have also tried to show that reading for
the conversation means being alert for the different strategies
writers use to engage the view(s) that are motivating them,
since not all writers engage other perspectives in the same way.
Some writers explicitly identify and summarize a view they are
responding to at the outset of their text and then return to it
frequently as their text unfolds. Some refer only obliquely to
a view that is motivating them, assuming that readers will be
able to reconstruct that view on their own. Other writers may
not explicitly distinguish their own view from the views they
are questioning in ways that all of us find clear, leaving some
readers to wonder whether a given view is the writer’s own or
one that he or she is challenging. And some writers push off
against the “they say” that is motivating them in a challenging academic language that requires readers to translate what
they are saying into more accessible, everyday terms. In sum,
then, though most persuasive writers do follow a conversational
“they say / I say” pattern, they do so in a great variety of ways.
What this means for readers is that they need to be armed with
various strategies for detecting the conversations in what they
read, even when those conversations are not self-evident.

183

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 183

12/24/13 11:08 AM

F I F TEEN

“on closer examination”
Entering Conversations about Literature

H
In chinua achebe’s novel Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo,
the main character, is a tragic hero.
So what? Who cares?
Why does this typical way of opening an essay on a literary
work leave readers wondering, “Why are you telling me this?”
Because, in our view, such statements leave it unclear who would
say otherwise. Would anyone deny that the main character of
Achebe’s novel is a tragic hero? Is there some other view of the
subject that this writer is responding to? Since no such alternative
interpretation is indicated, the reader thinks, “OK, Okonkwo is
a tragic hero—as opposed to what?”
Now compare this opening with another possible one:
Several members of our class have argued that Okonkwo, the main
character of Things Fall Apart, is a hateful villain. My own view,
however, is that, while it is true that Okonkwo commits villainous acts, he is ultimately a tragic hero—a flawed but ultimately
sympathetic figure.

We hope you agree that the second version, which responds
to what someone else says about Okonkwo, makes for more
184

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 184

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

engaging writing than the first. Since the first version fails to
present itself as a response to any alternative view of its subject,
it comes at readers out of the blue, leaving them wondering
why it needs to be said at all.
As we stress in this book, it is the views of others and
our desire to respond to these views that gives our writing
its underlying motivation and helps readers see why what we
say matters, why others should care, and why we need to say
it in the first place. In this chapter we suggest that this same
principle applies to writing about literature. Literary critics,
after all, don’t make assertions about literary works out of the
blue. Rather, they contribute to discussions and debates about
the meaning and significance of literary works, some of which
may continue for years and even centuries.
Indeed, this commitment to discussion animates most
literature courses, in which students discuss and debate assigned
works in class before writing papers about them. The premise is
that engaging with classmates and teachers enables us to make
discoveries about the work that we might not arrive at in simply
reading the work alone.
We suggest that you think of writing about literature as a
natural extension of such in-class discussions, listening carefully
to others and using what they say to set up and motivate what
you have to say.

start with what others are saying
But in writing about literature, where do views to respond to—
“they says”—come from? Many sources. Published literary criticism is perhaps the most obvious:
185

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 185

1/3/14 2:05 PM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

j Critic X complains that Author Y’s story is compromised by
his

perspective. While there’s some truth to this cri-

tique, I argue that Critic X overlooks

j According to Critic A, novel X suggests

.
. I agree, but

would add that

But the view that you respond to in writing about literature
can be far closer to home than published literary criticism. As
our opening example illustrates, it can be something said about
the literary work by a classmate or teacher:
j Several members of our class have suggested that the final
. I agree up to a point, but I

message of play X is
.

still think that

Another tactic is to start with something you yourself thought
about the work that on second thought you now want to
revise:
j On first reading play Z, I thought it was an uncritical celebration of

. After rereading the play and discussing it in
than I

class, however, I see that it is more critical of
originally thought.

You can even respond to something that hasn’t actually been
said about the work, but might hypothetically be said:
j It might be said that poem Y is chiefly about
problem with this reading, in my view, is

. But the
.

j Though religious readers might be tempted to analyze poem X
as a parable about

, a closer examination suggests
.

that the poem is in fact

186

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 186

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

Sometimes, the “they say” that you respond to in writing
about a literary work can be found in the work itself, as distinct
from what some critic or other reader has said about the work.
Much great literary criticism responds directly to the literary
work, summarizing some aspect of the work’s form or content
and then assessing it, in much the same way you can do in
response to a persuasive essay:
j Ultimately, as I read it, The Scarlet Letter seems to say
. I have trouble accepting this proposition, however,
.

on the grounds that

One of the more powerful ways of responding to a literary work
is to address any contradictions or inconsistencies:
j At the beginning of the poem, we encounter the generalization,
seemingly introducing the poem’s message, that “

.”

But this statement is then contradicted by the suggestion made
.” This opens up a significant

later in the poem that “

inconsistency in the text: is it suggesting
contrary,

or, on the

j At several places in novel X, Author Y leads us to understand that
the story’s central point is that
text suggests

. Yet elsewhere the

, indicating that Y may be ambivalent

on this issue.

If you review the above templates, you’ll notice that each
does what a good discussion, lecture, or essay does: it makes
an argument about some aspect of a work that can be interpreted in various ways. Instead of just making a claim about
the work in isolation—character X is a tragic hero; sonnet Y is
about the loss of a loved one—these templates put one claim

187

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 187

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

as a response to another, making clear what motivated the
argument to begin with. They thus act as conversation starters
that can invite or even provoke other readers to respond with
their own interpretations and judgments.

figuring out
what a literary work “means”
In order to enter conversations and debates about literature, you
need to meet the time-honored challenge of being able to read
and make sense of literary works, understanding and analyzing
what the text says. On the one hand, like the types of persuasive
essays we focus on throughout this book, literary works make
arguments their authors want to convey, things they are for
and against, ideas they want to endorse or condemn. On the
other hand, discovering “the argument” of a literary work—
what it’s “saying”—can be a special challenge because, unlike
persuasive essays, literary works usually do not spell out their
arguments explicitly. Though poets, novelists, and playwrights
may have the same level of conviction as persuasive writers,
rarely do they step out from behind the pages of their texts and
say, “Okay, folks, this is what it all means. What I’m trying to
say in a nutshell is
.” That is, since literary texts do
not include an explicit thesis statement identifying their main
point, it’s left up to us as readers to figure it out.
Because literary works tend to avoid such explicitness, their
meanings often need to be teased out from the clues they provide: from the dialogue between characters, the plot, the imagery and symbolism, and the kind of language the author uses. In
fact, it is this absence of overt argument that makes literature
so endlessly debatable—and explains why scholars and critics
188

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 188

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

argue so much about what literary works mean in ways similar
to the classroom discussions that you have likely participated
in as a student.
The Elusive Literary Author
Indeed, not even the use of the first person “I” in a literary work
is an indication that you have located the author’s own position
or stance, as it usually is in an essay. When David Zinczenko,
for example, in his essay “Don’t Blame the Eater” (pp. 241–43)
writes “I tend to sympathize with these portly fast-food patrons”
who file lawsuits against the fast food industry, we can be confident that the “I” is Zinczenko himself, and that the position he
expresses is his own and informs everything else in his essay. But
we cannot assume that the “I” who addresses us in a work of fiction or poetry is necessarily the author, for he or she is a fictional
character—and one who may be unreliable and untrustworthy.
Take, for example, the first sentence of Edgar Allan Poe’s
short story “The Cask of Amontillado”:
The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but
when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge.

As soon becomes clear in the story, the “I” who speaks as the narrator here is not Poe himself but an insanely vengeful murderer
whose words must be seen through to get at the point of Poe’s story.
Instead of a readily identifiable position, literary works often
present the perspectives of a number of different characters
and leave it to readers to determine which if any speaks for
the author. Thus when we encounter the seemingly eloquent
lines in Hamlet, “To thine own self be true / And thou shalt
not be false to any man,” we can’t assume, as we might if we
189

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 189

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

encountered this statement in an essay, that it represents the
author’s own view. For these words are uttered by Polonius,
a character whom Shakespeare presents as a tedious, clichéspouting bore—not someone he leads us to trust. After all, part
of Hamlet’s problem is that it’s not clear to him what being
“true” to his own self would require him to do.
This elusive quality of literary texts helps explain why some
of our students complain about the challenge of finding the
“hidden meaning,” as they sometimes call it, let alone summarizing that meaning in the way assignments often require.
Sure, some students say, they enjoy reading literature for pleasure. But analyzing literature in school for its “meaning” or
“symbolism”—that’s another matter. Some even say that the
requirement that they hunt for meanings and symbols robs literature of its fun.
In fact, as most students come to recognize, analyzing meanings, symbols, and other elements should enhance rather than
stifle the pleasure we get from reading literature. But it can
indeed be hard to figure out what literary works mean. How
do we determine the point of a story or poem when the author,
unlike an essayist like Zinczenko, does not tell us explicitly what
he or she is trying to say? How do you go from a fictional event
or poetic image (an insane man committing murder, two roads
that diverge in the woods) or from a dialogue between fictional
characters (“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”) to what
these events, images, or lines of dialogue mean?
Look for Conflict in the Work
There is no simple recipe for figuring out what a literary work
means, but one tactic that seems to help our own students is
to look for the conflict or debate in the literary work itself and
190

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 190

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

then ask what the text is leading us to think about that conflict.
Asking these questions—what is the conflict in the work and
which side, if any, should we favor?—will help you think about
and formulate a position on what the work means. And since
such claims are often ones that literary scholars argue about,
thinking about the conflict in a literary work will often lead
you to discussions and debates about the work that you can
then respond to in your writing. Because literary authors don’t
tell us explicitly what the text means, it’s always going to be
arguable—and your task in writing about a literary work is to
argue for what you think it means. Here are two templates to
help get you started responding to other interpretations:
j It might be argued that in the clash between character X
and Y in play Z, the author wants us to favor character Y, since
she is presented as the play’s heroine. I contend, however,
that

j Several critics seem to assume that poem X endorses the
values of discipline and rationality represented by the image
of
the image of

over those of play and emotion represented by
. I agree, but with the following caveat:

that the poem ultimately sees both values as equally important
and even suggests that ideally they should complement one
another.

This tactic of looking for the conflicts in literary works is part of
a long tradition of critical thought that sees conflict as central
to literature. In ancient Greece, Aristotle argued that conflict
between characters or forces underlies the plots of tragic dramas
such as Oedipus. Indeed, the ancient Greek word agon, which
means antagonism, conflict, or debate, leaves its traces in the
term “protagonist,” the hero or leading character of a narrative
191

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 191

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

work who comes into conflict with other characters or with the
fates. And Plato noted the pervasiveness of conflict in literature when he banished poets from his ideal community on the
grounds that their works depict endless conflict and division.
This emphasis on the centrality of conflict in literature has
been echoed by modern theorists like the New Critics of the
1940s and 50s, who focused on such tensions and paradoxes as
good and evil or innocence and experience—and more recently
by poststructuralists and political theorists who see literature,
like society, as saturated by such polarities as male/female,
gay/straight, white/black, and so on. Writers today continue
to recognize conflict as the engine of good storytelling. As the
Hollywood screenwriter Robert McKee puts it, “Nothing moves
forward in a story except through conflict.”
Building on this idea that conflict is central to literature,
we suggest the following four questions to help you understand
and formulate your own position on any literary work:
1. What is the central conflict?
2. Which side—if any—does the text seem to favor?
3. What’s your evidence? How might others interpret the evidence differently?
4. What’s your opinion of the text?

what is the central conflict?
Conflicts tend to manifest themselves in different ways in different literary genres. In works that take a narrative or story
form (novels, short stories, and plays), the central conflict will
often be represented in an actual debate between characters.
These debates between characters will often reflect larger questions and debates in the society or historical era in which they
192

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 192

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

were written, over such issues as the responsibility of rulers, the
consequences of capitalism and consumerism, or the struggle for
gender equality. Sometimes these debates will be located within
an individual character, appearing as a struggle in someone
caught between conflicting or incompatible choices. Whatever
form they may take, these debates can provide you with points
of entry into the issues raised by the work, its historical context,
and its author’s vision of the world.
One narrative work that lends itself to such an approach is
Flannery O’Connor’s 1961 short story “Everything That Rises
Must Converge,” which is reprinted on pp. 272–91. The story
presents a running debate between a mother and her son Julian
about the civil rights movement for racial equality that had
erupted in the American South at the time the story was written, with Julian defending the outlook of this movement and
his mother defending the South’s traditional racial hierarchy.
The story raises the debatable question of which character we
should side with: Julian, his mother, both, or neither?

which side—if any—does the
text seem to favor?
When we teach this story, most of our students first assume the
story sides with Julian’s outlook, which to them as Northern,
urban college students in the twenty-first century seems the
obviously enlightened position. Who, after all, could fail to see
that the mother’s views are backward and racist? As our class
discussions unfold, however, most students come to reject this
view as a misreading, one based more on their own views than
on what’s in the text. Sooner or later, someone points out that
at several points Julian is presented in highly critical ways—and
193

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 193

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

that his apparently progressive sympathy for racial integration
rests on arid intellectual abstractions and a hypocritical lack of
self-knowledge, in contrast with his mother’s heartfelt loyalty to
her roots. Eventually another possible interpretation surfaces,
that both characters suffer from a common malady, that they’re
living in a mental bubble that keeps them from being able to
see themselves as they really are.
The writing assignment we often give builds on this class
discussion by offering students the following template for thinking about which character, if any, the text leads them to favor:
j Some might argue that when it comes to the conflict between
, our sympathies should

Julian and his mother over

. My own view is that

lie with

what’s your evidence?
In entering the types of discussions and debates modeled by the
above template, how do you determine where your “sympathies
should lie”? More generally, how do you arrive at and justify
an interpretation of what a literary text says?
The answer lies in the evidence provided by the work: its
images, dialogue, plot, historical references, tone, stylistic
details, and so forth.
It is important to remember, however, that evidence is not
set in stone. Students sometimes assume that there exists some
fixed code that unlocks the meaning of literary works, symbols, images, and other evidence. A character dies? This must
mean that he or she is being condemned. A stairway appears?
A symbol for upward mobility. A garden? Must be something
sexual.
194

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 194

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

But evidence itself is open to interpretation and thus to
debate. The mother’s death in O’Connor’s story, for instance,
could be seen as evidence that we are supposed to disapprove
of her as someone whose racial views are regressive and on
the way out. On the other hand, her death may instead be
evidence that she is to be seen as a heroic martyr too good for
this cruel, harsh world. What a character’s death means, then,
depends—on how he or she is treated in the work, positively
or negatively, which in turn may be subject to debate.
As we’ve repeatedly emphasized in this book, others will
often disagree with you and may even use the same evidence
you do to support interpretations that are contrary to your own.
Like other objects of study, literary works are like the famous
ambiguous drawing that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit,
depending how one views it.
Since the same piece of evidence in a literary work will often
support differing, even opposing interpretations, you need to
argue for what you think the evidence shows—and to acknowledge that others may read that evidence differently.

195

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 195

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

In writing about literature, then, you need to show that the
evidence you are citing supports your interpretation and to
anticipate other alternative ones:
j Although some might read the metaphor of

in this

poem as evidence that, for Author X, modern technology under.

mines community traditions and values, I see it as

To present evidence in such a “they say / I say” way, you need
to be alert for how others may read the work differently than
you—and even use this very same evidence in support of an
opposing interpretation:
j Some might claim that evidence X suggests

j I agree with my classmate

, but I
.

argue that, on the contrary, it suggests

that the image of

in novel Y is evidence of childhood innocence that
, however, I think this loss of

has been lost. Unlike

innocence is to be read not as a tragic event but as a necessary,
even helpful, stage in human development.

Are Some Interpretations Simply Wrong?
No matter how flexible and open to debate evidence might
be, not all interpretations we arrive at using that evidence are
equally valid. And some interpretations are simply unsupported
by that evidence. Let us illustrate.
As we noted earlier, some of our students first favored Julian
over his mother. One student, let us call her Nancy, cited as
evidence a passage early in the story in which Julian is compared to Saint Sebastian, a Christian martyr who is said to
have exhibited exceptional faith under extreme suffering and

196

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 196

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

persecution. As the mother stood preparing for Julian to take
her to her weekly swimming class, Julian is described as standing
“pinned to the door frame, waiting like Saint Sebastian for the
arrows to begin piercing him.”
Thinking this passage proves that Julian is the more sympathetic character, Nancy pointed to other evidence as well,
including the following passage:
[Julian] was free of prejudice and unafraid to face facts. Most miraculous of all, instead of being blinded by love for [his mother] as
she was for him, he had cut himself emotionally free of her and
could see her with complete objectivity. He was not dominated
by his mother. (412)

Citing passages like this in her essay, Nancy concluded: “Julian
represents the future of society, a nonracist and an educated
thinker.”
After rereading the story, however, and hearing other students’ views, Nancy came to realize that the passages she had
cited—comparing Julian to a saint, suggesting that he is racially
progressive, and that he is “free of” his mother and “objective”
about her—were all intended ironically. Julian congratulates
himself for being saintlike, free of prejudice, and objective, but
the story ultimately implies that he deludes himself.
How did the supporters of the ironic reading convince Nancy
to revise her initial reading—to see it as wrong, unsupported
by the evidence? First, they pointed to the glaring discrepancy
between the situations and kinds of suffering endured by Julian
and Saint Sebastian. Could anyone be serious, they asked, in
comparing something as mundane as being forced to wait a few
minutes to go to the YMCA to a martyr dying for his faith? No,
they answered, and the jarring incongruity of the events being

197

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 197

12/24/13 11:08 AM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

compared, they argued, suggests that Julian, far from saintlike,
is presented in this passage as an impatient, ungrateful, undutiful son. In addition, students pointed out that the gap between
Julian’s self-image as a progressive man of “complete objectivity” and “facts,” “free of [his mother]” and the blubbering young
man crying “Mama, Mama!” with “guilt and sorrow” at the end
of the story suggests that Julian’s righteous, high-minded image
of himself is not to be taken at face value.
At this point you may be wondering, how can we say that
some interpretations of literature must be ruled out as wrong?
Isn’t the great thing about interpreting literary works—in contrast to scientific and historical texts—that there are no wrong
answers? Are we saying that there is one “correct” way to read a
literary work—the one way the work itself tells us we “should”
read it?
No, we aren’t saying that there is only one way to read a literary work. If we believed there were, we would not be offering a
method of literary analysis based on multiple interpretations and
debate. But yes, acknowledging that literary interpretations are
open to debate is not to say that a work can mean anything we
want it to mean, as if all interpretations are equally good. In our
view, and that of most literature teachers, some interpretations
are better than others—more persuasively reasoned and better
grounded in the evidence of the text.
If we maintain that all interpretations are equally valid, we
risk confusing the perspective of the work’s author with our
own, as did the students who confused their own views on the
civil rights movement of the 1960s with Flannery O’Connor’s.
Such misreadings are reminiscent of what we call “the closest cliché syndrome,” where what’s summarized is not the
view the author actually expresses but a familiar cliché—or,

198

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 198

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

in O’Connor’s case, a certain social belief—that the See p. 33 for
more on the
writer believes and mistakenly assumes the author must closest cliché
too. The view that there are no wrong answers in liter- syndrome.
ary interpretation encourages a kind of solipsism that erases the
difference between us and others and transforms everything we
encounter into a version of ourselves.
As the literary theorist Robert Scholes puts it, reading, conceived “as a submission to the intentions of another is the first
step” to understanding what a literary work is saying. For “if
we do not postulate the existence of [an author] behind the
verbal text,” we will “simply project our own subjective modes
of thought and desire upon the text.” In other words, unless
we do the best we can to get at what the author is saying,
we will never truly recognize his or her ideas except as some
version of our own. Scholes acknowledges that good reading
often involves going beyond the author’s intention, pointing
out contradictions and ideological blind spots, but he argues
that we must recognize the author’s intention before we can try
to see beyond it in these ways.

what’s your opinion of the text?
In accord with the principle that we must try to understand the
text on its own terms before responding to it, we have thus far
in this chapter focused on how to understand and unpack what
literary texts say and do. Our approach to get at what they say
involves looking for the central conflict in the work and then
asking yourself how the author uses various types of evidence
(characters, dialogue, imagery, events, plot, etc.) to guide you
in thinking about that conflict. Ultimately, your job as a reader

199

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 199

1/3/14 2:05 PM

fifteen

“ O N C LO S E R E X A M I N AT I O N ”

of literature is to be open to a work as its author presents it, or
else your reading will fail to see what makes that work worth
reading and thinking about.
But once you have reached a good understanding of the
work, it is time to allow your own opinion to come into play.
Offering your own interpretation of a work and opening that
interpretation to response are crucial steps in any act of literary
analysis, but they are not the end of the process. The final step
involves offering your own insight into or critique of the work
and its vision, assessing whether, as you see it, it is morally
justified or questionable, unified or contradictory, historically
regressive or progressive, and so forth. For example:
Though she is one of the most respected Southern authors of the
American literary canon, Flannery O’Connor continually denigrates the one character in her 1961 story who represents the civil
rights movement, and in so doing disparages progressive ideas that
I believe deserve a far more sympathetic hearing.

Offering a critique, however, doesn’t necessarily mean finding
fault:
Some criticize O’Connor’s story by suggesting that it has a politically regressive agenda. But I see the story as a laudable critique
of politics as such. In my view, O’Connor’s story rightly criticizes
the polarization of political conflicts—North vs. South, liberal vs.
conservative, and the like—and suggests that they need to come
together: to “converge,” as O’Connor’s title implies, through religious love, understanding, and forgiveness.

We realize that the prospect of critiquing a literary work can
be daunting. Indeed, simply stating what you think an author is
200

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 200

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Entering Conversations about Literature

saying can be intimidating, since it means going out on a limb,
asserting something about highly respected figures—works that
are often complex, contradictory, and connected to larger historical movements. Nevertheless, if you can master these challenges, you may find that figuring out what a literary work is
saying, offering an opinion about it, and entering into conversation and debate with others about such questions is what makes
literature matter. And if you do it well, what you say will invite
its own response: your “I say” will become someone else’s “they
say,” and the conversation will go on and on.

201

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 201

12/24/13 11:08 AM

SI XT E E N

“the data suggest”
Writing in the Sciences
CHRISTOPHER GILLEN

Charles Darwin described On the Origin of Species as
“one long argument.” In Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief
World Systems, Galileo Galilei cast his argument for a suncentered solar system as a series of conversations. As these
historical examples show, scientific writing is fundamentally
argumentative. Like all academic writers, scientists make and
defend claims. They address disagreements and explore unanswered questions. They propose novel mechanisms and new
theories. And they advance certain explanations and reject
others. Though their vocabulary may be more technical and
their emphasis more numerical, science writers use the same

Christopher Gillen is a professor of biology at Kenyon College
and the faculty director of the Kenyon Institute in Biomedical and
Scientific Writing. He teaches courses in animal physiology, biology
of exercise, and introductory biology, all stressing the critical reading
of primary research articles.
202

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 202

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences

rhetorical moves as other academic writers. Consider the following example from a book about the laws of physics.
The common refrain that is heard in elementary discussions of
quantum mechanics is that a physical object is in some sense both
a wave and a particle, with its wave nature apparent when you
measure a wave property such as wavelength, and its particle nature
apparent when you measure a particle property such as position.
But this is, at best, misleading and, at worst, wrong.
V. J. Stenger, The Comprehensible Cosmos

The “they say / I say” structure of this passage is unmistakable: They say that objects have properties of both waves and
particles; I say they are wrong. This example is not a lonely
argumentative passage cherry-picked from an otherwise nonargumentative text. Rather, Stenger’s entire book makes the
argument that is foreshadowed by its title, The Comprehensible
Cosmos: that although some might see the universe as hopelessly complex, it is essentially understandable.
Here’s another argumentative passage, this one from a
research article about the role of lactic acid in muscle fatigue:
In contrast to the often suggested role for acidosis as a cause of muscle fatigue, it is shown that in muscles where force was depressed
by high [K]o, acidification by lactic acid produced a pronounced
recovery of force.
O. B. Nielsen, F. de Paoli, and K. Overgaard,
“Protective Effects of Lactic Acid on Force Production in
Rat Skeletal Muscle,” The Journal of Physiology

In other words: Many scientists think that lactic acid causes
muscle fatigue, but our evidence shows that it actually promotes
recovery. Notice that the authors frame their claim with a version of the “they say / I say” formula: Although previous work
203

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 203

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

suggests
, our data argue
. This basic move and
its many variations are widespread in scientific writing. The essential argumentative moves taught in this book transcend disciplines,
and the sciences are no exception. The examples in this chaper
were written by professional scientists, but they show moves that
are appropriate in any writing that addresses scientific issues.
Despite the importance of argument in scientific writing,
newcomers to the genre often see it solely as a means for communicating uncontroversial, objective facts. It’s easy to see how
this view arises. The objective tone of scientific writing can
obscure its argumentative nature, and many textbooks reinforce a nonargumentative vision of science when they focus on
accepted conclusions and ignore ongoing controversies. And
because science writers base their arguments on empirical data,
a good portion of many scientific texts does serve the purpose
of delivering uncontested facts.
However, scientific writing often does more than just report
facts. Data are crucial to scientific argumentation, but they
are by no means the end of the story. Given important new
data, scientists assess their quality, draw conclusions from them,
and ponder their implications. They synthesize the new data
with existing information, propose novel theories, and design
the next experiments. In short, scientific progress depends on
the insight and creativity that scientists bring to their data. The
thrill of doing science, and writing about it, comes from the
ongoing struggle to use data to better understand our world.

start with the data
Data are the fundamental currency of scientific argument.
Scientists develop hypotheses from existing data and then test
204

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 204

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences

those by comparing their predictions to new experimental data.
Summarizing data is therefore a basic move in science writing. Because data can often be interpreted in different ways,
describing the data opens the door to critical analysis, creating
opportunities to critique previous interpretations and develop
new ones.
Describing data requires more than simply reporting See how a
physicist begins
numbers and conclusions. Rather than jumping straight with data on
to the punch line—to what X concluded—it is impor- pp. 252–59.
tant first to describe the hypotheses, methods, and results that
led to the conclusion: “To test the hypothesis that
,
X measured
and found that
. Therefore, X
concluded
.” In the following sections, we explore the
three key rhetorical moves for describing the data that underpin a scientific argument: presenting the prevailing theories,
explaining methodologies, and summarizing findings.

Present the Prevailing Theories
Readers must understand the prevailing theories that a study
responds to before they can fully appreciate the details. So before
diving into specifics, place the work in context by describing
the prevailing theories and hypotheses. In the following passage from a journal article about insect respiration, the authors
discuss an explanation for discontinuous gas exchange (DGC),
a phenomenon where insects periodically close valves on their
breathing tubes.
Lighton (1996, 1998; see also Lighton and Berrigan, 1995) noted
the prevalence of DGC in fossorial insects, which inhabit microclimates where CO2 levels may be relatively high. Consequently,
Lighton proposed the chthonic hypothesis, which suggests that
205

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 205

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

DGC originated as a mechanism to improve gas exchange while
at the same time minimizing respiratory water loss.
A. G. Gibbs and R. A. Johnson, “The Role of Discontinuous
Gas Exchange in Insects: The Chthonic Hypothesis Does Not
Hold Water,” The Journal of Experimental Biology

Notice that Gibbs and Johnson not only describe Lighton’s
hypothesis but also recap the evidence that supports it. By
presenting this evidence, Gibbs and Johnson set the stage for
engaging with Lighton’s ideas. For example, they might question the chthonic hypothesis by pointing out shortcomings of
the data or flaws in its interpretation. Or they might suggest
new approaches that could verify the hypothesis. The point is
that by incorporating a discussion of experimental findings into
their summary of Lighton’s hypothesis, Gibbs and Johnson open
the door to a conversation with Lighton.
Here are some templates for presenting the data that underpin prevailing explanations:
j Experiments showing
tists to propose

and
.

j Although most scientists attribute
result

have led scien-

leads to the possibility that

, X’s
.

Explain the Methods
Even as we’ve argued that scientific arguments hinge on data, it’s
important to note that the quality of data varies depending on
how they were collected. Data obtained with sloppy techniques
or poorly designed experiments could lead to faulty conclusions.
Therefore, it’s crucial to explain the methods used to collect data.
In order for readers to evaluate a method, you’ll need to indicate
206

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 206

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences

its purpose, as the following passage from a journal article about
the evolution of bird digestive systems demonstrates:
To test the hypothesis that flowerpiercers have converged with hummingbirds in digestive traits, we compared the activity of intestinal
enzymes and the gut nominal area of cinnamon-bellied flowerpiercers (Diglossa baritula) with those of eleven hummingbird species.
J. E. Schondube and C. Martinez del Rio,
“Sugar and Protein Digestion in Flowerpiercers and
Hummingbirds: A Comparative Test of Adaptive Convergence,”
Journal of Comparative Physiology

You need to indicate purpose whether describing your own work
or that of others. Here are a couple of templates for doing so:
j Smith and colleagues evaluated
whether

j Because
used

to determine

.
does not account for

, we instead

Summarize the Findings
Scientific data often come in the form of numbers. Your task
when presenting numerical data is to provide the context readers need to understand the numbers—by giving supporting
information and making comparisons. In the following passage from a book about the interaction between organisms and
their environments, Turner uses numerical data to support an
argument about the role of the sun’s energy on Earth.
The potential rate of energy transfer from the Sun to Earth is
prodigious—about 600 W m–2, averaged throughout the year. Of
this, only a relatively small fraction, on the order of 1–2 percent,
207

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 207

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

is captured by green plants. The rest, if it is not reflected back
into space, is available to do other things. The excess can be considerable: although some natural surfaces reflect as much as 95%
of the incoming solar beam, many natural surfaces reflect much
less (Table 3.2), on average about 15–20 percent. The remaining
absorbed energy is then capable of doing work, like heating up
surfaces, moving water and air masses around to drive weather and
climate, evaporating water, and so forth.
J. S. Turner, The Extended Organism

Turner supports his point that a huge amount of the sun’s
energy is directly converted to work on Earth by quoting an
actual value (600) with units of measurement (W m–2, watts
per square meter). Readers need the units to evaluate the value;
600 watts per square inch is very different from 600 W m–2.
Turner then makes comparisons using percent values, saying
that only 1 to 2 percent of the total energy that reaches Earth
is trapped by plants. Finally, Turner describes the data’s variability by reporting comparisons as ranges—1 to 2 percent and
15 to 20 percent—rather than single values.
Supporting information—such as units of measurement,
sample size (n), and amount of variability—helps readers assess
the data. In general, the reliability of data improves as its sample
size increases and its variability decreases. Supporting information can be concisely presented as:

j
n

(mean ± variability)

(units),

(sample size).

For example: Before training, resting heart rate of the subjects
was 56 7 beats per minute, n 12. Here’s another way to
give supporting information:
208

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 208

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences
j We measured

(sample size) subjects, and the average

response was

(mean with units) with a range of

(lower value) to

(upper value).

To help readers understand the data, make comparisons with
values from the same study or from other similar work.
Here are some templates for making comparisons:

j Before training, average running speed was
kilometers per hour,

kilometers per hour

slower than running speed after training.

j We found athletes’ heart rates to be

lower than nonathletes’.

j The subjects in X’s study completed the maze in
seconds,

seconds slower than those in

Y’s study.

You will sometimes need to present qualitative data, such as
that found in some images and photographs, that cannot be
reduced to numbers. Qualitative data must be described precisely with words. In the passage below from a review article
about connections between cellular protein localization and
cell growth, the author describes the exact locations of three
proteins: Scrib, Dlg, and Lgl.
Epithelial cells accumulate different proteins on their apical (top)
and basolateral (bottom) surfaces. . . . Scrib and Dlg are localized
at the septate junctions along the lateral cell surface, whereas Lgl
coats vesicles that are found both in the cytoplasm and “docked”
at the lateral surface of the cell.
M. Peifer, “Travel Bulletin—Traffic Jams
Cause Tumors,” Science
209

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 209

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

explain what the data mean
Once you summarize experiments and results, you need to say
what the data mean. Consider the following passage from a
study in which scientists fertilized plots of tropical rainforest
with nitrogen (N) and / or phosphorus (P).
Although our data suggest that the mechanisms driving the
observed respiratory responses to increased N and P may be different, the large CO2 losses stimulated by N and P fertilization
suggest that knowledge of such patterns and their effects on soil
CO2 efflux is critical for understanding the role of tropical forests
in a rapidly changing global C [carbon] cycle.
C. C. Cleveland and A. R. Townsend, “Nutrient
Additions to a Tropical Rain Forest Drive Substantial
Soil Carbon Dioxide Losses to the Atmosphere,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Notice that in discussing the implications of their data, Cleveland and Townsend use language—including the verbs “suggest” and “may be”—that denotes their level of confidence in
what they say about the data.
Whether you are summarizing what others say about their
data or offering your own interpretation, pay attention to the
verbs that connect data to interpretations.
To signify a moderate level of confidence:
j The data suggest / hint / imply

To express a greater degree of certainty:
j Our results show / demonstrate

210

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 210

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences

Almost never will you use the verb “prove” in reference to a
single study, because even very powerful evidence generally falls
short of proof unless other studies support the same conclusion.
Scientific consensus arises when multiple studies point
toward the same conclusion; conversely, contradictions among
studies often signal research questions that need further work.
For these reasons, you may need to compare one study’s findings
to those of another study. Here, too, you’ll need to choose your
verbs carefully.
j Our data support / confirm / verify the work of X by showing
that

j By demonstrating

, X’s work extends the findings of Y.

j The results of X contradict / refute Y’s conclusion that

j X’s findings call into question the widely accepted theory
that

j Our data are consistent with X’s hypothesis that

make your own arguments
Now we turn toward the part of scientific writing where you
express your own opinions. One challenge is that the statements
of other scientists about their methods and results usually must be
accepted. You probably can’t argue, for example, that “X and Y
claim to have studied 6 elephants, but I think they actually only
studied 4.” However, it might be fair to say, “X and Y studied only
6 elephants, and this small sample size casts doubts on their conclusions.” The second statement doesn’t question what the scientists
did or found but instead examines how the findings are interpreted.
211

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 211

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

When developing your own arguments—the “I say”—you
will often start by assessing the interpretations of other scientists.
Consider the following example from a review article about the
beneficial acclimation hypothesis (BAH), the idea that organisms exposed to a particular environment become better suited
to that environment than unexposed animals.
To the surprise of most physiologists, all empirical examinations
of the BAH have rejected its generality. However, we suggest that
these examinations are neither direct nor complete tests of the
functional benefit of acclimation.
R. S. Wilson and C. E. Franklin, “Testing the Beneficial
Acclimation Hypothesis,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Wilson and Franklin use a version of the “twist it” move:
They acknowledge the data collected by other physiologists but question how those data have been interFor more on
the “twist it”
preted, creating an opportunity to offer their own
move, see
interpretation.
p. 60.
You might ask whether we should question how other
scientists interpret their own work. Having conducted a study,
aren’t they in the best position to evaluate it? Perhaps, but
as the above example demonstrates, other scientists might see
the work from a different perspective or through more objective eyes. And in fact the culture of science depends on vigorous debate in which scientists defend their own findings and
challenge those of others—a give and take that helps improve
science’s reliability. So expressing a critical view about someone
else’s work is an integral part of the scientific process. Let’s
examine some of the basic moves for entering scientific conversations: agreeing, with a difference; disagreeing and explaining
why; simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing; anticipating
objections; and saying why it matters.
212

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 212

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences

Agree, But with a Difference
Scientific research passes through several levels of critical analysis before being published. Scientists get feedback when they
discuss work with colleagues, present findings at conferences,
and receive reviews of their manuscripts. So the juiciest debates
may have been resolved before publication, and you may find
little to disagree with in the published literature of a research
field. Yet even if you agree with what you’ve read, there are still
ways to join the conversation—and reasons to do so.
One approach is to suggest that further work should be done:
j Now that

has been established, scientists will likely

turn their attention toward

j X’s work leads to the question of
investigated

j To see whether these findings apply to
to

. Therefore, we

, we propose

Another way to agree and at the same time jump into the
conversation is to concur with a finding and then propose a
mechanism that explains it. In the following sentence from a
review article about dietary deficiencies, the author agrees with
a previous finding and offers a probable explanation.
Inadequate dietary intakes of vitamins and minerals are widespread,
most likely due to excessive consumption of energy-rich, micronutrient-poor, refined food.
B. Ames, “Low Micronutrient Intake
May Accelerate the Degenerative Diseases of Aging through
Allocation of Scarce Micronutrients by Triage,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
213

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 213

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

Here are some templates for explaining an experimental result.

j One explanation for X’s finding of

is that

An alternative explanation is

j The difference between
due to

.
and

is probably

Disagree—and Explain Why
Although scientific consensus is common, healthy disagreement is not unusual. While measurements conducted by different teams of scientists under the same conditions should
produce the same result, scientists often disagree about which
techniques are most appropriate, how well an experimental
design tests a hypothesis, and how results should be interpreted. To illustrate such disagreement, let’s return to the
debate about whether or not lactic acid is beneficial during
exercise. In the following passage, Lamb and Stephenson
are responding to work by Kristensen and colleagues, which
argues that lactic acid might be beneficial to resting muscle
but not to active muscle.
The argument put forward by Kristensen and colleagues (12) . . .
is not valid because it is based on observations made with isolated
whole soleus muscles that were stimulated at such a high rate that
60% of the preparation would have rapidly become completely
anoxic (4). . . . Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that
adding more H+ to that already being generated by the muscle
activity should in any way be advantageous. It is a bit like opening up the carburetor on a car to let in too much air or throwing
214

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 214

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences
gasoline over the engine and then concluding that air and gasoline
are deleterious to engine performance.
G. D. Lamb and D. G. Stephenson,
“Point: Lactic Acid Accumulation Is an Advantage during
Muscle Activity,” Journal of Applied Physiology

Lamb and Stephenson bring experimental detail to bear on
their disagreement with Kristensen and colleagues. First, they
criticize methodology, arguing that the high muscle stimulation
rate used by Kristensen and colleagues created very low oxygen
levels (anoxia). They also criticize the logic of the experimental
design, arguing that adding more acid (H+) to a muscle that
is already producing it isn’t informative. It’s also worth noting
how they drive home their point, likening Kristensen and colleagues’ methodology to flooding an engine with air or gasoline.
Even in technical scientific writing, you don’t need to set aside
your own voice completely.
In considering the work of others, look for instances where
the experimental design and methodology fail to adequately
test a hypothesis.
j The work of Y and Z appears to show that
experimental design does not control for

, but their
.

Also, consider the possibility that results do not lead to the
stated conclusions.
j While X and Y claim that
actually shows that

, their finding of
.

Okay, But . . .
Science tends to progress incrementally. New work may refine
or extend previous work but doesn’t often completely overturn
215

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 215

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

it. For this reason, science writers frequently agree up to a point
and then express some disagreement. In the following example
from a commentary about methods for assessing how proteins
interact, the authors acknowledge the value of the two-hybrid
studies, but they also point out their shortcomings.
The two-hybrid studies that produced the protein interaction map
for D. melanogaster (12) provide a valuable genome-wide view
of protein interactions but have a number of shortcomings (13).
Even if the protein-protein interactions were determined with
high accuracy, the resulting network would still require careful
interpretation to extract its underlying biological meaning. Specifically, the map is a representation of all possible interactions,
but one would only expect some fraction to be operating at any
given time.
J. J. Rice, A. Kershenbaum, and G. Stolovitzky,
“Lasting Impressions: Motifs in Protein-Protein Maps
May Provide Footprints of Evolutionary Events.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Delineating the boundaries or limitations of a study is a good
way to agree up to a point. Here are templates for doing so.
j While X’s work clearly demonstrates

be required before we can determine whether

j Although Y and Z present firm evidence for
can not be used to argue that

j In summary, our studies show that

will
.
, their data

.
, but the issue of

remains unresolved.

216

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 216

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences

Anticipate Objections
Skepticism is a key ingredient in the scientific process. Before
an explanation is accepted, scientists demand convincing evidence and assess whether alternative explanations have been
thoroughly explored, so it’s essential that scientists consider
possible objections to their ideas before presenting them. In
the following example from a book about the origin of the
universe, Tyson and Goldsmith first admit that some might
doubt the existence of the poorly understood “dark matter”
that physicists have proposed, and then they go on to respond
to the skeptics.
Unrelenting skeptics might compare the dark matter of today with
the hypothetical, now defunct “ether,” proposed centuries ago as
the weightless, transparent medium through which light moved.
. . . But dark matter ignorance differs fundamentally from ether
ignorance. While ether amounted to a placeholder for our incomplete understanding, the existence of dark matter derives from not
from mere presumption but from the observed effects of its gravity
on visible matter.
N. D. Tyson and D. Goldsmith,
Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution

Anticipating objections in your own writing will help you
clarify and address potential criticisms. Consider objections to
your overall approach, as well as to specific aspects of your
interpretations. Here are some templates for doing so.
(reductionist / integrative /

j Scientists who take a

biochemical / computational / statistical) approach might view
our results differently.

217

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 217

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

j This interpretation of the data might be criticized by X, who has
argued that

j Some may argue that this experimental design fails to account
for

Say Why It Matters
Though individual studies can be narrowly focused, science
ultimately seeks to answer big questions and produce useful
technologies. So it’s essential when you enter a scientific conversation to say why the work—and your arguments about it—
matter. The following passage from a commentary on a research
article notes two implications of work that evaluated the shape
of electron orbitals.
The classic textbook shape of electron orbitals has now been
directly observed. As well as confirming the established theory,
this work may be a first step to understanding high-temperature
superconductivity.
C. J. Humphreys, “Electrons Seen in Orbit,” Nature

Humphreys argues that the study confirms an established theory
and that it may lead to better understanding in another area.
When thinking about the broad significance of a study, consider both the practical applications and the impact on future
scientific work.
j These results open the door to studies that

j The methodologies developed by X will be useful for
j Our findings are the first step toward

218

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 218

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Sciences
j Further work in this area may lead to the development of
.

reading as a way of entering
scientific conversations
In science, as in other disciplines, you’ll often start with work
done by others, and therefore you will need to critically evaluate their work. To that end, you’ll need to probe how well
their data support their interpretations. Doing so will lead you
toward your own interpretations—your ticket into an ongoing
scientific conversation. Here are some questions that will help
you read and respond to scientific research.
How well do the methods test the hypothesis?
• Is the sample size adequate?
• Is the experimental design valid?
Were the proper controls performed?
• What are the limitations of the methodology?
• Are other techniques available?
How fairly have the results been interpreted?
• How well do the results support the stated conclusion?
• Has the data’s variability been adequately considered?
• Do other findings verify (or contradict) the conclusion?
• What other experiments could test the conclusion?
219

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 219

12/24/13 11:08 AM

sixteen

“ T H E D ATA S U G G E S T ”

What are the broader implications of the work, and why does
it matter?
• Can the results be generalized beyond the system
that was studied?
• What are the work’s practical implications?
• What questions arise from the work?
• Which experiments should be done next?
The examples in this chapter show that scientists do more
than simply collect facts; they also interpret those facts and
make arguments about their meaning. On the frontiers of science, where we are probing questions that are just beyond our
capacity to answer, the data are inevitably incomplete and
controversy is to be expected. Writing about science presents
the opportunity to add your own arguments to the ongoing
discussion.

220

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 220

12/24/13 11:08 AM

SEVENTEE N

“analyze this”
Writing in the Social Sciences
ERIN ACKERMAN

Social science is the study of people—how they behave
and relate to one another, and the organizations and institutions that facilitate these interactions. People are complicated,
so any study of human behavior is at best partial, taking into
account some elements of what people do and why, but not
always explaining those actions definitively. As a result, it is
the subject of constant conversation and argument.
Consider some of the topics studied in the social sciences:
minimum wage laws, immigration policy, health care, employment discrimination. Got an opinion on any of these topics?
You aren’t alone. But in the writing you do as a student of the
social sciences, you need to write about more than just your
Erin Ackerman is the Social Sciences Librarian at the College of
New Jersey and formerly taught political science at John Jay College,
City University of New York. Her research and teaching interests
include women and American law, the law and politics of reproductive
health, and information literacy in the social sciences.
221

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 221

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

opinions. Good writing in the social sciences, as in other academic disciplines, requires that you demonstrate that you have
thought about what it is you think. The best way to do that is
to bring your views into conversation with those expressed by
others and to test what you and others think against a review
of data. In other words, you’ll need to start with what others
say and then present what you say as a response.
Consider the following example from a book about contemporary American political culture:
Claims of deep national division were standard fare after the
2000 elections, and to our knowledge few commentators have
publicly challenged them. . . . In sum, contemporary observers of
American politics have apparently reached a new consensus around
the proposition that old disagreements about economics now pale
in comparison to new divisions based on sexuality, morality, and
religion, divisions so deep as to justify fears of violence and talk of
war in describing them.
This short book advocates a contrary thesis: the sentiments
expressed in the previously quoted pronouncements of scholars,
journalists, and politicos range from simple exaggeration to sheer
nonsense. . . . Many of the activists in the political parties and various cause groups do, in fact, hate each other and regard themselves
as combatants in a war. But their hatreds and battles are not shared
by the great mass of the American people. . . .
Morris P. Fiorina, Culture War?
The Myth of a Polarized America

In other words, “they” (journalists, pundits, other political
scientists) say that the American public is deeply divided,
whereas Fiorina replies that they have misinterpreted the
evidence—specifically, that they have generalized from a few
222

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 222

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences

exceptional cases (activists). Even the title of the book calls into
question an idea held by others, one Fiorina labels a “myth.”
This chapter explores some of the basic moves social science writers make. In addition, writing in the social sciences
generally includes several core components: a strong introduction and thesis, a literature review, and the writer’s own
analysis, including presentation of data and consideration of
implications. Much of your own writing will include one or
more of these components as well. The introduction sets out the
thesis, or point, of the paper, briefly explaining what you will
say in your text and how it fits into the preexisting conversation. The literature review summarizes what has already been
said on your topic. Your analysis allows you to present data—the
information about human behavior you are measuring or testing against what other people have said—and to explain the
conclusions you have drawn based on your investigation. Do
you agree, disagree, or some combination of both, with what
has been said by others? What reasons can you give for why
you feel that way? And so what? Who should be interested in
what you have to say, and why?

the introduction and thesis:
“this paper challenges . . .”
Your introduction sets forth what you plan to say in your
essay. You might evaluate the work of earlier scholars or certain widely held assumptions and find them incorrect when
measured against new data. Alternatively, you might point out
that an author’s work is largely correct, but that it could use
some qualifications or be extended in some way. Or you might
identify a gap in our knowledge—we know a great deal about
223

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 223

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

topic X but almost nothing about some other closely related
topic. In each of these instances, your introduction needs to
cover both “they say” and “I say” perspectives. If you stop after
the “they say,” your readers won’t know what you are bringing
to the conversation. Similarly, if you were to jump right to the
“I say” portion of your argument, readers might wonder why
you need to say anything at all.
Sometimes you join the conversation at a point where the
discussion seems settled. One or more views about a topic have
become so widely accepted among a group of scholars or society
at large that these views are essentially the conventional way of
thinking about the topic. You may wish to offer new reasons to
support this interpretation, or you may wish to call these standard
views into question. To do so, you must first introduce and identify these widely held beliefs and then present your own view. In
fact, much of the writing in the social sciences takes the form
of calling into question that which we think we already know.
Consider the following example from an article in The Journal
of Economic Perspectives:
Fifteen years ago, Milton Friedman’s 1957 treatise A Theory of the
Consumption Function seemed badly dated. Dynamic optimization
theory had not been employed much in economics when Friedman wrote, and utility theory was still comparatively primitive, so
his statement of the “permanent income hypothesis” never actually specified a formal mathematical model of behavior derived
explicitly from utility maximization . . . [W]hen other economists
subsequently found multiperiod maximizing models that could be
solved explicitly, the implications of those models differed sharply
from Friedman’s intuitive description of his “model.” Furthermore,
empirical tests in the 1970s and 1980s often rejected these rigorous versions of the permanent income hypothesis in favor of an
224

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 224

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences
alternative hypothesis that many households simply spent all of
their current income.
Today, with the benefit of a further round of mathematical (and
computational) advances, Friedman’s (1957) original analysis looks
more prescient than primitive . . .
Christopher D. Carroll, “A Theory of Consumption
Function, With and Without Liquidity Constraints,”
The Journal of Economic Perspectives

This introduction makes clear that Carroll will defend Milton
Friedman against some major criticisms of his work. Carroll
mentions what has been said about Friedman’s work and then
goes on to say that the critiques turn out to be wrong and to
suggest that Friedman’s work reemerges as persuasive. A template of Carroll’s introduction might look something like this:
Economics research in the last fifteen years suggested Friedman’s 1957 treatise was
because
. In other
words, they say that Friedman’s work is not accurate because
,
, and
. Recent research
of
convinces me, however, that Friedman’s work makes sense.
In some cases, however, there may not be a strong consensus
among experts on a topic. You might enter the ongoing debate
by casting your vote with one side or another or by offering an
alternative view. In the following example, Shari Berman identifies two competing accounts of how to explain world events
in the twentieth century and then puts forth a third view.
Conventional wisdom about twentieth-century ideologies rests on
two simple narratives. One focuses on the struggle for dominance
between democracy and its alternatives. . . . The other narrative
focuses on the competition between free-market capitalism and its
rivals. . . . Both of these narratives obviously contain some truth.
. . . Yet both only tell part of the story, which is why their common
225

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 225

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

conclusion—neoliberalism as the “end of History”—is unsatisfying
and misleading.
What the two conventional narratives fail to mention is that
a third struggle was also going on: between those ideologies that
believed in the primacy of economics and those that believed in
the primacy of politics.
Shari Berman, “The Primacy of Economics versus the
Primacy of Politics: Understanding the Ideological Dynamics
of the Twentieth Century,” Perspectives on Politics

After identifying the two competing narratives, Berman suggests a third view—and later goes on to argue that this third
view explains current debates over globalization. A template
for this type of introduction might look something like this:
In recent discussions of
, a controversial aspect has
been
. On the one hand, some argue that
.
On the other hand, others argue that
. Neither of
these arguments, however, considers the alternative view
that
.
Given the complexity of many of the issues studied in the
social sciences, however, you may sometimes agree and disagree
with existing views—pointing out things that you believe are
For more on
correct or have merit, while disagreeing with or refindifferent ways
ing other points. In the example below, anthropologist
of responding,
see Chapter 4.
Sally Engle Merry agrees with another scholar about
something that is a key trait of modern society but argues
that this trait has a different origin than the other author
identifies.
Although I agree with Rose that an increasing emphasis on
governing the soul is characteristic of modern society, I see the

226

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 226

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences
transformation not as evolutionary but as the product of social
mobilization and political struggle.
Sally Engle Merry, “Rights, Religion, and Community:
Approaches to Violence against Women in the
Context of Globalization,” Law and Society Review

Here are some templates for agreeing and disagreeing:
j Although I agree with X up to a point, I cannot accept his overall
.

conclusion that

j Although I disagree with X on

j Political scientists studying
problem,

, I agree

with her conclusion that

is caused by

and

. While

have argued that it
contributes to the

is also an important factor.

In the process of examining people from different angles,
social scientists sometimes identify gaps—areas that have not
been explored in previous research. In an article on African
American neighborhoods, sociologist Mary Pattillo identifies
such a gap.
The research on African Americans is dominated by inquiries into
the lives of the black poor. Contemporary ethnographies and journalistic descriptions have thoroughly described deviance, gangs,
drugs, intergender relations and sexuality, stymied aspiration, and
family patterns in poor neighborhoods (Dash 1989; Hagedorn 1988;
Kotlowitz 1991; Lemann 1991; MacLeoad 1995; Sullivan 1989;
Williams 1989). Yet, the majority of African Americans are not

227

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 227

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

poor (Billingsley 1992). A significant part of the black experience,
namely that of working and middle-class blacks, remains unexplored. We have little information about what black middle-class
neighborhoods look like and how social life is organized within
them. . . . this article begins to fill this empirical and theoretical
gap using ethnographic data collected in Groveland, a middle-class
black neighborhood in Chicago.
Mary E. Pattillo,
“Sweet Mothers and Gangbangers: Managing Crime
in a Black Middle-Class Neighborhood,” Social Forces

Pattillo explains that much has been said about poor African
American neighborhoods. But, she says, we have little information about the experience of working-class and middle-class
black neighborhoods—a gap that her article will address.
Here are some templates for introducing gaps in the existing
research:
j Studies of X have indicated

. It is not clear, however,

that this conclusion applies to

often take for granted that

.
. Few have

investigated this assumption, however.

j X’s work tells us a great deal about
be generalized to

. Can this work

Again, a good introduction indicates what you have to say in
the larger context of what others have said. Throughout the
rest of your paper, you will move back and forth between the
“they say” and the “I say,” adding more details.

228

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 228

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences

the literature review:
“prior research indicates . . .”
In the literature review, you explain what “they say” in more
detail, summarizing, paraphrasing, or quoting the viewpoints
to which you are responding. But you need to balance what
they are saying with your own focus. You need to characterize
someone else’s work fairly and accurately but set up the points
you yourself want to make by selecting the details that are
relevant to your own perspective and observations.
It is common in the social sciences to summarize several
arguments at once, identifying their major arguments or findings in a single paragraph.
How do employers in a low-wage labor market respond to an increase
in the minimum wage? The prediction from conventional economic
theory is unambiguous: a rise in the minimum wage leads perfectly
competitive employers to cut employment (George J. Stigler, 1946).
Although studies in the 1970’s based on aggregate teenage employment rates usually confirmed this prediction, earlier studies based
on comparisons of employment at affected and unaffected establishments often did not (e.g., Richard A. Lester, 1960, 1964). Several
recent studies that rely on a similar comparative methodology have
failed to detect a negative employment effect of higher minimum
wages. Analyses of the 1990–1991 increases in the federal minimum
wage (Lawrence F. Katz and Krueger, 1992; Card, 1992a) and of an
earlier increase in the minimum wage in California (Card, 1992b)
find no adverse employment impact.
David Card and Alan Krueger,
“Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the
Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,”
The American Economic Review

229

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 229

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

Card and Krueger cite the key findings and conclusions of works
that are relevant to the question they are investigating and
the point they plan to address, asking “How do employers in
a low-wage labor market respond to an increase in the minimum wage?” They go on, as good writers should, to answer the
question they ask. And they do so by reviewing others who
have answered that question, noting that this question has been
answered in different, sometimes contradictory, ways.
Such summaries are brief, bringing together relevant arguments by several scholars to provide an overview of scholarly
work on a particular topic. In writing such a summary, you need
to ask yourself how the authors themselves might describe their
positions and also consider what in their work is relevant for
the point you wish to make. This kind of summary is especially
appropriate when you have a large amount of research material
on a topic and want to identify the major strands of a debate or
to show how the work of one author builds on that of another.
Here are some templates for overview summaries:
j In addressing the question of

, political scientists

have considered several explanations for
.

nation is

j What is the effect of
on

. X argues

. According to Y and Z, another plausible expla-

that

by X and by Y and Z supports

? Previous work
.

Sometimes you may need to say more about the works you
cite. On a midterm or final exam, for example, you may need
to demonstrate that you have a deep familiarity with a particular work. And in some disciplines of the social sciences,
longer, more detailed literature reviews are the standard. Your
instructor and the articles he or she has assigned are your best
230

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 230

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences

guides for the length and level of detail of your literature review.
Other times, the work of certain authors is especially important
for your argument, and therefore you need to provide more
details to explain what these authors have said. See how Martha
Derthick summarizes an argument that is central to her book
about the politics of tobacco regulation.
The idea that governments could sue to reclaim health care costs
from cigarette manufacturers might be traced to “Cigarettes and
Welfare Reform,” an article published in the Emory Law Journal
in 1977 by Donald Gasner, a law professor at the University of
Southern Illinois. Garner suggested that state governments could
get a cigarette manufacturer to pay the direct medical costs “of
looking after patients with smoking diseases.” He drew an analogy
to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, under which coal
mine operators are required to pay certain disability benefits for
coal miners suffering from pneumoconiosis, or black lung disease.
Martha Derthick, Up In Smoke:
From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics

Note that Derthick identifies the argument she is summarizing, quoting its author directly and then adding details about
a precedent for the argument.
You may want to include direct quotations of what others
have said, as Derthick does. Using an author’s exact words
helps you demonstrate that you are representing him or her
fairly. But you cannot simply insert a quotation; you need to
explain to your readers what it means for your point. Consider
the following example drawn from a political science book on
the debate over tort reform.
The essence of agenda setting was well enunciated by E. E.
Schattschneider: “In politics as in everything else, it makes a great
231

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 231

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

difference whose game we play” (1960, 47). In short, the ability to
define or control the rules, terms, or perceived options in a contest
over policy greatly affects the prospects for winning.
William Haltom and Michael McCann,
Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis

Notice how Haltom and McCann first quote Schattschneider
and then explain in their own words how political agenda setting can be thought of as a game, with winners and losers.
Remember that whenever you summarize, quote, or paraphrase
the work of others, credit must be given in the form of a citation
to the original work. The words may be your own, but if the idea
comes from someone else you must give credit to the original
work. There are several formats for documenting sources. Consult
your instructor for help choosing which citation style to use.

the analysis
The literature review covers what others have said on your
topic. The analysis allows you to present and support your own
response. In the introduction you indicate whether you agree,
disagree, or some combination of both with what others have
said. You will want to expand on how you have formed your
opinion and why others should care about your topic.
“The Data Indicate . . .”
The social sciences use data to develop and test explanations.
Data can be quantitative or qualitative and can come from a
number of sources. You might use statistics related to GDP
growth, unemployment, voting rates, or demographics. Or you
could use surveys, interviews, or other first-person accounts.
232

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 232

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences

Regardless of the type of data used, it is important to do
three things: define your data, indicate where you got the data,
and then say what you have done with your data. In a journal
article, political scientist Joshua C. Wilson examines a court
case about protests at an abortion clinic and asks whether each
side of the conflict acts in a way consistent with their general
views on freedom of speech.
[T]his paper relies on close readings of in-person, semi-structured
interviews with the participants involved in the real controversy
that was the Williams case.
Thirteen interviews ranging in length from 40 minutes to
1 hour and 50 minutes were conducted for this paper. Of those
interviewed, all would be considered “elites” in terms of political
psychology / political attitude research—six were active members
of Solano Citizens for Life . . . ; two were members of Planned
Parenthood Shasta-Diablo management; one was the lawyer who
obtained the restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction for Planned Parenthood; one was the lawyer for
the duration of the case for Solano Citizens for Life; two were
lawyers for Planned Parenthood on appeal; and one was the Superior Court judge who heard arguments for, and finally crafted, the
restraining order and injunctions against Solano Citizens for Life.
During the course of the interviews, participants were asked a range
of questions about their experiences and thoughts in relation to
the Williams case, as well as their beliefs about the interpretation
and limits of the First Amendment right to free speech—both in
general, and in relation to the Williams case.
Joshua C. Wilson. “When Rights Collide:
Anti-Abortion Protests and the Ideological Dilemma
in Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams,”
Studies in Law, Politics, and Society
233

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 233

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

Wilson identifies and describes his qualitative data—interviews
conducted with key parties in the conflict—and explains the
nature of the questions he asked.
If your data are quantitative, you will need to explain them
similarly. See how political scientist Brian Arbour explains the
quantitative data he used to study for an article in The Forum
how a change of rules might have affected the outcome of the
2008 Democratic primary contest between Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama.
I evaluate these five concerns about the Democratic system of
delegate allocation by “rerunning” the Obama-Clinton contest
with a different set of allocation rules, those in effect for the 2008
Republican presidential contest. . . . Republicans allow each state
to make their own rules, leading to “a plethora of selection plans”
(Shapiro & Bello 2008, 5) . . . To “rerun” the Democratic primary under Republican rules, I need data on the results of the
Democratic primary for each state and congressional district and
on the Republican delegate allocation rules for each state. The
Green Papers (www.thegreenpapers.com), a website that serves as
an almanac of election procedures, rules, and results, provides each
of these data sources. By “rerunning” the Democratic primaries and
caucuses, I use the exact results of each contest.
Brian Arbour, “Even Closer, Even Longer: What If the 2008
Democratic Primary Used Republican Rules?” The Forum

Note that Arbour identifies his data as primary voting results
and the rules for Republican primaries. In the rest of the paper,
Arbour shows how his use of these data suggests that political
commentators who thought Republican rules would have clarified the close race between Clinton and Obama were wrong
and the race would have been “even closer, even longer.”
234

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 234

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences

Here are some templates for discussing data:
j In order to test the hypothesis that
. Our calculations suggest

j I used

to investigate

investigation indicate

, we assessed
.
. The results of this

“But Others May Object . . .”
No matter how strongly your data support your argument, there
are almost surely other perspectives (and thus other data) that
you need to acknowledge. By considering possible objections
to your argument and taking them seriously, you demonstrate
that you’ve done your work and that you’re aware of other
perspectives—and most important, you present your own argument as part of an ongoing conversation.
See how economist Christopher Carroll acknowledges that
there may be objections to his argument about how people
allocate their income between consumption and savings.
I have argued here that the modern version of the dynamically optimizing consumption model is able to match many of the important
features of the empirical data on consumption and saving behavior.
There are, however, several remaining reasons for discomfort with
the model.
Christopher D. Carroll, “A Theory of Consumption
Function, With and Without Liquidity Constraints,”
The Journal of Economic Perspectives

Carroll then goes on to identify the possible limitations of his
mathematical analysis.
235

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 235

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

Someone may object because there are related phenomena
that your analysis does not explain or because you do not have
the right data to investigate a particular question. Or perhaps
someone may object to assumptions underlying your argument
or how you handled your data. Here are some templates for
considering naysayers:
might object that

j Is my claim realistic? I have argued
question

, but readers may

j My explanation accounts for
. This is because

but does not explain
.

“Why Should We Care?”
Who should care about your research, and why? Since the social
sciences attempt to explain human behavior, it is important to
consider how your research affects the assumptions we make
about human behavior. In addition, you might offer recommendations for how other social scientists might continue to
explore an issue, or what actions policymakers should take.
In the following example, sociologist Devah Pager identifies the implications of her study of the way having a criminal
record affects a person applying for jobs.
[I]n terms of policy implications, this research has troubling conclusions. In our frenzy of locking people up, our “crime control”
policies may in fact exacerbate the very conditions that lead to
crime in the first place. Research consistently shows that finding

236

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 236

12/24/13 11:08 AM

Writing in the Social Sciences
quality steady employment is one of the strongest predictors of
desistance from crime (Shover 1996; Sampson and Laub 1993;
Uggen 2000). The fact that a criminal record severely limits
employment opportunities—particularly among blacks—suggests
that these individuals are left with few viable alternatives.
Devah Pager, “The Mark of a Criminal Record,”
The American Journal of Sociology

Pager’s conclusion that a criminal record negatively affects
employment chances creates a vicious circle, she says: steady
employment discourages recidivism, but a criminal record
makes it harder to get a job.
In answering the “so what?” question, you need to explain
why your readers should care. Although sometimes the implications of your work may be so broad that they would be
of interest to almost anyone, it’s never a bad idea to identify explicitly any groups of people who will find your work
important.
Templates for establishing why your claims matter:
j X is important because

j Ultimately, what is at stake here is
j The finding that
because

should be of interest to
.

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the complexity of
people allows us to look at their behavior from many different
viewpoints. Much has been, and will be, said about how and
why people do the things they do. As a result, we can look
at writing in the social sciences as an ongoing conversation.

237

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 237

12/24/13 11:08 AM

seventeen

“ A N A LY Z E T H I S ”

When you join this conversation, the “they say / I say” framework will help you figure out what has already been said (they
say) and what you can add (I say). The components of social
science writing presented in this chapter are tools to help you
join that conversation.

238

06_GRA_93584_part4_161_238.indd 238

12/24/13 11:08 AM

READINGS

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 239

12/24/13 11:09 AM

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 240

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Don’t Blame the Eater
DAV I D Z I N C Z E N KO

If ever there were a newspaper headline custom-made for
Jay Leno’s monologue, this was it. Kids taking on McDonald’s
this week, suing the company for making them fat. Isn’t that
like middle-aged men suing Porsche for making them get speeding tickets? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
I tend to sympathize with these portly fast-food patrons,
though. Maybe that’s because I used to be one of them.
I grew up as a typical mid-1980s latchkey kid. My parents
were split up, my dad off trying to rebuild his life, my mom
working long hours to make the monthly bills. Lunch and dinner, for me, was a daily choice between McDonald’s, Taco
Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Pizza Hut. Then as now, these
were the only available options for an American kid to get an
affordable meal. By age 15, I had packed 212 pounds of torpid
teenage tallow on my once lanky 5-foot-10 frame.
Then I got lucky. I went to college, joined the Navy Reserves
and got involved with a health magazine. I learned how to
David Zinczenko, who was for many years the editor-in-chief of
the fitness magazine Men’s Health, is president of Galvanized Brands,
a global health and wellness media company. This piece was first published on the op-ed page of the New York Times on November 23, 2002.
241

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 241

12/24/13 11:09 AM

DAV I D ZI NCZEN KO

manage my diet. But most of the teenagers who live, as I once
did, on a fast-food diet won’t turn their lives around: They’ve
crossed under the golden arches to a likely fate of lifetime obesity. And the problem isn’t just theirs—it’s all of ours.
Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by a
genetic disorder—only about 5 percent of childhood cases were
obesity-related, or Type 2, diabetes. Today, according
For tips on
saying why it
to the National Institutes of Health, Type 2 diabetes
matters, see
Chapter 7.
accounts for at least 30 percent of all new childhood
cases of diabetes in this country.
Not surprisingly, money spent to treat diabetes has skyrocketed, too. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
estimate that diabetes accounted for $2.6 billion in health care
costs in 1969. Today’s number is an unbelievable $100 billion
a year.
Shouldn’t we know better than to eat two meals a day in
fast-food restaurants? That’s one argument. But where, exactly,
are consumers—particularly teenagers—supposed to find
alternatives? Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I
guarantee you’ll see one of our country’s more than 13,000
McDonald’s restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try
to find someplace to buy a grapefruit.
Complicating the lack of alternatives is the lack of information about what, exactly, we’re consuming. There are no calorie
information charts on fast-food packaging, the way there are
on grocery items. Advertisements don’t carry warning labels
the way tobacco ads do. Prepared foods aren’t covered under
Food and Drug Administration labeling laws. Some fast-food
purveyors will provide calorie information on request, but even
that can be hard to understand.
For example, one company’s Web site lists its chicken salad
as containing 150 calories; the almonds and noodles that come

242

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 242

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Don’t Blame the Eater

with it (an additional 190 calories) are listed separately. Add
a serving of the 280-calorie dressing, and you’ve got a healthy
lunch alternative that comes in at 620 calories. But that’s not
all. Read the small print on the back of the dressing packet and
you’ll realize it actually contains 2.5 servings. If you pour what
you’ve been served, you’re suddenly up around 1,040 calories,
which is half of the government’s recommended daily calorie
intake. And that doesn’t take into account that 450-calorie
super-size Coke.
Make fun if you will of these kids launching lawsuits against
the fast-food industry, but don’t be surprised if you’re the next
plaintiff. As with the tobacco industry, it may be only a matter of
time before state governments begin to see a direct line between
the $1 billion that McDonald’s and Burger King spend each year
on advertising and their own swelling health care costs.
And I’d say the industry is vulnerable. Fast-food companies are marketing to children a product with proven health
hazards and no warning labels. They would do well to protect
themselves, and their customers, by providing the nutrition
information people need to make informed choices about their
products. Without such warnings, we’ll see more sick, obese
children and more angry, litigious parents. I say, let the deepfried chips fall where they may.

243

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 243

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Hidden Intellectualism
GERALD GRAFF

Everyone knows some young person who is impressively
“street smart” but does poorly in school. What a waste, we
think, that one who is so intelligent about so many things in
life seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work.
What doesn’t occur to us, though, is that schools and colleges
might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such
street smarts and channel them into good academic work.
Nor do we consider one of the major reasons why schools
and colleges overlook the intellectual potential of street
smarts: the fact that we associate those street smarts with antiintellectual concerns. We associate the educated life, the life of
the mind, too narrowly and exclusively with subjects and texts
that we consider inherently weighty and academic. We assume

Gerald Graff, the co-author of this book, is a professor of English
and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is a past
president of the Modern Language Association, the world’s largest
professional association of university scholars and teachers. This essay
is adapted from his 2003 book Clueless in Academe: How Schooling
Obscures the Life of the Mind.
244

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 244

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Hidden Intellectualism

that it’s possible to wax intellectual about Plato, Shakespeare,
the French Revolution, and nuclear fission, but not about cars,
dating, fashion, sports, TV, or video games.
The trouble with this assumption is that no neces- See pp. 58–61
tips on
sary connection has ever been established between any for
disagreeing,
text or subject and the educational depth and weight with reasons.
of the discussion it can generate. Real intellectuals turn any
subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their
mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas
a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest
subject. That’s why a George Orwell writing on the cultural
meanings of penny postcards is infinitely more substantial than
the cogitations of many professors on Shakespeare or globalization (104–16).
Students do need to read models of intellectually challenging writing—and Orwell is a great one—if they are to become
intellectuals themselves. But they would be more prone to
take on intellectual identities if we encouraged them to do
so at first on subjects that interest them rather than ones that
interest us.
I offer my own adolescent experience as a case in point. 5
Until I entered college, I hated books and cared only for sports.
The only reading I cared to do or could do was sports magazines, on which I became hooked, becoming a regular reader of
Sport magazine in the late forties, Sports Illustrated when it began
publishing in 1954, and the annual magazine guides to professional baseball, football, and basketball. I also loved the sports
novels for boys of John R. Tunis and Clair Bee and autobiographies of sports stars like Joe DiMaggio’s Lucky to Be a Yankee
and Bob Feller’s Strikeout Story. In short, I was your typical
teenage anti-intellectual—or so I believed for a long time. I
have recently come to think, however, that my preference for
245

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 245

12/24/13 11:09 AM

GERALD GRAFF

sports over schoolwork was not anti-intellectualism so much as
intellectualism by other means.
In the Chicago neighborhood I grew up in, which had
become a melting pot after World War II, our block was solidly
middle class, but just a block away—doubtless concentrated
there by the real estate companies—were African Americans,
Native Americans, and “hillbilly” whites who had recently fled
postwar joblessness in the South and Appalachia. Negotiating
this class boundary was a tricky matter. On the one hand, it
was necessary to maintain the boundary between “clean-cut”
boys like me and working-class “hoods,” as we called them,
which meant that it was good to be openly smart in a bookish sort of way. On the other hand, I was desperate for the
approval of the hoods, whom I encountered daily on the playing field and in the neighborhood, and for this purpose it was
not at all good to be book-smart. The hoods would turn on
you if they sensed you were putting on airs over them: “Who
you lookin’ at, smart ass?” as a leather-jacketed youth once
said to me as he relieved me of my pocket change along with
my self-respect.
I grew up torn, then, between the need to prove I was
smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well; between
the need not to jeopardize my respectable future and the
need to impress the hoods. As I lived it, the conflict came
down to a choice between being physically tough and being
verbal. For a boy in my neighborhood and elementary school,
only being “tough” earned you complete legitimacy. I still
recall endless, complicated debates in this period with my
closest pals over who was “the toughest guy in the school.”
If you were less than negligible as a fighter, as I was, you
settled for the next best thing, which was to be inarticulate,

246

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 246

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Hidden Intellectualism

carefully hiding telltale marks of literacy like correct grammar
and pronunciation.
In one way, then, it would be hard to imagine an adolescence
more thoroughly anti-intellectual than mine. Yet in retrospect,
I see that it’s more complicated, that I and the 1950s themselves
were not simply hostile toward intellectualism, but divided and
ambivalent. When Marilyn Monroe married the playwright
Arthur Miller in 1956 after divorcing the retired baseball star
Joe DiMaggio, the symbolic triumph of geek over jock suggested
the way the wind was blowing. Even Elvis, according to his
biographer Peter Guralnick, turns out to have supported Adlai
over Ike in the presidential election of 1956. “I don’t dig the
intellectual bit,” he told reporters. “But I’m telling you, man,
he knows the most” (327).
Though I too thought I did not “dig the intellectual bit,”
I see now that I was unwittingly in training for it. The germs
had actually been planted in the seemingly philistine debates
about which boys were the toughest. I see now that in the
interminable analysis of sports teams, movies, and toughness
that my friends and I engaged in—a type of analysis, needless
to say, that the real toughs would never have stooped to—I
was already betraying an allegiance to the egghead world. I was
practicing being an intellectual before I knew that was what
I wanted to be.
It was in these discussions with friends about toughness and
sports, I think, and in my reading of sports books and magazines, that I began to learn the rudiments of the intellectual
life: how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation about ideas.
It was in reading and arguing about sports and toughness that

247

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 247

12/24/13 11:09 AM

GERALD GRAFF

I experienced what it felt like to propose a generalization,
restate and respond to a counterargument, and perform other
intellectualizing operations, including composing the kind of
sentences I am writing now.
Only much later did it dawn on me that the sports world
was more compelling than school because it was more intellectual than school, not less. Sports after all was full of challenging arguments, debates, problems for analysis, and intricate
statistics that you could care about, as school conspicuously
was not. I believe that street smarts beat out book smarts in
our culture not because street smarts are nonintellectual, as
we generally suppose, but because they satisfy an intellectual
thirst more thoroughly than school culture, which seems pale
and unreal.
They also satisfy the thirst for community. When you
entered sports debates, you became part of a community that
was not limited to your family and friends, but was national
and public. Whereas schoolwork isolated you from others, the
pennant race or Ted Williams’s .400 batting average was something you could talk about with people you had never met.
Sports introduced you not only to a culture steeped in argument, but to a public argument culture that transcended the
personal. I can’t blame my schools for failing to make intellectual culture resemble the Super Bowl, but I do fault them
for failing to learn anything from the sports and entertainment
worlds about how to organize and represent intellectual culture,
how to exploit its gamelike element and turn it into arresting
public spectacle that might have competed more successfully
for my youthful attention.
For here is another thing that never dawned on me and is
still kept hidden from students, with tragic results: that the
real intellectual world, the one that existed in the big world
248

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 248

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Hidden Intellectualism

beyond school, is organized very much like the world of team
sports, with rival texts, rival interpretations and evaluations
of texts, rival theories of why they should be read and taught,
and elaborate team competitions in which “fans” of writers,
intellectual systems, methodologies, and -isms contend against
each other.
To be sure, school contained plenty of competition, which
became more invidious as one moved up the ladder (and has
become even more so today with the advent of high-stakes testing). In this competition, points were scored not by making
arguments, but by a show of information or vast reading, by
grade-grubbing, or other forms of one-upmanship. School competition, in short, reproduced the less attractive features of sports
culture without those that create close bonds and community.
And in distancing themselves from anything as enjoyable
and absorbing as sports, my schools missed the opportunity to
capitalize on an element of drama and conflict that the intellectual world shares with sports. Consequently, I failed to see
the parallels between the sports and academic worlds that could
have helped me cross more readily from one argument culture
to the other.
Sports is only one of the domains whose potential for literacy training (and not only for males) is seriously underestimated by educators, who see sports as competing with
academic development rather than a route to it. But if this
argument suggests why it is a good idea to assign readings
and topics that are close to students’ existing interests, it also
suggests the limits of this tactic. For students who get excited
about the chance to write about their passion for cars will
often write as poorly and unreflectively on that topic as on
Shakespeare or Plato. Here is the flip side of what I pointed
out before: that there’s no necessary relation between the
249

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 249

12/24/13 11:09 AM

GERALD GRAFF

degree of interest a student shows in a text or subject and
the quality of thought or expression such a student manifests
in writing or talking about it. The challenge, as college professor Ned Laff has put it, “is not simply to exploit students’
nonacademic interests, but to get them to see those interests
through academic eyes.”
To say that students need to see their interests “through
academic eyes” is to say that street smarts are not enough. Making students’ nonacademic interests an object of academic study
is useful, then, for getting students’ attention and overcoming
their boredom and alienation, but this tactic won’t in itself
necessarily move them closer to an academically rigorous treatment of those interests. On the other hand, inviting students to
write about cars, sports, or clothing fashions does not have to
be a pedagogical cop-out as long as students are required to see
these interests “through academic eyes,” that is, to think and
write about cars, sports, and fashions in a reflective, analytical
way, one that sees them as microcosms of what is going on in
the wider culture.
If I am right, then schools and colleges are missing an
opportunity when they do not encourage students to take their
nonacademic interests as objects of academic study. It is selfdefeating to decline to introduce any text or subject that figures
to engage students who will otherwise tune out academic work
entirely. If a student cannot get interested in Mill’s On Liberty
but will read Sports Illustrated or Vogue or the hip-hop magazine
Source with absorption, this is a strong argument for assigning
the magazines over the classic. It’s a good bet that if students get
hooked on reading and writing by doing term papers on Source,
they will eventually get to On Liberty. But even if they don’t,
the magazine reading will make them more literate and reflective than they would be otherwise. So it makes pedagogical
250

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 250

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Hidden Intellectualism

sense to develop classroom units on sports, cars, fashions, rap
music, and other such topics. Give me the student anytime who
writes a sharply argued, sociologically acute analysis of an issue
in Source over the student who writes a lifeless explication of
Hamlet or Socrates’ Apology.
Works Cited
Cramer, Richard Ben. Joe DiMaggio: The Hero’s Life. New York: Simon, 2000.
Print.
DiMaggio, Joe. Lucky to Be a Yankee. New York: Bantam, 1949. Print.
Feller, Bob. Strikeout Story, New York: Bantam, 1948. Print.
Guralnick, Peter. Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley. Boston:
Little, Brown, 1994. Print.
Orwell, George. A Collection of Essays. New York: Harcourt, 1953. Print.

251

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 251

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Nuclear Waste
RICHARD A. MULLER

As people recognize the dangers of fossil fuel plants—
especially the risk of global warming from carbon dioxide
production—nuclear power begins to look more attractive.
But what about the waste—all that highly radioactive debris
that will endure for thousands of years? Do we have the right
to leave such a legacy to our children?
Nuclear waste is one of the biggest technical issues that any
future president is likely to face. The problem seems totally
intractable. Plutonium—just one of the many highly radioactive waste products—has a half-life of 24,000 years. Even in
that unimaginable amount of time, its intense radioactivity will
decrease by only half. After 48,000 years it will still emit deadly
radiation at a quarter of its original level. Even after 100,000
years the radiation will still be above 10% of the level it had
when it left the reactor. What if it leaks into the ground and
Richard A. Muller is professor of physics at the University of
California at Berkeley. He is a past winner of the MacArthur “genius”
Fellowship. This piece was given originally as a lecture in his physics
course for non-science students and was then published in a collection
of his course lectures, Physics for Future Presidents (2008).

252

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 252

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Nuclear Waste

reaches human water supplies? How can we possibly certify that
this material can be kept safe for 100,000 years?
Still, the US government persists in its pursuit of “safe”
nuclear waste disposal. It has created a prototype nuclear
waste facility buried deep within Yucca Mountain, Nevada
as shown in the figure below . To keep the waste safe, the storage rooms are 1000 feet below the surface. To store even part
of the present nuclear waste requires a vast area, nearly 2 square
miles. The cost of the facility is expected to reach $100 billion,
with hundreds of billions of dollars more in operating costs.
To make matters worse, the Yucca Mountain region is seismically active. More than 600 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5
and higher have occurred within 50 miles in the last decade

Yucca Mountain, the site of the prototype nuclear waste storage
facility.
253

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 253

1/6/14 5:42 PM

RICHARD A. MULLER

alone. Moreover, the region was created by volcanic activity.
Although that was millions of years ago, how sure can we be
that the waste facility won’t be torn apart by another eruption?
Many alternatives have been suggested for nuclear waste
storage. Why not just send the waste into the sun? Well, maybe
that’s not such a good idea, since on launch some rockets do
crash back down on the Earth. Some scientists have proposed
that the waste be put in vessels and sunk under the oceans, in
a region where the movement of the Earth’s crustal plates will
subduct the material, eventually burying it hundreds of miles
deep. Yet just the fact that scientists make such suggestions
seems to emphasize how severe the problem really is.
Here is the worst part. We have already generated more than
enough nuclear waste to fill up Yucca Mountain. That waste
won’t go away. Yet you, a future president, are considering more
nuclear power? Are you insane?
My Confession
The furor against nuclear power has been so intense that I felt
compelled to reproduce the anti-nuke viewpoint in the opening of
this chapter, including at least part of their passion. These are the
arguments that you will hear when you are president. Yet it hardly
matters whether you are pro-nuke or anti-nuke. The waste is there,
and you will have to do something with it. You can’t ignore this
issue, and to do the right thing (and to convince the public that
you’re doing the right thing) you must understand the physics.
When I work out the numbers, I find the dangers of storing our waste at Yucca Mountain to be small compared to the
dangers of not doing so, and significantly smaller than many
other dangers we ignore. Yet the contentious debate continues.
More research is demanded, but every bit of additional research
254

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 254

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Nuclear Waste

seems to raise new questions that exacerbate the public’s fear
and distrust. I have titled this section “My Confession” because
I find it hard to stand aside and present the physics without
giving my own personal evaluation. Through most of this book
I’ve tried to present the facts, and just the facts, and let you
draw the conclusions. In this section, I confess that I’ll depart
from that approach. I can’t be evenhanded, because the facts
seem to point strongly toward a particular conclusion.
I’ve discussed Yucca Mountain with scientists, politicians, and
many concerned citizens. Most of the politicians believe the matter to be a scientific issue, and most of the scientists think it is
political. Both are in favor of more research—scientists because
that is what they do, and politicians because they think the
research will answer the key questions. I don’t think it will.
Here are some pertinent facts. The underground tunnels at
Yucca Mountain are designed to hold 77,000 tons of Chapter 16
high-level nuclear waste. Initially, the most dangerous has tips on
describing
part of this waste is not plutonium, but fission frag- the data
underpinning
ments such as strontium-90, an unstable nucleus created a scientific
when the uranium nucleus splits. Because these fission argument.
fragments have shorter half-lives than uranium, the waste is
about 1000 times more radioactive than the original ore. It takes
10,000 years for the waste (not including plutonium, which
is also produced in the reactor, and which I’ll discuss later)
to decay back to the radioactive level of the mined uranium.
Largely on the basis of this number, people have searched for a
site that will remain secure for 10,000 years. After that, we are
better off than if we left the uranium in the ground, so 10,000
years of safety is probably good enough, not the 100,000 years
that I mentioned in the chapter introduction.
Ten thousand years still seems impossibly long. What will
the world be like 10,000 years from now? Think backward to
255

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 255

12/24/13 11:09 AM

RICHARD A. MULLER

appreciate the amount of time involved: Ten thousand years
ago humans had just discovered agriculture. Writing wouldn’t
be invented for another 5000 years. Can we really plan 10,000
years into the future? Of course we can’t. We have no idea what
the world will be like then. There is no way we can claim that
we will be able to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years. Any
plan to do that is clearly unacceptable.
Of course, calling storage unacceptable is itself an unacceptable answer. We have the waste, and we have to do
something with it. But the problem isn’t really as hard as I
just portrayed it. We don’t need absolute security for 10,000
years. A more reasonable goal is to reduce the risk of leakage to 0.1%—that is, to one chance in a thousand. Because
the radioactivity is only 1000 times worse than that of the
uranium we removed from the ground, the net risk (probability multiplied by danger) is 1000 0.001 1—that is,
basically the same as the risk if we hadn’t mined the uranium
in the first place. (I am assuming the linear hypothesis—
that total cancer risk is independent of individual doses or
dose rate—but my argument won’t depend strongly on its
validity.)
Moreover, we don’t need this 0.1% level of security for the
full 10,000 years. After 300 years, the fission fragment radioactivity will have decreased by a factor of 10; it will be only
100 times as great as the mined uranium. So by then, we no
longer need the risk to be at the 0.1% level, but could allow a
1% chance that all of the waste leaks out. That’s a lot easier than
guaranteeing absolute containment for 10,000 years. Moreover,
this calculation assumes that 100% of the waste escapes. For
leakage of 1% of the waste, we can accept a 100% probability
after 300 years. When you think about it this way, the storage
problem begins to seem tractable.
256

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 256

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Nuclear Waste

However, the public discussion doesn’t take into account
these numbers, or the fact that the initial mining actually
removed radioactivity from the ground. Instead, the public
insists on absolute security. The Department of Energy continues to search Yucca Mountain for unknown earthquake faults,
and many people assume that the acceptability of the facility
depends on the absence of any such faults. They believe that the
discovery of a new fault will rule Yucca Mountain out. The issue,
though, should not be whether there will be any earthquakes in
the next 10,000 years, but whether after 300 years there will be
a 1% chance of a sufficiently large earthquake that 100% of the
waste will escape its glass capsules and reach groundwater. Or,
we could accept a 100% chance that 1% of the waste will leak,
or a 10% chance that 10% will leak. Any of these options leads
to a lower risk than if the original uranium had been left in
the ground, mixing its natural radioactivity with groundwater.
Absolute security is an unnecessarily extreme goal, since even
the original uranium in the ground didn’t provide it.
The problem is even easier to solve when we ask why we
are comparing the danger of waste storage only to the danger
of the uranium originally mined. Why not compare it to the
larger danger of the natural uranium left in the soil? Colorado,
where much of the uranium is obtained, is a geologically active
region, full of faults and fissures and mountains rising out of
the prairie, and its surface rock contains about a billion tons
of uranium. The radioactivity in this uranium is 20 times
greater than the legal limit for Yucca Mountain, and it will
take more than 13 billion years—not just a few hundred—for
the radioactivity to drop by a factor of 10. Yet water that runs
through, around, and over this radioactive rock is the source
of the Colorado River, which is used for drinking water in
much of the West, including Los Angeles and San Diego.
257

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 257

12/24/13 11:09 AM

RICHARD A. MULLER

And unlike the glass pellets that store the waste in Yucca
Mountain, most of the uranium in the Colorado ground is
water-soluble. Here is the absurd-sounding conclusion: if the
Yucca Mountain facility were at full capacity and all the waste
leaked out of its glass containment immediately and managed
to reach groundwater, the danger would still be 20 times less
than that currently posed by natural uranium leaching into
the Colorado River. The situation brings to mind the resident
near Three Mile Island who feared the tiny leakage from the
reactor but not the much greater radioactivity of natural radon
gas seeping up from the ground.
I don’t mean to imply that waste from Yucca Mountain is
not dangerous. Nor am I suggesting that we should panic about
radioactivity in the Los Angeles water supply. The Colorado
River example illustrates only that when we worry about mysterious and unfamiliar dangers, we sometimes lose perspective.
Every way I do the calculation, I reach the same conclusion:
waste leakage from Yucca Mountain is not a great danger. Put
the waste in glass pellets in a reasonably stable geologic formation, and start worrying about real threats—such as the dangers
of the continued burning of fossil fuels.
A related issue is the risk of mishaps and attacks during the
transportation of nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain site. The
present plans call for the waste to be carried in thick, reinforced
concrete cylinders that can survive high-speed crashes without
leaking. In fact, it would be very hard for a terrorist to open
the containers, or to use the waste in radiological weapons.
The smart terrorist is more likely to hijack a tanker truck full
of gasoline, chlorine, or another common toxic material and
then blow it up in a city. Recall from the chapter on terrorist
nukes that al-Qaeda told José Padilla to abandon his effort to

258

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 258

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Nuclear Waste

make a dirty bomb and instead focus his efforts on natural-gas
explosions in apartment buildings.
Why are we worrying about transporting nuclear See Chapter 7
for tips on
waste? Ironically, we have gone to such lengths to ensure saying why it
the safety of the transport that the public thinks the matters.
danger is greater than it really is. Images on evening newscasts
of concrete containers being dropped from five-story buildings,
smashing into the ground and bouncing undamaged, do not
reassure the public. This is a consequence of the “where there’s
smoke there’s fire” paradox of public safety. Raise the standards,
increase the safety, do more research, study the problem in
greater depth, and in the process you will improve safety and
frighten the public. After all, would scientists work so hard if
the threat weren’t real? Scientists who propose rocketing the
waste to the sun, or burying it in a subduction zone in the ocean,
also seem to be suggesting that the problem is truly intractable,
and that premise exacerbates the public fear.

259

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 259

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit
of the American Dream
BARBARA EHRENREICH

Because i’ve written a lot about poverty, I’m used
to hearing from people in scary circumstances. An eviction
notice has arrived. A child has been diagnosed with a serious
illness and the health insurance has run out. The car has broken
down and there’s no way to get to work. These are the routine
emergencies that plague the chronically poor. But it struck me,
starting in about 2002, that many such tales of hardship were
coming from people who were once members in good standing
of the middle class—college graduates and former occupants
of mid-level white-collar positions. One such writer upbraided
me for what she saw as my neglect of hardworking, virtuous
people like herself.

Barbara Ehrenreich is an investigative journalist whose articles
have appeared in Harper’s, The Nation, the New York Times, and many
other periodicals. She’s the author of a number of books on various topics, including Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream
(2005), from which the piece here was taken. Her most recent book
is Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America (2009).
260

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 260

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream
Try investigating people like me who didn’t have babies in high
school, who made good grades, who work hard and don’t kiss a lot
of ass and instead of getting promoted or paid fairly must regress to
working for $7/hr., having their student loans in perpetual deferment, living at home with their parents, and generally exist in debt
which they feel they may never get out of.

Stories of white-collar downward mobility cannot be brushed
off as easily as accounts of blue-collar economic woes, which the
hard-hearted traditionally blame on “bad choices”: failing to get
a college degree, for example, failing to postpone child-bearing
until acquiring a nest egg, or failing to choose affluent parents
in the first place. But distressed white-collar people cannot be
accused of fecklessness of any kind; they are the ones who “did
everything right.” They earned higher degrees, often setting
aside their youthful passion for philosophy or music to suffer
through dull practical majors like management or finance. In
some cases, they were high achievers who ran into trouble precisely because they had risen far enough in the company for their
salaries to look like a tempting cost cut. They were the losers,
in other words, in a classic game of bait and switch. And while
blue-collar poverty has become numbingly routine, white-collar
unemployment—and the poverty that often results—remains a
rude finger in the face of the American dream.
I realized that I knew very little about the mid- to upper levels of the corporate world, having so far encountered this world
almost entirely through its low-wage, entry-level representatives.
I was one of them—a server in a national chain restaurant, a
cleaning person, and a Wal-Mart “associate”—in the course of
researching an earlier book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting
By in America. Like everyone else, I’ve also encountered the corporate world as a consumer, dealing with people quite far down
261

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 261

12/24/13 11:09 AM

BARBARA EHRENREICH

in the occupational hierarchy—retail clerks, customer service
representatives, telemarketers. Of the levels where decisions are
made—where the vice presidents, account executives, and regional
managers dwell—my experience has been limited to seeing these
sorts of people on airplanes, where they study books on “leadership,” fiddle with spreadsheets on their laptops, or fall asleep over
biographies of the founding fathers.1 I’m better acquainted with
the corporate functionaries of the future, many of whom I’ve met
on my visits to college campuses, where “business” remains the
most popular major, if only because it is believed to be the safest
and most lucrative (National Center for Education Statistics).
But there have been growing signs of trouble—if not outright misery—within the white-collar corporate workforce.
First, starting with the economic downturn of 2001, there has
been a rise in unemployment among highly credentialed and
experienced people. In late 2003, when I started this project,
unemployment was running at about 5.9 percent, but in contrast to earlier economic downturns, a sizable portion—almost
20 percent, or about 1.6 million—of the unemployed were
white-collar professionals.2 Previous downturns had disproportionately hit blue-collar people; this time it was the relative
elite of professional, technical, and managerial employees who
were being singled out for media sympathy. In April 2003,
for example, the New York Times Magazine offered a muchdiscussed cover story about a former $300,000-a-year computer
industry executive reduced, after two years of unemployment, to
working as a sales associate at the Gap (Mahler). Throughout
the first four years of the 2000s, there were similar stories of the
mighty or the mere midlevel brought low, ejected from their
office suites and forced to serve behind the counter at Starbucks.
Today, white-collar job insecurity is no longer a function of
the business cycle—rising as the stock market falls and declining
262

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 262

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream

again when the numbers improve.3 Nor is it confined to a few
volatile sectors like telecommunications or technology, or a few
regions of the country like the rust belt or Silicon Valley. The
economy may be looking up, the company may be raking in
cash, and still the layoffs continue, like a perverse form of natural selection, weeding out the talented and successful as well as
the mediocre. Since the midnineties, this perpetual winnowing
process has been institutionalized under various euphemisms
such as “downsizing,’’ “right-sizing,” “smart-sizing,” “restructuring,” and “de-layering”—to which we can now add the outsourcing of white-collar functions to cheaper labor markets overseas.
In the metaphor of the best-selling business book of the
first few years of the twenty-first century, the “cheese”—meaning a stable, rewarding, job—has indeed been moved. A 2004
survey of executives found 95 percent expecting to move on,
voluntarily or otherwise, from their current jobs, and 68 percent
concerned about unexpected firings and layoffs (Mackay 94).
You don’t, in other words, have to lose a job to feel the anxiety
and despair of the unemployed.
A second sign of trouble could be called “overemployment.”
I knew, from my reading, that mid- and high-level corporate
executives and professionals today often face the same punishing demands on their time as low-paid wage earners who must
work two jobs in order to make ends meet. Economist Juliet
Schor, who wrote The Overworked American, and business journalist Jill Andresky Fraser, author of White Collar Sweatshop,
describe stressed-out white-collar employees who put in tento twelve-hour-long days at the office, continue to work on
their laptops in the evening at home, and remain tethered to
the office by cell phone even on vacations and holidays. “On
Wall Street, for example,” Fraser reports, “it is common for a
supervisor to instruct new hires to keep a spare set of clothes
263

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 263

12/24/13 11:09 AM

BARBARA EHRENREICH

and toothbrush in the office for all those late night episodes
when it just won’t make sense to head home for a quick snooze
(Fraser 23). She quotes an Intel employee:
If you make the choice to have a home life, you will be ranked and
rated at the bottom. I was willing to work the endless hours, come
in on weekends, travel to the ends of the earth. I had no hobbies,
no outside interests. If I wasn’t involved with the company, I wasn’t
anything (qtd. in Fraser 158).

Something, evidently, is going seriously wrong within a
socioeconomic group I had indeed neglected as too comfortable
and too powerful to merit my concern. Where I had imagined
comfort, there is now growing distress, and I determined to
investigate. I chose the same strategy I had employed in Nickel
and Dimed: to enter this new world myself, as an undercover
reporter, and see what I could learn about the problems firsthand. Were people being driven out of their corporate jobs?
What did it take to find a new one? And, if things were as bad
as some reports suggested, why was there so little protest?
The plan was straightforward enough: to find a job, a
“good” job, which I defined minimally as a white-collar position that would provide health insurance and an income of
about $50,000 a year, enough to land me solidly in the middle
class. The job itself would give me a rare firsthand glimpse into
the midlevel corporate world, and the effort to find it would
of course place me among the most hard-pressed white-collar
corporate workers—the ones who don’t have jobs.
Since I wanted to do this as anonymously as possible, certain
areas of endeavor had to be excluded, such as higher education,
publishing (magazines, newspapers, and books), and nonprofit
liberal organizations. In any of these, I would have run the
264

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 264

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream

risk of being recognized and perhaps treated differently—more
favorably, one hopes—than the average job seeker. But these
restrictions did not significantly narrow the field, since of course
most white-collar professionals work in other sectors of the
for-profit, corporate world—from banking to business services,
pharmaceuticals to finance.
The decision to enter corporate life—and an unfamiliar sector
of it, at that—required that I abandon, or at least set aside, deeply
embedded attitudes and views, including my longstanding critique of American corporations and the people who lead them.
I had cut my teeth, as a fledgling investigative journalist in the
seventies, on the corporations that were coming to dominate the
health-care system: pharmaceutical companies, hospital chains,
insurance companies. Then, sometime in the eighties, I shifted
my attention to the treatment of blue-and pink-collar employees,
blaming America’s intractable level of poverty—12.5 percent
by the federal government’s official count, 25 percent by more
up-to-date measures—on the chronically low wages offered to
nonprofessional workers. In the last few years, I seized on the
wave of financial scandals— from Enron through, at the time
of this writing, HealthSouth and Hollingers International—as
evidence of growing corruption within the corporate world, a
pattern of internal looting without regard for employees, consumers, or even, in some cases, stockholders.
But for the purposes of this project, these criticisms and
reservations had to be set aside or shoved as far back in my
mind as possible. Like it or not, the corporation is the dominant
unit of the global economy and the form of enterprise that our
lives depend on in a day-to-day sense. I write this on an IBM
laptop while sipping Lipton tea and wearing clothes from the
Gap—all major firms or elements thereof. It’s corporations that
make the planes run (though not necessarily on time), bring
265

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 265

12/24/13 11:09 AM

BARBARA EHRENREICH

us (and increasingly grow) our food, and generally “make it
happen.” I’d been on the outside of the corporate world, often
complaining bitterly, and now I wanted in.
This would not, I knew, be an altogether fair test of the job
market, if only because I had some built-in disadvantages as a
job seeker. For one thing, I am well into middle age, and since
age discrimination is a recognized problem in the corporate
world even at the tender age of forty, I was certainly vulnerable
to it myself. This defect, however, is by no means unique to
me. Many people—from displaced homemakers to downsized
executives—now find themselves searching for jobs at an age
that was once associated with a restful retirement.
Furthermore, I had the disadvantage of never having held
a white-collar job with a corporation. My one profesSee Chapter 8
for tips on
sional-level office job, which lasted for about seven
connecting
the parts.
months, was in the public sector, at the New York City
Bureau of the Budget. It had involved such typical white-collar
activities as attending meetings, digesting reports, and writing memos; but that was a long time ago, before cell phones,
PowerPoint, and e-mail. In the corporate world I now sought
to enter, everything would be new to me: the standards of performance, the methods of evaluation, the lines and even the
modes of communication. But I’m a quick study, as you have
to be in journalism, and counted on this to get me by.
The first step was to acquire a new identity and personal
history to go with it, meaning, in this case, a résumé. It is easier
to change your identity than you might think. Go to Alavarado
and Seventh Street in Los Angeles, for example, and you will
be approached by men whispering, “ID, ID.” I, however, took
the legal route, because I wanted my documents to be entirely
in order when the job offers started coming in. My fear, perhaps
exaggerated, was that my current name might be recognized, or
266

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 266

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream

would at least turn up an embarrassing abundance of Google
entries. So in November 2003 I legally changed back to my
maiden name, Barbara Alexander, and acquired a Social Security card to go with it.
As for the résumé: although it had to be faked, I wanted it
as much as possible to represent my actual skills, which, I firmly
believed, would enrich whatever company I went to work
for. I am a writer—author of thousands of published articles
and about twelve nonfiction books, counting the coauthored
ones—and I know that “writing” translates, in the corporate
world, into public relations or “communications” generally.
Many journalism schools teach PR too, which may be fitting,
since PR is really journalism’s evil twin. Whereas a journalist
seeks the truth, a PR person may be called upon to disguise it or
even to advance an untruth. If your employer, a pharmaceutical
company, claims its new drug cures both cancer and erectile
dysfunction, your job is to promote it, not to investigate the
grounds for these claims.
I could do this, on a temporary basis anyway, and have even
done many of the things PR people routinely do: I’ve written press releases, pitched stories to editors and reporters, prepared press packets, and helped arrange press conferences. As
an author, I have also worked closely with my publisher’s PR
people and have always found them to be intelligent and in
every way congenial.
I have also been an activist in a variety of causes over the
years, and this experience too must translate into something
valuable to any firm willing to hire me. I have planned meetings
and chaired them; I have worked in dozens of diverse groups and
often played a leadership role in them; I am at ease as a public
speaker, whether giving a lengthy speech or a brief presentation
on a panel—all of which amounts to the “leadership” skills that
267

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 267

12/24/13 11:09 AM

BARBARA EHRENREICH

should be an asset to any company. At the very least, I could
claim to be an “event planner,” capable of dividing gatherings
into plenaries and break-out sessions, arranging the press coverage, and planning the follow-up events.
Even as a rough draft, the résumé took days of preparation.
I had to line up people willing to lie for me, should they be
called by a potential employer, and attest to the fine work I
had done for them. Fortunately, I have friends who were willing to do this, some of them located at recognizable companies.
Although I did not dare claim actual employment at these
firms, since a call to their Human Resources departments would
immediately expose the lie, I felt I could safely pretend to have
“consulted” to them over the years. Suffice it to say that I gave
Barbara Alexander an exemplary history in public relations,
sometimes with a little event planning thrown in, and that the
dissimulation involved in crafting my new résumé was further
preparation for any morally challenging projects I should be
called upon to undertake as a PR person.
I did not, however, embellish my new identity with an affect
or mannerisms different from my own. I am not an actor and
would not have been able to do this even if I had wanted to.
“Barbara Alexander” was only a cover for Barbara Ehrenreich;
her behavior would, for better or worse, always be my own. In
fact, in a practical sense I was simply changing my occupational status from “self-employed/writer” to “unemployed”— a
distinction that might be imperceptible to the casual observer.
I would still stay home most days at my computer, only now,
instead of researching and writing articles, I would be researching and contacting companies that might employ me. The new
name and fake résumé were only my ticket into the ranks of
the unemployed white-collar Americans who spend their days
searching for a decent-paying job.
268

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 268

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream

The project required some minimal structure; since I was
stepping into the unknown, I needed to devise some guidelines
for myself. My first rule was that I would do everything possible
to land a job, which meant being open to every form of help
that presented itself: utilizing whatever books, web sites, and
businesses, for example, that I could find offering guidance to
job seekers. I would endeavor to behave as I was expected to,
insofar as I could decipher the expectations. I did not know
exactly what forms of effort would be required of successful job
seekers, only that I would, as humbly and diligently as possible,
give it my best try.
Second, I would be prepared to go anywhere for a job or even
an interview, and would advertise this geographic flexibility in
my contacts with potential employers. I was based in Charlottesville, Virginia, throughout this project, but I was prepared
to travel anywhere in the United States to get a job and then
live there for several months if I found one. Nor would I shun
any industry—other than those where I might be recognized—
as unglamorous or morally repugnant. My third rule was that
I would have to take the first job I was offered that met my
requirements as to income and benefits.
I knew that the project would take a considerable investment of time and money, so I set aside ten months4 and the
sum of $5,000 for travel and other expenses that might arise in
the course of job searching. My expectation was that I would
make the money back once I got a job and probably come out
far ahead. As for the time, I budgeted roughly four to six months
for the search—five months being the average for unemployed
people in 2004—and another three to four months of employment (Leland). I would have plenty of time both to sample the
life of the white-collar unemployed and to explore the corporate world they sought to reenter.
269

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 269

12/24/13 11:09 AM

BARBARA EHRENREICH

From the outset, I pictured this abstraction, the corporate
world, as a castle on a hill—well fortified, surrounded by difficult
checkpoints, with its glass walls gleaming invitingly from on
high. I knew that it would be a long hard climb just to get to
the door. But I’ve made my way into remote and lofty places
before—college and graduate school, for example. I’m patient
and crafty; I have stamina and resolve; and I believed that I
could do this too.
In fact, the project, as I planned it, seemed less challenging
than I might have liked. As an undercover reporter, I would of
course be insulated from the real terrors of the white-collar work
world, if only because I was independent of it for my income and
self-esteem. Most of my fellow job seekers would probably have
come to their status involuntarily, through layoffs or individual
firings. For them, to lose a job is to enter a world of pain. Their
income collapses to the size of an unemployment insurance
check; their self-confidence plummets. Much has been written
about the psychological damage incurred by the unemployed—
their sudden susceptibility to depression, divorce, substance
abuse, and even suicide.5 No such calamities could occur in
my life as an undercover job seeker and, later, jobholder. There
would be no sudden descent into poverty, nor any real sting of
rejection.
I also started with the expectation that this project would
be far less demanding than the work I had undertaken for
Nickel and Dimed. Physically, it would be a piece of cake—no
scrubbing, no heavy lifting, no walking or running for hours
on end. As for behavior, I imagined that I would be immune
from the constant subservience and obedience demanded of
low-wage blue-collar workers, that I would be far freer to
be, and express, myself. As it turns out, I was wrong on all
counts.
270

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 270

12/24/13 11:09 AM

The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream
Notes
1Even

fiction—my favorite source of insight into culture and times remote
from my own—was no help. While the fifties and sixties had produced
absorbing novels about white-collar corporate life, including Richard Yates’s
Revolutionary Road and Sloan Wilson’s The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, more
recent novels and films tend to ignore the white-collar corporate work world
except as a backdrop to sexual intrigue.
2According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women are only slightly
more likely than men to be unemployed—6.1 percent compared to
5.7 percent—and white women, like myself, are about half as likely as black
women to be unemployed (www.bls.gov).
3I was particularly enlightened by Jill Andresky Fraser’s White Collar
Sweatshop: The Deterioration of Work and Its Rewards in Corporate America
(New York: Norton, 2001) and Richard Sennett’s The Corrosion of Character:
The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (New York: Norton,
1998).
4From December 2003 to October 2004, with the exception of most of
July, when I had a brief real-life job writing biweekly columns for the New
York Times.
5See, for example, Katherine S. Newman’s Falling from Grace: Downward
Mobility in the Age of Affluence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999)
or, for a highly readable first-person account, G.J. Meyer’s Executive Blues
(New York: Franklin Square Press, 1995).

Works Cited
Fraser, Jill Andresky. White Collar Sweatshop: The Deterioration of Work and Its
Rewards in Corporate America. New York: Norton, 2001. Print.
Leland, John. “For Unemployed, Wait for New Work Grows Longer.” New
York Times 9 Jan. 2005. Print.
Mackay, Harvey. We Got Fired! And It’s the Best Thing That Ever Happened to
Us. New York: Ballantine, 2004. Print.
Mahler, Jonathan. “Commute to Nowhere.” New York Times Magazine 13
Apr. 2003. Print.
National Center for Education Statistics. Undergraduate Enrollments in Academic,
Career, and Vocational Education. Maryland: Issue Brief, 2004. PDF file.
271

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 271

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge
FLANNERY O’CONNOR

Her doctor had told Julian’s mother that she must
lose twenty pounds on account of her blood pressure, so on
Wednesday nights Julian had to take her downtown on the bus
for a reducing class at the Y. The reducing class was designed for
working girls over fifty, who weighed from 165 to 200 pounds.
His mother was one of the slimmer ones, but she said ladies
did not tell their age or weight. She would not ride the buses
by herself at night since they had been integrated, and because
the reducing class was one of her few pleasures, necessary for
her health, and free, she said Julian could at least put himself
out to take her, considering all she did for him. Julian did not

Flannery O’Connor (1925–1964) was an American writer and
essayist. Born in Savannah, Georgia, she authored two novels and over
thirty short stories. “Everything That Rises Must Converge” comes
from her second short story collection, published posthumously in
1965. Her style is frequently associated with the Southern Gothic, a
genre of stories set in the American South in which characters often
find themselves in ominous situations.
272

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 272

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

like to consider all she did for him, but every Wednesday night
he braced himself and took her.
She was almost ready to go, standing before the hall mirror,
putting on her hat, while he, his hands behind him, appeared
pinned to the door frame, waiting like Saint Sebastian for the
arrows to begin piercing him. The hat was new and had cost her
seven dollars and a half. She kept saying, “Maybe I shouldn’t
have paid that for it. No, I shouldn’t have. I’ll take it off and
return it tomorrow. I shouldn’t have bought it.”
Julian raised his eyes to heaven. “Yes, you should have
bought it,” he said. “Put it on and let’s go.” It was a hideous
hat. A purple velvet flap came down on one side of it and
stood up on the other; the rest of it was green and looked like
a cushion with the stuffing out. He decided it was less comical
than jaunty and pathetic. Everything that gave her pleasure
was small and depressed him.
She lifted the hat one more time and set it down slowly on
top of her head. Two wings of gray hair protruded on either
side of her florid face, but her eyes, sky-blue, were as innocent
and untouched by experience as they must have been when she
was ten. Were it not that she was a widow who had struggled
fiercely to feed and clothe and put him through school and who
was supporting him still, “until he got on his feet,” she might
have been a little girl that he had to take to town.
“It’s all right, it’s all right,” he said. “Let’s go.” He opened the
door himself and started down the walk to get her going. The
sky was a dying violet and the houses stood out darkly against
it, bulbous liver-colored monstrosities of a uniform ugliness
though no two were alike. Since this had been a fashionable
neighborhood forty years ago, his mother persisted in thinking
they did well to have an apartment in it. Each house had a narrow collar of dirt around it in which sat, usually, a grubby child.
273

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 273

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

Julian walked with his hands in his pockets, his head down and
thrust forward and his eyes glazed with the determination to
make himself completely numb during the time he would be
sacrificed to her pleasure.
The door closed and he turned to find the dumpy figure,
surmounted by the atrocious hat, coming toward him. “Well,”
she said, “you only live once and paying a little more for it, I
at least won’t meet myself coming and going.”
“Some day I’ll start making money,” Julian said gloomily—
he knew he never would—“and you can have one of those
jokes whenever you take the fit.” But first they would move.
He visualized a place where the nearest neighbors would be
three miles away on either side.
“I think you’re doing fine,” she said, drawing on her gloves.
“You’ve only been out of school a year. Rome wasn’t built in
a day.”
She was one of the few members of the Y reducing class who
arrived in hat and gloves and who had a son who had been
to college. “It takes time,” she said, “and the world is in such
a mess. This hat looked better on me than any of the others,
though when she brought it out I said, ‘Take that thing back.
I wouldn’t have it on my head,’ and she said, ‘Now wait till
you see it on,’ and when she put it on me, I said, ‘We-ull,’ and
she said, ‘If you ask me, that hat does something for you and
you do something for the hat, and besides,’ she said, ‘with that
hat, you won’t meet yourself coming and going.’”
Julian thought he could have stood his lot better if she had
been selfish, if she had been an old hag who drank and screamed
at him. He walked along, saturated in depression, as if in the
midst of his martyrdom he had lost his faith. Catching sight of
his long, hopeless, irritated face, she stopped suddenly with a
grief-stricken look, and pulled back on his arm. “Wait on me,”
274

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 274

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

she said. “I’m going back to the house and take this thing off
and tomorrow I’m going to return it. I was out of my head.
I can pay the gas bill with that seven-fifty.”
He caught her arm in a vicious grip. “You are not going to
take it back,” he said. “I like it.”
“Well,” she said, “I don’t think I ought . . .”
“Shut up and enjoy it,” he muttered, more depressed than
ever.
“With the world in the mess it’s in,” she said, “it’s a wonder
we can enjoy anything. I tell you, the bottom rail is on the top.”
Julian sighed.
“Of course,” she said, “if you know who you are, you can go
anywhere.” She said this every time he took her to the reducing
class. “Most of them in it are not our kind of people,” she said,
“but I can be gracious to anybody. I know who I am.”
“They don’t give a damn for your graciousness,” Julian said
savagely. “Knowing who you are is good for one generation
only. You haven’t the foggiest idea where you stand now or
who you are.”
She stopped and allowed her eyes to flash at him. “I most
certainly do know who I am,” she said, “and if you don’t know
who you are, I’m ashamed of you.”
“Oh hell,” Julian said.
“Your great-grandfather was a former governor of this state,”
she said. “Your grandfather was a prosperous landowner. Your
grandmother was a Godhigh.”
“Will you look around you,” he said tensely, “and see where
you are now?” and he swept his arm jerkily out to indicate the
neighborhood, which the growing darkness at least made less
dingy.
“You remain what you are,” she said. “Your great-grandfather
had a plantation and two hundred slaves.”
275

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 275

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

“There are no more slaves,” he said irritably.
“They were better off when they were,” she said. He groaned
to see that she was off on that topic. She rolled onto it every
few days like a train on an open track. He knew every stop,
every junction, every swamp along the way, and knew the exact
point at which her conclusion would roll majestically into the
station: “It’s ridiculous. It’s simply not realistic. They should
rise, yes, but on their own side of the fence.”
“Let’s skip it,” Julian said.
“The ones I feel sorry for,” she said, “are the ones that are
half white. They’re tragic.”
“Will you skip it?”
“Suppose we were half white. We would certainly have
mixed feelings.”
“I have mixed feelings now,” he groaned.
“Well let’s talk about something pleasant,” she said.
“I remember going to Grandpa’s when I was a little girl. Then
the house had double stairways that went up to what was really
the second floor—all the cooking was done on the first. I used
to like to stay down in the kitchen on account of the way the
walls smelled. I would sit with my nose pressed against the
plaster and take deep breaths. Actually the place belonged to
the Godhighs but your grandfather Chestny paid the mortgage
and saved it for them. They were in reduced circumstances,”
she said, “but reduced or not, they never forgot who they
were.”
“Doubtless that decayed mansion reminded them,” Julian
muttered. He never spoke of it without contempt or thought
of it without longing. He had seen it once when he was a child
before it had been sold. The double stairways had rotted and
been torn down. Negroes were living in it. But it remained in
his mind as his mother had known it. It appeared in his dreams
276

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 276

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

regularly. He would stand on the wide porch, listening to the
rustle of oak leaves, then wander through the high-ceilinged
hall into the parlor that opened onto it and gaze at the worn
rugs and faded draperies. It occurred to him that it was he, not
she, who could have appreciated it. He preferred its threadbare
elegance to anything he could name and it was because of it
that all the neighborhoods they had lived in had been a torment to him—whereas she had hardly known the difference.
She called her insensitivity “being adjustable.”
“And I remember the old darky who was my nurse, Caroline.
There was no better person in the world. I’ve always had a great
respect for my colored friends,” she said. “I’d do anything in
the world for them and they’d . . .”
“Will you for God’s sake get off that subject?” Julian said.
When he got on a bus by himself, he made it a point to sit
down beside a Negro, in reparation as it were for his mother’s
sins.
“You’re mighty touchy tonight,” she said. “Do you feel all
right?”
“Yes I feel all right,” he said. “Now lay off.”
She pursed her lips. “Well, you certainly are in a vile humor,”
she observed. “I just won’t speak to you at all.”
They had reached the bus stop. There was no bus in sight
and Julian, his hands still jammed in his pockets and his head
thrust forward, scowled down the empty street. The frustration
of having to wait on the bus as well as ride on it began to creep
up his neck like a hot hand. The presence of his mother was
borne in upon him as she gave a pained sigh. He looked at her
bleakly. She was holding herself very erect under the preposterous hat, wearing it like a banner of her imaginary dignity.
There was in him an evil urge to break her spirit. He suddenly
unloosened his tie and pulled it off and put it in his pocket.
277

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 277

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

She stiffened. “Why must you look like that when you take
me to town?” she said. “Why must you deliberately embarrass
me?”
“If you’ll never learn where you are,” he said, “you can at
least learn where I am.”
“You look like a—thug,” she said.
“Then I must be one,” he murmured.
“I’ll just go home,” she said. “I will not bother you. If you
can’t do a little thing like that for me . . .”
Rolling his eyes upward, he put his tie back on. “Restored
to my class,” he muttered. He thrust his face toward her and
hissed, “True culture is in the mind, the mind,” he said, and
tapped his head, “the mind.”
“It’s in the heart,” she said, “and in how you do things and
how you do things is because of who you are.”
“Nobody in the damn bus cares who you are.”
“I care who I am,” she said icily.
The lighted bus appeared on top of the next hill and as it
approached, they moved out into the street to meet it. He put
his hand under her elbow and hoisted her up on the creaking step. She entered with a little smile, as if she were going
into a drawing room where everyone had been waiting for her.
While he put in the tokens, she sat down on one of the broad
front seats for three which faced the aisle. A thin woman with
protruding teeth and long yellow hair was sitting on the end
of it. His mother moved up beside her and left room for Julian
beside herself. He sat down and looked at the floor across the
aisle where a pair of thin feet in red and white canvas sandals
were planted.
His mother immediately began a general conversation
meant to attract anyone who felt like talking. “Can it get any
hotter?” she said and removed from her purse a folding fan,
278

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 278

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

black with a Japanese scene on it, which she began to flutter
before her.
“I reckon it might could,” the woman with the protruding
teeth said, “but I know for a fact my apartment couldn’t get no
hotter.”
“It must get the afternoon sun,” his mother said. She sat
forward and looked up and down the bus. It was half filled.
Everybody was white. “I see we have the bus to ourselves,” she
said. Julian cringed.
“For a change,” said the woman across the aisle, the owner
of the red and white canvas sandals. “I come on one the other
day and they were thick as fleas—up front and all through.”
“The world is in a mess everywhere,” his mother said. “I don’t
know how we’ve let it get in this fix.”
“What gets my goat is all those boys from good families
stealing automobile tires,” the woman with the protruding
teeth said. “I told my boy, I said you may not be rich but you
been raised right and if I ever catch you in any such mess,
they can send you on to the reformatory. Be exactly where
you belong.”
“Training tells,” his mother said. “Is your boy in high school?”
“Ninth grade,” the woman said.
“My son just finished college last year. He wants to write but
he’s selling typewriters until he gets started,” his mother said.
The woman leaned forward and peered at Julian. He threw
her such a malevolent look that she subsided against the seat.
On the floor across the aisle there was an abandoned newspaper. He got up and got it and opened it out in front of him.
His mother discreetly continued the conversation in a lower
tone but the woman across the aisle said in a loud voice, “Well
that’s nice. Selling typewriters is close to writing. He can go
right from one to the other.”
279

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 279

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

“I tell him,” his mother said, “that Rome wasn’t built in a
day.”
Behind the newspaper Julian was withdrawing into the inner
compartment of his mind where he spent most of his time. This
was a kind of mental bubble in which he established himself
when he could not bear to be a part of what was going on
around him. From it he could see out and judge but in it he
was safe from any kind of penetration from without. It was the
only place where he felt free of the general idiocy of his fellows.
His mother had never entered it but from it he could see her
with absolute clarity.
The old lady was clever enough and he thought that if she
had started from any of the right premises, more might have
been expected of her. She lived according to the laws of her
own fantasy world outside of which he had never seen her set
foot. The law of it was to sacrifice herself for him after she had
first created the necessity to do so by making a mess of things.
If he had permitted her sacrifices, it was only because her lack
of foresight had made them necessary. All of her life had been
a struggle to act like a Chestny without the Chestny goods, and
to give him everything she thought a Chestny ought to have;
but since, said she, it was fun to struggle, why complain? And
when you had won, as she had won, what fun to look back on
the hard times! He could not forgive her that she had enjoyed
the struggle and that she thought she had won.
What she meant when she said she had won was that she
had brought him up successfully and had sent him to college
and that he had turned out so well—good looking (her teeth
had gone unfilled so that his could be straightened), intelligent
(he realized he was too intelligent to be a success), and with
a future ahead of him (there was of course no future ahead of
him). She excused his gloominess on the grounds that he was
280

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 280

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

still growing up and his radical ideas on his lack of practical
experience. She said he didn’t yet know a thing about “life,”
that he hadn’t even entered the real world—when already he
was as disenchanted with it as a man of fifty.
The further irony of all this was that in spite of her, he had
turned out so well. In spite of going to only a third-rate college, he had, on his own initiative, come out with a first-rate
education; in spite of growing up dominated by a small mind,
he had ended up with a large one; in spite of all her foolish
views, he was free of prejudice and unafraid to face facts. Most
miraculous of all, instead of being blinded by love for her as
she was for him, he had cut himself emotionally free of her and
could see her with complete objectivity. He was not dominated
by his mother.
The bus stopped with a sudden jerk and shook him from
his meditation. A woman from the back lurched forward with
little steps and barely escaped falling in his newspaper as she
righted herself. She got off and a large Negro got on. Julian kept
his paper lowered to watch. It gave him a certain satisfaction
to see injustice in daily operation. It confirmed his view that
with a few exceptions there was no one worth knowing within
a radius of three hundred miles. The Negro was well dressed
and carried a briefcase. He looked around and then sat down
on the other end of the seat where the woman with the red
and white canvas sandals was sitting. He immediately unfolded
a newspaper and obscured himself behind it. Julian’s mother’s
elbow at once prodded insistently into his ribs. “Now you see
why I won’t ride on these buses by myself,” she whispered.
The woman with the red and white canvas sandals had risen
at the same time the Negro sat down and had gone further back
in the bus and taken the seat of the woman who had got off.
His mother leaned forward and cast her an approving look.
281

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 281

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

Julian rose, crossed the aisle, and sat down in the place of the
woman with the canvas sandals. From this position, he looked
serenely across at his mother. Her face had turned an angry
red. He stared at her, making his eyes the eyes of a stranger.
He felt his tension suddenly lift as if he had openly declared
war on her.
He would have liked to get in conversation with the Negro
and to talk with him about art or politics or any subject that
would be above the comprehension of those around them, but
the man remained entrenched behind his paper. He was either
ignoring the change of seating or had never noticed it. There
was no way for Julian to convey his sympathy.
His mother kept her eyes fixed reproachfully on his face. The
woman with the protruding teeth was looking at him avidly as
if he were a type of monster new to her.
“Do you have a light?” he asked the Negro.
Without looking away from his paper, the man reached in
his pocket and handed him a packet of matches.
“Thanks,” Julian said. For a moment he held the matches
foolishly. A no smoking sign looked down upon him from over
the door. This alone would not have deterred him; he had no
cigarettes. He had quit smoking some months before because
he could not afford it. “Sorry,” he muttered and handed back
the matches. The Negro lowered the paper and gave him an
annoyed look. He took the matches and raised the paper again.
His mother continued to gaze at him but she did not take
advantage of his momentary discomfort. Her eyes retained their
battered look. Her face seemed to be unnaturally red, as if her
blood pressure had risen. Julian allowed no glimmer of sympathy
to show on his face. Having got the advantage, he wanted desperately to keep it and carry it through. He would have liked to
teach her a lesson that would last her a while, but there seemed
282

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 282

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

no way to continue the point. The Negro refused to come out
from behind his paper.
Julian folded his arms and looked stolidly before him, facing
her but as if he did not see her, as if he had ceased to recognize
her existence. He visualized a scene in which, the bus having
reached their stop, he would remain in his seat and when she
said, “Aren’t you going to get off?” he would look at her as at
a stranger who had rashly addressed him. The corner they got
off on was usually deserted, but it was well lighted and it would
not hurt her to walk by herself the four blocks to the Y. He
decided to wait until the time came and then decide whether
or not he would let her get off by herself. He would have to
be at the Y at ten to bring her back, but he could leave her
wondering if he was going to show up. There was no reason
for her to think she could always depend on him.
He retired again into the high-ceilinged room sparsely settled with large pieces of antique furniture. His soul expanded
momentarily but then he became aware of his mother across
from him and the vision shriveled. He studied her coldly. Her
feet in little pumps dangled like a child’s and did not quite
reach the floor. She was training on him an exaggerated look
of reproach. He felt completely detached from her. At that
moment he could with pleasure have slapped her as he would
have slapped a particularly obnoxious child in his charge.
He began to imagine various unlikely ways by which he
could teach her a lesson. He might make friends with some
distinguished Negro professor or lawyer and bring him home to
spend the evening. He would be entirely justified but her blood
pressure would rise to 300. He could not push her to the extent
of making her have a stroke, and moreover, he had never been
successful at making any Negro friends. He had tried to strike up
an acquaintance on the bus with some of the better types, with
283

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 283

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

ones that looked like professors or ministers or lawyers. One
morning he had sat down next to a distinguished-looking dark
brown man who had answered his questions with a sonorous
solemnity but who had turned out to be an undertaker. Another
day he had sat down beside a cigar-smoking Negro with a diamond ring on his finger, but after a few stilted pleasantries,
the Negro had rung the buzzer and risen, slipping two lottery
tickets into Julian’s hand as he climbed over him to leave.
He imagined his mother lying desperately ill and his being
able to secure only a Negro doctor for her. He toyed with that
idea for a few minutes and then dropped it for a momentary
vision of himself participating as a sympathizer in a sit-in demonstration. This was possible but he did not linger with it.
Instead, he approached the ultimate horror. He brought home
a beautiful suspiciously Negroid woman. Prepare yourself, he
said. There is nothing you can do about it. This is the woman
I’ve chosen. She’s intelligent, dignified, even good, and she’s
suffered and she hasn’t thought it fun. Now persecute us, go
ahead and persecute us. Drive her out of here, but remember,
you’re driving me too. His eyes were narrowed and through the
indignation he had generated, he saw his mother across the
aisle, purple-faced, shrunken to the dwarf-like proportions of
her moral nature, sitting like a mummy beneath the ridiculous
banner of her hat.
He was tilted out of his fantasy again as the bus stopped.
The door opened with a sucking hiss and out of the dark a
large, gaily dressed, sullen-looking colored woman got on with
a little boy. The child, who might have been four, had on a
short plaid suit and a Tyrolean hat with a blue feather in it.
Julian hoped that he would sit down beside him and that the
woman would push in beside his mother. He could think of no
better arrangement.
284

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 284

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

As she waited for her tokens, the woman was surveying the
seating possibilities—he hoped with the idea of sitting where
she was least wanted. There was something familiar-looking
about her but Julian could not place what it was. She was a
giant of a woman. Her face was set not only to meet opposition
but to seek it out. The downward tilt of her large lower lip was
like a warning sign: don’t tamper with me. Her bulging figure
was encased in a green crepe dress and her feet overflowed in
red shoes. She had on a hideous hat. A purple velvet flap came
down on one side of it and stood up on the other; the rest of it
was green and looked like a cushion with the stuffing out. She
carried a mammoth red pocketbook that bulged throughout as
if it were stuffed with rocks.
To Julian’s disappointment, the little boy climbed up on
the empty seat beside his mother. His mother lumped all children, black and white, into the common category, “cute,” and
she thought little Negroes were on the whole cuter than little
white children. She smiled at the little boy as he climbed on
the seat.
Meanwhile the woman was bearing down upon the empty
seat beside Julian. To his annoyance, she squeezed herself into
it. He saw his mother’s face change as the woman settled herself next to him and he realized with satisfaction that this was
more objectionable to her than it was to him. Her face seemed
almost gray and there was a look of dull recognition in her eyes,
as if suddenly she had sickened at some awful confrontation.
Julian saw that it was because she and the woman had, in a
sense, swapped sons. Though his mother would not realize the
symbolic significance of this, she would feel it. His amusement
showed plainly on his face.
The woman next to him muttered something unintelligible
to herself. He was conscious of a kind of bristling next to him,
285

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 285

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

muted growling like that of an angry cat. He could not see
anything but the red pocketbook upright on the bulging green
thighs. He visualized the woman as she had stood waiting for
her tokens—the ponderous figure, rising from the red shoes
upward over the solid hips, the mammoth bosom, the haughty
face, to the green and purple hat.
His eyes widened.
The vision of the two hats, identical, broke upon him with
the radiance of a brilliant sunrise. His face was suddenly lit
with joy. He could not believe that Fate had thrust upon his
mother such a lesson. He gave a loud chuckle so that she
would look at him and see that he saw. She turned her eyes
on him slowly. The blue in them seemed to have turned a
bruised purple. For a moment he had an uncomfortable sense
of her innocence, but it lasted only a second before principle
rescued him. Justice entitled him to laugh. His grin hardened
until it said to her as plainly as if he were saying aloud: Your
punishment exactly fits your pettiness. This should teach you
a permanent lesson.
Her eyes shifted to the woman. She seemed unable to bear
looking at him and to find the woman preferable. He became
conscious again of the bristling presence at his side. The
woman was rumbling like a volcano about to become active.
His mother’s mouth began to twitch slightly at one corner.
With a sinking heart, he saw incipient signs of recovery on her
face and realized that this was going to strike her suddenly as
funny and was going to be no lesson at all. She kept her eyes
on the woman and an amused smile came over her face as if
the woman were a monkey that had stolen her hat. The little
Negro was looking up at her with large fascinated eyes. He had
been trying to attract her attention for some time.
“Carver!” the woman said suddenly. “Come heah!”
286

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 286

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

When he saw that the spotlight was on him at last, Carver
drew his feet up and turned himself toward Julian’s mother and
giggled.
“Carver!” the woman said. “You heah me? Come heah!”
Carver slid down from the seat but remained squatting with
his back against the base of it, his head turned slyly around
toward Julian’s mother, who was smiling at him. The woman
reached a hand across the aisle and snatched him to her. He
righted himself and hung backwards on her knees, grinning
at Julian’s mother. “Isn’t he cute?” Julian’s mother said to the
woman with the protruding teeth.
“I reckon he is,” the woman said without conviction.
The Negress yanked him upright but he eased out of her grip
and shot across the aisle and scrambled, giggling wildly, onto
the seat beside his love.
“I think he likes me,” Julian’s mother said, and smiled at
the woman. It was the smile she used when she was being
particularly gracious to an inferior. Julian saw everything lost.
The lesson had rolled off her like rain on a roof.
The woman stood up and yanked the little boy off the seat
as if she were snatching him from contagion. Julian could feel
the rage in her at having no weapon like his mother’s smile.
She gave the child a sharp slap across his leg. He howled once
and then thrust his head into her stomach and kicked his fret
against her shins. “Behave,” she said vehemently.
The bus stopped and the Negro who had been reading the
newspaper got off. The woman moved over and set the little
boy down with a thump between herself and Julian. She held
him firmly by the knee. In a moment he put his hands in front
of his face and peeped at Julian’s mother through his fingers.
“I see yoooooooo!” she said and put her hand in front of her
face and peeped at him.
287

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 287

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

The woman slapped his hand down. “Quit yo’ foolishness,”
she said, “before I knock the living Jesus out of you!”
Julian was thankful that the next stop was theirs. He reached
up and pulled the cord. The woman reached up and pulled it
at the same time. Oh my God, he thought. He had the terrible
intuition that when they got off the bus together, his mother
would open her purse and give the little boy a nickel. The gesture would be as natural to her as breathing. The bus stopped
and the woman got up and lunged to the front, dragging the
child, who wished to stay on, after her. Julian and his mother
got up and followed. As they neared the door, Julian tried to
relieve her of her pocketbook.
“No,” she murmured, “I want to give the little boy a nickel.”
“No!” Julian hissed. “No!”
She smiled down at the child and opened her bag. The bus
door opened and the woman picked him up by the arm and
descended with him, hanging at her hip. Once in the street she
set him down and shook him.
Julian’s mother had to close her purse while she got down
the bus step but as soon as her feet were on the ground, she
opened it again and began to rummage inside. “I can’t find but
a penny,” she whispered, “but it looks like a new one.”
“Don’t do it!” Julian said fiercely between his teeth. There
was a streetlight on the corner and she hurried to get under it
so that she could better see into her pocketbook. The woman
was heading off rapidly down the street with the child still
hanging backward on her hand.
“Oh little boy!” Julian’s mother called and took a few quick
steps and caught up with them just beyond the lamppost. “Here’s
a bright new penny for you,” and she held out the coin, which
shone bronze in the dim light.

288

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 288

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

The huge woman turned and for a moment stood, her shoulders lifted and her face frozen with frustrated rage, and stared
at Julian’s mother. Then all at once she seemed to explode
like a piece of machinery that had been given one ounce of
pressure too much. Julian saw the black fist swing out with the
red pocketbook. He shut his eyes and cringed as he heard the
woman shout, “He don’t take nobody’s pennies!” When he
opened his eyes, the woman was disappearing down the street
with the little boy staring wide-eyed over her shoulder. Julian’s
mother was sitting on the sidewalk.
“I told you not to do that,” Julian said angrily. “I told you
not to do that!”
He stood over her for a minute, gritting his teeth. Her legs
were stretched out in front of her and her hat was on her lap.
He squatted down and looked her in the face. It was totally
expressionless. “You got exactly what you deserved,” he said.
“Now get up.”
He picked up her pocketbook and put what had fallen out
back in it. He picked the hat up off her lap. The penny caught
his eye on the sidewalk and he picked that up and let it drop
before her eyes into the purse. Then he stood up and leaned
over and held his hands out to pull her up. She remained immobile. He sighed. Rising above them on either side were black
apartment buildings, marked with irregular rectangles of light.
At the end of the block a man came out of a door and walked
off in the opposite direction. “All right,” he said, “suppose somebody happens by and wants to know why you’re sitting on the
sidewalk?”
She took the hand and, breathing hard, pulled heavily up
on it and then stood for a moment, swaying slightly as if the
spots of light in the darkness were circling around her. Her eyes,

289

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 289

12/24/13 11:09 AM

FLANNERY O’CONNOR

shadowed and confused, finally settled on his face. He did not
try to conceal his irritation. “I hope this teaches you a lesson,”
he said. She leaned forward and her eyes raked his face. She
seemed trying to determine his identity. Then, as if she found
nothing familiar about him, she started off with a headlong
movement in the wrong direction.
“Aren’t you going on to the Y?” he asked.
“Home,” she muttered.
“Well, are we walking?”
For answer she kept going. Julian followed along, his hands
behind him. He saw no reason to let the lesson she had had
go without backing it up with an explanation of its meaning.
She might as well be made to understand what had happened
to her. “Don’t think that was just an uppity Negro woman,” he
said. “That was the whole colored race which will no longer
take your condescending pennies. That was your black double.
She can wear the same hat as you, and to be sure,” he added
gratuitously (because he thought it was funny), “it looked better
on her than it did on you. What all this means,” he said, “is
that the old world is gone. The old manners are obsolete and
your graciousness is not worth a damn.” He thought bitterly
of the house that had been lost for him. “You aren’t who you
think you are,” he said.
She continued to plow ahead, paying no attention to him.
Her hair had come undone on one side. She dropped her pocketbook and took no notice. He stooped and picked it up and
handed it to her but she did not take it.
“You needn’t act as if the world had come to an end,” he
said, “because it hasn’t. From now on you’ve got to live in a
new world and face a few realities for a change. Buck up,” he
said, “it won’t kill you.”
She was breathing fast.
290

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 290

12/24/13 11:09 AM

Everything That Rises Must Converge

“Let’s wait on the bus,” he said.
“Home,” she said thickly.
“I hate to see you behave like this,” he said. “Just like a
child. I should be able to expect more of you.” He decided to
stop where he was and make her stop and wait for a bus. “I’m
not going any farther,” he said, stopping. “We’re going on the
bus.”
She continued to go on as if she had not heard him. He took
a few steps and caught her arm and stopped her. He looked into
her face and caught his breath. He was looking into a face he
had never seen before. “Tell Grandpa to come get me,” she
said.
He stared, stricken.
“Tell Caroline to come get me,” she said.
Stunned, he let her go and she lurched forward again, walking as if one leg were shorter than the other. A tide of darkness seemed to be sweeping her from him. “Mother!” he cried.
“Darling, sweetheart, wait!” Crumpling, she fell to the pavement. He dashed forward and fell at her side, crying, “Mamma,
Mamma!” He turned her over. Her face was fiercely distorted.
One eye, large and staring, moved slightly to the left as if it had
become unmoored. The other remained fixed on him, raked his
face again, found nothing and closed.
“Wait here, wait here!” he cried and jumped up and began
to run for help toward a cluster of lights he saw in the distance
ahead of him. “Help, help!” he shouted, but his voice was thin,
scarcely a thread of sound. The lights drifted farther away the
faster he ran and his feet moved numbly as if they carried him
nowhere. The tide of darkness seemed to sweep him back to
her, postponing from moment to moment his entry into the
world of guilt and sorrow.

291

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 291

12/24/13 11:09 AM

07_GRA_93584_Readings_239_292.indd 292

12/24/13 11:09 AM

INDEX OF TEMPLATES

introducing what “they say”
(p. 23)

j A number of

have recently suggested that

j It has become common today to dismiss

j In their recent work, Y and Z have offered harsh critiques of
for

introducing “standard views”
(pp. 23– 24)

j Americans today tend to believe that

j Conventional wisdom has it that

j Common sense seems to dictate that

j The standard way of thinking about topic X has it that
j It is often said that

j My whole life I have heard it said that
j You would think that

j Many people assume that

.
293

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 293

12/24/13 11:10 AM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

making what “they say” something you say
(pp. 24–25)

j I’ve always believed that

j When I was a child, I used to think that

j Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking
that

j At the same time that I believe

, I also believe

introducing something implied or assumed
(p. 25)

j Although none of them have ever said so directly, my teachers
have often given me the impression that

j One implication of X’s treatment of

is that

j Although X does not say so directly, she apparently assumes
that

j While they rarely admit as much,
granted that

often take for

introducing an ongoing debate
(pp. 25–28)

j In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been
On the one hand,

argues

. On the other

294

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 294

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates
hand,

contends

. Others even maintain

. My own view is

j When it comes to the topic of
ily agree that

, most of us will read-

. Where this agreement usually ends,

however, is on the question of
convinced that

. Whereas some are

, others maintain that

j In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of
can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that
is contradicted by their claim that

capturing authorial action
(pp. 38–40)

j X acknowledges that

j X agrees that

j X argues that

j X believes that

j X denies/does not deny that
j X claims that

j X complains that
j X concedes that

.
.

j X demonstrates that

j X deplores the tendency to

j X celebrates the fact that
j X emphasizes that

.
.
295

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 295

12/24/13 11:10 AM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

j X insists that

j X observes that

j X questions whether

j X refutes the claim that

j X reminds us that

j X reports that

j X suggests that

j X urges us to

introducing quotations
(p. 46)

j X states, “

.”

j As the prominent philosopher X puts it, “
j According to X, “

.”

j X himself writes, “
j In her book,

.”
, X maintains that “

j Writing in the journal
“

.”

”
complains

that

.”

j In X’s view, “

.”

j X agrees when she writes, “
j X disagrees when he writes, “

.”
.”

j X complicates matters further when he writes, “

.”

296

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 296

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates

explaining quotations
(pp. 46–47)

j Basically, X is saying

j In other words, X believes

j In making this comment, X urges us to

j X is corroborating the age-old adage that
j X’s point is that

j The essence of X’s argument is that

disagreeing, with reasons
(p. 60)

j I think X is mistaken because she overlooks
j X’s claim that

rests upon the questionable assump-

tion that

j I disagree with X’s view that

because, as recent

research has shown,

j X contradicts herself/can’t have it both ways. On the one
hand, she argues
says

j By focusing on
of

. On the other hand, she also

.
, X overlooks the deeper problem

297

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_309.indd 297

1/3/14 2:07 PM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

agreeing—with a difference
(pp. 61–64)

j I agree that

because my experience

con-

firms it.

j X surely is right about

because, as she may not be

aware, recent studies have shown that

j X’s theory of

is extremely useful because it sheds

insight on the difficult problem of

j Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested
to know that it basically boils down to

j I agree that

, a point that needs emphasizing since

so many people believe

j If group X is right that

, as I think they are, then we

need to reassess the popular assumption that

agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously
(pp. 64–66)

j Although I agree with X up to a point, I cannot accept his overall
conclusion that

j Although I disagree with much that X says, I fully endorse his
final conclusion that

j Though I concede that

, I still insist that

j Whereas X provides ample evidence that
Z’s research on

and

.
, Y and

convinces me that

instead.
298

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 298

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates
j X is right that

, but she seems on more dubious

ground when she claims that

j While X is probably wrong when she claims that
she is right that

j I’m of two minds about X’s claim that
hand, I agree that
if

.
. On the one

. On the other hand, I’m not sure

j My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support X’s position that
, but I find Y’s argument about
research on

and Z’s

to be equally persuasive.

signaling who is saying what
(pp. 71–73)

j X argues

j According to both X and Y,
j Politicians

, X argues, should

j Most athletes will tell you that

j My own view, however, is that

j I agree, as X may not realize, that
j But

are real and, arguably, the most significant fac-

tor in

j But X is wrong that

j However, it is simply not true that
j Indeed, it is highly likely that
j X’s assertion that

.
.

does not fit the facts.
299

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 299

12/24/13 11:10 AM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

j X is right that

j X is wrong that

j X is both right and wrong that

j Yet a sober analysis of the matter reveals
j Nevertheless, new research shows
j Anyone familiar with

.
.

should agree that

embedding voice markers
(pp. 74–75)

j X overlooks what I consider an important point about

j My own view is that what X insists is a
a

is in fact

j I wholeheartedly endorse what X calls

j These conclusions, which X discusses in

, add weight

to the argument that

entertaining objections
(p. 82)

j At this point I would like to raise some objections that have been
inspired by the skeptic in me. She feels that I have been ignoring

.“

,” she says to me, “

j Yet some readers may challenge the view that

.”
.

j Of course, many will probably disagree with this assertion
that

300

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_309.indd 300

1/3/14 2:07 PM

Index of Templates

naming your naysayers
(pp. 83–84)

j Here many

would probably object that

j But

would certainly take issue with the argument

that

.
, of course, may want to question whether

j Nevertheless, both followers and critics of
ably argue that

will prob-

j Although not all

think alike, some of them will prob-

ably dispute my claim that

are so diverse in their views that it’s hard to gener-

alize about them, but some are likely to object on the grounds
that

introducing objections informally
(pp. 84–85)

j But is my proposal realistic? What are the chances of its actually
being adopted?

j Yet is it always true that

? Is it always the case, as

I have been suggesting, that

j However, does the evidence I’ve cited prove conclusively that
?

j “Impossible,” some will say. “You must be reading the research
selectively.”

301

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_309.indd 301

1/3/14 2:07 PM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

making concessions while still
standing your ground (p. 89)
j Although I grant that

, I still maintain that

j Proponents of X are right to argue that

. But they

exaggerate when they claim that

j While it is true that
that

, it does not necessarily follow

j On the one hand, I agree with X that
other hand, I still insist that

. But on the
.

indicating who cares
(pp. 95–96)

used to think

. But recently [or within

the past few decades]

suggests that

j These findings challenge the work of earlier researchers, who
tended to assume that

j Recent studies like these shed new light on

, which

previous studies had not addressed.

j Researchers have long assumed that

. For instance,

one eminent scholar of cell biology,

, assumed in

, her seminal work on cell structures and func. As

tions, that fat cells
“

” (2012). Another leading scientist,

argued that fat cells “

herself put it,
,

” (2011). Ultimately, when it came

to the nature of fat, the basic assumption was that

302

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 302

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates
But a new body of research shows that fat cells are far more
complex and that

j If sports enthusiasts stopped to think about it, many of them might
simply assume that the most successful athletes
However, new research shows

j These findings challenge neoliberals’ common assumptions
that

j At first glance, teenagers appear to
inspection

. But on closer

establishing why your claims matter
(pp. 98–99)

j X matters/is important because

j Although X may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s
concern over

j Ultimately, what is at stake here is

j These findings have important consequences for the broader
domain of

j My discussion of X is in fact addressing the larger matter
of

j These conclusions/This discovery will have significant applications in

as well as in

j Although X may seem of concern to only a small group of
, it should in fact concern anyone who cares about
.

303

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 303

12/24/13 11:10 AM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

commonly used transitions
(pp. 108–10)

addition
also

in fact

and

indeed

besides

moreover

furthermore

so too

in addition

elaboration
actually

to put it another way

by extension

to put it bluntly

in short

to put it succinctly

that is

ultimately

in other words

example
after all

for instance

as an illustration

speciﬁcally

consider

to take a case in point

for example

cause and effect
accordingly

since

as a result

consequently

then

hence

therefore

it follows, then

thus

304

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 304

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates
comparison
along the same lines

likewise

in the same way

similarly

contrast
although

nevertheless

but

nonetheless

by contrast

on the contrary

conversely

on the other hand

despite

regardless

even though

whereas

however

while

in contrast

yet

concession
admittedly

of course

although it is true that

naturally

granted

to be sure

I concede that

conclusion
as a result

consequently

the upshot of all this is that

hence

therefore

in conclusion, then

thus

in short

to sum up

in sum, then

to summarize

it follows, then

305

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 305

12/24/13 11:10 AM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

adding metacommentary
(pp. 131–37)

j In other words,
j What

.
really means by this is

j Ultimately, my goal is to demonstrate that
j My point is not

, but

j To put it another way,

.
.

j In sum, then,

j My conclusion, then, is that,
j In short,

j What is more important,

j Incidentally,

j By the way,

j Chapter 2 explores

, while Chapter 3 examines

j Having just argued that
tion to

, let us now turn our atten-

j Although some readers may object that
answer that

, I would

306

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 306

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates

starting with what others say
about a literary work
(pp. 185–88)

j Critic X complains that Author Y’s story is compromised by his
. While there’s some truth to this critique, I argue
.

that Critic X overlooks

j According to Critic A, novel X suggests

. I agree, but

would add that

j Several members of our class have suggested that the final mes. I agree up to a point, but I still

sage of play X is
.

think that

j On first reading play Z, I thought it was an uncritical celebration of

. After rereading the play and discussing it in
than

class, however, I see that it is more critical of
I originally thought.

j It might be said that poem Y is chiefly about
the problem with this reading, in my view, is

. But
.

j Though religious readers might be tempted to analyze poem X
, a closer examination suggests

as a parable about
that the poem is in fact about

responding to other interpretations
of a literary work
(p. 191)

j It might be argued that in the clash between character X and
Y in play Z, the author wants us to favor character Y, since she

307

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 307

12/24/13 11:10 AM

I N D E X O F T E M P L AT E S

is presented as the play’s heroine. I contend, however, that
.

j Several critics seem to assume that poem X endorses the values
represented by the image of

over

represented by the image of

those of

.
.

I agree, but with the following caveat:

showing evidence when writing
about a literary work
(pp. 194–96)

j Although some might read the metaphor of

in this
, I see it as

poem as evidence, that for Author X,
.

j Some might claim that evidence X suggests

, but I
.

argue that, on the contrary, it suggests

j I agree with my classmate

that the image of

in novel Y is evidence of
, however, I think

. Unlike
.

explain what the data mean
(p. 211)

j Our data support / confirm / verify the work of X by showing that
.

j By demonstrating

, X’s work extends the findings

of Y.

j The results of X contradict/refute Y’s conclusion that

308

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 308

12/24/13 11:10 AM

Index of Templates
j X’s findings call into question the widely accepted theory that
.

j Our data are consistent with X’s hypothesis that

explaining an experimental result
(p. 214)

j One explanation for X’s finding of

is that

An alternative explanation is

j The difference between

and

is prob-

ably due to

introducing gaps in the existing research
(p. 228)

j Studies of X have indicated

. It is not clear, however,

that this conclusion applies to

often take for granted that

. Few have

investigated this assumption, however.

j X’s work tells us a great deal about
be generalized to

. Can this work

309

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 309

12/24/13 11:10 AM

08_GRA_93584_Index_293_310.indd 310

12/24/13 11:10 AM

credits

text
Barbara Ehrenreich: From Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream. Copyright © 2005. Reprinted by permission of Metropolitan Books
of Henry Holt and Company, LLC and International Creative Management.
Gerald Graff: “Hidden Intellectualism,” adapted from Clueless in Academe:
How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. Copyright © 2003 Yale University.
Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.
Richard A. Muller: From Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the
Headlines by Richard A. Muller. Copyright © 2008 by Richard A. Muller. Used
by permission of W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Flannery O’Connor: “Everything That Rises Must Converge,” from The Complete Stories. Copyright © 1946. Reprinted by permission of Farrar, Straus and
Giroux and Harold Matson Company, Inc.
Eric Schlosser: “A People’s Democratic Platform,” The Nation, August 2, 2004.
Reprinted by permission.
David Zinczenko: “Don’t Blame the Eater,” The New York Times, November 23,
2002, p. A31. © 2002, The New York Times. Reprinted by permission.

photographs
Chapter 11: p. 146: Family Guy Peter and Stewie: ©20th Century Fox/
Courtesy Everett Collection; p. 154: Family Guy family watching TV: ©20th
Century Fox/Courtesy Everett Collection. Chapter 15: p. 195: Duck or Rabbit:
Wikimedia. Readings: p. 253: Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Wikimedia.

311

09_GRA_93584_Credits_311-312.indd 311

12/24/13 11:12 AM

09_GRA_93584_Credits_311-312.indd 312

12/24/13 11:12 AM

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Like the previous two editions, this one would never have
seen print if it weren’t for Marilyn Moller, our superb editor at
Norton, and the extraordinary job she has done of inspiring,
commenting on, rewriting (and then rewriting and rewriting
again) our many drafts. Our friendship with Marilyn is one of
the most cherished things to have developed from this project.
Our thanks go as well to Tenyia Lee, Julia Reidhead, Marian
Johnson, Peter Simon, and Spencer Richardson-Jones for
their incisive comments and suggestions on the new chapter
on writing about literature; to Ariella Foss, Rebecca Homiski,
Andy Ensor, and Ashley Horna for managing the editing
and production of this edition; and to Cliff Landesman and
Michal Brody for curating and producing the fabulous blog that
accompanies this book, theysayiblog.
We thank John Darger, our Norton representative, who
offered early encouragement to write this book—and give special thanks to Lib Triplett and all the Norton travelers for the
superb work they’ve done on behalf of our book.
We owe a special debt of gratitude to Christopher Gillen
and Erin Ackerman for their chapters on writing in the hard
and social sciences, respectively. Working with Chris and Erin
proved to be an exhilarating experience; we learned a great deal
by seeing how they applied our ideas to their disciplines.
313

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 313

12/24/13 11:12 AM

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

We owe special thanks to our colleagues in the English
department at the University of Illinois at Chicago: Mark
Canuel, our former department head, for supporting our earlier
efforts overseeing the university’s Writing in the Disciplines
requirement; Walter Benn Michaels, our current department
head; and Ann Feldman, former Director of University Writing
Programs, for encouraging us to teach first-year composition
courses at UIC in which we could try out ideas and drafts of our
manuscript; Tom Moss, Diane Chin, Vainis Aleksa, and Matt
Pavesich, who have also been very supportive of our efforts; and
Matt Oakes, our former research assistant. We are also grateful
to Ann, Diane, and Mark Bennett for bringing us into their
graduate course on the teaching of writing, and to Lisa Freeman,
John Huntington, Walter Benn Michaels, and Ralph Cintron,
for inviting us to present our ideas in the keynote lecture at
UIC’s 2013 “Composition Matters” conference.
We are also especially grateful to Steve Benton and Nadya
Pittendrigh, who taught a section of composition with us using
an early draft of this book. Steve made many helpful suggestions, particularly regarding the exercises. We are grateful to
Andy Young, a lecturer at UIC who has tested our book in
his courses and who gave us extremely helpful feedback. And
we thank Vershawn A. Young, whose work on code-meshing
influenced our argument in Chapter 9, and Hillel Crandus,
whose classroom handout inspired the chapter on “Entering
Classroom Discussions.”
We are grateful to the many colleagues and friends who’ve
let us talk our ideas out with them and given extremely helpful
responses. UIC’s former dean, Stanley Fish, has been central
in this respect, both in personal conversations and in his incisive articles calling for greater focus on form in the teaching
of writing. Our conversations with Jane Tompkins have also
314

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 314

12/24/13 11:12 AM

Acknowledgments

been integral to this book, as was the composition course that
Jane co-taught with Gerald entitled “Can We Talk?” Lenny
Davis, too, offered both intellectual insight and emotional
support, as did Heather Arnet, Jennifer Ashton, Janet Atwill,
Kyra Auslander, Noel Barker, Jim Benton, Jack Brereton,
Tim Cantrick, Marsha Cassidy, David Chinitz, Lisa Chinitz,
Pat Chu, Duane Davis, Bridget O’Rourke Flisk, Steve Flisk,
Judy Gardiner, Howard Gardner, Rich Gelb, Gwynne Gertz,
Jeff Gore, Bill Haddad, Ben Hale, Scott Hammerl, Patricia
Harkin, Andy Hoberek, John Huntington, Joe Janangelo, Paul
Jay, David Jolliffe, Nancy Kohn, Don Lazere, Jo Liebermann,
Steven Mailloux, Deirdre McCloskey, Maurice J. Meilleur,
Alan Meyers, Greg Meyerson, Anna Minkov, Chris Newfield,
Jim Phelan, Paul Psilos, Bruce Robbins, Charles Ross, Eileen
Seifert, Evan Seymour, David Shumway, Herb Simons, Jim
Sosnoski, David Steiner, Harold Veeser, Chuck Venegoni,
Marla Weeg, Jerry Wexler, Joyce Wexler, Virginia Wexman,
Jeffrey Williams, Lynn Woodbury, and the late Wayne Booth,
whose friendship we dearly miss.
We are grateful for having had the opportunity to present
our ideas to a number of schools: University of Arkansas at
Little Rock, Augustana College, Brandeis University, Brigham
Young University, Bryn Mawr College, Case Western University, Columbia University, Community College of Philadelphia, California State University at Bakersfield, California
State University at Northridge, University of California at
Riverside, University of Delaware, DePauw University, Drew
University, Duke University, Duquesne University, Elmhurst
College, Emory University, Fontbonne University, Furman
University, Gettysburg College, Harper College, Harvard
University, Haverford College, Hawaii Office of Secondary
School Curriculum Instruction, Hunter College, University of
315

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 315

12/24/13 11:12 AM

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

Illinois College of Medicine, Illinois State University, John Carroll University, Kansas State University, Lawrence University,
the Lawrenceville School, University of Louisiana at Lafayette,
MacEwan University, University of Maryland at College Park,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Memphis,
Miami University, University of Missouri at Columbia, New
Trier High School, State University of New York at Geneseo,
State University of New York at Stony Brook, North Carolina A&T University, University of North Florida, Northern
Michigan University, Norwalk Community College, Northwestern University Division of Continuing Studies, University of Notre Dame, Ohio Wesleyan University, Oregon State
University, University of Portland, University of Rochester,
St. Ambrose University, St. Andrew’s School, St. Charles
High School, Seattle University, Southern Connecticut State
University, South Elgin High School, University of South
Florida, University of Southern Mississippi, Swarthmore College, Teachers College, University of Tennessee at Knoxville,
University of Texas at Arlington, Tulane University, Union
College, Ursinus College, Wabash College, Washington College, University of Washington, Western Michigan University,
Westinghouse/Kenwood High Schools, University of West Virginia at Morgantown, Wheaton Warrenville English Chairs,
and the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater.
We particularly thank those who helped arrange these visits
and discussed writing issues with us: Jeff Abernathy, Herman
Asarnow, John Austin, Greg Barnheisel, John Bean, Crystal
Benedicks, Joe Bizup, Sheridan Blau, Dagne Bloland, Chris
Breu, Mark Brouwer, Joan Johnson Bube, John Caldwell,
Gregory Clark, Irene Clark, Dean Philip Cohen, Cathy
D’Agostino, Tom Deans, Gaurav Desai, Lisa Dresdner, Kathleen
Dudden-Rowlands, Lisa Ede, Alexia Ellett, Emory Elliott,
316

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 316

12/24/13 11:12 AM

Acknowledgments

Anthony Ellis, Kim Flachmann, Ronald Fortune, Rosanna
Fukuda, George Haggerty, Donald Hall, Joe Harris, Gary Hatch,
Elizabeth Hatmaker, Harry Hellenbrand, Nicole Henderson,
Doug Hesse, Donna Heiland, Van Hillard, Andrew Hoberek,
Michael Hustedde, Sara Jameson, T. R. Johnson, David Jones,
Ann Kaplan, Don Kartiganer, Linda Kinnahan, Dean Georg
Kleine, Albert Labriola, Craig Lawrence, Lori Lopez, Tom Liam
Lynch, Michael Mays, Hiram Maxim, Thomas McFadden,
Sean Meehan, Connie Mick, Joseph Musser, Margaret Oakes,
John O’Connor, Gary Olson, Tom Pace, Les Perelman, Emily
Poe, Dominick Randolph, Clancy Ratliff, Monica Rico, Kelly
Ritter, Jack Robinson, Warren Rosenberg, Laura Rosenthal,
Dean Howard Ross, Deborah Rossen-Knill, Paul Schacht,
Petra Schatz, Evan Seymour, Rose Shapiro, Mike Shea, Cecilia M. Shore, Erec Smith, Nancy Sommers, Stephen Spector,
Timothy Spurgin, Ron Strickland, Trig Thoreson, Josh Toth,
Judy Trost, Aiman Tulamait, Charles Tung, John Webster,
Sandi Weisenberg, Robert Weisbuch, Karin Westman, Martha
Woodmansee, and Lynn Worsham.
We also wish to extend particular thanks to two Chicago
area educators who have worked closely with us: Les Lynn of the
Chicago Debate League and Eileen Murphy of CERCA. Lastly,
we wish to thank two high school teachers for their excellent
and inventive adaptations of our work: Mark Gozonsky in his
YouTube video clip, “Building Blocks,” and Dave Stuart, Jr. in
his blog, “Teaching the Core.”
For inviting us to present our ideas at their conferences
we are grateful to John Brereton and Richard Wendorf at the
Boston Athenaeum; Wendy Katkin of the Reinvention Center of State University of New York at Stony Brook; Luchen
Li of the Michigan English Association; Lisa Lee and Barbara
Ransby of the Public Square in Chicago; Don Lazere of the
317

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 317

12/24/13 11:12 AM

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

University of Tennessee at Knoxville; Dennis Baron of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Alfie Guy of Yale
University; Irene Clark of the California State University of
Northridge; George Crandell and Steve Hubbard, co-directors
of the ACETA conference at Auburn University; Mary Beth
Rose of the Humanities Institute at the University of Illinois
at Chicago; Diana Smith of St. Anne’s Belfield School and
the University of Virginia; Jim Maddox and Victor Luftig of
the Bread Loaf School of English; Jan Fitzsimmons and Jerry
Berberet of the Associated Colleges of Illinois; and Rosemary
Feal, Executive Director of the Modern Language Association.
A very special thanks goes to those who reviewed materials
for the third edition: Carrie Bailey (Clark College); Heather
Barrett (Boston University), Amy Bennett-Zendzian (Boston
University); Seth Blumenthal (Boston University); Ron Brooks
(Oklahoma State University); Jonathan Cook (Durham Technical Community College); Tessa Croker (Boston University);
Perry Cumbie (Durham Technical Community College); Robert Danberg (Binghamton University); Elias Dominguez Barajas
(University of Arkansas); Nancy Enright (Seton Hall University); Jason Evans (Prairie State College); Ted Fitts (Boston University); Karen Gaffney (Raritan Valley Community
College); Karen Gardiner (University of Alabama); Stephen
Hodin (Boston University); Michael Horwitz (University of
Hartford); John Hyman (American University); Claire Kervin
(Boston University); Melinda Kreth (Central Michigan University); Heather Marcovitch (Red Deer College); Christina Michaud (Boston University); Marisa Milanese (Boston
University); Theresa Mooney (Austin Community College);
Roxanne Munch (Joliet Junior College); Sarah Quirk (Waubonsee Community College); Lauri Ramey (California State
University, Los Angeles); David Shawn (Boston University);
318

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 318

12/24/13 11:12 AM

Acknowledgments

Jennifer Sia (Boston University); Laura Sonderman (Marshall
University); Katherine Stebbins McCaffrey (Boston University); K. Sullivan (Lane Community College); Anne-Marie
Thomas (Austin Community College at Riverside); Eliot
Treichel (Lane Community College); Rosanna Walker (Lane
Community College); Mary Erica Zimmer (Boston University).
We also thank those who reviewed the literature chapter:
Julie Bowman (Carnegie Mellon University); Jim Burke (Burlingame High School); Ana Cooke (Carnegie Mellon University);
Lisa Ede (Oregon State University); Karen Gocsik (University
of California at San Diego); Priscilla Glanville (State College
of Florida); Melissa Goldthwaite (Saint Joseph’s University);
Rafey Habib (Rutgers University at Camden); Michael Hennessy (Texas State University); Alexis Teagarden (Carnegie
Mellon University).
Thanks to those who reviewed the materials for the second
edition: Erin Ackerman (City University of New York–John
Jay College); Mary Angeline (University of Northern Colorado); Ned Bachus (Community College of Philadelphia);
Michelle Ballif (University of Georgia); Jonathan Barz (University of Dubuque); Mary Bauer Morley (University of North
Dakota); Benjamin Bennett-Carpenter (Oakland University);
Michelle Boswell (University of Maryland); Laura Bowles
(University of Central Arkansas); E. Brand (Broome Community College); Beth Buyserie (Washington State University);
Dana Cairns Watson (University of California, Los Angeles);
Genevieve Carminati (Montgomery College); Brent Chesley (Aquinas College); Joseph Colavito (Butler University);
Tara DaPra (University of Minnesota); Emily Detmer-Goebel
(Northern Kentucky University); J. Michael Duvall (College
of Charleston); Adriana Estill (Carleton College); Ralph Faris
(Community College of Philadelphia); Chris Gillen (Kenyon
319

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 319

12/24/13 11:12 AM

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

College); Patricia Gillikin (University of New Mexico Valencia
Campus); Kenneth Grant (University of Wisconsin–Baraboo/
Sauk County); Kevin Griffith (Capital University); Annemarie
Hamlin (Central Oregon Community College); Rick Hansen
(California State University, Fresno); John Hare (Montgomery
College); Wendy Hayden (Hunter College of the City University of New York); Karen Head (Georgia Institute of Technology); Chene Heady (Longwood University); Nels Highberg
(University of Hartford); Victoria Holladay (California State
University, Los Angeles); D. Kern Holoman (University
of California, Davis); Elizabeth Huergo (Montgomery College); Sara Jameson (Oregon State University); Joseph Jones
(University of Memphis); Andrew Keitt (University of Alabama at Birmingham); Kurt Koenigsberger (Case Western
Reserve University); Gary Leising (Utica College); Gary
Lewandowski (Monmouth University); Michelle Maher
(La Roche College); Lisa Martin (University of Wisconsin–
Baraboo/Sauk County); Miles McCrimmon (J. Sargeant
Reynolds Community College); Jacqueline Megow (Oklahoma
State University); Bruce Michelson (University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign); Megan Morton (Purdue University);
Steven Muhlberger (Nipissing University); Lori Muntz (Iowa
Wesleyan College); Ann Murphy (Assumption College); Sarah
Perrault (University of Nevada, Reno); Christine PipitoneHerron (Raritan Valley Community College); David Samper
(University of Oklahoma); Rose Shapiro (Fontbonne University); Jennifer Stewart (Indiana University–Purdue University
Fort Wayne); Sandra Stollman (Broward College); Linda Sturtz
(Beloit College); Mark Sutton (Kean University); Tobin von
der Nuell (University of Colorado at Boulder); Brody Waybrant
(Bay Mills Community College); Gina Weaver (Southern

320

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 320

12/24/13 11:12 AM

Acknowledgments

Nazarene University); Amy Whitson (Missouri State University); Susan Wright (Montclair State University).
Thanks also to those who reviewed the manuscript for the
original version of “They Say”; their suggestions contributed
enormously to this book: Alan Ainsworth (Houston Community College); Rise Axelrod (University of California,
Riverside); Bob Baron (Mesa Community College); David Bartholomae (University of Pittsburgh); Diane Belcher (Georgia
State University); Michel De Benedictis (Miami Dade College);
Joseph Bizup (Boston University); Patricia Bizzell (College of
the Holy Cross); John Brereton (Harvard University); Richard
Bullock (Wright State University); Charles Cooper (University
of California, San Diego); Christine Cozzens (Agnes Scott College); Sarah Duerden (Arizona State University); Russel Durst
(University of Cincinnati); Joseph Harris (Duke University);
Paul Heilker (Virginia Polytechnic Institute); Michael Hennessy (Texas State University); Karen Lunsford (University of
California, Santa Barbara); Libby Miles (University of Rhode
Island); Mike Rose (University of California, Los Angeles);
William H. Smith (Weatherford College); Scott Stevens
(Western Washington University); Patricia Sullivan (University of Colorado); Pamela Wright (University of California, San
Diego); Daniel Zimmerman (Middlesex Community College).
Finally, a special thank you to David Bartholomae for suggesting the phrase that became the subtitle of this book.

321

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 321

12/24/13 11:12 AM

10_GRA_93584_Acknowl_313_322.indd 322

12/24/13 11:12 AM

GERALD GRAFF , a professor of English and Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the 2008 President of the Modern
Language Association of America, has had a major impact on teachers
through such books as Professing Literature: An Institutional History,
Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize
American Education, and, most recently, Clueless in Academe: How
Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind. The new Common Core State
Standards for K–12 cite his work on the importance of argument
literacy for college and career readiness. CATHY BIRKENSTEIN , a
lecturer at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has published essays
on writing, most recently in College English, and, with Gerald, in The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Academe, and College Composition and
Communication. She and Gerald have given over a hundred lectures
and workshops at colleges, conferences, and high schools—and are at
present working on a book contending that our currently confusing
school and college curriculum needs to be clarified by making the
practice of argument the common thread across all disciplines.
323

11_GRA_93584_Authors_323-324.indd 323

12/24/13 11:13 AM

11_GRA_93584_Authors_323-324.indd 324

12/24/13 11:13 AM

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.6
Linearized                      : No
Author                          : 上海亦存网络科技有限公司
Create Date                     : 2016:05:24 19:36:22+08:00
Modify Date                     : 2016:05:24 19:38:53+08:00
Has XFA                         : No
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 5.4-c005 78.147326, 2012/08/23-13:03:03
Metadata Date                   : 2016:05:24 19:38:53+08:00
Creator Tool                    : Microsoft® Word 2010
Format                          : application/pdf
Creator                         : 上海亦存网络科技有限公司
Document ID                     : uuid:ef0a3c07-795f-40cc-8cba-cfbcf395b7b6
Instance ID                     : uuid:69bfcea3-1718-48c7-bdd5-4de69f2979a2
Producer                        : Mac OS X 10.10.4 Quartz PDFContext
Page Count                      : 353

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Graff Guide

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation