Writing

Much of writing is responding to what others have already said or written, the continuing of a conversation. In responding, we need to summarize, or paraphrase, what others have said, perhaps quote them, respond to them with our own thoughts, and cite them, both in text and in the bibliography.

Summarizing

When summarizing someone in your argument, it's not necessary to include all of their points. Rather, include the points that touch upon your own argument, the points that either support your position or points to which you need to respond.

In addition, be sure that you write a summary that accurately represents your source's point of view--not your own. In fact, that person should say, "Yes, that's what I think." In this way, you will increase your credibility because you will be perceived as fair and objective, which will increase your credibility with your readers.

Framing a quotation

Often when responding to someone, we will quote them. When doing so, be sure to choose a quotation that fits into your own argument, whether it supports your argument or opposes it. Also, you should frame the quotation. Graff and Birkenstein, in their book They Say / I Say, offer good advice in framing, or sandwiching, a quotation. They suggest when quoting someone to follow these steps:

• Introduce the person and their position on the issue.
• Write the quotation
• Explain the quotation
• Respond to the quotation from your own position and perspective.

Examples of framing a quotation

In academic writing, if a quotation is shorter than three lines, it is kept in text with quotation marks. However, if it is longer than three lines, it is done as a block quotation without quotation marks. Although the first example is not longer than three lines, it's blocked so you can see the difference. In writing on a blog, most quotations are blocked to make them stand out, even when less than three lines long.

Block Quotation Example

Why do some many of the younger generation text message? According to Charles McGrath, former editor of the New York Times Book Review and the New Yorker, in his article "The Pleasures of the Text", text-messaging has become popular for its efficiency, style, and cultural reasons. However, he laments its negative aspects, stating that text-messaging is

a kind of avoidance mechanism that preserves the feeling of communication - the immediacy - without, for the most part, the burden of actual intimacy or substance.

In other words, people want to feel as if they're communicating with others, but they don't want to take the time to say something worthwhile or really get closer to someone else.

The article is short but informative. The main claim about avoiding intimacy and substance is interesting. Is this a byproduct or a subconscious desire? Is it even an accurate description? I can imagine that when one is constantly text-messaging, not much is new, and so not much is of substance. Actually, when I ask my 6-year-old son what he did in school today, he almost always says, "I don't know." Is he avoiding intimacy? Certainly not when he climbs all over me, trying to get my attention. Similary, when someone asks me what is new, I generally respond, "Not much." Rather than an avoidance of intimacy, I imagine it's simply the reality of much being the same. Yet people ask the same questions every day as a matter of keeping social contact. It's not clear why text-messaging should be considered different from normal conversations.

Quotation Marks Example

Amanda LaBonar, a university student and on the Marquette Tribune staff, writes on how "Personal responsibility [is] needed when blogging." She provides several examples of students who have been penalized for their online comments. Although noting that some people assert their right to free speech, she wonders about "how stupid and irresponsible people are being." That is, insisting on one's rights can result in reckless behavior.

Definitely, most in the U.S. are on the side of individual freedom and free speech. However, practically speaking, people don't say anything in public that they want to at work, at least if they want to keep their jobs or unless they're the boss. And the Internet is very public. Saying something at work might reach only a few people. Writing to the world potentially can reach millions. Americans demand the right to privacy but, as LaBonar comments, give it away on the Internet. Ironical?