Dalya Arussy's Writing New York Blog

Journal Entry 23- Meta-writing
November 9, 2010, 4:27 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

I think one of the most important lessons I can take from Sontag and Shuman is to properly balance my appeals in order to convincingly present my argument. I think Sontag’s biggest flaw was her lack of logic and ethics in comparison to her overpowering emotion. Her piece was published not long after the event and therefore was almost strictly emotion-based, taking away from her controversial argument. As an outsider to the case and having reviewed the facts and details of the plan, I think I can properly balance the different appeals necessary to create a compelling argument (and not override my logical and ethical aspects with emotional ones).

I think Shuman takes a couple of steps forward in his attempt to balance the different appeals and that perspective should influence by attempt at an argument. I think he successfully handles the counterargument and in his doing so, presents a more compelling defense of his position. He writes a couple of months after the fact, providing for more awareness of details of the event and for thinking through personal emotions. In that, Shuman was better able to evaluate the occurrence and take a logical stance on the issue. As this aspect of the passage of time applies to me, I think I have a lot to learn from Shuman who properly incorporates that. In his criticism of his own liberal views, I think Shuman is more effective in his argument as he can properly evaluate the counterargument (because it is so “close to home”), which is another important factor to take into consideration when approaching an issue.

Print Friendly

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar