Chapter 4: "Yes/No/Ok, But" (Three Ways to Respond)

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 that ______."

It is hard to align yourself with one position without at least implicitly positioning yourself

Against others.

Agreeing is less simple than it may

Appear.

The "I'm of two minds" or a "mixed feelings" move

Can be especially useful if you are responding to new or particularly challenging work and are as yet unsure where you stand.

To move the conversation forward (and to justify your very act of writing), you need to

Demonstrate that you have something to contribute.

It is better to state our disagreements in frank yet considerate ways than to

Deny them.

The parallel structure—"yes and no"; "on the one hand I agree, on the other hand I disagree"—

Enables readers to place your argument on that map of positions while keeping your argument sufficiently complex.

Good arguments are based not on knowledge that only a special class of experts has access to but on

Everyday habits of mind that can be isolated, identified, and used by almost anyone.

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."

At other times, acknowledging that a clear-cut resolution of an issue is

Impossible can demonstrate your sophistication as a writer.

Another way you can disagree is by making a "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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The most interesting interpretations 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.

Some templates allow you to agree with one view while challenging another— a move that leads into the domain of

Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously.

Three most common and recognizable ways to respond to others' ideas:

Agreeing, disagreeing, or some combination of both.

If X's views are a 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 a culture like America's, which prizes 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.

Once you have offered one of these straightforward statements, readers will have a strong grasp of your position and be able to

Appreciate the complications you go on to offer as your response unfolds.

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.

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.

Ultimately, 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.

Whenever you agree with one person's view, you are likely

Disagreeing with someone else's.

What is the first thing people associate with critical thinking?

Disagreeing.

Agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously 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.

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.

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.

But disagreement in fact poses

Hidden challenges.

"They say" stage of writing:

In which you devote your attention to the views of some other person or group.

You can even disagree by making the "duh" move,

In which you disagree not with the position itself but with the assumption that it is a new or stunning revelation.

"I say" stage of writing:

In which you offer your own argument as a response to what "they" have said.

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.

Disagreements do not need to take the form of

Personal put-downs.

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.

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.

Suppressing disagreements doesn't make them go away; it only

Pushes them underground, where they can fester in private unchecked.

We focus on these three because

Readers come to any text needing to learn fairly quickly where the writer stands

What happens 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?"

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.

The arguments that finally win the day are built on some very basic

Rhetorical patterns that most of us use on a daily basis.

Disagreeing means more than adding "not" to what someone else has said, more than just

Saying, "Although they say women's rights are improving, 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.

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.

"Yes and no." "Yes, but..." "Although I agree up to a point, I still insist..."

Some of the ways you can make your argument complicated and nuanced while maintaining a clear, reader-friendly framework.

They do this by placing the writer on a mental map consisting of a few familiar options:

The writer agrees with those being responded to, disagrees with them, or presents some combination of both agreeing and disagreeing.

As long as you can support a position taken by someone else without merely restating what was said,

There is no reason to worry about being "unoriginal."

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 leads to the somewhat more complicated terrain of both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

There is good reason to rejoice when you agree with others since

Those others can lend credibility to your argument.

Another aspect we like about this "yes and no," "agree and disagree" option is that it can be

Tipped subtly toward agreement or disagreement, depending on where you lay your stress.

In any effective interpretation, then, you need not only to state what you yourself take the work of art to mean but also

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 poem is about ________, it is in fact about _______").

By admitting that the opposing argument has a point, Ungar bolsters his credibility, presenting himself as a writer

Willing to acknowledge facts as they present themselves rather than one determined to cheerlead only for his own side.

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.

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.

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.

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.