4 ms·

Ummm...No, I don't. I'll be honest, I have to resisit the temptation to be rude here because I think so highly of the book that it makes me inclined to just te

Ummm...No, I don't. I'll be honest, I have to resisit the temptation to be rude here because I think so highly of the book that it makes me inclined to just tear you apart. But that inhibits my ability to defend it point by point (since going point by point I would end up tearing you apart) But needless to say the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded.

unalone 18y ago
When you argue against his point, cite his writing. When you argue writing, talk about the writing and nothing but the writing. As the book Lies My Teacher Told Me elegantly shows, many history books that have existed for decades are thoroughly incorrect and yet are still used by teachers. Length of use can be a good sign, but it isn't necessarily. "the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded" is an ad hominem argument. If you're going to tear him apart, do it. We won't mind. That always leads to good discussion. But don't say you could and then don't.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Incorrect is not the same as "without content" (which is what the original author claimed). Something can be incorrect and still be taught because it contains content (albeit false content). Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue. Finally, tearing someone apart rarely leads to good discussion. What it leads to is entertaining discussion (e.g. people on the sidelines take pleasure in watching two people cause harm to each other). Or put more simply, tearing someone apart is about emotion while good discussion is about intellect
  - unalone 18y ago
    Okay, fair enough. (I would argue that you can tear somebody apart and still keep it intellectual.)
  - trominos 18y ago
    "Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue." If it's literally contentless, okay. But something that merely has low levels of content can definitely be taught; the teacher just has to pad out the content with any of a number of time-wasters. As somebody who went to high school, I can attest that this is not very hard to do. This particular book (or at least its excerpt) suffers, in my opinion, from an excess of examples and the occasional restatement. That's not to say that it's a bad book. Virtually all nonfiction, other than textbooks, has this problem (and as a result I very rarely actually finish a nonfictional book). I think that many of the author's points are valuable even for competent writers. But it is kind of bloated.

unalone 18y ago

When you argue against his point, cite his writing. When you argue writing, talk about the writing and nothing but the writing. As the book Lies My Teacher Told Me elegantly shows, many history books that have existed for decades are thoroughly incorrect and yet are still used by teachers. Length of use can be a good sign, but it isn't necessarily. "the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded" is an ad hominem argument. If you're going to tear him apart, do it. We won't mind. That always leads to good discussion. But don't say you could and then don't.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
Incorrect is not the same as "without content" (which is what the original author claimed). Something can be incorrect and still be taught because it contains content (albeit false content). Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue. Finally, tearing someone apart rarely leads to good discussion. What it leads to is entertaining discussion (e.g. people on the sidelines take pleasure in watching two people cause harm to each other). Or put more simply, tearing someone apart is about emotion while good discussion is about intellect
- unalone 18y ago
  Okay, fair enough. (I would argue that you can tear somebody apart and still keep it intellectual.)
- trominos 18y ago
  "Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue." If it's literally contentless, okay. But something that merely has low levels of content can definitely be taught; the teacher just has to pad out the content with any of a number of time-wasters. As somebody who went to high school, I can attest that this is not very hard to do. This particular book (or at least its excerpt) suffers, in my opinion, from an excess of examples and the occasional restatement. That's not to say that it's a bad book. Virtually all nonfiction, other than textbooks, has this problem (and as a result I very rarely actually finish a nonfictional book). I think that many of the author's points are valuable even for competent writers. But it is kind of bloated.