Blog Response 2: They Say, I Say ch. 1-3

In the first chapter of They Say, I Say, the point the writers are trying to get across is that in order for one to present information on a given topic, they must also give back ground information on the topic, opposing views, and other important information in order to keep the reader engaged. I find that this advice is quite sound. It the past while writing essays and speeches I have found that if you only include what you have to say about a topic and exclude other important info, the reader becomes disengaged very quickly. They also provided templates which I have seen before, and a few that I haven't. I appreciated that the writers provided examples of what is correct and what is something that needed to be improved upon.

Chapter 2 was more focused on the art of summarizing which connects back to giving all of the information about a topic when you present an argument about it. The main goal a writer has when delivering a summary of another work is to play what writer theorist Peter Elbow calls the "believing game." Basically this means to give a summary without personal input, causing the reader to believe that the summary is so unbiased that you believe what was said yourself. I find this "believing game" to be a very helpful way of viewing how to write a summary. Often when I am reading summaries that my friends have written for class I feel that what they said wasn't exactly a summary, but more of a response.

Lastly, the third chapter discussed quoting correctly. It spoke of when to quote, how to quote, and why we quote in the first place. I feel that this chapter was extremely helpful to me, because often I place a quote in my writing because I know my teacher will look favorably upon it, not because it was actually needed. This chapter gave me templates and ideas about when and how to use a quote that I believe I can actually implement in my own writing.

Blog Response 1: Omnivore's Dilema ch 2

Decades ago, when the first settlers planted the fields of produce in Iowa and other parts of America, farmers were not only able to feed their families with the crops they grew, but one out of four Americans lived on a farm. (Pollan 34) Present day things have shiften drastically. Now only a measly 2 million farmers continue to plow the land in America, and those families typically gain their [small] income from the cash crop corn. Farmers are growing more and more corn, because it is the only way they can bring in any kind of income to support their families. Essentially farms are no longer places where multiple crops are grown and dozens of animals are raised, but instead corn is king.

I feel that the farmers of America (and those in countries far and wide) are between a rock and a hard place. While they would love to grown plants that could sustain their family and provide a substantial income, it is almost impossible for them to do this. Corn is in so many products that to stop growing it, would result in financial ruin. This does nothing to help with the plight Pollan believes us to be in, of consuming and producing to much corn. While the solution to this problem would be extremely difficult to implement, I believe the only way corn production can be scaled down, is to have federal regulations limiting the production and use of corn in products that don't need corn. With this would come a whole new set of problem since corn is cheap and goes into so much, but it is something that needs to be done if we wish to have food diversity.

This is my first blog for English. YAY ME.