I had never found a good way to consider both the audience and the writer's point-of-view, until the angle of vision was brought up. Although, it seems easy to understand why the writer feels a certain way about a problem, we typically still believe in our own views regardless of their arguments. Sadly, this has clearly showed me the difference between sympathy and empathy. Up until now, I feel my writing has only asked for sympathy from my audience. It will be challenging, knowing this now, to find a way to change someone's mind with writing. The pieces we write here on out cannot simply disclose only what the writer believes in. We must present an argument that shows why the reader's beliefs are wrong.
If that is the case, would it be better to simply write with a more open form? How could you tell a person they're wrong in a straightforward way? Although closed forms can work for some topics, it doesn't seem plausible to use it for purely subjective questions (i.e. What is morel?, Is love really all we need?). Also, would it be more beneficial to reveal the thesis later into the argument, rather than confront the reader's belief in the first paragraph (where the thesis usually is)?
If that is the case, would it be better to simply write with a more open form? How could you tell a person they're wrong in a straightforward way? Although closed forms can work for some topics, it doesn't seem plausible to use it for purely subjective questions (i.e. What is morel?, Is love really all we need?). Also, would it be more beneficial to reveal the thesis later into the argument, rather than confront the reader's belief in the first paragraph (where the thesis usually is)?
No comments:
Post a Comment