Notes on Entering the Conversation and They Say / I Say Templates

Writing relies on a stock of basic moves learned from reading other writers; templates capture these moves for quick use and generation of your own writing.
The book’s distinctive feature: many templates that help you enter academic thinking, civic discourse, and professional contexts.
Core premise: effective academic writing is not just about stating your ideas but about engaging in a conversation, listening to others, summarizing their views, and responding with your own ideas.

The central template: the “they say; I say” formula. Your argument should be a response to what others have said, not created in a vacuum.
Best writing enters a conversation by summarizing others’ views, then offering a reasoned response in kind.
Traditionally taught essays (e.g., five-paragraph essays) can be improved by explicitly placing your thesis within an ongoing conversation.
Examples show that critics, public figures, or even a family member can serve as the “they say” you respond to; the important part is that the view represents a broader audience or stake relevant to readers.

They say as the launching pad: present what others think, then respond with I say.
Your own thesis (I say) should always connect to a counterpoint or conversation (they say).
Why it matters: it motivates the reader, situates your argument, and clarifies the purpose of your claims.

Standard views: “A number of sociologists have recently suggested that X’s work has several fundamental problems.”
Broad assumptions: “Americans have always believed that individual effort can triumph over circumstances.”
Conventional wisdom: “Common sense seems to dictate that …”
Declared but not always explicit: “In their recent work, Y and Z have offered harsh critiques of …”
Self-embedded “they say”: you can present a belief you once held and show how your view evolved (e.g., “I’ve always believed that museums are boring; now I rethink that view because …”).
Purpose: these templates help you identify and articulate the broader conversation you are joining.

Open with a debate: “In discussions of X, one controversial issue has been … On the one hand, A argues … On the other hand, B contends …”
Use debates to map voices and to situate your claim within a larger dispute.
Example openings show how to start with what others are saying before presenting your own stance.
Returning to the conversation: keep the “they say” in view as you develop your argument; return sentences remind readers of the motivating views.

Summarizing is central: combine fidelity to the original with a focus that serves your argument.
The Believing Game (Elbow): suspend your own beliefs to inhabit the other’s perspective while summarizing.
Balance is key: avoid over-summarizing (bare lists) and avoid under-summarizing (your voice overtakes the source).
Use vivid signal verbs to convey the author’s actions: advocates, emphasizes, complains, protests, etc.
The risk of “closest cliché syndrome”: avoid summarizing the other’s view as a cliché or misrepresenting their argument.
Alignment: your summary should fit your own central claim so that they say and I say work together, not at cross-purposes.
They say may be presented from another author or from your own past beliefs; the goal is to frame your response within that larger conversation.

Strong, precise verbs help convey the specific action of the author: advocates, argues, contends, protests, emphasizes, challenges, etc.
Distinguish between reporting (they say) and endorsing (your response). Use verbs that reflect the argumentative role of the source.
Examples: “Zinczenko argues that …; I challenge this by showing …”

Throughout your text, remind readers of the motivating “they say.”
Return sentences are useful tools to re-anchor the reader to the initial conversation as your argument develops.
The balance between summary and critique should stay aligned with your central claim.

Satiric summaries place a critique in the summary itself to reveal weaknesses without overt editorializing.
You can mix agreement and disagreement (yes and no): e.g., you may acknowledge a point on one hand, but resist it on the other.
Mixed responses can add nuance and avoid false binaries (on the one hand … on the other hand).

Templates do not stifle creativity; they are learning tools that help you master basic moves that underlie sophisticated writing.
Even highly creative writers rely on established forms; mastery of forms enables improvisation, not drudgery.
Templates become internalized; with practice, you can improvise and adapt them for new contexts.

Start with what others are saying to ground your argument in a real conversation.
Always connect your I say to a clearly identified they say; your thesis should respond to that conversation.
Use a mix of opening strategies: standard views, debates, implied views, or personal stances that you previously held.
Use strong signal verbs when summarizing or quoting; avoid bland “says” language.
Keep they say in view with return sentences to maintain coherence and purpose throughout your text.
Remember: you are entering a conversation, not making isolated claims. Your writing should reflect that dialogue and respond accordingly.

They say: “A controversial issue has been X.” I say: “My view is that Y, with supporting reasons.”
They say: “Some critics argue Z.” I say: “I agree with part of Z but contend that W for these reasons.”
They say: “On the one hand, A argues …; on the other hand, B contends …” My view is C, because D supports it.