After my second reading of Strawson’s article, a few things that had previously been confusing or unclear I finally understood. I think the conversation we had in class helped to explain a few of those blurry concepts and get to the true point of his essay. The numerous peer reviews and meeting with our writing fellow also have helped me to recognize when things could be organized better, and honestly that helped a lot when reading over this article for the second time.
I first took notice of the intro paragraph; it was only a summary or a glimpse at what presumably was the opposing argument. That confused me at first, but after reading it a second time, I think it was a really unique way of starting an argumentative essay. Although, I feel like with all the proof, or support he adds of the other side, it makes it really easy to agree with that side automatically instead of his. I feel like he just went a little heavy with that in the introduction.
It also seems to me that he has a habit of contradicting himself. Even on my second read, it just seems like he almost either adds way too much support for the other side, or he almost agrees with it. He argues with it in a non convincing, lukewarm sort of way. I just don’t find myself convinced, or even on the fence about the decision.
Lastly, while I understand his point of view more and more near the end of his essay, I feel it should be switched around a little bit. More of his opinion or argument in the beginning that way I am no longer confused for so long about what he is even attempting to argue. I agree that sometimes, personal narratives can be dangerous to those who could get lost in them, forever chasing and setting up unfair expectations for himself. I just again wish he put some of these supporting factors and arguments earlier in his article.
