When doing research for anything at any time (not just this class) it is very important to be entirely sure that your sources are valid. This means double checking their data, diving deeper, and looking for any fallacies in their writing. You can be sure to check their writing styles for problems such as being overly biased or just word slinging the way that Klinenberg does. I’m not one to take note for what I’m reading, but I found it to be very helpful in dissecting these papers.
There are, however, some very good things that both writers use to get their point across. To start off, Marche uses a delayed thesis which I found very interesting and powerful. It seems as though one can make a strong argument out of nothing by simply making it seem like you are playing the fence, and the twisting at the end. Klinenberg uses a lot of satyr in his writing, which I can admit you may find it in my own writing. Humor keeps it interesting. When it fits the occasion. Again, the humor he uses can be a bit much as most of his paper is just ripping Marche to shreds. What he does seem to rip apart though, is Marche’s dramatic aproach to the subject, which is good… To a point. Its good to make a paper strong and powerful, but when you over do it as Marche did, it has an adverse effect to the outcome you are trying to produce.
JohnsBlogSpace 