Average customer rating:
- Listen and Learn
- Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time
- listen! It's wonderful
- A Book That Transfers Raw Emotion
- OL' FASHION BASIC DEBATER
|
Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time
Gerry Spence
Manufacturer: St. Martin's Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Interpersonal Relations
| Relationships
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Self-Help
| Health, Mind & Body
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Law
| Administrative Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Communication
| Words & Language
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Rhetoric
| Words & Language
| Reference
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Law
| Administrative Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Health Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Nonfiction Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Reference Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
How to Argue & Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Everyday
-
The Art of Cross-Examination
-
The Trial Lawyers: The Nation's Top Litigators Tell How They Win
-
Seven Simple Steps to Personal Freedom: An Owner's Manual for Life
-
David Ball on Damages: The Essential Update, A Plaintiff's Attorney's Guide for Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases
ASIN: 0312338813
Release Date: 2005-05-19 |
Book Description
America's winningest trial lawyer offers a step-by-step plan for speaking in public- and succeeding 'What's true for training great trial lawyers is true for all winning presentors.' -FROMWINYOURCASE A t Gerry Spence's famed Trial Lawyers College conducted on his Wyoming ranch, thousands of attorneys have learned the art of making a case. Presenting a case before decisionmakers is not simply a technique but an occasion for summoning your deepest reserves to advocate on behalf of something crucial. Here, Spence combines a rich exploration of truth, fairness, and emotional honesty with practical advice gleaned from a lifetime of hard-earned legal triumphs to show what makes a strong, persuasive presentation. Spence's essentials include: -Preparing the powerperson to accept your case -Owning your feelings -Being 'in the moment' -The power of fear-ours and theirs -Discovering the story in every presentation -Making an effective closing argument. Whether presenting to a judge or jury, a board, boss, committee, or customer, Win Your Case is an indispensable selfhelp guide.
Customer Reviews:
Listen and Learn.......2007-08-30
Spence gives many useful lessons. Listen to them with, as Spence puts it, your "third ear." Lawyers from all sorts of practice areas should listen and learn about "psychodrama." Listen. Feel your client's predicament. Spence gives new meaning to the teaching of Michael Tigar that "nothing you learned in law school teaches you to listen or to care."
Spence has a fair amount of bombast. His cowboy style fits few people. But that's his point. This CD will help you find your own voice.
As other reviewers have said, Win Your Case falters when Spence attempts to translate his trial lawyer strategies to other contexts. Certainly much of what Spence teaches translates in some ways to the boardroom, city hall, and other places. But Spence's useful examples in Win Your Case focus on trials of personal injury and criminal defense cases. Spence shines most brightly in those areas.
Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time.......2006-08-05
Very deep and incisive
listen! It's wonderful.......2006-07-20
I listened to the audio book, which is long but wonderful! Once you get through the book you will have learned several very valuable lessons. Mr. Spence provides several approaches for winning your case and learing how to be genuine and convincing. He advocates an emotional and honest investment in your situation and he tells you exactly how to do it. It works, and although many of his cases give court room stories, anyone can apply it to their own life outside the court room. We often interrogate others while being interrogated in life. Check it out!!
A Book That Transfers Raw Emotion.......2006-04-24
Gerry Spence has a rather eloquent way of describing what is charisma: "Charisma is the controlled transfer of raw emotion."
It seems the whole book revolves around his definition of charisma. Once you have raw emotion you could then use tools like visual aids (and the book goes into details of this sort but always reminding the reader to be real) and so forth to transfer raw emotion to someone else (or a jury), in a controlled way.
It is the charisma that helps you present, persuade and prevail every place, every time, as the book's sub-title promises. And the book certainly transfers.
OL' FASHION BASIC DEBATER.......2005-09-28
I WAS A NATIONAL CHAMPION IN DEBATE YEARS AGO AND HE EMPLOY'S THE SAME TYPE OF A MIX OF PERSUASION AND ARGUMENTATION ONLY AT A LEVEL OF PERFECTION.VERY INFORMATIVE,THOUGHT PROVOKING AND ENJOYABLE TO LISTEN.NOW JUST ABSORB IT.
Book Description
Is it "just words" when a lawyer cross-examines a rape victim in the hopes of getting her to admit an interest in her attacker? Is it "just words" when the Supreme Court hands down a decision or when business people draw up a contract? In tackling the question of how an abstract entity exerts concrete power, Just Words focuses on what has become the central issue in law and language research: what language reveals about the nature of legal power.
Conley and O'Barr show how the microdynamics of the legal process and the largest questions of justice can be fruitfully explored through the field of linguistics. Each chapter covers a language-based approach to a different area of the law, from the cross-examinations of victims and witnesses to the inequities of divorce mediation. Combining analysis of common legal events with a broad range of scholarship on language and law, Just Words seeks the reality of power in the everyday practice and application of the law. As the only study of its type, the book is the definitive treatment of the topic that will be welcomed by students and specialists alike.
Customer Reviews:
Just Words - Flawed but Important.......2006-05-11
Combining the "science of talk" with the legal system is relatively new field, both in the academic world, as well as for myself. Conley and O'Barr strike an interesting chord in the study of the law in claiming that the study of language is inextricably intertwined with legal processes. In analyzing research and historical theories, Conley and O'Barr attempt to strengthen the school of thought that places added emphasis on the study of what and how things are said, as opposed to more simplistic analyses of the law.
Yet in their discussion of the purpose of the study of law, language and all the assorted terms that come with them (power, equality, etc.), I found that Conley and O'Barr tacitly failed to prove their points, or provide substantiative evidence for their claims. From the very first chapter, the authors claim that "the fundamental question in American legal history (is) how a legal system that aspires to equality can produce such a pervasive sense of unfair treatment." Who are Conley and O'Barr to claim knowledge over the primary purpose of the legal system? Undoubtedly, there are many scholars who would contend that the purpose of the legal system is not to advocate for equality, but perhaps for equity. Still more would argue that America is not truly based upon foundations of equality, but a never-ending struggle for control over the power systems put in place throughout our nation. By treating the legal system as if it is the sole foundation for democracy in America, Conley and O'Barr forsake the utilitarian view of the law as quite important in controlling the structural and material makeup of our nation. This avoidance of the structural realities within the US legal system are apparent in several statements made by Conley and O'Barr about the inherent fairness of the law.
Conley and O'Barr state that everyone is afforded the right to vote, which is clearly not the case. Immigrants, ex-felons, and children are all denied the ballot box, making the idea of "universal suffrage" quite laughable. Furthermore, Conley and O'Barr repeatedly invoke the idea that the law is meant to distribute equality amongst the masses, an argument that they fail to prove in a context which considers alternative theories of the law.
This all being said, Conley and O'Barr do present interesting claims as to the field of language and law study, as well as the implications of combining the study of Law and Society with Sociolinguistic studies. I was particularly interested in the second chapter of Just Words as the discussion over the nature of the adversary process was quite remarkable. The idea that the legal system could facilitate the revictimization of rape victims isn't exactly a new idea, but the contention that the system itself disempowers victims through its very structure is quite intriguing and worthy of more social research. An interesting study could analyze the difference between the mostly adversarial nature of US courts with the mostly inquisitorial nature of European courts. In finding new realms of "truth," perhaps there could be better system of legal processes that benefit the majority of all. Clearly, the adversarial process analyzed in Just Words certainly does not provide evidence towards the existence of a legal system that values equality.
It's All in the Details (of Legal Discourse, That Is...).......2006-04-19
In order to fully understand legal discourse, especially in a setting where justice is supposed to reign supremely and yet, is wrought with inequality, one must first recognize the importance of words and the ways in which they are used to un/successfully advocate an individual's cause. This book presents a solid case with thorough explanations of the discrepancies that arise in approaches to utilizing this litigious dialogue. Through its common illustrations of everyday problems with simple legal matters due to inability to speak one's case, it leaves the reader struggling to figure out, not only how this communication crisis can be resolved, but also how our legal system reached the point of elitism that it has, in fact, arrived at. There are some questionable elements of the text; I found that Conley and O'Barr often portrayed women as much weaker and incapable individuals than they have proven themselves to be in society as of late, and I often questioned how they obtained some of their data and conclusions. However, I would recommend the book, as it is thoroughly thought provoking and well written.
Are Words Truly "Just" Words? .......2006-03-26
In anthropology, linguistics is the smallest branch of the "four fields" (including biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, and archaeology). In linguistics, only a small segment of researchers study issues pertaining to the courtroom and legal issues in general. However, despite the relative scarcity of material related directly to legal linguistics, John M. Conley and William M. O'Barr in Just Words: Law, Language, and Power demonstrate the importance of this emergent field of research.
Some of the findings discussed in this book are surprising. For instance, Conley and O'Barr contend that although the mediation process seems like it would be more congenial toward women, women on average receive less favorable outcomes through the mediation process than if they had gone to trial. Through reading this work, it becomes clear that the Western-style legal system works against minorities and women by giving preferential treatment to those who have mastered the language of dominance - mainly white educated males.
While social justice issues figure prominently in the book, the authors seek to provide material on all aspects relating to legal-linguistic studies. For instance, cross-cultural legal research and historical legal text studies are discussed as well as studies confined to the modern American courtroom. This book is ideally suited for anthropology, legal, and criminology students and lay readers alike.
JW
A female discourse?.......2006-03-25
A major point for Conley/O'Barr in this book is that the forms of discourse that they call most natural to women are subjugated in the legal system today, and therefore women are at a disadvantage. While I can see where characteristically feminine forms of discussion are generally not the very direct question/answer format of the formal trial in the American legal system, as a woman I felt very sold short by their own discourse on the subject matter. They repeatedly drove home the point that women are not assertive naturally and therefore are trampled in the male-dominated milieu of litigation. Running with this were the assumptions that most women now are like this, that women are less able to obtain higher education, and that even when the legal system tries to "accomodate" the female discourse via alternative dispute resolution, it still silences the voice of the woman in the case.
The authors tend to use court transcripts in which women are not just being cooperative with counsel, but being particularly subdued and submissive. The impression is not that the trial situation is intimidating for anyone trying to make his/her case, but that women are unable to sum themselves up succinctly, and this causes their stories not to be heard.
I was also surprised that, despite the relatively recent publishing date of the second edition, the authors still purported that part of this was due to women's limited access to higher education, even though at a considerable portion of American universities in this day and age women are the majority in undergraduate college classes. They position the women in these litigious circumstances as being fundamentally handicapped because they are presumedly not working, or at least not for as much money, and they will be "saddled" with the kids. I think that Conley/O'Barr consider only the extreme cases, not the cases of the modern woman who does work and bring in income, even cases where the woman may be the primary breadwinner. While I of course will acknowledge that there is still a significant portion of women who do choose not to work and this may be a difficult situation to handle in divorce, I still think that women are sold short as far as their abilities to take care of and defend themselves in this day and age.
Amazon.com
Anyone who's ever watched Perry Mason knows that the closing argument is a very important part of a big legal case. The closing argument is the "game point" of law, the time when lawyers pull out all the stops on the cajoling and the litigating. Michael S. Lief and his coauthors have collected the closing arguments from 10 noteworthy cases in this volume, introducing each speech with background information on the trial and commentary on the lawyer's technique. In these pages, readers get front-row seats to some of the most riveting trials in this century, including the Charles Manson murder trial, Karen Silkwood's wrongful-death suit, and the trial of the Chicago Seven.
Because the authors chose to include all the courtroom interruptions in the transcript, the Manson summation makes for especially lively reading. Manson and his codefendants repeatedly spoke out of turn during prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's statement, saying things like "You are going to be eaten up by your own lie" and "Even if I have never been in the Gotham Bank!" Bugliosi's speech is among the most eloquent in the collection, which is why it is so stunning when one of the defendants provokes him so much that he loses his cool and calls her a name that rhymes with rich.
Although the title promises the "greatest closing arguments in modern law," some of the speeches seem to have been chosen because they were connected to important cases rather than because of their own rhetorical merits. However, the cases themselves are interesting, and these transcripts bring them to life better than any summary would. This collection should be of interest to anyone in the legal profession. --Jill Marquis
Book Description
Until now, only the twelve jurors who sat in judgment were able to appreciate these virtuoso performances, where weeks of testimony were boiled down and presented with flair, wit, and high drama. For five years the authors researched every archive from those of the L.A. Times to the dusty stacks of the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and readers can now lose themselves in the summations of America's finest litigators.
Clarence Darrow saves Leopold and Loeb from the gallows in the Roaring Twenties. Gerry Spence takes on the nuclear power industry for the death of Karen Silkwood in a modern-day David and Goliath struggle. Vincent Bugliosi squares off against the madness of Charles Manson and his murderous "family" in the aftermath of their bloody spree. Clara Foltz, the first woman to practice law in California, argues passionately to an all-male jury, defending her place in the courtroom. Bobby DeLaughter brings the killer of civil-rights leader Medgar Evers to justice after thirty years and two mistrials. Aubrey Daniel brings Lt. William Calley, Jr., to justice for the My Lai massacre. William Kunstler challenges the establishment after the '68 Chicago riots in his defense of yippie leaders known as the Chicago Seven.
Each closing argument is put into context by the authors, who provide historical background, a brief biography of each attorney, and commentary, pointing out the trial tactics used to great effect by the lawyers, all in language that is jargon-free for the benefit of the lay reader.
Download Description
Until now, only the twelve jurors who sat in judgment were able to appreciate these virtuoso performances, where weeks of testimony were boiled down and presented with flair, wit, and high drama. For five years the authors researched every archive from those of the L.A. Times to the dusty stacks of the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and readers can now lose themselves in the summations of America's finest litigators. Clarence Darrow saves Leopold and Loeb from the gallows in the Roaring Twenties. Gerry Spence takes on the nuclear power industry for the death of Karen Silkwood in a modern-day David and Goliath struggle. Vincent Bugliosi squares off against the madness of Charles Manson and his murderous "family" in the aftermath of their bloody spree. Clara Foltz, the first woman to practice law in California, argues passionately to an all-male jury, defending her place in the courtroom. Bobby DeLaughter brings the killer of civil-rights leader Medgar Evers to justice after thirty years and two mistrials. Aubrey Daniel brings Lt. William Calley, Jr., to justice for the My Lai massacre. William Kunstler challenges the establishment after the '68 Chicago riots in his defense of yippie leaders known as the Chicago Seven. Each closing argument is put into context by the authors, who provide historical background, a brief biography of each attorney, and commentary, pointing out the trial tactics used to great effect by the lawyers, all in language that is jargon-free for the benefit of the lay reader.
Customer Reviews:
Celebrity cases, mostly of the left - certainly not the "greatest.".......2006-06-10
The authors claim that these "greatest closing arguments in modern law" were chosen for the "quality of [their] summation, as well as for [their] historical significance." The immediate question is who is judging the quality of the summation and, more importantly, their historical significance?
The view here is obviously that left-wing causes have the most historical significance, though some cases, such as Nuremburg, are politically neutral. Clarence Darrow's summation in behalf of two young men who brutally murdered another is an argument against the death penalty. Many would consider the resulting verdict an injustice, compounded by early release of one of the murderers. Also, the fact that the case was argued in a Cook County, Illinois courtroom, one of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the nation, casts the power of this closing argument into doubt since the parents of the murderers were wealthy and in Cook County, money has always spoken loudly even when passed in silence from one hand to another.
Gerry Spence is without a doubt one of the most eloquent and effective litigators in the nation. But the science his Silkwood argument rests upon is, to some, suspect as were the alleged facts.
The closing arguments are presented with a wrapping of context, though it is a bit on the light side. With that in mind, the closing defense argument in the John DeLorean case is truly great, cataloging a series of government misdeeds. But the reader searching for political balance may be troubled by equally meritorious closing arguments in the Rosenberg and Alger Hiss cases.
Vincent Bugliosi's closing in the case against Manson and his followers is competent, but isn't great. It is a narrative that virtually any competent prosecutor could have put together. The Manson case involved celebrities, but otherwise wasn't much different than many murder cases of the same nature: groups of people motivated to murder. Johnny Cochran's closing in the O. J. Simpson case was far more powerful, in my opinion, far outclassing Bugliosi in persuasiveness.
The inclusion of Robert Jackson's closing at Nuremberg is puzzling. It was not an American trial. The guilt of the accused was beyond doubt, though law underpinning the tribunal was not. From the commentary, I derived the feeling that the authors were trying to rescue Jackson's reputation from his disastrous cross examination of Hermann Goering.
William Kunstler, in the opinion of many, was a living insult to the practice of law. The authors describe his closing in the Chicago Seven case as a "four-part clinic in how to excel in persuasive argument." Others might see it and Kunstler's behavior in a circus presentation of how to flout the law. All of Kunstler's clients were convicted: so much for the persuasiveness of his argument. The convictions were overturned owing to the trial judge's behavior. Again, this was in Cook County, Illinois where for many years both the state and federal judiciaries were of abysmal quality, products for the most part of the Democratic political machine. (Many of the "murderers" convicted under the current Chicago Mayor, Richard M. Daley, had their convictions overturned because DNA testing became available. At least one Cook County judge accepted bribes to free a murderer. Great place.)
The authors note that it is probably "terribly presumptuous" of them to choose the ten greatest arguments - and they are correct. They admit to choosing only "noteworthy" trials . . . and it is there that they blinded themselves to a far wider range of great closing arguments.
All the arguments are interesting and all the lawyers who made them were clearly eloquent, so more so than others. But to call these ten the greatest in modern law? I think not.
Jerry
If your idealism is waning, this book will help you find it!.......2005-02-16
After years of arguing caseslaw, motions, picking juries, interviewing witnesses, going through all the day to day protocol that trial work demands, one may forget at times how important is the job of a lawyer. But this book reminds the practioner that he/she is a part of a wonderful system of justice. Not many cases will go down as "The Greatest" but to your clients, it is often the defining moment of their lives. And this book helps you reconnect to the reasons why you sought a lifetime devoted to the noblest of professions.
Reading about the great lawyers of in our history is humbling and worthwhile. Reflection is helpful as you try to regain a little lost idealism. And if you are a new lawyer and have all of you ideals from law school still in tact, reading this book will help you realize how important it is to never lose them. Great book for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
A worthwhile read for a trial attorney.......2004-08-20
If only for Spence's closing in the Silkwood case, this book is worth every penny. A real thing of subtle and effective beauty, that closing contains so many incredible and useful techniques, it's just plain stunning. The subtle allignment of Spence to the jurors in groups in which Spence and the jurors can work together are wonderful and powerful -- Spence places himself and the jurors by turns in a self built retirement community, and in the class of local state citizens all the while emphasizing that the cause of the need for retirement and the genesis of Spence's new found home state membership is the defense's prolongation of trial -- wonderful. The rhyming "if the lion gets away, Kerr McGee must pay" is hard-to-forget and masterfully so. The analysis that proceeds each transcript is useful and informative. Buy it if you can.
Legal History.......2001-02-19
Describing or reading a speech is like describing color. I guess you can do it, but nothing is the same as being there and listening and experience a great speech. There is a poetry to the delivery which is missing from a dry read. Yet, if you want to read some of the great closes from the past, this is a good place to start.
This books picks 10 closing arguements which the authors state are the greatest of history. Whenever you have such a book, of course, people will differ on which closes should be included. By necessity, for mass appeal, oftentimes "famous" speeches, which may not be so great will be included while less famous speeches, which were much better, will not be the cut. I thought the ones chosen, overall, were very good.
Personally I liked the ones I read. My favorite was Clarance Darrow's close in the Leopald and Loeb case. It was great because it was effective. Everyone in this case knew they were guilty and wanted them to die. How did Clarence Darrow change the judges mind? It was in his words and his delivery. This was an effective speech.
There are others here which I also found very good. We hear the closing speech from the Nuremberg trials (which I would not have included because I think the win was almost preordained), the close in the Karen Silkwood civil case, the DeLorean defense close and six others. This is a good book and a good read. I would recommend it most to history fans, but I think some of the general public would also enjoy it.
Spellbinding.......2000-12-30
Ladies and Gentlemen... kills two birds with one stone by providing an eduactional and intruiging experience. You will hit your curiousity spot by learning what the landmark trials of the United States were all about, and you will also get locked into some of the most persuasive literature I have ever seen.
While those who are interested in the legal field are virtually guaranteed to be interested in reading Ladies and Gentlemen..., you don't need to be anything close to a lawyer to appreciate this. This anthology of closing arguments teaches the reader how to connect/communicate with others. After reading a series of closing arguments, I learned different strategies to use to relate to a group of people to get my point across (in this case, a jury). This book is great to any businessman, negotiator, or even those who want to improve their basic social, everyday, oral skills.
I just bought this book for ten of my friends for the past holiday season, and I got star reports from all of them. I recommend this innovative book to all types of readers.
--Emanuel Abrishami
Book Description
This book offers a wealth of thinking about the complex and often contradictory definitions surrounding the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property. The authors show that plagiarism is not nearly as simple and clear-cut a phenomenon as we may think. Contributors offer many definitions and facets of plagiarism and intellectual property, demonstrating that if defining a supposedly "simple" concept is difficult, then applying multiple definitions is even harder, creating practical problems in many realms. This volume exposes the range and breadth of these overlapping and complex issues, reflecting a postmodern sensibility of fragmentation, and clarifies some of the confusion, not by reducing plagiarism to ever simpler definitions and providing new or better rules to apply, but by complicating the issue, examining what plagiarism and intellectual property are (and are not) in our more or less postmodern world.
This book offers and explains various definitions of plagiarism. Issues covered include copyright law and plagiarism; imitation and originality in classical rhetoric; sociohistorical perspectives; and late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century notions of authorship in student publications and textbooks. The authors also offer different applications of these plagiarism definitions in specific arenas including university writing centers, administrative settings, peer-writing groups, textbook publishing, and the wider marketplace.
Customer Reviews:
A Complex Issue, Addressed Honorably.......2005-08-02
Contrary to other opinion, this is a very fine book and a must read for educators at any level. Intellectual property is not and can not now be absolutely defined, but as teachers, we have to open the discussion, and here is where that discussion begins.
What we perceive as "plagiarism" has complex definitions and even more complex motivations. This book honors the complexity. It's really very easy to pronounce that "students cheat." However, when their own instructors model the same behavior that their students are penalized for, the issue becomes a whole lot less simplistic.
For instance, I have taught at the university level for many years. I have regularly had my instructional materials "borrowed" without my authorization by other instructors in our program (and other universities). I've never complained to administration. Why would I? The materials serve.
As a kind of "in" joke, however, I started inserting a tiny stylized image into the corner of my handouts, in part so my students would recognize the originator. We all got a kick.
To this day, I will see new teachers (and veterans) in the mailroom, whiting out or otherwise eliminating my stylized image so that they can present my materials as their own. When I mention this to my freshman students, they respond: "If we did that, we'd get thrown out of school!"
And to complicate matters, how much of the wisdom in "my" materials was picked up at faculty meetings, grading sessions, talks over dinner, phone calls?
"Plagiarism" isn't as simple an idea as we might suspect.
I will tell you that I have taught with both the editors over the years. You might imagine that this colors my judgment, but it doesn't, really , except that I have first-hand observations that testify to the fact that these two scholars are exceptional educators who know how the classroom works and understand not just the theory but the practice of composition.
I would urge anyone teaching writing to get this book and consider the thoughtful selections within. Not seriously pondering the issues raised here, I believe, would be pretty lame, given the challenges we face in dealing with the appropriation and citation of text as we enter an era of nearly limitless communication.
Intellectual Mastur*&*%#$ a la Foucault, Barthes et al.......2004-09-23
Not to discount the years of intellectual effort which have gone into this work, but I just could't help thinking after my first read through, "What a load of rubbish and a complete waste of time and money! ! !" I'll say right up front that "Yes, I have written a book on plagiarizm myself. Quite true. But this has not colored my assessment of Perspectives on Plagiarism." I guess I'm just reacting to the overly (pseudo-??)academic/scholarly jargon which permeates much of the work.
The problem with most academics, including most [but not all] of the contributing authors to the work, is that they are so attached to their pet theories and intellectualizing that they can't escape from the intellectual masturb*&*%#$ a la Foucault, Barthes and others in the same critical tradition. This is evident in the wide-ranging discussions of authorship, postmodernism, and the "remains of the author".
For the solely academic and intellectual I suppose there might be some enjoyment in these Perspectives on Plagiarism, but I myself found them quite dry, unstimulating, and on the whole irrelevant to what's really happening on university campuses today other than the discussions in Part II: Applications in which there were some useful info on Writing Center operations.
As most of the so called GenX knows though, the real writing centers are in Cyberspace, on the Internet where downloading of papers has been commonplace since the mid-1990s. Nowadays, cheatsites have been revamped to write papers on any topic, any timeframe (overnight specials!), according to a student's needs.
I wish I hadn't wasted my $$$ on this book as a student researching the topic for a paper some time ago. Wanna buy it cheap? $5 and it's yours. Just send me an email.
For a better, eminently intellectual read on the topic, I'd recommend Sean Burke's The Death and Return of the Author. Wow! This guy demolishes the Foucault/Barth assertion that the Author is dead. Instead, the Author seems rather to be making a "sly and spectral return". So much for the Frenchies and their pet theories. The Author ain't dead like they thought. Barthes and Foucault are quite dead at this point, the first run down by a laundry truck in Paris, the second succumbing to AIDS in the 1980s. But the Author is still quite alive contrary to Barthes, Foucault and other views in the "Death of the Author" intellectual masturb*&*%#$ camp.
(...)
Dr. Herbert Ulysses Quickwit
(...)
Book Description
With the authors' combined knowledge of English instruction and police training, this book serves as an invaluable resource for today's law enforcement personnel while furnishing them with a solid guide to English grammar and report writing techniques. User-friendly and highly relevant to the field, this book takes readers through the process of police report writing while using tangible explanations, examples, and exercises geared specifically to law enforcement interests. Incorporating grammar and composition skills with proven effective police reporting techniques and strategies, the Second Edition focuses on the importance of using correct English composition to ensure accurate police reports. For professionals with a career in law enforcement, criminal justice, and report writing.
Customer Reviews:
Review - Painless Police Report Writing.......2005-08-14
I have been employed full time as a police officer for nearly 13 years. I purchased this publication in hopes that it would provide an effective means of improving my report writing skills. To say the least, the publication is not what I was looking for.
The student workbook portion of the book contains no answer keys. Good luck on blindly grading your work.
If you are looking for a good report writing book, don't purchase this one. It is geared towards a person who has no grammical skills at all. This publication is even below the recruit level of law enforcement.
A COP From Florida.......2001-03-24
This book was not what you would expect from a book claiming to help out law enforcement officers write good reports. This is more like an elementary school work book with tear out pages. If you are looking for a book that will help you write a better narrative for police reports, this book is not going to be it. It was amusing more than it was helpful.
Book Description
With engaging wit and subtle irony, Albert Hirschman maps the diffuse and treacherous world of reactionary rhetoric in which conservative public figures, thinkers, and polemicists have been arguing against progressive agendas and reforms for the past two hundred years.
Hirschman draws his examples from three successive waves of reactive thought that arose in response to the liberal ideas of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, to democratization and the drive toward universal suffrage in the nineteenth century, and to the welfare state in our own century. In each case he identifies three principal arguments invariably used: (1) the perversity thesis, whereby any action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order is alleged to result in the exact opposite of what was intended; (2) the futility thesis, which predicts that attempts at social transformation will produce no effects whatever--will simply be incapable of making a dent in the status quo; (3) the jeopardy thesis, holding that the cost of the proposed reform is unacceptable because it will endanger previous hard-won accomplishments. He illustrates these propositions by citing writers across the centuries from Alexis de Tocqueville to George Stigler, Herbert Spencer to Jay Forrester, Edmund Burke to Charles Murray. Finally, in a lightning turnabout, he shows that progressives are frequently apt to employ closely related rhetorical postures, which are as biased as their reactionary counterparts. For those who aspire to the genuine dialogue that characterizes a truly democratic society, Hirschman points out that both types of rhetoric function, in effect, as contraptions designed to make debate impossible. In the process, his book makes an original contribution to democratic thought. The Rhetoric of Reaction is a delightful handbook for all discussions of public affairs, the welfare state, and the history of social, economic, and political thought, whether conducted by ordinary citizens or academics.
Customer Reviews:
Helpful historical study of conservative rhetoric.......2003-03-28
Hirschman is concerned with three types of argument typically deployed by reactionaries, i.e. conservatives vehemently, vocally and automatically opposed to proposed changes in the political, social or economic order. The arguments are: (1) Perversity: "The change will only exacerbate the problem you are trying to solve."(2) Futility: "The change will achieve nothing, because it fails to acknowledge incontrovertible political, social or economic laws." (3) Jeopardy: "The change will threaten or destroy some cherished previous accomplishment, such as freedom or democracy." Hirschman's approach is historical. Drawing examples from three key periods of reactionary thought - the aftermath of the French Revolution, the nineteenth-century push for universal suffrage, and the more recent rejection of the Welfare State - he tracks the development, deployment and intertwining of the arguments. His study raises some unstated questions about the psychology of conservatism, the tendency of the populous to be drawn in by such arguments, and the ease with which they can be deployed in short soundbites making them ideal for a modern mass media. Unfortunately, Hirschman doesn't address these issues, so if you're interested in exploring them you will need to look elsewhere. (Eduardo Giannettiï's rather advanced psycho-philosophical study, "Lies We Tell Ourselves: The Art of Self-Deception", might be a challenging place to start. Giannetti addresses the issue only tangentially, but he does give a full account of the kind of self-delusion that a lot of conservative thinking requires.) While the three arguments Hirschman describes have been used most often by conservatives, he turns in the final chapters to the occasional tendency of "progressives" to deploy similarly intransigent arguments. Such even-handedness is refreshing. This book will be useful to anyone wanting to promote or defend a progressive agenda as it delineates the likely arcs of resistance you will face, and alerts you to the possibility of woolly thinking infecting your own arguments. It's strongly recommended for conservatives, too. You'll learn that the kind of thinking you find "natural" and "morally right" has a long and hysterical history. This book will have both sides of the table thinking - which is always a good thing.
Reasons why we have so much trouble hearing each other........1998-07-22
This is one of my favorite books for teaching. Hirschman starts out wondering why those conservatives are so hard to deal with. Notices that no real communication is taking place, just rhetoric, sound bites, as it were.
As he follows the mystery of how liberals are ever to get their ideas and the needs of the nation across through the rhetoric of the conservatives, he discovers, much to his own dismay, that the liberals use rhetoric, too. And in much the same way.
This book describes three basic patterns of argument in which much is said, but little communicated. It's a great help in guiding students to genuine argument and discourse. Not light reading, but well worth the effort. It's also refreshing to see the reflexive method of recognizing that we do ourselves much of what we accuse others of doing.
Book Description
The Fastest, Easiest Way to Learn: Schaum's Quick Guides
These concise, quick reference guides are perfect for business people, writers, and students at all levels. Written by top experts, they offer readers the easiest, most efficient strategies to master or learn a new skill. All Schaum's Quick Guides include do's and don'ts for avoiding common errors, handy checklists, and practice exercises for building skills quickly.
Download Description
Quickly and simply, this guide gives you clear, concise explanations--illustrated by dozens of examples--that show you how to write the kinds of essays that will help you succeed in college and the professional world.
Customer Reviews:
A Quick and Superb Guide to Writing Great Essays.......2005-08-03
Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Essays is a superb reference for learning how to research and write essays. I have assigned this book for the past 5 years, and each year my undergraduates tell me it is the best resource of the class. The book teaches them how to identify a topic, develop a topic question, write a clearly identified thesis statement, and prove their argument through careful use of evidence.
This book also describes how to outline the paper and begin writing, and thus should be required for any class trying to teach students how to construct a research paper. The authors take students through each step of the essay, explaining how to write an introduction, thesis paragraph, the body of the paper, and the conclusion. The authors also teach students how to improve their writing style through carefully constructed paragraphs, sentences and smooth transitions.
The book is clearly and logically organized with many specific examples to help students follow the authors' points. This guide has my highest recommendation for anyone who wants to become a better writer of research papers and essays.
Too Brief--Essay Types NOT Covered.......2004-02-05
I am STILL seeking a general how-to essay book that covers all the rhetorical essay pattern types, even after buying Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Essays, because this book does not fulfil the promise of it's title, or misleading descriptive information. I received this book yesterday, skimmed through it immediately, and am greatly disappointed.
Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Essays is only OK as a basic reference guide for grammar, sentence and paragraph structure, with one generic outline. None of its chapters cover the types of essays, such as Compare & Contrast, Persuasive, Descriptive, and so on. This book does not give examples of well written essays, either. Instead, it gives extremely brief example sentences, and occasional paragraph samples only.
One will NOT learn how to write a specific type of essay, which one would expect to from the book title, description, marketing and cover information. I feel incredibly cheated, since returning it for a refund will cost almost half the price of Schaum's Quick Guide to Writing Great Essays. I would recommend "Elements of Style", "Essays and Themes", or "How to Write Better Essays" instead, as better reference and how-to books on writing essays, with examples, rhetorical essay types and every day applications of essay writing.
Lastly, the book claims to contain exercises for practicing the concepts within, yet there wasn't a single exercise to be found on examination of the actual book. If you already know how to write great essays, and understand the various structure types for essay outlining, then MAYBE this book would be OK as a reference or reminder of a simple concept one has forgotten and needs to look up. Unfortunately, it's claim as a guide to writing great essays is completely false. Save your money.
Book Description
Stories pervade our daily lives, from human interest news items, to a business strategy described to a colleague, to daydreams between chores. Stories are what we use to make sense of the world. But how does this work? In Making Stories, the eminent psychologist Jerome Bruner examines this pervasive human habit and suggests new and deeper ways to think about how we use stories to make sense of lives and the great moral and psychological problems that animate them. Looking at legal cases and autobiography as well as literature, Bruner warns us not to be seduced by overly tidy stories and shows how doubt and double meaning can lie beneath the most seemingly simple case.
Customer Reviews:
An Interesting Look at how Narratives affect our Lives.......2006-06-08
As a student interested in narratology, I found Jerome Bruner's book an excellent manual on how narratives effect our everyday lives. With the minimal a minimal amount of jargon, Bruner was able to convey what narrative was; how narrative is used; and how we interpret narrative in the stories we tell and the stories we read. This book is a must have for anyone interested in narratology or for any person seeking for a concise and clear understanding of how narratives work in our lives.
Book Description
Is legal reasoning rationally persuasive, working within a discernible structure and using recognisable kinds of arguments? Does it belong to rhetoric in this sense, or to the domain of the merely 'rhetorical' in an adversative sense? Is there any reasonable certainty about legal outcomes in dispute-situations? If not, what becomes of the Rule of Law? Neil MacCormick's book tackles these questions in establishing an overall theory of legal reasoning which shows the essential part 'legal syllogism' plays in reasoning aimed at the application of law, while acknowledging that simple deductive reasoning, though always necessary, is very rarely sufficient to justify a decision. There are always problems of relevancy, classification or interpretation in relation to both facts and law. In justifying conclusions about such problems, reasoning has to be universalistic and yet fully sensitive to the particulars of specific cases. How is this possible? Is legal justification at this level consequentialist in character or principled and right-based? Both normative coherence and narrative coherence have a part to play in justification, and in accounting for the validity of arguments by analogy. Looking at such long-discussed subjects as precedent and analogy and the interpretative character of the reasoning involved, Neil MacCormick expands upon his celebrated Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (OUP 1978 and 1994) and restates his 'institutional theory of law'.
Books:
- Win Your Child Custody War: Child Custody Help Source Book--A How-To System for People Serious About the Welfare of Their Child (11th Edition)
- You Can Be Happy No Matter What: Five Principles for Keeping Life in Perspective
- Your Limited Liability Company: An Operating Manual
- Zero Limits: The Secret Hawaiian System for Wealth, Health, Peace, and More
- 2006 International Building Code - Softcover Version: Softcover Version (International Building Code)
- A Case of Two Cities: An Inspector Chen Novel (Inspector Chen Cao)
- A Vanished World: Medieval Spain's Golden Age of Enlightenment
- A World History of Architecture
- All God's Children: Inside the Dark and Violent World of Street Families
- American Corrections (with InfoTrac )
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Stop, Train, Stop! a Thomas the Tank Engine Story
- Lone Star Nation: The Epic Story of the Battle for Texas Independence
- Convergent evolution in Chile and California: Mediterranean climate ecosystems
- Group Theory and Its Applicaion to the Quantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra
- Illuminations: Visions for Change, Growth, and Self-Acceptance
- Information Architecture for the World Wide Web: Designing Large-Scale Web Sites
- History: Fiction or Science
- The Horus Heresy Vol. III: Visions of Treachery
- Frank Lloyd Wright : America's Master Architect
- Fetal Pig Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology
