The paper under analysis is my draft of Paper 2 that presented a discussion of the book by Susan Griffin called “Our Secrets”. There are several different sections in the paper, and they are meant to reflect various aspects of Griffin’s work. The first part is the introduction where the book is described. The uniqueness of the work, its presentation, and its contents is emphasized to serve as an attention-grabber for the readers to become interested in the subject and continue reading.
At this stage, it was very important to answer the question “who cares?” and provide the readers with a reason not to put the paper aside. That is why, introducing the book “Our Secrets” I mentioned the fact that every human being tends to keep a secret, sometimes more than one. This move served to establish the connection between the reader and the contents of the reviewed pieces of literature.
Further, discussing the author’s view on the events and acting figures of the World War II and the secrets kept by the German leaders, I draw a parallel between the leaders of the past and the people who are at power nowadays in relation to secret-keeping. Comparing the former and the current politicians I am answering both “so what?” and “who cares?” questions making the reader understand that they are the interested side in Griffin’s research.
Besides, this argument helps me strengthen my presentation of the author’s work as a fascinating and worth reading as I demonstrate that it is not a work of fiction, but a trustworthy exploration of the human nature. That way, the analysis of the book is linked to a reader’s personal habits and characteristics making them relate to one another. Moreover, the fact that the writer adds herself to the research ensures a connection between the author, her narrative, and the reader bringing them together by means of my analysis.
Besides, the connection of the reader to the analyzed piece of literature is strengthened in the next part of the discussion that focuses on the human tendency of secret-keeping and a well-known social dilemma where total transparency confronts the individuals’ need for privacy. That way, a double standard develops where the secret-keeping from the side of some people is deemed unacceptable, whereas the privacy and secrecy of others is approved.
This part does not only relate to the reader on the personal level, making them the “who cares?” of the paper, but also connecting to them on the social level and addressing a common dissatisfaction with the political leaders. I answer the question “so what?” emphasizing that Griffin argues that the government’s nature can be changed but only in case if the society changes the same way.
Having read the chapter called “They Say / I Say”, I looked through my draft and found how my arguments reflect the techniques described in the textbook. Apart from obvious statements of “so what” and “who cares”, a writer can do it in a more subtle way where the relation of the reader to the story and their interest in its exploration is facilitated with the help of logical parallels and common facts that interest most individuals.
Using the universally meaningful themes such as secrecy versus privacy, helps a writer relate the contemporary individuals to the stories that happened many decades ago and in a different country.