Once you have begun working so closely with sources, it is tempting to feel that you have nothing original to say, that everything on the subject has all been said and said well. But resist this type of thinking! The point of such careful analysis is to learn as much as possible so that you can contribute to a discussion about a controversial issue and not simply rehash what’s already been said.

Let’s look at an example of a student’s voice being drowned out by a persuasive source and then work on a strategy that you can use to make yourself heard.

Here’s paragraph 7 from “Cheaters Never Win” by Christopher Bergland:

I believe that it is the time we spend with family, friends, and feeling healthy, alive and connected that is our biggest source of joy. Again, it is easy when you have “made it” to proselytize about the virtues of not caring if you “win or lose.” The reality can be much different, especially if you’re struggling economically. Because winning does matter. This is a paradox we all have to navigate in sport and in life. Yes, you want to be your absolute best and to try your hardest to win and to be thrilled if you are victorious. . . . But you cannot cheat to win on an ethical and karmic level. I believe that the bad karma and ill-will of being a cheater has the power to eat you up from the inside out and ultimately destroy you.

Now suppose a student writer who is in agreement with Bergland wants to use him as a source in order to make the point that performance-enhancing drugs diminish an athletic accomplishment. The student might draft a paragraph like this:

Winning when using performance-enhancing drugs diminishes the sense of accomplishment that derives from old-fashioned hard work, strict discipline, and just plain grit. In “Cheaters Never Win,” Christopher Bergland acknowledges that “winning does matter” (par. 7). However, the “paradox we all have to navigate in sport and in life” is that victory is sweet, but “you cannot cheat to win on an ethical and karmic level.” Ultimately, “the bad karma and ill-will of being a cheater has the power to eat you up from the inside out and ultimately destroy you.”

Notice all of the direct quotations and references to Bergland. After the opening topic sentence, which is clear, Bergland takes over and we lose the writer’s voice and ideas entirely.

533

A good rule of thumb is to make sure that you make at least two comments about every source that you paraphrase or quote directly. Here’s a revision of the previous paragraph using that technique:

Winning when using performance-enhancing drugs diminishes the sense of accomplishment that derives from old-fashioned hard work, strict discipline, and just plain grit. Everybody wants to win, especially in our society that prizes victory so highly—but it is a mistake to do so at the expense of self-respect. In “Cheaters Never Win,” Christopher Bergland argues that “you cannot cheat to win on an ethical and karmic level.” The result of cheating, whether through drugs or any other manner, is dishonesty not only with colleagues and fans but more important with yourself. Needing to win at any and all costs, including using PEDs, can ultimately “eat you up from the inside out,” which is a sure road to self-destruction (Bergland, par. 7). Participating in competitive sports is supposed to increase our self-esteem because of the physical and mental effort athletes put into their training; participating under the influence of drugs undermines that effort.

In this revision, the writer is fully in charge. The topic sentence focuses on the writer’s opinion about the pride developed by working hard to become an excellent athlete, and Bergland is brought in to emphasize how PEDs erode the athlete’s pride. The writer quotes Bergland, but then adds commentary on what he has to say. The final sentence is the writer’s own. You might think of the structure in this way:

S1: Topic sentence (writer’s own words)

S2: Further explanation and lead-in to source

S3: Source paraphrased and/or quoted

S4: Commentary on source

S5: Additional reference to source

S6: Commentary and conclusion (writer’s own words)