<--> Countering

              Harris’s idea of “countering” is found in finding a piece of writing’s limits when “coming to terms.” When countering you use the limits of a text to move onto your own counterproposal. As opposed to forwarding, Harris says countering is not “Yes, and” but “Yes, but.” The idea is to present the argument another text makes and then discuss what it left out or didn’t consider to introduce your point. To counter, you present something “not as wrong but as partial.” Harris splits countering up into three approaches. To “argue the other side” you define the side that the text has argued and then present the opposing view. When “uncovering values” you bring out a concept that the author overlooked in his discussion and use it to talk about another view. Harris said “our texts always say more than we mean.” This is very true. A person reading your work may get something completely different out of it than what you meant. Any nuance of phrasing can lead to another line of thought, even when you didn’t mean anything by it. This is what makes writing and reading interesting, the endless possibilities. The last part of countering is “dissenting.” This happens when you present the logic of a line of thought in a text and then argue against it. 

                I thought an important part of this chapter was Harris’s advice to not be too critical, or at least be the right kind of critical. If your position depends upon another text, you need to be a little polite so as not to totally discredit it and make you seem more reasonable. People probably won’t listen to you if your entire argument is spent berating your opponent. Harris gives the advice to not attack a chosen text’s exact wording or the motive behind it; all you can do is argue with the thoughts presented, not the person behind them. That’s a different battle, and not a very academic one. Harris also says “critique needs to lead to alternatives.” Not only should you not attack the author, you should also quickly present the ideas you are to oppose and then get on with presenting your view. That’s what your work should mainly focus on anyway, what you think. It is also important to know what the text you are referencing is trying to achieve; if you get it wrong you could end up looking very silly arguing against a side that doesn’t exist. In countering done well, the old author loses, the new author gains and the idea discussed has been altered.

                You could call a lot of what the Onion does as countering. When the blog posts an article satirizing something in the news, it usually is trying to point out the irony of some argument. Like the headline about Iran worrying over America’s nuclear weapon production. The Onion points out how we as a nation worry about other country’s nuclear power, but find it alright to have such a store ourselves. It doesn’t exactly fit Harris’s typical countering, but this is kind of like dissenting. The post presents a line of thought and then points out its flaws.