Rating: 
Summary: Excellent book, I took 12 pages of notes.
Review: After reading the book, I then read the negative responses from the reviews posted here - which were as the book predicted. Of 10 that I read, some had constructive ideas but it appeared to me that most negative readers skimmed the book, jumped to conclusions and put words in the author's mouth he didn't say (or took them completely out of context). You never heard anyone do that before, right? For example, one reader opinion of "bad" was:
1. Words are virtually irrelevant- the tone conveys your message.
2. The truth can be found in emotions, not logic.
3. You can win every time merely by denying your opponent your permission to beat you.
In regard to #1, Garry never said "words are virtually irrelevant". He point out that "besides the facts, listen for the tone and try to determine also what is NOT said". In regard to #2, Garry didn't say that either: he pointed out that logic + the human emotional side gives a better picture; sometimes in STORY form". In regard to #3, this is utter rubbish since Garry throughout his book talks about times when winning is sometimes losing (to a loved one) or in other places, winning can be a tactful withdraw and winning sometimes is simply listening. In another place, Garry points out that "unless the other is willing to dialogue, then the argument is pointless". The "permission" mentioned by the reader is taken totally out of context when Garry said "power, real or imagined is what we (mentally) give to the other".
This reader calls himself a "non-liberal". Well, I'm a conservative (for 56 years), still am, and have big ears for liberal spin and prejudice which Garry so well describes as "a room piled to the ceiling with junk...so when you open the door, all their junk comes crashing down on you", unquote. In reading some of these reviews, I got clobbered with junk. I guess that's why we have 12 jurors (hint).
I liked Garry's real-world examples through the book as opposed to the theoretical I leaned in academia. It made me think about the saying "walk a mile in another man's shoes". To see things beyond my assumptions and fact-less conclusions. A better title for the book would be "the art of persuasion" however, to a lawyer, the word "argument" has a different meaning. He also has a great sense of humor in the book, ie: "in regard to prejudice, I'm opposed to all racists and bigots --- except those who I agree with". I agree more with Garry than I disagree (and isn't that the point of a philosophical mindset?)
If you are a philosopher at heart and are beyond the zit-nose kid that's quick to trash someone over a single point, then I'd recommend an excellent book "The Great Thoughts" by George Seldes which is a scholarly compilation of quotes from all the famous and infamous who shaped the world from Aristotle to Zola. As I read Garry's book, many of these quotations came to mind.
Rating: 
Summary: this is an easy2read eyeopener
Review: it's a real great book and it makes you aware of all the aspects of arguing.
it also tells you how to get along with your spouse, by sometimes losing an argument on purpose.. just read it, you'll love it.
Rating: 
Summary: Good strategies, but there are better
Review: I thought it would be interesting to read the advice of one of America's top lawyers. While Spence included much insight into the construction of a good argument, he failed to appeal to persons who are not seriously introverted and self-conscious. As a law student I think this book is of very little use to trial lawyers and more useful for the average (maybe afflicted with inferiority complex) person. I liked his analysis of the power of prejudice. If you are interested in the workings of the mind of one of America's top lawyers, than I suggest you read this book. If not, read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"--it's a much better argument helper.
Rating:
Summary: How to Argue and Win Every Time by Spence, Esq.
Review: The author is a noted trial lawyer; oftentimes arguing for
defendants in high profile cases. He advocates utilizing the
common man/person arguments in order to identify with the jury.
In addition, learning when to argue or litigate is critical
to winning. The concept of power is perceived. Even powerful
people are fallible and their exercise of power can backfire.
Jurors listen very intently for carefully contrived words,
sound words/bites and words which portray physical elements.
Credibility is important. At times, it is critical to challenge
the jury to contemplate undoing an injustice as a condition
precedent to entertaining a significant award. In addition,
it is important to appeal to a juror's self interest and survivalist interest. Some of the best arguments are dressed
with metaphors, story-telling and embellishment. Every argument has a story, a thesis and an extensive outline. The work is
a valuable contribution to the area of legal advocacy. It is
worth the price for serious legal scholars.
Rating:
Summary: How to state your case.
Review: As the previous reviewers have stated, there are some words of wisdom from the thinking of Gerry Spence. There are also some whoppers, which detract from the book. Spence is verbose, and this also takes away from the book. This makes him seem arrogant. Also, as some of the other reviewers have stated, Spence is liberal and you can sense this from his writings.
One thing this book reinforced in me is speaking from emotion. If you say what is in your gut, it is a more convincing argument for an audience. Spence convinces us through his choice of words and tone. I learned some like minded principles going to Dale Carnegie. Other common sense suggestions such as thinking through what you say, then commiting it to paper are also there.
Suggestions on arguments in the family are also good sense. These are the good points of the book. Most of the rest is just fluff, and can be left to better authors.If one is in the law, this is a great book. Other readers can look for better books on how to get your point across.
Rating: 
Summary: A few good points nestled among the bad
Review: While there were a few good points in the book, there were far more bad ones. Among the good ideas were:
1. Truth is powerful.
2. The use of stories helps involve the listener in a way technical arguments alone cannot.
Among the bad ideas were:
1. Words are virtually irrelevant- the tone conveys your message.
2. The truth can be found in emotions, not logic.
3. You can win every time merely by denying your opponent your permission to beat you. I had heard that one should keep one's argument as pure as possible thereby avoiding to needlessly alienate people through issues unrelated to the main point. The author contradicts this completely by sprinkling his liberal ideology throughout the book, making it significantly more difficult for non-liberals to keep reading. In the beginning, the author says that this book is itself an argument. Well the argument failed to win this reader, and thereby contradicted its title.
Rating:
Summary: "Misleading title--otherwise a wonderful book"
Review: I read this book seeking advise for myself. I often let others railroad me, and talk over the top of me-as if they know it all. I wish to learn to assert myself, and basically, argue and win more of the time. This book contains the wisdom of a very wise, and winning lawyer. Much can be learned from one who has worn many pairs of shoes, and walked many miles. I would rather have it 'cut and dried', without all the fluff. This book is like a treasure chest, to an aspiring trial lawyer. For the layman, reading this book will not help you negotiate any better, or win more arguments. I'm sure there are better books on the subject.
|
