THE PRINCIPLES IN WRITING A REACTION,

REVIEW, OR CRITIQUE PAPER

CONNECTING

• forms opinions based on facts, CS_EN11/12A-EAPP-Id-f-11

• cites specific sources to support claims, CS_EN11/12A-EAPP-Id-f-12
• presents ideas convincingly, CS_EN11/12A-EAPP-Id-f-13
• uses the appropriate language for a specific discipline, CS_EN11/12A-EAPP-Id-f-14
• raises legitimate, contrary views in an appropriate manner, CS_EN11/12A-EAPP-Id-f-15

CONFIGURING

How much can you offer for your country?

‘A country not even his own’

By Ma.Ceres P. Doyo
(Accessed,May 2017. http://opinion.inquirer.net/byline/ma-ceres-p-doyo.)

Steve E. Psinakis, a Greek-American mechanical engineer who made the Philippines his own and
fought during the dark days of Marcos martial rule to help restore the Filipinos’ freedom, died last March 15
at the age of 84. He died here, in a country not his own but which he loved to the point of going through
purgatory himself.

Psinakis survived to tell his story in a book “A Country Not Even His Own” (Anvil, 2008). In 1981,
he wrote “Two ‘Terrorists’ Meet” (Alchemy Books), his account of his 1980 meeting with Imelda Marcos in
her Waldorf apartment in New York and the verbal duel that ensued.

The book’s title, “A Country Not Even His Own,” was, according to President Cory Aquino who
wrote the first foreword, her own words. The second foreword was written by no less than Jovito R. Salonga
who passed away at 95 two weeks before Psinakis did.

President Cory wrote: “[The book] records a very important part of Philippine history by a man who
contributed his best efforts to help make it possible. The contribution of both Steve and Presy to the
restoration of democracy has been recognized by the Filipino people through a presidential citation in 1988.”
 Presy, Psinakis’ wife, is the only daughter of Eugenio Lopez Sr. (of ABS-CBN and Meralco) and
sister of Eugenio “Geny” Lopez Jr. who was jailed for many years during the martial law era and made a
daring escape with Sergio Osmeña III, now a reelectionist senator in the May elections. The 1995 movie
“Eskapo” directed by Chito Roño was about their escape from Fort Bonifacio.

Psinakis played a big role in the two jailbirds’ escape. It was a suspenseful cloak-and-dagger
operation the details of which are in Chapter 6 of his book. If you cannot get your hands on the book, read
the article by Jose Mari Ugarte in http://rogue.ph/steve-psinakis-1932-2016/. I posted it on Facebook.

Tall and debonair, Psinakis came to the Philippines with his young family in 1959 to work for the
Lopez-owned Meralco. He was responsible for the building of the Rockwell Power Plant in Makati. After
his first marriage ended, he married Presy—a union which at first did not sit well with the Lopez patriarch.
Their love story was riveting in itself.

Psinakis continued his journey into the heart of this country and later into its sufferings via the trials
and tribulations of the Lopezes and the persons who were victims of the excesses of the Marcos
dictatorship. In the United States, he headed the San Francisco council of the Ninoy Aquino Movement
(NAM). Even after the 1986 People Power uprising, he continued to look after causes such as the
monitoring of the recovery of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.

Psinakis experienced the fallout of his anti-Marcos activities when, in 1987, after democracy in the
Philippines had been restored, the US government indicted him for “transporting explosives across state
lines.” The preposterous accusation resulted in a groundswell of support from Filipinos, with no less than
former president Diosdado Macapagal flying to the United States to testify on Psinakis’ behalf.

A 1988 New York Times article, “Court case links Aquino allies to bomb-making,” cited “notes
whose author has not been made known, also show[ing] that prosecutors believed that Mr. Psinakis, Mr.
[Raul] Daza and Mr. [Bonifacio] Gillego were giving weapons training in the Arizona desert to anti-Marcos
exiles.”

In the book’s second foreword, Salonga wondered “why Psinakis should be indicted after more
than five years following the alleged violation. He had been honored by high Filipino public officials and by
civic society for all he had done beyond the call of duty. Why should President Reagan and Secretary of
State George Shultz and their subordinates persecute Steve Psinakis? Why should the prosecutors even
offer to enter into a plea-bargaining agreement with him—an offer Steve refused? This book gives the
answers and puts into question what is going on in Iraq and other places in the world under President
George W. Bush.”
 Psinakis got off the hook with the help of Filipino patriots, among them Salonga, Raul Manglapus,
Raul Daza, et al. He was pronounced not guilty in 1989. What an irony that after the Philippines had returned
to democracy, this Greek-American with the heart of a Filipino was persecuted/prosecuted in his home
country, America, for his pro-Filipino activities.

It is worth noting that even while Psinakis’ trial was going on in the United States, the Philippines’
Department of Foreign Affairs under Manglapus, pursuant to Executive Order No. 316 issued by President
Cory in January 1988, conferred on him the Presidential Citation for Outstanding Service to Philippine
Democracy.

On Aug. 21, 2012, the 29th anniversary of the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, Psinakis and four
others were conferred the NAM Medal of Valor for their leadership roles in the anti-Marcos movement.

“The youth,” Salonga wrote in his foreword, “would do well to peruse and discover anew how
Filipinos and foreigners alike, during the trying times of our historic struggle for freedom and human dignity,
gave of themselves without counting the cost.”

Psinakis was laid to rest two days ago in Philippine soil.

***

Speaking of the youth, it felt good to see many millennials and premillennials listening at the
“Newsroom Shutdown” forum at the Lopez Museum and Library where journalists Pete Lacaba, Vergel
Santos and myself shared our horrifying experiences during the dark days of the Marcos dictatorship. Yes,
in the midst of masterpieces by Luna, Hidalgo, et al. and the ongoing exhibit on newspaper caricatures.

I was struck by the probing questions from the millennials. Worried about the current preelection
situation and the threatening clouds on the horizon, a young person asked: “Is there hope?”

Easter is nigh, it comes bursting with joy and hope. Rabboni!

DECODING

1. What did you feel while you were reading the article? What about, after
reading the article?

2.In your point of view, what is patriotism? Who can

be patriots?
3.How does Steve E. Psinakis’ contribution to our country become significant?

ADVANCING

Every day, we tend to express our reactions over a matter that counts or we convey
our opinions about one’s work. Our personal feedback, may it good or not, is
expressed casually and verbally without much thinking about it.

However, it is a lot different when one puts his/her reactions in a formal written form. It is his/her
responsibility to convince his/her readers regarding the things being elaborated. In an academic setting,
the writer is focused on discussing the strong points and the weak ones of a specific work. He/She should
make it a point to clearly, logically, and orderly consider arguments, issues, or stance, as he/she tries to
put all together his/her opinion about a certain work. This is called a reaction paper, a review paper, or a
critique paper. The common feature among these three labels is the rationale of the writer in producing
such, and it is to give a thorough and sound judgment about a piece.

A reaction, review or critique paper weighs, assesses, and judges both the merits as well as the
weaknesses of a piece, may it be an article, a movie or a book. Writing a reaction paper requires the writer’s
analysis.

Anything that uses the reader’s senses to create images can also be an object for review or critique.
To do the critique effectively, Harry Show, as cited by Jimenez (2000) in her book, suggested the following
mechanics for review:

1. Know the scope and the purpose of the book; that is, the
material covered and stressed.
2. Know the writer’s style of writing, his stylistic excellence and
faults. Is he persuasive, convincing or dull?
3. Know the theme of the piece of work. Is it social, moral
psychological novel, story, or movie?

Several books have considered various ways in which a reaction, review or critique paper is written.
The following tips in writing a good reaction paper have been compiled by the author:

1. If you are given a book or an article, read it very carefully. If it is a movie to watch, pay full
attention to the film.
2. Think about at least two major arguments or points you want to articulate in your paper. You
may discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of the material.
3. Describe each point clearly and provide an in-depth analysis of your discussion.
 4. Cite credible sources or materials that will help make your stance strong.
5. Give examples when necessary. These examples should concretize your ideas and should
be familiar to your reader. Provide adequate background information about your example and
how it supports your argument.

By simply following the tips, a good reaction paper can be expected from a writer. However, there
are also things that a write should avoid doing in making his reaction paper. First, just summarizing the
book, the article or retelling the movie being watched is not writing a reaction paper. Your reader wants to
know your opinions about the material and wants to read your insights about the piece- not the summary.
Next, a writer should avoid stating arguments or discussing points with no evidences or examples to back
up the point; otherwise, the discussion is just a mere assumption or a much opinionated article. Lastly, the
writer should also avoid providing so many examples without making a careful and deliberate effort in
relating these examples to the points to be discussed and clarified.

Here is the APA format for a Reaction, Review or Critique Paper:

✓ The title must be centered.

✓ The paragraphs are aligned to the left.
✓ Use 1-inch wide in all margins.
✓ The first line of each paragraph must be indented.
✓ Use Times New Roman, 12 points and should not be bold.
✓ The number of the page is located at the top right corner.
✓ Use double space throughout the whole text.
✓ There should be in-text citation used.
✓ Avoid using long quotations.

Proper Way to Cite Sources

There are several ways on how to cite sources whenever you write your reaction paper. The
following are the citation styles:

✓ APA (American Psychological Association)

✓ MLA (Modern Language Association)
✓ The Chicago Manual of Style
✓ ASA (American Sociological Association)
✓ ACS (American Chemical Society)
✓ The Vancouver System

What form of citation style will be used in your paper depends on the
guidelines set by your instructor. What is important is you ensure that the correct style guide is being
followed.
Most academic institutions use either the MLA or the APA style. In your
previous discussion, the book exposed you to APA style in citation. An in-text citation is utilized when a
paper refers to, summarizes, paraphrases, or quotes from another source. Using the APA in-text citation,
the writer uses the author’s last name and the year of publication like: (Daing, 2016). If you are using direct
quotations, you have to include the page number. For example, (Daing, 2016, p.11). If you cite sources
from websites and e-books that have no page numbers, use a paragraph number.

References:library.duke.edu/research/citing/
www.library.cornell.edu/resrch/citmanage
subjectguides.library.american.edu/citation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_styles
grammar.about.com/od/c/g/citationterm.htm
www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/researchguides/citationstyles/APA_intext_citati…