Thursday, November 21, 2013
Catalyst
After reading the first chapter of Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion I have been introduced to the impact the internet had on the Iranian Green Movement. in 2009, Iranians gathered in Tehran to protest against the presidential elections, which had been thought to be rigged, or unfair. Protesters demanded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be removed from office. The global spread and awareness of these protests was made possible by an unlikely source: Twitter. The social networking site was used as a medium of communication by the protesters, and it acted as a catalyst to impulse the movement around the world.
Showing Off
I can confidently say my favourite television show is How I Met Your Mother. It is the perfect combination of hilarious and actual story-telling (because a lot of shows don't tell a story, just episode after episode). After reading chapter 20 of Thank You for Arguing I have become more aware of the cleverness behind the show. Dialogue is an important part of the show. Obviously, I don't mean every word spoken, but the quoting of characters by other characters (if that makes any sense).
Powerful Agreement
Fallacies are all over argumentation. In fact, fallacies are often responsible of tipping an audiences hat to one person rather than another. Heinrichs, in Thank You for Arguing, goes into the many fallacies that there are. In chapter 15, he introduced the fallacy of power, which is "because the guy in charge wants it... it must be good" (page 157). This fallacy is definitely present in the discussion on terrorism between Jon Stewart and Billy O'Reilly. The "boss," or in this case the one with the better reputation, has more followers than the other, simply because of his reputation. The other presenter provides strong evidence to prove is points, and disprove the other's. However, he must battle the fallacy of power, which in this case favours the other man.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Calming the Passions
The passive voice is something I've always feared. Whether it's on the SAT, or an essay for class, it is such a dreaded practice that I have been wearisome of using it. However, Jay Heinrichs presents the idea that the passive voice is actually a tool that can be used in rhetoric. He calls it a "rhetorical device to calm the passions" (page 91). The passive voice is an excellent tool to "[disembody] the speaker and [remove] the actors" (page 91). In other words, it works as a guilt remover. George Bush often used the passive voice to pass the blame onto... well no one. More importantly, he used it to take the blame away from himself: "Mistakes were made" (Bush). Mistakes were made? Seriously? Don't you mean I made mistakes?
Following the passive voice, Heinrichs explains the incredible power of humour. The author explains the many types of humour, and their characteristics. furthermore, he shows that humour can get an audience on your side. Using urbane humour, witty humour, facetious humour, or banter can be a strong persuasion tool, but it must also be used with care as it can turn an audience against you as easily as it can get them on your side.
Heinrichs also is an advocate of commonplaces in persuasion. This is spotting the the viewpoint "your audience holds in common" (page 100). In other words, a commonplace is often called a cliché, but a cliché has a "broader connotation" (page 100) so we tend to say commonplace more often.
Heinrichs also goes into a stance, which is "the position you take at the beginning of an argument" (page 120). And he then explains that if the stance comes down, one must rely on facts, definition, quality, and relevance.
Following the passive voice, Heinrichs explains the incredible power of humour. The author explains the many types of humour, and their characteristics. furthermore, he shows that humour can get an audience on your side. Using urbane humour, witty humour, facetious humour, or banter can be a strong persuasion tool, but it must also be used with care as it can turn an audience against you as easily as it can get them on your side.
Heinrichs also is an advocate of commonplaces in persuasion. This is spotting the the viewpoint "your audience holds in common" (page 100). In other words, a commonplace is often called a cliché, but a cliché has a "broader connotation" (page 100) so we tend to say commonplace more often.
Heinrichs also goes into a stance, which is "the position you take at the beginning of an argument" (page 120). And he then explains that if the stance comes down, one must rely on facts, definition, quality, and relevance.
At Level
Chapters 7-9 of Thank You for Arguing deal with ethos, pathos, and logos. More specifically, these chapters deal with the manipulation of these elements to persuade an audience.
An important aspect of this is practical wisdom. Quite simply, practical wisdom is when the audience considers you a sensible and knowledgeable person, enough to handle the issue at hand. This is a fantastic persuasion tool, as it "entails the sort of common sense that can get things done" (page 67), which audiences love as they feel the candidate is capable of doing his job. Heinrichs then explains that to accomplish practical wisdom, one must "seem to take the middle course" (page 69). The middle course, in this case, is moderation. Heinrichs explains that "the ancient Greeks had far more respect for moderation than our culture does" (page 69). And the Greeks were the kings of rhetoric, so we should just listen to them! But seriously, the importance of moderation is often overlooked by people, yet it is extremely important in persuasion as it shows the audience that you are neither extremely conservative, nor extremely liberal, so to speak. Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of being honest-- or more precisely, seeming honest. He presented Quintilian's thoughts on the matter to further this idea: "A speaker might choose to feign helplessness by pretending to be uncertain how to begin or proceed with his speech. This make him appear not so much a skilled master of rhetoric, but as an honest man" (page 75). And honesty is a virtue the world admires. It is because of its importance that it is so often mentioned in society, and so often criticized as well.
These chapters lend the idea that for someone to be a good persuader, he must be able to seem at level with his audience. This again goes back to the decorum topic, but the chapters focus on the specific ways to relate with an audience.
An important aspect of this is practical wisdom. Quite simply, practical wisdom is when the audience considers you a sensible and knowledgeable person, enough to handle the issue at hand. This is a fantastic persuasion tool, as it "entails the sort of common sense that can get things done" (page 67), which audiences love as they feel the candidate is capable of doing his job. Heinrichs then explains that to accomplish practical wisdom, one must "seem to take the middle course" (page 69). The middle course, in this case, is moderation. Heinrichs explains that "the ancient Greeks had far more respect for moderation than our culture does" (page 69). And the Greeks were the kings of rhetoric, so we should just listen to them! But seriously, the importance of moderation is often overlooked by people, yet it is extremely important in persuasion as it shows the audience that you are neither extremely conservative, nor extremely liberal, so to speak. Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of being honest-- or more precisely, seeming honest. He presented Quintilian's thoughts on the matter to further this idea: "A speaker might choose to feign helplessness by pretending to be uncertain how to begin or proceed with his speech. This make him appear not so much a skilled master of rhetoric, but as an honest man" (page 75). And honesty is a virtue the world admires. It is because of its importance that it is so often mentioned in society, and so often criticized as well.
These chapters lend the idea that for someone to be a good persuader, he must be able to seem at level with his audience. This again goes back to the decorum topic, but the chapters focus on the specific ways to relate with an audience.
Decorating Your Person
Most would agree that Zach Galifianakis is a funny guy. I would probably say the same thing if asked about the man. But how does he manage to capture his audience so well, and really live his character-- characters -- offscreen? Decorum.
Decorum is ancient practice, which plainly means making yourself liked by an audience. In other words, fitting yourself to what others want to see. This is a powerful rhetoric technique that helps persuade an audience: "Decorum tells the audience, 'Do as I say and as I do'" (page 46).
This term was first coined by the ancient Romans. Decorum was widely used in politics, and no doubt still is. In fact, it is used outside of politics just as widely as it is in politics. Zach Galifianakis is a master of this technique, whether he knows it or not. Zach, over the years, has fit his personality to the awkward personas he plays on stage. He has introduced his characters into his own personality, just as the audience wants him to do. I mean who wouldn't want an Alan hanging around all the time? Actually, I doubt I'd want an Alan hanging around me: "As Cicero said, decorum that works for one person may not work for another, even in front of the same people" (page 49). It doesn't matter what I think though, what most people expect him to be is a person like Alan. And it's difficult to say if he really is like him, but he sure appears to be. This is the essence of decorum, appear to be what the audience wants, not what you necessarily are.
Really decorum is like Christmas lights: it doesn't really matter how dysfunctional, unorganized, and filthy the house is on the inside, people outside will like it if the lights look good.
Really decorum is like Christmas lights: it doesn't really matter how dysfunctional, unorganized, and filthy the house is on the inside, people outside will like it if the lights look good.
The Question
The first two chapters of Thank You for Arguing presented the reader with ways to improve debates and arguments. Thank You for Arguing, being really a textbook, first impresses the audience with a new way to view the world- through rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and persuasion is the goal in arguments and debates. In these chapters, Jay Heinrichs, the author of the book, develops a central idea in argumentation: one should look to get his way, not to outscore an opponent. This concept was explained by Heinrichs as he stated, "The audience liked Kerry's logic, but they preferred Bush-- not the words but the man. Kerry won on points; Bush won the election" (page 19).
Definitely I can tie this in to my daily routine. When arguing with my parents, specifically, I often try to get as many "points" a possible in the argument. And often times I do. However, I rarely win the battle. This comes through my attacks. Attacking another person will get you the points you so badly want, but it the ability to persuade your enemy's willingness to act that will help you win the argument. And after all, the whole point of arguing is to get your way, right? So, why fight when you can persuade? Why attack when you can defeat your opponent by playing with their mind, playing with their mood? Heinrichs said it, "By changing your audience's emotion, you make them more vulnerable to your argument-- put them in the mood to listen" (page 23). So why try to get as many points as possible, when you can win the argument with a decent amount of rhetoric? That's a question I should have asked myself years ago.
Definitely I can tie this in to my daily routine. When arguing with my parents, specifically, I often try to get as many "points" a possible in the argument. And often times I do. However, I rarely win the battle. This comes through my attacks. Attacking another person will get you the points you so badly want, but it the ability to persuade your enemy's willingness to act that will help you win the argument. And after all, the whole point of arguing is to get your way, right? So, why fight when you can persuade? Why attack when you can defeat your opponent by playing with their mind, playing with their mood? Heinrichs said it, "By changing your audience's emotion, you make them more vulnerable to your argument-- put them in the mood to listen" (page 23). So why try to get as many points as possible, when you can win the argument with a decent amount of rhetoric? That's a question I should have asked myself years ago.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Thursday, October 17, 2013
God is Everywhere
After finishing my reading of Foreskin's Lament by Shalom Auslander I was captivated by his struggle with God- and with himself. There is a relentless tug-of-war in his conscience, sometimes dealing with how his actions at a particular time will affect God's judgement, other times how this book can cause death to his child. But no matter what, it is always a quarrel with God- sometimes quite literally: "I know it's stealing, but come on, they're not going to miss it. No, I don't think that's a facile rationalization, I think it's a reality of the retail environment. It's fucking Macy's- the largest department store in the world, says so right on the door. What do You want me to do, ask my mother for money? You know my mother, You know what my asking her for money does to her. Does that sound facile to You? We're talking real human pain here. You want me to ask her for money? Fine. I'm going to walk out of this store right now with all these clothes stuffed in my backpack. If You want me to ask her, just make the alarm go of, and next time I'll ask her. Go ahead. Let's see. Here I go" (page 161). Auslander went on these tangents quite often, adding intensity to his relationship, and mainly his arguments, with God. However, this can also be seen as an internal conflict, as Auslander is really rambling on about what he thinks is wrong, what he thinks must be done, what he thinks are the reasons for his actions. And by doing this, the author is able to liberate himself from the harboured hate and anger he has towards God.
A thought which this memoir brought up is what is more powerful, the beliefs imposed on an individual, or ones own thoughts and views. Although Shalom Auslander defied God, and reached a level of immense disordinance in his religion, he was ultimately confined by the barrier that restrained him his entire life: his fear of God. This essentially told me that it's not whether something is imposed on me or whether I believe it for myself, but it is what I learned first and how it affects others in society. This was particularly evident in the concluding word of the memoir, a simple, "Sorry" (page 310). He was actually so afraid of God, so fearful of "God's Department of Ironic Punishmentation" (page 9), so fearful of God's unforgiving nature, so fearful of God's ability to simply kill off his unborn son, and simply so fearful of God's all-knowing presence that he apologized (just in case). It's difficult to understand why Shalom continued believing, with a hatred so deep, but he did; and, whether you believe in God or not, there's no denying that "God was here, God was there, God was everywhere" (page 8) for Shalom Auslander.
Tug-of-war, noun: a contest in which two teams pull at opposite ends of a rope until one drags the other over a central line. (in context, a struggle)
God's Department of Punishmentation: I can only define this with an actual quotation from the memoir.
"I imagine there is a tall black building in downtown heaven- lots of steel and concrete, very corporate, with a piazza for smokers out front and a cafeteria on the third floor- a building that is the universal headquarters for God's Department of Ironic Punishmentation, the place where they work out just [the] kind of hilarious twist. This is where writers go when they die- the novelists, the poets, the sitcom writers, the stand-up comedians- to a steel desk and a hard chair in a cubicle in the DIP, where every human story needs its own original ending, but where every ending is satisfyingly the same: horrible" (page 9).
Facile, adj: appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the complexity of an issue; superficial.
Quarrel, noun: an angry argument or disagreement.
A thought which this memoir brought up is what is more powerful, the beliefs imposed on an individual, or ones own thoughts and views. Although Shalom Auslander defied God, and reached a level of immense disordinance in his religion, he was ultimately confined by the barrier that restrained him his entire life: his fear of God. This essentially told me that it's not whether something is imposed on me or whether I believe it for myself, but it is what I learned first and how it affects others in society. This was particularly evident in the concluding word of the memoir, a simple, "Sorry" (page 310). He was actually so afraid of God, so fearful of "God's Department of Ironic Punishmentation" (page 9), so fearful of God's unforgiving nature, so fearful of God's ability to simply kill off his unborn son, and simply so fearful of God's all-knowing presence that he apologized (just in case). It's difficult to understand why Shalom continued believing, with a hatred so deep, but he did; and, whether you believe in God or not, there's no denying that "God was here, God was there, God was everywhere" (page 8) for Shalom Auslander.
Tug-of-war, noun: a contest in which two teams pull at opposite ends of a rope until one drags the other over a central line. (in context, a struggle)
God's Department of Punishmentation: I can only define this with an actual quotation from the memoir.
"I imagine there is a tall black building in downtown heaven- lots of steel and concrete, very corporate, with a piazza for smokers out front and a cafeteria on the third floor- a building that is the universal headquarters for God's Department of Ironic Punishmentation, the place where they work out just [the] kind of hilarious twist. This is where writers go when they die- the novelists, the poets, the sitcom writers, the stand-up comedians- to a steel desk and a hard chair in a cubicle in the DIP, where every human story needs its own original ending, but where every ending is satisfyingly the same: horrible" (page 9).
Facile, adj: appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the complexity of an issue; superficial.
Quarrel, noun: an angry argument or disagreement.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Hate with a Burning Passion
After continuing my reading of Shalom Auslander's Foreskin's Lament, I have understood the absurdity of the society Auslander criticizes. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, this memoir is a satirical piece, who's aim is to criticize the overwhelming attachment (and fear) to God of the community of Monsey, New York. However, I have now understood Auslander actually criticizes himself, as well, and what he believed in. This is revealed by the author's tone, which is lampooning, ironic, and certainly humorous.
Honestly, I've greatly enjoyed the memoir so far. Its comical take on the unreasonable beliefs of the (very) Orthodox Jewish community that abides in his hometown is enlightening and revealing. Auslander is especially critical of his father, whom he hates with a truly burning passion. So much so, actually, that he wishes him dead and takes advantage of the words of Rabbi Goldfinger, who explained, "until the age of thirteen, all of a boy's sins are ascribed to his father" (page 14). Being eight at the time, Auslander proceeds to do what every other eight-year-old would do to get rid of his father: he "touched [himself]" (page 17), he "partook of bread without first ceremoniously washing [his] hands" (page 17), and he "sat on the edge of [his] bed and carefully recited 'shit,' 'fuck,' and 'ass' a dozen times" (page 17) before going to bed. Typical, eh?
Furthermore, Shalom Auslander censures Rabbi Kahn's enforcement of rules, and his way of treating the children: "Thursday I didn't wear tzitzis. Rabbi Kahn noticed that the strings weren't dangling from my sides, and he grabbed me by the ear and pulled me to the front of the class. Speak to the children of Israel, he quoted loudly from the Torah as he spanked me hard on my bottom, and tell them to make tzitzis on the corners of their garments" (page 17). This dislike became a deep hatred towards the man, enough to overshadow the antipathy towards his father: "I touched myself- twice- and silently begged God that just this once to credit those sins to Rabbi Kahn's account" (page 17).
After continuing to show his hatred for these two men, Auslander reverts back to his original (likely) intention: satirize the belief that God will hold anything, and everything, against you. He "can't help noticing that every time [he begins] to make some progress on [his] stories about God, attacks on Israel increase, and [he feels] guilty and [stops]. [Is he] causing these attacks? Is God showing [him] what it will be like if [he pisses] Him off, if He decides, once again, to let [they're] enemies destroy [them]? [His] rabbis taught [him] that it was wrong to say God caused the holocaust; that He had simply, in 1938, turned His head. He looked away. What? Huh? Geno... really? Shit, I was in the bathroom" (pages 26-27). Criticism couldn't be put in a more obvious, or funnier for that matter, way. And that is what I've seen throughout this memoir: the criticism is so obvious that you sometimes wonder if he means what he's saying or if he's just mocking these beliefs.
It's quite a dark book, in truth. He lampoons his childhood, and part of his adult life, but he does so in such a way that you simply love it. At least I do, that's for sure.
Honestly, I've greatly enjoyed the memoir so far. Its comical take on the unreasonable beliefs of the (very) Orthodox Jewish community that abides in his hometown is enlightening and revealing. Auslander is especially critical of his father, whom he hates with a truly burning passion. So much so, actually, that he wishes him dead and takes advantage of the words of Rabbi Goldfinger, who explained, "until the age of thirteen, all of a boy's sins are ascribed to his father" (page 14). Being eight at the time, Auslander proceeds to do what every other eight-year-old would do to get rid of his father: he "touched [himself]" (page 17), he "partook of bread without first ceremoniously washing [his] hands" (page 17), and he "sat on the edge of [his] bed and carefully recited 'shit,' 'fuck,' and 'ass' a dozen times" (page 17) before going to bed. Typical, eh?
Furthermore, Shalom Auslander censures Rabbi Kahn's enforcement of rules, and his way of treating the children: "Thursday I didn't wear tzitzis. Rabbi Kahn noticed that the strings weren't dangling from my sides, and he grabbed me by the ear and pulled me to the front of the class. Speak to the children of Israel, he quoted loudly from the Torah as he spanked me hard on my bottom, and tell them to make tzitzis on the corners of their garments" (page 17). This dislike became a deep hatred towards the man, enough to overshadow the antipathy towards his father: "I touched myself- twice- and silently begged God that just this once to credit those sins to Rabbi Kahn's account" (page 17).
After continuing to show his hatred for these two men, Auslander reverts back to his original (likely) intention: satirize the belief that God will hold anything, and everything, against you. He "can't help noticing that every time [he begins] to make some progress on [his] stories about God, attacks on Israel increase, and [he feels] guilty and [stops]. [Is he] causing these attacks? Is God showing [him] what it will be like if [he pisses] Him off, if He decides, once again, to let [they're] enemies destroy [them]? [His] rabbis taught [him] that it was wrong to say God caused the holocaust; that He had simply, in 1938, turned His head. He looked away. What? Huh? Geno... really? Shit, I was in the bathroom" (pages 26-27). Criticism couldn't be put in a more obvious, or funnier for that matter, way. And that is what I've seen throughout this memoir: the criticism is so obvious that you sometimes wonder if he means what he's saying or if he's just mocking these beliefs.
It's quite a dark book, in truth. He lampoons his childhood, and part of his adult life, but he does so in such a way that you simply love it. At least I do, that's for sure.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Satirical Suicide
After reading the first chapter of Foreskin's Lament, by Shalom Auslander, I have been captivated in a world of (what I think is) satire and criticism towards Orthodox Judaism. Auslander seemingly mocks the Jewish community of Monsey, New York, and lampoons its outrageous beliefs.
So far, I have learned that Auslander was taught to believe in the might of God, but more so the impossibility for humans to survive His cynical "pranks," if you will. A prime example of this is how when one dies, "all the souls of every sperm [you] wasted during [your] life would chase [you] for eternity through the firmament" (page 6). Hilarious. Furthermore, Auslander, finishes the ironic "endings" by saying, "That's so God" (page 7). This drives the idea of a critique towards the exaggerated beliefs of the Orthodox Jews of Monsey.
Shalom Auslander also conveys the idea that everything ends in God's delight. This is expressed through God's "Department of Ironic Punishment" (page 8), where God makes use of "the novelists, the poets, the sitcom writers, [and] the stand-up comedians" (page 8), when they die.
There is an obvious denunciation of God in this book. As an Orthodox Jew, Auslander was taught to fear God, and to obey his every command in order to not die a tragically horrible death, as most do. Moreover, he is taught that God is essentially unforgiving, as portrayed by the Moses example in which it is explained that Moses is "who escaped from Egypt, and who roamed through the desert for forty years in search of a Promise Land, and whom God killed just before he reached it- face-plant on the one yard line- because Moses had sinned, once, forty years earlier. His crime? Hitting a rock" (page 3).
Auslander, so far, has presented a truly comical memoir. But really, it's more than that. This memoir is much like a death wish, because if God didn't forgive Moses for hitting a rock, he'll certainly not forgive Auslander for making "[Him come] off like an asshole" (page 9).
So far, I have learned that Auslander was taught to believe in the might of God, but more so the impossibility for humans to survive His cynical "pranks," if you will. A prime example of this is how when one dies, "all the souls of every sperm [you] wasted during [your] life would chase [you] for eternity through the firmament" (page 6). Hilarious. Furthermore, Auslander, finishes the ironic "endings" by saying, "That's so God" (page 7). This drives the idea of a critique towards the exaggerated beliefs of the Orthodox Jews of Monsey.
Shalom Auslander also conveys the idea that everything ends in God's delight. This is expressed through God's "Department of Ironic Punishment" (page 8), where God makes use of "the novelists, the poets, the sitcom writers, [and] the stand-up comedians" (page 8), when they die.
There is an obvious denunciation of God in this book. As an Orthodox Jew, Auslander was taught to fear God, and to obey his every command in order to not die a tragically horrible death, as most do. Moreover, he is taught that God is essentially unforgiving, as portrayed by the Moses example in which it is explained that Moses is "who escaped from Egypt, and who roamed through the desert for forty years in search of a Promise Land, and whom God killed just before he reached it- face-plant on the one yard line- because Moses had sinned, once, forty years earlier. His crime? Hitting a rock" (page 3).
Auslander, so far, has presented a truly comical memoir. But really, it's more than that. This memoir is much like a death wish, because if God didn't forgive Moses for hitting a rock, he'll certainly not forgive Auslander for making "[Him come] off like an asshole" (page 9).
You Had Me, for a While...
I searched through what seemed like an endless amount of blogs from classmates, until I finally found a blog post I disagreed with. Cristina Samper said in one of her blog posts that "historically, there is proof that when there is no balance, things tend to lean in to absolute chaos and disaster." I examined this statement for a while, and resolved to agree with it. Then, as I read more and more blog posts, I kept thinking about that remark, and I came to the realization that I, in fact, did not agree with it!
It's a valid point of view, though. There is much evidence to back it up, as Cristina clearly showed, but there is a counterargument for each point she made. She explained that once Douglass learned to read and write, "he lost his sense of balance. He was never content, never satisfied with the amount of learning he obtained, and gradually he became his own teacher of language." However, this doesn't translate to her original thought of "absolute chaos and disaster" always being created from and unevenness. Rather quite the opposite, this unbalance in Douglass' life didn't lead to disaster, but rather to triumph and resiliency in what was ultimately his escape to freedom.
It's a valid point of view, though. There is much evidence to back it up, as Cristina clearly showed, but there is a counterargument for each point she made. She explained that once Douglass learned to read and write, "he lost his sense of balance. He was never content, never satisfied with the amount of learning he obtained, and gradually he became his own teacher of language." However, this doesn't translate to her original thought of "absolute chaos and disaster" always being created from and unevenness. Rather quite the opposite, this unbalance in Douglass' life didn't lead to disaster, but rather to triumph and resiliency in what was ultimately his escape to freedom.
The Incessant Search for Sympathy
I must be honest, the ending on Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave was disappointing, yet really exciting for me. As you can infer from my previous blog posts, I adored how Douglass' seemingly made every part of his past a sort of epitome of tragedy... at first. Yes, it's beautifully written, and the imagery that Douglass creates is superb,
but, after one-hundred-ten odd pages of constant reminders about the cruelty and suffering he endured during his life, I felt drowned in an abyss of relentless sorrow and incessant pleads for sympathy. At the beginning, Douglass' explicit detail was powerful, as was the case when he portrays the violent whipping of aunt Hester: "And after rolling up his sleeves, he commenced to lay on the heavy cowskin, and soon the warm, red blood (amid heart-rending shrieks from her, and horrid oaths from him) came dripping to the floor" (page 22). However, he continued this trend, as I stated above, to a tiring point: "I did not allow myself a single word; but was resolved, if he laid the weight of his hand upon me, it should be blow for blow" (page 103). His unending use of pathos, his search for sympathy, and his ludicrous descriptions of, well, everything, made the book overwhelming, if not mundane, to me as I felt he was simply exaggerating to get his point across.
However, as I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I don't want you to think I am a cold-hearted person in any way. I sympathize this man's story, his suffering, his past. What I do not relish, though, is his book. To me, it was simply a burdensome task to read all of his preposterous portrayals of events and ,unfortunately, this translated into my animosity of the narrative.
animosity: noun- extreme dislike, hatred.
Abyss: noun- an immeasurably deep chasm, depth, or void.
incessant: adjective- (of something regarded as unpleasant) unending, continuous.
However, as I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I don't want you to think I am a cold-hearted person in any way. I sympathize this man's story, his suffering, his past. What I do not relish, though, is his book. To me, it was simply a burdensome task to read all of his preposterous portrayals of events and ,unfortunately, this translated into my animosity of the narrative.
animosity: noun- extreme dislike, hatred.
Abyss: noun- an immeasurably deep chasm, depth, or void.
incessant: adjective- (of something regarded as unpleasant) unending, continuous.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Answers to essay
- A. define the term Glut on page 2.
- Glut (n) = excessive/abundant supply of something
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Brilliance is Resilience
After reading two more chapters of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, I honestly can't focus on much, besides the fact that Douglass is unbelievably intelligent and resourceful.
He himself explains my thoughts exactly when he says, "Mistress, in teaching me the alphabet, had given me the inch, and no precaution could prevent me from taking the ell" (page 49). Douglass realized the impossibility of having a good life while he was a slave, and the fist step towards escaping was learning how to read and write, so that he could be successful when he was finally able to leave. Of course, he had to take advantage of certain opportunities, like the "little white boys whom [he] met on the street" (page 49). In fact, these boys became such an important tool for Douglass, that when he left Master Hugh's home, "it was those little Baltimore boys that [he] felt the strongest attachment [to]" (page 59). Furthermore, Douglass portrays his brilliance and ingenuity by competing against the boys while he was still in Baltimore, something done to learn from the boys through the contests: "After that, when I met with any boy who I knew could write, I would tell him I could write as well as he... In this way I got a good many lessons in writing which is quite possible I should never have gotten in any other way" (page 53).
He himself explains my thoughts exactly when he says, "Mistress, in teaching me the alphabet, had given me the inch, and no precaution could prevent me from taking the ell" (page 49). Douglass realized the impossibility of having a good life while he was a slave, and the fist step towards escaping was learning how to read and write, so that he could be successful when he was finally able to leave. Of course, he had to take advantage of certain opportunities, like the "little white boys whom [he] met on the street" (page 49). In fact, these boys became such an important tool for Douglass, that when he left Master Hugh's home, "it was those little Baltimore boys that [he] felt the strongest attachment [to]" (page 59). Furthermore, Douglass portrays his brilliance and ingenuity by competing against the boys while he was still in Baltimore, something done to learn from the boys through the contests: "After that, when I met with any boy who I knew could write, I would tell him I could write as well as he... In this way I got a good many lessons in writing which is quite possible I should never have gotten in any other way" (page 53).
Ell: a unit of measurement that is approximately
the length of an arm from the elbow.
The resiliency of Frederick Douglass is what really astounded me. The fact that he is so focused on learning how to read and write, and so perseverant on being successful is astonishing, considering his past and how easily he could have convinced himself into remaining uneducated because it was "wrong."
Monday, September 9, 2013
Ignorance is Bliss
Dear Mr. Fitzhugh,
The so-called “White Slave Trade” that you
created to define white labour is a fallacy. White labour created by capitalism
is unfair and cruel, and it is also unjust for white rich people to collect the
fruits of poor white workers who support the rest. However, never, under any circumstances, can
this be compared to black slavery given that labourers receive pay, and they
have certain work hours. The workers are free to do what they want at any time,
and can have what they want at any time. They are not controlled or commanded
by a superior, nor are they ever punished by they’re bosses arbitrarily.
You claim that your slavery is humane and
kind, and that you tend to your slaves while securing their freedom. Yet, if a
slave flees from your property, they are punished severely. Furthermore, slaves
are fearful of exercising their freedom of speech due to the master’s not
allowing them to speak poorly of him. I even doubt that they have a choice or
say in what they eat, what they wear, and where they sleep (which,
incidentally, are the only things given to them, amongst physical abuse).
Mr. Fitzhugh, your argument is so weak,
that you do not defend black slavery, but rather attack “white slavery,” which
you invented based on a false analogy. If you so strongly believe that your slavery
is better than white labour, then why don’t you permit your slaves to state
their honest opinion on the matter?
Thank you for your time,
Jose Suarez
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Knowledge is Power
These are the answers to the questions on the essay, "The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me".
1. Alexie remembers the clear image of
Superman breaking down a door. As it is Superman, Alexie likely assumes it was
to save someone’s life. This is an important detail to remember at the end of
the essay, because Alexie “throws [his] weight against their locked doors”
(page 18) to save the Indians’ lives.
2. The verb Alexie used fourteen times was
“read.” The repetition of this verb helped emphasize the fact that for him to
learn to read, he had to read
everything and anything he could find. The repetition shows that there were
many obstacles that he had overcome in this process, and the only way of learning
was to practice as much as he could.
3. In comparison, Frederick Douglass’
quotation suggests that he is quite the opposite from Alexie. Douglass says he
“envied [his] fellow slaves for stupidity” (page 129). Alexie, on the other
hand, is reluctant in being “stupid,” and actually pities his classmates and
wants to help them break out of the patterns of civilization at the time (he
wants them to learn, to be educated). Obviously, Alexie does not envy his classmates;
he rather wants them to follow his example. His situation is different from the
other aboriginals’ because he is one of the few who realizes that with knowledge
comes power (or in his case, the ability to do something with his life). This sets him apart from the others because
he is willing to learn how to read and put a real effort into doing so.
4. There were countless thoughts running
through his heads. The sun shone radiantly as the car left the hotel. He
drowned in his muse of relinquishment. It was a day he’d never forget. That
moment, in which he got in that car, was a sort of revelation to him. He was
leaving. He was truly leaving. There was no stopping it; no amount of will
power could change this. And, as he left the car, he was overwhelmed in the
thought of loss, and the thought of rebirth. He walked through the airport with
tears falling from his eyes. He was helpless. He took a look out the window, and
made his way through the corridor. He stopped. He took a deep breath as he reminisced
all the memories, as he recalled every moment of happiness and realized it was
all over.
Writing about myself in the third person
has a really powerful effect on me. By doing this, I am able to really
concentrate on the emotion and the feeling behind a memory, rather than just
saying, “yeah, I was there.” It’s interesting to do this and it really makes me
understand myself better.
It's a Shame...
After 20 minutes of further reading Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, I've come to understand that perhaps it can be slightly annoying when an author plays so much with the audience's emotions. That's not to say, though, that there aren't moments where the sentiment that the narrative provides isn't gruelling and overwhelming, but in my opinion, there is simply too much of an attempt at pathos for it to have a real impact on me.
By now, you'll probably be thinking what a cold-hearted person I am; but, I would like you to understand that I sympathize Frederick Douglass greatly, and I don't criticize anything but the method he chose to write this book. If you look back at my first blog post on this matter, you'll notice how captivated I was by the emotional content that dwelled in the pages. Now I find myself tired of the constant reminder of how difficult times were, and how terribly people behaved. These aspects are especially evident when Douglass explains how he "left [the plantation] with joy" (p. 40), and how he "could not feel that [he] was leaving any thing which [he] could have enjoyed by staying" (p. 41). It's a shame, really, that Douglass has to keep drowning the reader with emotions that try to persuade us into absolutely loving this book, because it's really done quite the opposite. The story of this man's past is tremendous, a sublime showcase of the apprehension that slaves had to endure. The execution? It was great... for three or four chapters, maybe.
I'd love to be able to say how great the book really is, but: first, I haven't finished it, so I can't come to that conclusion yet; second, there are aspects that simply beguile the reader (me, at least), but some that quite honestly make the telling of the story overemphasized. Again, I empathize Douglass and the hardships he had to go through, but I can't praise the book as a work of art because, for me, it simply isn't.
By now, you'll probably be thinking what a cold-hearted person I am; but, I would like you to understand that I sympathize Frederick Douglass greatly, and I don't criticize anything but the method he chose to write this book. If you look back at my first blog post on this matter, you'll notice how captivated I was by the emotional content that dwelled in the pages. Now I find myself tired of the constant reminder of how difficult times were, and how terribly people behaved. These aspects are especially evident when Douglass explains how he "left [the plantation] with joy" (p. 40), and how he "could not feel that [he] was leaving any thing which [he] could have enjoyed by staying" (p. 41). It's a shame, really, that Douglass has to keep drowning the reader with emotions that try to persuade us into absolutely loving this book, because it's really done quite the opposite. The story of this man's past is tremendous, a sublime showcase of the apprehension that slaves had to endure. The execution? It was great... for three or four chapters, maybe.
I'd love to be able to say how great the book really is, but: first, I haven't finished it, so I can't come to that conclusion yet; second, there are aspects that simply beguile the reader (me, at least), but some that quite honestly make the telling of the story overemphasized. Again, I empathize Douglass and the hardships he had to go through, but I can't praise the book as a work of art because, for me, it simply isn't.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Abolishment
Mandatory school attendance in the United
States has become a grave problem for the proper education of many. It is a
threat to the quality of schooling in the U.S, and so should be abolished
immediately. Benefits of this would
begin in Elementary schools, as they would “change because students would find
out early they had better learn something or risk flunking out later” (Sypher). It is
important that this law be abolished, because schools are not to be considered
“day-care centers” (Sypher) or “indoor street corners” (Sypher). Furthermore, the “decline of
standardized test scores” (Sypher) is possibly due to “recalcitrant students” not
wanting to learn anything. It is said that “you can lead a horse to water, but
you can’t make him drink” (Sypher), but we do not apply this theory in education. If we
want to improve the American education system, we must “abolish the
compulsory-attendance laws” (Sypher).
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Douglass Persuasion
After reading this article, I have now gotten an idea of what pathos, ethos, and logos are, and I am now more familiar with the art of persuasion. Furthermore, I have been able to spot these techniques in my readings, including that of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave.
Franklin Douglass' memoir is filled with pathos. For instance, a line which conveys this technique perfectly is: "The poor man was then informed by his overseer that, for having found fault with his master, he was now to be sold to a Georgia trader. He was immediately chained and handcuffed; and thus, without a moment's warning, he was snatched away, and forever sundered, from his family and friends, by a hand more unrelenting than death." If you are not familiar with pathos, I'll elaborate why this qualifies as it. Pathos is essentially pulling on heart strings, searching for sympathy. The way Douglass described the other slave's arrest was such that made the reader feel sympathy towards him.
Ethos is the "gut" of rhetoric. It relies on reputation and the image of something unto the audience, and uses both as persuasive tools. Franklin Douglass doesn't use this device as readily as pathos, but it is still fairly easy to find examples. It is especially easy to find ethos when Douglass describes the masters' superiority, like in, "Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others." This plays with the reputation of the masters, specifically in the slaves eyes, and therefore is an example of ethos.
Finally, logos, the brain rhetoric, is nowhere near as abundant as the other two devices in the book. However, Douglass does use logos to speak about state law: "I speak advisedly when I say this,-that killing a slave, or any coloured person, in Talbot county, Maryland, is not treated as a crime, either by the courts or the community." Here, Douglass' use of facts ensures that this is an example of logos. Douglass is not trying to tug on the hearts of the audience, nor is he relying on te reputation of anyone, he is simply stating facts to make a point.
Franklin Douglass' memoir is filled with pathos. For instance, a line which conveys this technique perfectly is: "The poor man was then informed by his overseer that, for having found fault with his master, he was now to be sold to a Georgia trader. He was immediately chained and handcuffed; and thus, without a moment's warning, he was snatched away, and forever sundered, from his family and friends, by a hand more unrelenting than death." If you are not familiar with pathos, I'll elaborate why this qualifies as it. Pathos is essentially pulling on heart strings, searching for sympathy. The way Douglass described the other slave's arrest was such that made the reader feel sympathy towards him.
Ethos is the "gut" of rhetoric. It relies on reputation and the image of something unto the audience, and uses both as persuasive tools. Franklin Douglass doesn't use this device as readily as pathos, but it is still fairly easy to find examples. It is especially easy to find ethos when Douglass describes the masters' superiority, like in, "Indeed, it is not uncommon for slaves even to fall out and quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the others." This plays with the reputation of the masters, specifically in the slaves eyes, and therefore is an example of ethos.
Finally, logos, the brain rhetoric, is nowhere near as abundant as the other two devices in the book. However, Douglass does use logos to speak about state law: "I speak advisedly when I say this,-that killing a slave, or any coloured person, in Talbot county, Maryland, is not treated as a crime, either by the courts or the community." Here, Douglass' use of facts ensures that this is an example of logos. Douglass is not trying to tug on the hearts of the audience, nor is he relying on te reputation of anyone, he is simply stating facts to make a point.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)