Monday 10 December 2007

Progress 10 December

I have no idea if we're supposed to post this week because of finals. I think it's just today. Anyway, I have emailed two teachers and the English class. I've gotten some good responses. However, only one person had any ideas about thinking that more field trips are bad/not a good idea, so I need to find more opposing opinions. And actually write the paper. But I think I know how I'll write it.

Thursday 6 December 2007

Progress 6 December

I forgot to blog yesterday. I did make a little progress. I thought about how to organise the essay, and tried to find more articles online. Unfortunately, I couldn't. I found loads of stuff about virtual field trips, though. Personally, I'm not sure how interesting a virtual field trip would be.

That's also what I did today. I'm going to email the people in this class and ask what they think about the issue. Knowing this school, most likely only one or two people will actually answer. They can be anonymous if they want.

Tuesday 4 December 2007

Progress as of 4 December

Okay, I didn't get much done. I did find an article, though I'm not sure how trustworthy it is:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_200410/ai_n9446605

Sometime later this week I'll probably send out an email to people asking what they think about more field trips. I don't know whether I should just ask the people in this class or more people. More people would be better statistically, but I don't want to bother people.

Monday 3 December 2007

Inquiry Project Progress 3 Dec, 2007

Progress: I have written the proposal contract thingy. It was very difficult to stretch it out to two pages. It's very annoying how when I want to be concise, I end up being wordy and confusing and when I want to write a lot about something, I end up not having enough to say.

Anyway, I've decided to go with the field trip idea. To be honest, I didn't think of it. I was clueless about what to do so I asked my mother if she had ideas. She had about fifty. I just picked the ones I liked best. I really do think that more field trips would be a good thing, though. It varies life a little. I hate doing the same thing everyday all the time. Doing different and fun things makes me happy. Of course, that's not a very polished or good way to argue for something.

I've also realized that since I've decided to do this, a lot of my research is going to come from interviews. I'll have to ask people about whether they feel more field trips are better and why. That will be entertaining, since I'm sure some people will have interesting things to say.

So basically, I've just written the contract out, and it's made me think more deeply about the issue.

Friday 30 November 2007

Progress as of Friday, November 30

I haven't really done anything except think about my ideas. I'm leaning toward the field trip one. Arguing for a swimming pool isn't going to work. Arguing for the renovation idea would be either too complicated (with a lot of mini-proposals in one) or too simple (I can't write that much on how we should build a roof). And the bonus with the field trip idea is if I argue it well enough, someone in charge here might actually think about doing it.

But I'm still thinking. I might think of something better when I have time this weekend.

Tuesday 27 November 2007

Potential Ideas for the Inquiry Contract

For my topic, I'd like to something small and practical. It's easier to write in-depth and convincingly if what you're writing about isn't huge and confusing and has hundreds of sides and angles and facts about it. This contract sounds hard enough without trying to complicate with writing about the war in Iraq, or something like that. Then I wouldn't have to worry so much about research- I could focus more on writing good papers. However, I'm not particularly passionate about anything. Anything that would be easy to write about, that is.

So, first: a possibility is to argue for more field trips in high school. Perhaps every fourth block or something, each class could go on a trip. Educational or community service or for just having fun. Or maybe once a semester, each people could sign up for a field trip somewhere. Or an overnight trip, or something. I haven't really developed anything more coherent than that.

Second: build/renovate the area outside the main building and between the two buildings, so that that is a covered walkway between them (so in the rain/hail/snow we don't have to be precipitated upon), there are more picnic tables outside for the growing school population and make some sort of tent/pavilion outside to cover said tables.

Third: build a swimming pool. While I would absolutely love to have a swimming pool here, I know they cost millions and so arguing for one is probably not going to work.

What do you all think?

Ch 15: Proposal Arguments

The first essay (the one about the hosts not being paid enough) is the most effective of them, in my opinion. It's clearly and simply laid out. There's no need to read through irrelevant stuff that just sounds nice and means nothing. The reason for it being written like that is because it was sent to a CEO as a practical proposal. CEOs don't hae time to read through lots of stuff; they want a simple, direct approach. Also, the author uses statistics and math to back her reasons up. Again, it provides good support because math and statistics appear to be more reliable than observation. People consider them a mark of a more accurate piece of writing, even if they actually aren't. It lends credence to the argument. The author also uses pathos in her argument, while still keeping it as concise as possible. She talks about her own personal experiences, giving herself credibility and describes why exactly a host deserves the 1% tip using pathos as well.

Monday 19 November 2007

C.P. Ellis by Studs Terkel

Yes, Ellis shows that his story offers a credible way of removing prejudice. No, it's not workable on a large scale.

Ellis overcame his prejudice. He came to view minorities- blacks, Jews, Catholics- as human being. So of course it's credible. It worked, after all. He sat down and talked with black people. He came to understand that they had the same problems he did- the same worries. He realized they were all human.

If overcoming prejudice was that easy- just set some people up in a room and tell 'em to spill their problems to each other- we wouldn't have any prejudice at all. The problem is that many people aren't willing to sit down and talk; they don't want to realize they were wrong in being biased; they don't think they can be convinced, and some people are just so darn stubborn that you could make them talk person-to-person with as many different people as you wanted, and they'd still think they're right. People have a tendency to be that way. They also make excuses to protect their beliefs- warping their thinking- saying that "Oh, they're just acting human in order to get their way..." if not as directly diabolical as that.

I think it's amazing that Ellis was able to overcome his prejudices. It's not something many people can do. Often, prejudice is too deeply instilled for any amount of interaction to remove it. There's no easy way of getting rid of prejudice, though it's lucky that there are people like Ellis who can overcome it.

After all, how many people are willing to sit down, have a chat and think about the people they hate as people just like them? Not many. It's difficult to be convinced. It's difficult to want to be convinced.

Friday 16 November 2007

The Pressure to Cover

When Yoshino says that 'the mainstream is a mth' he means that because everyone is different, there can't be a main theme among us because we can't have a majority of people who ware the same. Since he spends barely a paragraph on it, it's not very convincing. Then again, it's not his major point, so that makes sense.

I would define mainstream as the general cultural ideas that the majority thinks they ascribe to/the people that most fit those ideas. I.e. now the mainstream would probably (because I'm a teenager and know nothing about people in jobs and things) be white straight males who watch lots of TV. I've come to this conclusion because that's what people say is the mainstream. It may not actually be that the majority actually is white straight males (it's probably not) and they are the top of 'society', but that's generally what people think. And they base their judgment and actions off what they think, not what's true. So what's not true is true, in a way.

Tuesday 13 November 2007

Bought Freedom

How does Linda finally attain her freedom? Why does she have mixed emotions about this at the end of the book?

Her friend Mrs. Bruce buys her from her mistress' husband, then sets her free. She has mixed feelings about this because she believes that freedom is a right, not something that can be bought. She feels a little insulted that she could be bought and traded and sold like a piece of property, especially in a 'free' state like New York. It's also a little upsetting that her friend, the kind and helpful Mrs. Bruce, can just buy her as well. Not just bad people buy and trade in slaves. Mrs. Bruce also bought her without really talking to her about it first. So Linda also feels more like a piece of property without a say in her own freedom, even though Mrs. Bruce had the best of intentions and actually did free her. Despite all this, though, she still is glad to be free, and thankful to Mrs. Bruce for buying and freeing her.

Monday 12 November 2007

Honesty for Credibility

Pick a passage in which Jacobs is using her own honesty to establish her credibility. Explain how and why she is doing it.

It's difficult to pick just one passage in particular, since throughout the whole book she is using her honesty to establish her credibility. She's a slave, telling a true, horrifying story. She's been there and done and seen those things, so people can believe what she's saying. One of the passages that illustrates this best is when she's describing her situation as being better than others. She's honest enough to explain that hers is a better (definitely not best) case scenario than people who have to toil in the fields. But she also is quick to explain that that's not to say that she's happy, well-treated or in any way okay. She's not being whipped to death- not physically. I can't find the exact passage- but that's basically it. The reader is drawn more to her cause because they sympathize so much with her plight- and to thin it could be worse! She's being honest, and gaining credibility as an author. And she's been there and done that. She's obviously not making this up.

Monday 5 November 2007

Truth

Why is it important that this book is truth, not fiction? Why is it important that the editor didn’t clean it up, either in terms of language or content?

This book was written to persuade people that slavery is evil and wrong. A fictional account of a slave's sufferings would be dismissed as imagination. Fiction is not fact. People could dream up numerous horrors a slave might have suffered, yet no one would believe them. The best way to reveal the truth is to tell the truth.

Again, taking the book in context of its times, it's important that the editor did not clean it up because it would become less truthful. People might suspect from the better language and grammar that it was fake, written by a better-educated person than a slave. Or they would think that all slaves had enough opportunity, somehow, to learn to write so well, and assume that slavery couldn't be all that bad. As for content- the whole purpose of the book was to show the horrors of slavery and the whole experience of slavery. To cut any of it out would be to lie by omission- to present a different, untrue version of slavery.

Wednesday 31 October 2007

What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?

What is Douglass saying? How does he support himself through appeals to logos, ethos and/or pathos?

~~~

Douglass is saying that all the ideals that America is built on- equality, the right to the pursuit of happiness, etc.- are hypocrisies because slavery violates all those ideals.

Logos: He says that he does not need to argue some points, such as that slaves are human, but he does, anyway. He points out that everyone already acts as if slaves are human, they just delude themselves into saying that they're not. His logic there is interesting and it makes sense. He uses lists of examples to prove his points as well. He addresses their interests, too. He says that everyone wants abolitionists to persuade people instead of accusing them. He addressed that point by saying that there is nothing to persuade- everyone knows, on some level that slavery is wrong- all he needs to do is make them guilty enough to do something about it. That would fit in with pathos as well.

Ethos: He is a slave. He speaks from experience and is more effective because of that. He also is aware of his audience's feelings and begins and ends on a note that would be taken well by them- praising in hope for America.

Pathos: He lists in graphic detail what slaves have suffered. An example: "...it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters..." He also asks people to have hope by saying the issue is fixable.

Socialization

What is the “socialization process” according to Parrillo? Do you agree that prejudices – or really any beliefs – are instilled in this way?

~~~

According to Parillo, the socialization process is when "...individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality and social class." Later on in this article/excerpt/thing, Parillo also says that prejudice has a number of complex causes. I agree with him, there. Socialization is definitely a major factor in instilling prejudice, though. Let's take an extreme example. Children in parts of the extremist Muslim world are brought up to hate Jews. Their prejudice is caused by everybody telling them that Jews are bad all the time. Whereas here, people are not (for the most part) brought up to hate anyone in that extreme. So fewer people do. What your parents believe is definitely a major factor in determining what you believe. And then, at a point, depending on how well instilled said beliefs are, you might change your mind and disagree with what you've been brought up to believe. I think the first time you are away from your parents, college for example, would help to adjust your beliefs.

Monday 29 October 2007

Jefferson Views

Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia show him to be a different person than what other sources have told me he is. In history classes (not just this year) and books about history, people have talked about how no one was really what they seemed. This year in history class we read about him and got a more realistic picture of him. However, apart from history class, everything and everyone seems to portray him as some great hero- writer of the Declaration of Independence and purchaser of Louisiana. I'd read that he might have supposedly fathered a child by a slave. Looking at his descendents and the general record of him, everyone or almost everyone seems to think of him as an almost perfect being who absolutely supported equality. That picture of his descendents shows white and black people, equal.

To me, that's a little silly. Most of the founding fathers and people of their generation and around it said that they were against slavery, yet did little about it. It wasn't just blacks they were prejudiced against. Indians, women, immigrants, foreigners, Northeners, Southeners, nobody liked each other. So what we read wasn't really surprising. Thomas Jefferson thought the same things, generally, as the rest of the people around him. So it is a little disturbing to see it written so clearly his thoughts on others, but it isn't unexpected.

For the Declaration of Independence, he (and the others who wrote it) weren't trying to cover every situation. They weren't trying to draft a carefully scripted record of who deserves what, for why, and the circumstances of being equal and who should be equal. They weren't trying to write the fine script. They needed a provoking, defiant speech against the British. That's all. They had to be as general as possible so that as many people as possible would help fight against the British. They couldn't outright condemn people who were different (except the British, obviously), for they needed all the fighters, black and white, they could get. They couldn't condemn racism, or slavery, or else the wealthy plantation owners would withold their aid. They couldn't do anything in fact, except state that everyone's equal and ignore the fact that no, they didn't really mean that. Jefferson wasn't racist. Even reading Notes I didn't feel that he was. He felt superior, certainly, but he reasoned through the fact. (Even if his reasoning was incredibly flawed. He based intelligence on musical ability? Well, then, I'm certainly not intelligent, then!) He didn't hate blacks.

My conclusions from all this are two: that people's real personality gets filtered out through the ages, and that Thomas Jefferson was more ordinary than anyone thinks. He was not the true advocate of absolute equality, but he wasn't a horrible person, either. You have to take him in context of his times. And whether he meant to or not, he did lead to a better America.

Tuesday 16 October 2007

Willy vs Cora Tucker

Compare Cora Tucker to Willy Loman. Where does one succeed where the other fails?

Their definitions of success are different. Cora Tucker sees success as making a difference in one's community for the better. Willy Loman sees success as having a good, steady job because one is well-liked. Willy is not well-liked (or a good worker) so he gets fired. He loses his success. Cora Tucker doesn't have the best job, nor is she well-like by everyone. Yet she makes a difference for the better in people's lives so she has achieved her version of success. She is also happy, as well. If you switched their definitions of success, they both fail. Willy doesn't make a difference in the community- he is preoccupied by himself and his sons alone. Mainly Biff. Cora Tucker isn't the most well-liked person, nor does she have a well-paying, good job as Willy defines it. But success is measured by one's own definition, so she is successful. Kind of interesting, that.

Monday 15 October 2007

Willy and Individual Opportunity

What does Willy believe about ‘individual opportunity’? What does he thinks makes someone able to be successful?

Willy believes that to be successful, you have to be well-liked. To him, that means that you have to be popular and liked for your personality, not your ethics or virtues or good things. He bases his whole mindset off this idea. He expects people like Biff (and, I think, Happy) to be successful and respected because they're social and friendly. Supposedly, anyway. He can't understand that being simply hardworking and intelligent will get you places.

To me, liked in Willy's mind stands for being respected as we think about it and well-liked stands for simply less. When you're well-liked, people think you're a great person, they love you and invite you to parties and stuff but don't give you great jobs. When you're liked, you're more likely to be respected. You don't have to like someone to respect them. I expect there are people who hate their bosses, but if their boss is efficient and fair, then they respect them. They don't like them personally, but professionally they do, if that makes sense. Willy doesn't understand that, and that's why he gets fired at the end. He doesn't understand that he isn't respected- he may be a nice guy (or in his case, may have been a nice guy)- but he is not good at his work.

(Personally, I think Willy's a dense idiot, but that has nothing to do with the question so I won't say anything else.)

Wednesday 10 October 2007

Speeches 1&2

I forgot to blog yesterday about this. So I'll just do one longer entry.

~~~~
The speeches were actually really interesting. It was cool to see how most people set up things differently. We all had the same basic outlines: History, claim, reasons, backing, qualifier, conclusion, etc. But we all wrote and presented our speeches differently. Some people had more than others and some people had less. Some people relied almost completely on emotion and some people relied almost completely on logic. Most people were in the middle. There were quite a few really good speeches, too. The way people drew upon quotes and personal experiences was interesting, as was everyone's approach to the conditions of rebuttal/qualifier part.

The first day we did it was more interesting than the second, simply because I don't have to ability to focus for that long on the speeches. I kept spacing out and going all distracted. It's not that the last speeches were more boring- it's just that I was losing concentration.

My speech went better than I thought it would. I thought I would fail. I ran out of time and didn't do everything justice. But all in all, I think it went well. I have no idea if that was a problem for other people as well. Five minutes is a lot shorter than I thought it would be. I was also a lot less nervous than I thought I would be. Maybe that was because I was thinking about lunch the whole time.

EDIT: Were we supposed to blog about one person's in particular? I can't really remember what people said what anymore. I do remember that I thought that Brittney and Nick M had good presentations. I know other people did too but I've forgotten anything else. Oops.

Monday 8 October 2007

What is Emerson saying it takes to be successful? Do you agree? Is it that easy?

Emerson is saying that to be successful, one has to trust only in himself, reject as much authority over yourself as you can, assume that you and only you are brilliant and think of everything in a new way. He goes into a lot of detail about all this- explaining how people have become the unthinking sheep of great thinkers- always accepting others' views on things. He says that if you accept authority from above- from a government, God, or whoever- you cease to think for yourself and acquiese to their ideas on everything. He says that people have the ability to be absolutely individual and not allow others to influence them at all. He explains this in far more detail than I can summarize here- but that's basically his idea.

I disagree. People cannot think only their own thoughts, unless they're a hermit living out in the middle of nowhere, and even that's debatable. We are all influenced by everything around us. We think the thoughts we're raised wiht and influenced by and even our most original thoughts are simply extensions of a disagreement with the norm. I could have been born in Outer Mongolia and thought only of camels and sandstorms. Instead, I'm typing this. Not because I'm more or less original, or independent, but because I have to be. I have no choice. I find it difficult to think of something completely my own. How is it possible to form a completely original hypothesis when one lives in a world where everything you can draw on to help form your conclusions nullifies the originality in it?

Also- I disagree with his points about authority. He explains that when people put their minds and services for the use of one (or many) person(s), then they lose the right to express themselves, and that's bad. He's right to some extent. If, say, a despot takes over and orders them to do stuff, then they will to save themselves. Sometimes, people die to fit the whims of a dictator- losing every other right as well. I agree that that's awful beyond just bad. But people can't descend into anarchy. They can't reject all authority. We need someone to look up to, to base our moral judgment on, to keep us from falling into random violence. If everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted because everyone is right about everything there would be murder and prejudice and collapse of civilization. Serial killers believe that they are right. According to Emerson, they are. And yet I know no one who would condone a society that lets them roam unhindered.

Emerson also states somewhere in his long essay that he doesn't care about the poor, because they're not his poor. He says it takes courage to defy the societal norm of giving to those less needy. He says that charity is simply a way for people to follow authority and example and do what everyone thinks is right, not what they think is right. He says it's an immoral act. I don't think so. The poor, etc., need help. Does it matter if the help is given wrongly or grudgingly? Isn't some help, or help for wrongful reasons, better than none at all? Don't the ends justify the means in this case? Good things are done. The means hurt nothing save perhaps pride. It doesn't matter if you hate someone simply for your own reasons, or only because you feel no connection to them. If they are hurt, you should have a duty as a fellow human being to help them. Of course, I wouldn't say to help Hitler or someone like that. But denying aid to the poor simply because you are not, and never were poor is far more wrong to me than rebelling against society and harming people by omission in the process.

I was going to say something else, but I forgot so oh well. :)

Wednesday 3 October 2007

Empowerment Organization

The organization I think I'll do is called the Indianpolis Urban League. It uses 5 points to ensure that everyone, especially minorities, get the help they need in order to succeed. It has youth groups and connections out of state. It helps people become more culturally aware- "building brides" between the races is what it says.

I chose it because I didn't know of any such organizations and I found this one on Google. It has a website : here and sounds interesting.

Tuesday 2 October 2007

Cultural Myth

The first step in getting rid of a cultural myth is making sure that people know that it exists. If people don't think that there is a problem, then they won't help to fix it. And to get rid of such a vague, vast and intransigent concept as a myth lots of people need to understand what is happening.

Then you have to educate people against it. A lot of myths (this one too)exist simply because people don't know they exist. I certainly never thought about the misconception of the American Dream until when we read "Nickel and Dimed" over the summer.

Then you address what's wrong. In this case, what's wrong is that people are being discriminated against, are not getting enough payment/economic support and in general don't have the opportunities that could help them achieve success. All this is really hard to do and usually controversial.

I think why the cultural myths still exist is because people don't want to spend the energy needed to fix them. It's easier just to accept them than it is to disagree, and harder still to do something about them

Monday 1 October 2007

Documentary vs Alger

Compare the reality of the documentary to the reality presented in the reading. Which is more real?

I think that the documentary is more real. Of course, we saw very little of it, but from what we did see, it wasn’t as off-the-wall as the reading.

Alger’s presentation of the world seems to me ridiculous. It’s all very perfect and excellent and unreal. Seriously, who really learns to read and write in a year as an adult, have the opportunity to save a drowning boy and have the father really do something in response? Even if Rockwell didn’t pay the 10,000 dollars he said he would, for Dick, the job he gave is just as good. The main character is just as perfect as the world he lives in. He’s brave and good enough to jump in after a drowning child without thought of reward, thankful for his success, successful and has a loyal friend. Alger’s world is extremely unrealistic. It’s the world we would all like to live in but can’t. I think the word I’m looking for here is ‘cheesy’. At least, that’s how it seemed to me.

Now, the documentary had some ridiculous stuff in it, too. On the whole, though, I think it represents reality more real that Alger does. The people in it are crazy (the rabbit-lady, the one woman who got so depressed because she was the wrong ‘colours’, etc), but they’re crazy in the way all humans are crazy. They’re not perfect. Now, there were some moments, especially in the beginning when they interviewed those singers, that it did border on cheesy. (That’s not a very good word to describe this, but it’s the best I can do). All the interviewees talked about how perfect Flint was, how anyone could drudge up from it, how there were loads of jobs and opportunities, etc., when there clearly wasn’t.

Friday 28 September 2007

American Dream- Cruz

According to Cruz, the American Dream is not ‘be successful’ but ‘don’t lose’. Being successful, according to him, means getting what you want in life. Don’t lose means that you have to get to the top, no matter what stands in your way or what you have to sacrifice to get there. His problem is that when you get to the top, or near it, you forget who helped you to get there and where you came from. In other words, the Dream is all about you, you, you. He thinks that’s wrong.

I agree with him, somewhat. If you do get to the top, if you manage to overcome the obstacles the wrong way, I think it might be possible to remember to feel thankful for those who sacrificed for you. Cruz got really far and still remembered. Of course, then he dropped out to be a farmer because he thought he couldn’t still manage to be both who he was and who the in-power people wanted him to be. But that’s just him. Near the end, he mentions people who told him that he should stay where he was, influentially, because it helps break the stereotype that the minorities are useless. His response was that he didn’t think the minorities at the top were represented as the rest of people and that he couldn’t ethically stay where he was.

Wednesday 26 September 2007

Class Distinctions

Yes, Mantsios’s essay does say that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. He says the false idea that ‘one is not rich because the other is poor’ is wrong. Therefore, according to him, one class is rich because the other is poor. Since we can assume from his argument that the poor are not poor because they caused themselves to be like that, we can assume that he means that the wealthy do exploit the poor. However, that point isn’t obvious.

I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.

EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)

Monday 24 September 2007

Argument Evaluation

The middle argument- the one about the pornography law in Minnesota was the best. It set out by setting the scene, then describing the effects and then the Ordinance. It had language that flowed well and was easy to understand. The end thesis- that the law was morally sound but too broad to be put into use- is presented very efficiently. When the author first introduces us to her point of view, it comes as a bit of a shock, because she had been somewhat sympathetic to the opposite point of view up until then, in a sort of implied way. However, the author’s thesis is well-explained and the argument as a whole is pretty strong. The examples she cites are strong as well. They have to be, because the way she presents the argument, it’s almost as if she’s re-explaining herself. She states and explains the horrors of the case, then she argues against a law made to protect the victims. However, she’s either smart enough (on purpose or not) to say that she supports the idea behind the law, just not the way it is presented. In other words, she agrees with the warrant that such a law is needed. However, she disagrees that the exact law proposed is the one necessary.

Friday 21 September 2007

Visual Argument

A visual argument can be more persuasive if done right. Some people take pictures much more seriously than words. Take the 'cruelty to animals' paragraphs we looked at yesterday. Some people might just say- 'Oh, well, that's bad, but I really like chicken and don't care'. If you showed them pictures which showed them a chicken suffering, they might feel more sympathetic towards both the cause and the chicken. Graphic pictures have a tendency to shock people into believing something.

Of course, there are a lot of variables to take into account when creating a visual argument. The book goes into great and tortuous detail about fonts and positioning and things like that. Visual arguments use little process of thought (they don't state explicitly their reasons and grounds in great detail) but rather imply what they mean. It's a little more imprecise than written argument because people might extract different things from the same argument. An example is the tomato-killing people I talked about last time. A pro-tomato enthusiast might put up a picture with a tomato bleeding juice with a knife in it. Some people would go- "OMG, the poor tomato!". Some people would get hungry and eat a tomato. Some people would think it's just weird.

But generally speaking, people who make visual arguments are able to make arguments that make sense to people.

Wednesday 19 September 2007

Ethics of Ethos and Pathos

The Question: What ethical responsibilities does an author have in using ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’? Does our media, or our government, often live up to those ethical expectations?

~~~

When you use ethos and pathos for an argument, in order for it to be ethical, your argument must be ethical. To you, at least. Now this is sort of obvious, but it's what the question asked. If you thought that eating tomatos was unethical, to write an argument advocating the consumption of tomatos would be unethical. The use of appealing to such powerful rhetorical devices such as ethos and pathos would not only make your argument less ethical (from the tomato-lover's point of view) but much more powerful as well.

So basically, the ethical responsibilities are to keep the argument within the bounds of moral reason.

Another thing that I believe is an ethical responsibility, though some people will disagree with me, is that in an absolutely ethical argument designed to convince, one should appeal to logos and ethos the most and leave pathos out of it as much as possible. Logic, to be truly logical, is unbiased. It is based on conclusions drawn from facts. There may be one or more conclusions drawn from said facts, but if they are presented merely as logical options, then they are not swaying you towards one or another because of feelings. If you appeal to pathos, you're then clouding the judgment with emotion, distracting and influencing you away from considering all options equally. While in an argument designed solely to convinced, it is practical to do that, however in an argument that takes into account ethics as well, it is not quite so ethical.

I hope that makes sense.

And the major, most obvious question concerning ethos is that you should not claim credibility when you don't have any. If people discover your lies and lack of credibility, they will be angry.

As for the second question- of course the media and government don't live up to those expectations. The expectations are ideals. No one or thing is perfect. The media is usually at least a little biased towards something, and the government is the most biased thing on the planet. Look at all the political issues that to be a successful politician you have to pick sides on.

Tuesday 18 September 2007

Pseudo-Argument

A pseudo-argument that I encountered in the real world was an argument about whether Macs were better than PCs. It was a pseudo-argument because it's impossible that one is better than the other. It simply depends on the preference of the person using them. People who say Macs are better are simply better suited for the features of that particular model of computer. I was on the side of PCs. Or at least on the opposite side of iBooks. There's no right or wrong answer as to which computer was better than the other. But I still argued about it. Neither of us won because neither of us could produce evidence that was capable of swaying the other to their side. In that sense, it was an unreasonable argument as well.

Appeal to Pathos

Pathos is one of the corners of the rhetorical triangle. It is the appeal to emotion. It makes the reader feel sympathetic to the writer's claims. The writer can use it by making an emotional response in the reader. For example, Michael Levin in his Torture Essay appeals to pathos by making us feel guilty about babies dying. Since the human being is influenced by emotions far more than logic in most cases, when you appeal to pathos you make a powerful argument. Sending people on guilt-trips is a good way to do this. If people believe that something is unethical, then they will disagree with it whether or not it is logical. The torture essay is an example of this- torture wasn't logical, but Levin made an excellent appeal to pathos and so loads of people agreed with him. But that isn't the only kind of appeal you can make. You can make someone feel that this argument is good because it makes you feel happy to read it. People like to feel happy. So they'll agree with you. My point is, if you can sway the person's emotions so that they believe your argument is good, then even if you make no or little sense, then people are going to start agreeing with you. Most people, anyway. At first until they look at the other sides of the triangle. Pathos is good for a first impression but fades when you read deeper.

Monday 17 September 2007

AP Exam Fears

What scares me the most about the AP Exam is the essays. I'm not very good about writing essays within a time limit. WHen I write, I at first just write down what I think, then I edit it so it makes sense to other people. When I'm on a time constraint, there's just not time to do that. Also, I hate writing essays, especially useless ones whose only purpose is to torture us into passing an exam. Also, the essays have to be handwritten. First of all, my handwriting is terrible, especially when I start writing really fast in order to keep ip with my thoughts. I also think faster than I write so it's hard for me to keep track of my thoughts. I also have problems structuring my essays anyway, so this is worrisome.

~Edit: after talking about it in class, my fears about the essay have, um, increased. The multiple choice, fortunately, won't be too bad. Unless the course thingy is lying and deceiving us and it's really much harder but the want to fail us all ahahahahah...

sorry :)

Sunday 9 September 2007

A Case Against Torture

Note: I have problems keeping things short. This is four five pages in Word. [Insert very bad word here].
Further Note: I figured out how to do cool font/text thingies! Yes!
Further Further Note: I think that I am guilty of using the same sarcastic rant technique that I criticised Levin for using. In my defense- I think his argument is idiotic and that makes me angry.
~
I would have to disagree with the point Michael Levin makes in 'A Case for Torture'*. I'll admit I disagreed with his point of view as I read the article, so my opinion is probably biased against him.

His arguments are full of fallacies. For one thing, he continuously repeats that there are no good grounds for not torturing his hypothetical terrorist, and that the strongest argument against torturing said terrorist is that it's a supposed infringement of human rights. That is completely untrue. The reason why torture has been discarded as a reliable way of retrieving information is because it is easy for the victim to lie about the information. Take a look at the history of torture. Let's look at King Henry VIII and the case of Mark Smeaton. Henry VIII tortured him in order to secure a confession that he had participated in an affair with Henry's wife, Anne Boleyn. He duly confessed (and revealed other 'information'), though the evidence that the affair had actually occurred was minimal. There was no reason for Smeaton to actually say that he had been involved in what was considered treason- he knew very well that that would lead to his execution (which in medieval times was almost as bad as torture, which says something). It would seem to be obvious that he would tell the truth to spare his life. But he did not. He wanted the torture to stop so badly that he, in effect, signed his own death warrant, preferring death to continued torture. He wasn't even involved in some grand idealistic scheme.**

Would a tortured terrorist today not do the same? Would they not agree that they were involved in terrorism, confirm whatever misguided notions the investigative force had about terroristic activities, etc., in order to simply stop the torture? Or if, by some chance, the police/FBI/CIA/whatever accidentally caught the wrong man and tortured him, is there not a chance that he would agree to his guilt, despite his innocence, in order to stop the torture? And a false confession/information does us no good if we, following Levin's analogy, wish to save innocent lives.

Another common lie is false information. Say, for example, that you are a terrorist. (I know it's difficult to put yourself in place of someone you (supposedly) hate, but try.) You have planted a bomb on the fourth floor of a building. The police force (or whoever) has caught you and wants to know where the bomb is so that it will be defused in order to save the building (which for some reason is unable to be evacuated). You are viciously tortured. Now, you want the torture to stop, but you also do not want to reveal the location of the bomb. So you lie and say the bomb is on the third floor. The FBI or whoever goes and finds no bomb and tortures you some more. You lie again and say the bomb's on the eightieth floor. And this goes on and on until time runs out and the bomb blow up. By then, all reason for torturing you has ended- to continue would be punishment, which Levin agrees is inhumane and useless, since it will not do anything but avenge the dead. So you aren't tortured any more. True, you're probably executed, but your mission is accomplished and you will no longer be tortured.

The best-known (albeit fictional, though I'll use it because it's well-known) example of such a thing happening is Leia's dilemma in Star Wars: A New Hope. After refusing to reveal any information under torture (another possibility- what if torture is ineffective because your hypothetical terrorist has been conditioned against it?), she is faced with a choice under the influence of what is termed 'mental torture': Give up some information, or something she cares about will bite the dust. If we put this into terroristic terms- it means divulge the location of the bomb, or be tortured (mentally or otherwise). Leia does neither- she gives false information. In terroristic terms, the terrorist says the bomb is on the ninety-first floor instead of the fourth. And we can only hope we are not as cruel as the fictional villains- who 'torture' her anyway after she gives information. (False or otherwise- they believe that it's true so there is no 'ethical' reason to torture her more.)***

The second to last argument of Levin poses these questions and 'answers' them: 'Ah, but how can the authorities ever be sure they have the right malefactor? Isn't there a danger of error and abuse? Won't 'WE' turn into 'THEM'? Questions like these are disingenuous in a world in which terrorists proclaim themselves...'

His first question can be answered thus: we cannot be sure and therefore should restrain ourselves from torturing innocents. Yes, there is a danger of BOTH error and abuse- a high one. Where are the limits? If one terrorist has one hostage, is the hostage more important than the terrorist? Why? If the hostage is a murderer? If you personally don't like the terrorist (or hostage)? Are we on a slippery slope- best explained by the oft-quoted phrase: 'The road to hell is paved by good intentions'? We might turn into them, we might already be them, or they might be us. But what I mean about all of this is that the terrorists DO NOT PROCLAIM THEMSELVES. Yes, as Levin points out, if you see masked gunmen on the news, then you know that they’re guilty. But if a terrorist leaves a bomb planted somewhere, they don’t stand out in the middle of the street and scream ‘I’M A TERRORIST, COME TORTURE ME!’. Suicide bombers may proclaim their identity, but by then it is too late, or irrelevant for torture. Even terrorists are human and try to protect their lives to the obvious extent of not walking around with a sign that says ‘Kick me, I’m a terrorist’ on their backs. (Metaphorically). And when he says ‘torture only the obviously guilty’- how do you define that? And why is he ignoring, as he himself puts it,- ‘…hard cases where the situation is murkier’?

Now, the examples above are mostly not about one painful life vs a lot of innocent dead. But they do illustrate possible ways of why torture is ineffective. Torture is torture, no matter the underlying motives. It either works or it doesn't. Michael Levin's thesis is that it does and so it should be used for good. Mine is that it doesn't work (or has a very low rate of success and a high rate of catastrophic failure) and so is useless for the cause of good.

Such scenarios are why torture was abandoned as an effective means of securing factual information.**** Indeed, the case can be made that other, legal, methods of supplying information are much better.

~

Alright, now that I've written why torture is useless and ineffective, I'll proceed to disagree with Levin on a minor point that he made, and one that has been brought up a few times. That point is the assassination of Hitler.

Unlike what some people say, Levin does agree that, had it been possible, the Allies would have assassinated Hitler and did assassinate Heydrich. His wording is a bit blurry, I admit, but this sentence shows this (underlines are my own): 'No Allied leader would have flinched at assassinating Hitler, had that been possible. (The Allies did assassinate Heydrich.)'. His next few sentences are what confuses people- ‘Americans would be angered to learn that…could have had Hitler killed in 1943…but refused on moral grounds’ which implies that this scenario did happen. As a matter of fact, it did not. Roosevelt, it could be argued, was in fact one of the minority who believed in violence/war against Hitler from the start, but since America did not wish to enter the war, he could not go against Hitler directly. If you look at a history of WWII, there were many things England, France, etc., could have done to stop WWII before it began, but did not. No matter what case you look at, Roosevelt definitely did not refuse to assassinate Hitler. Especially in 1943, when the war had been ongoing for 3 years and 3 months.*****

And it’s also ridiculous to apply assassination/pre-emptive attack to his torture case. Keep in mind that I’m not arguing that torture is immoral. (Even though I do believe that, that’s not what I’m trying to prove.) I’m trying to prove that Levin’s argument is invalid.

Levin’s reasons for advocating torture are that it would provide information/relief for the larger good. Pre-emptive attack does not provide information. A scouting mission might, but that’s not what he’s talking about. And, since Levin is being wonderfully patriotic here, so I’m assuming he means that we have the right to pre-emptively attack them. But what if we were planning on wiping out another country, by what was perceived as unprovoked by them? And they got wind of that fact and wiped out our military first? Would Levin still be in agreement that they were justified, even if their/our viewpoints differed over the provocation?

Assassination does not provide information. Dead people tell no tales, it is said. And it provides no relief. For example, if we had assassinated Hitler early on, the German people, in adoration of their ‘beloved leader’ and furious at his death, would simply have accelerated hostilities. Hitler was not the only war-mongering monster among the Nazis. True, if we had assassinated Hitler as an infant, WWII might not have happened. But how could we have known that baby Hitler would kill millions? And let’s keep practicality in mind and rule out time travel. In our time, with our capabilities, with what applies to us, how can we know in advance who will be a killer and who will not?

~

I find Levin’s argument that idealism is uncivilized very strange. Idealism is defined as: the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence.****** Ideals are: a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence. So, he criticizes people who believe that something is perfect/excellent (and therefore right and moral) and follow through on their belief as uncivilized, barbarous, uninformed, ignorant? Since Levin obviously believes that his cause for advocating torture is right and excellent and so should therefore be followed out on, is he not an idealist? Doesn’t that mean he is accusing himself of being uncivilized?

As for his writing style, I find it full of tricks to make us believe in his argument. He pushes on the offensive throughout the whole thing, using sarcasm to bait and insult those who believe differently in attempt to send them on a guilt trip. He never presents the other side clearly and ignores obvious issues- like the ineffectiveness of torture, which has been written about by intellectuals like Cesare Beccaria. He uses deliberately vague phrasing, quick input of ideas without reflection and relies on statistically unsound information. Take for example his ‘poll’. He surveyed four people. Even the amateur statistician******* should know that four is not a factually convincing or accurate number. He also uses far too many assumptions that you are indeed believing him. His argument, in fact, is designed to convince those of his flawed thinking that they are incontrovertibly right and that others not of that thinking are immoral and wrong. Anyone who is willing to examine his argument thoroughly and with a certain amount of bias will find that he has not made any sense whatsoever.

I do believe that it is ethical to put the lives of the many before the one. I do not believe that Levin’s ideas of implanting that moral idea are workable or well-thought-out. His ‘case for torture’ is weak, flawed and full of hot air. His argument is full of holes. I cannot take him seriously when his point is irrelevant to the greater ethical issue behind it.

To clarify: if torture were an effective instrument of procuring information that would benefit the greater good, if Levin's points were valid and made sense, if what he wrote was thoughtful, unbiased and a good argument that relied on fact, not ranting accusation, then I would agree. But torture is not effective or reliable, Levin's points are invalid and do not make sense, he was not thoughtful, unbiased and he most certainly did not rely on fact. I therefore feel obliged to disagree with him.

A few people might say that an effective method of securing the truth is through the use of truth serums. In fact, such serums do not work. They only release inhibitions against speech- they do not force people to tell the truth. Indeed, some people, feeling compelled to speak, will lie, will relate events that never happened, will agree and condemn themselves if they are innocent, etc. ********

I really could go on with this, but I’ve criminally exceeded the word limit for these things by over 2,000 words, so I’ll stop writing here. In conclusion, though, I believe that Levin is seriously misinformed, has not stopped to think things through the entire way and deliberately uses clever, though not reliable (which isn’t the word I’m looking for here, but oh well) tricks to convince people who want to believe in the many over the one principle, but who cannot see how flawed his reasoning is.

***************ASTERISKS*************ARE***********COOL************
* “A Case for Torture” by Michael Levin. Printed in Newsweek in 1982. You probably knew that.
**For information on Mark Smeaton, go look up Anne Boleyn on Google, the library, etc. I forgot to keep a list of my sources.
***I could totally expand upon the reasons why the Star Wars good guys are terrorists and how good and evil in that universe are just analogies for the harder truths in our own and how we actually do support terrorists...but that has very little to do with what this reflection is supposed to be about, so I won't. XD
****This page's Q&A section is an excellent place to look at. These three sections especially:[ Are there any situations in which torture is permitted?; Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives?; Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited? ]: prove my point better than I can write it. It, in my opinion, completely knocks Levin off his soapbox, as well as raising a few other excellent points against the supposedly 'ethical' implementation of torture, most of which I agree with. I suggest you go check it out. It's also a less offensive and more factual way of looking at the issue than either I or Levin provided.
*****Go look it up. Really. I did because such an accusation was ludicrous. And WWII started in September, 1939. The US entered the war in Dec. 8, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt had been trying since the war began to get the US involved in the war against Hitler, but couldn’t, since the people did not want to fight. And the US only declared war on Hitler because he was affiliated with Japan, which was behind Pearl Harbor.
****** Dude, this is way too many asterisks. Anyway, I used this dictionary: Merriam-Webster Online
******* I feel so smart for using that word….ahahahahahahahhaha
******** U.S. courts have generally ruled the use of truth serums is not a "trustworthy truth-extracting procedure" and have held evidence thus acquired is inadmissible, regardless of whether the drugs were administered voluntarily or involuntarily. E.g., Lindsey v. U.S., 237 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir.1956). This is from here. A confirming source is here. Or go look it up.

Wednesday 5 September 2007

Ad and Cartoon

The ad is against genetic altering of foods. The cartoon is for it. The ad uses scare tactics like printing disturbing answers on the picture of the can. It states clearly what it thinks is wrong with biotech foods and orders us to take action. It’s an ad which means that its purpose is to interest and enlist people in it. It this time is taking action for labeling of genetically modified foods. The cartoon pokes fun i.e. mocks people. It shows a large self-righteous hippie withholding a fat ear of corn from a starving poor man. The hippie, who represents those opponents of biotech foods, is using his stand on the issue to prevent people from eating foods that might potentially be bad for you. But the catoonist is showing that the good of such foods can outweigh the bad; in this instance the starving man would much rather have biotech food than starve to death. The cartoon mocks the fallacies of the opposing side; the ad highlights the dangers of the issue and asks for action.

Tuesday 4 September 2007

Implicit vs Explicit Arguments

Note: I think I need to stop writing these at one-thirty in the morning. They get too long, and I'm too lazy to change them.
~~~
Implicit arguments are arguments that are not stated directly and usually do not use the traditional media of argument, i.e. a written essay or spoken speech. They're things like pictures, poems, stories, etc., that the point of the argument can be inferred from, though the subject matter is set up in such a way that a specific conclusion is drawn. For example, the picture and poem on pages 5-6 are implicit arguments.

The picture shows how war is all friendship-forging and a deep, special bonding experience in the face of drastic but not insurmountable hardship. This is shown by the emotion of the two main men in the picture. They appear to be undergoing some deep emotional shared relief/happiness. They're also hugging, which is perceived as unusual for two men. That also indicates a close bond between them. However, they're of different generations (you can tell by their age and uniforms) so what bonded them is some greater significant thing, not just being together, but also being part of a generations-wide experience. And the younger man has lost his hand. That's drastic, painful and probably traumatic. But he's there and appears to be healthy and happy, so it doesn't appear that his hardships (and following that, the hardships of war) are forever or completely awful. All that is shown and inferred just from that one picture.

The poem is quite different. Because it's written, to me at least, the implicit argument is easier to see up front, without the book's guidance. It's implicit because the author never came right out to say 'War is bad, because it makes people die.' But by telling of the horrors of the men living through it, (the blood, the shells, the mustard-gas) he makes us feel that war /isn't/ such a glorious, heroic experience after all. The closest he comes to outright saying his point is the last four lines, where he says:

'My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori'

Stating that if people really knew what went on in the battlefield, they wouldn't tell their children that it was an honour to die for their country. And another implicit argument: the fact that children /are/ 'ardent for some desperate glory' means that some cultural influence has wrongly told them that war is glorious.

Explicit arguments are when there is, to quote the book: 'an ordered structure of thesis, reasons, and evidence.' (just a note- that last comma after reasons is bad grammar, I think). That means that explicit arguments are when people say what it is they're arguing about, why and from what viewpoint, the reasons that have caused them to think that way or will cause us to think that way and the evidence backing up those reasons. All of which should be presented clearly and precisely so it’s easy to understand what the argument is about. It's practically impossible to do that in a picture, but easier in a movie or a speech or a written thing. That's why most explicit arguments are speeches and essays.

Friday 31 August 2007

Memory

Note: Jack’s name isn’t Jack. And I wrote this in the present tense. And I still don’t know how to use the italics yet. So I put what should be italicized in slashes, like /this/. And I think this is too long. I tried to make it shorter. But it seemed better like this. Oh, well. I was a dumb third-grader, btw.

Memory: or otherwise entitled:
How I Broke My Arm

I’m nine, naïve and quiet with an excess of illogic. I’m swinging on the swingset on the rubber playground outside Sycamore- like I always do after school. A friend of mine named Jack is with me, like he usually is, talking with me.

“I want to be a ghost,” he says with relish, swinging determinedly higher. “Ghosts are cool.”

“Yeah, but what would you do if you were one?” I ask dubiously.

“I dunno,” Jack replies thoughtfully. His skinny hands clutch the insulated chain that connects the swing to the blue swingset.

“/I’d/ haunt the school,” I announce, and grin. I hadn’t thought of that until just now, and I’m pleased with the brilliance of my idea. “Except I don’t know how to be a ghost.” I add, disappointed. I look hopefully at Jack, who knows about things like this.

“It’s easy,” Jack tells me, grinning back. His swing catches in time to mine, but neither of us mention it, like we usually do. We’re too engrossed in our discussion. “You just have to die. And go /splat/ at the same time.”

I frown, thinking hard. “You mean if we jump off somewhere high, we’d be ghosts?”

“Yeah!” he yells enthusiastically. His slight bounce in his seat sends the swings off-time again. “Hey, you’re right. Wanna be ghosts? Didja know there’s a special name for when you die on purpose? It’s called suicide.”

“Suicide,” I repeat carefully. “Cool.” It’s the first time I’ve heard the word ‘suicide’. It seems a little strange to me, as if it’s a bit ridiculous that anyone would want to die on purpose. But then I’m reminded that I’m about to try.

I jump off the swing, enjoying the brief exhilaration of flight, the illusion of wind, before I fall back down onto the sharp cushion of old rubber fragments. My hands and clothes are stained black from the pieces, but I’m fine.

“Do /that/!” I taunt Jack, gleeful in my expected success.

He jumps off after me, appearing to pause in midair for a single fraction of a second. I watch, fascinated as always by the suspension of movement in air. I’ve never known anything more graceful than a diver’s momentary poise, folding and unfolding with perfect control before crashing into the water.

~

For a few days, we lead each other on a merry chase. He jumps off the slide; I jump off after. I leap off the monkey bars; he follows me. We seek higher and higher places each day. But we always feel ourselves strike the ground with only little bruises, never the fluid ectoplasm that would signal our entry into the supernatural.

I’ve been enjoying our game. The feeling of flying every time we leap, each time better and higher, seems great fun to me. But I’m also getting tired of it and wishing for the final moment that we’re trying to achieve. That’s when I decided to try jumping out of The Tree.

I think of it capital letters, not ‘a tree’ or ‘some tree’ or ‘hey, it’s a tree!’, but The Tree. I had figured out how to climb it when I was eight. It has crabapple flowers, and it’s the main tree, the dominant tree, in our little playground. It is The Tree. And I am nine and I fear no tree.

Jack climbs higher up than I can, perching birdlike in the willowy upper branches. I balance on a lower, more solid branch. The sun is bright, and the sky is blue.

“Jump!” I dare my friend, shifting impatiently. I finger a thick branch, feeling excitement rush through me. What if this is /it/?

“No!” he yells back. I hear the fear in his voice, but he can’t be afraid, I’m not afraid, why should he be?

He refuses to jump. I double-dog-dare him. I /triple/-dog-dare him, which you’re not supposed to /ever/ resist. I promise that if he jumps, I will too.

He shakes his head no, still refusing to jump. I fidget, frustrated and confused by his continued insistence. I want something to happen; arguing about suicide in a tree is boring.

“/I’ll/ jump!” I say finally, unable to stand either the wait or the debate any longer.

And I did say it, so I have to jump. And I do. I jump up and out into fragile air. I’m no higher than I would be on the swings, lower in fact. My irritation makes this brief, clean moment wilder, more now than I’ve ever felt before.

And because I’m flying and soaring and levitating, I can do anything. So I try. I twist around, trying to spin like a top and achieve the dizzy feeling of being lost completely in the moment.

I fail.

It’s with a painful, agonizing, hazy shock that I hit the ground. This isn’t safe, tested, cushioning rubber or soft fleece and fluff. It’s hard, packed dirt, with sticks and stones and it’s coming up at me and I fling out my left arm, trying to hover, to stop, no, I’m /falling…/

But it’s useless. My lower arm explodes with needles and hammers of icy heat and I scream in pain. A /lot/ of pain.

Tuesday 28 August 2007

Reflections on Class 2

Note: Our assignment is to reflect on anything in the class so far. Since I accidentally wrote the answer to the wrong question last time, I've decided not to waste a good reflection on Fuentes and the Great Gatsby. I've reposted it here. With editing. (My spelling last time was atrocious. I mean, I think I spelled the word 'amazing' wrong.) After all, we did talk about something like this today in class.

Further Note: I really need to learn how to use italics in this thing.

Further further Note: Is over 450 words a bad thing? I just got carried away.
~~~~~~~~~~
Fuentes' piece showed the way his experiences influenced his writing and how his heritage influenced it as well. It's amazing just how much something that can be considered ‘obsolete’ in today’s culture can influence someone so much. After all, today everyone is supposed to be a sophisticated, regular, all-American Westerner. Everyone is supposed to be equal and the same. (Which are two different things). The idea that being different [is bad] is supposedly obsolete. People aren't the same though, nor are they equal. When Fuentes spoke of his being looked down on for being Mexican at school, that shows how you are perceived is more apparent than what you really are.

How does this relate to the Great Gatsby? Well, Fuentes was thought of as Mexican and looked Mexican and so he began to feel Mexican. Sort of like Gatsby looked and thought of himself as a mysterious, exotic, fascinating guy, and people began to see him as he thought he was. It's actually the opposite of what Fuentes did. Gatsby's self-opinion caused the change in everyone else's opinion of him. Everyone else's opinions of Fuentes (his father's Mexican stories, his family's nationalism, the teasing at school, the news) influenced his opinion of himself, (which caused him to care more about his Latin American culture and propelled him into a situation where he started to write.)

Also: on the Red Sky in the Morning post, LaMags asked about what I meant by 'a memoir tells a mind, not a story'. That's a quote from Patricia Hampl's essay. What I think she means is that a story conveys something limited. It's like telling you a few things about something, but leaving loads more open for thought. Like the example in class, naming a table is a story. It tells you that the table has a name and its name is table. Stories are usually more complex than that and they can tell you even thousands of things. But they leave out some whys and some hows and questions and things. Stories don't tell everything, just most of something, or a lot of it, or very little of it. A memoir, in contrast, tells everything. Who and what and how and why and where and when and everything like that. A memoir doesn't just set the scene and add a plot and descriptions and ideas. It has to tell something beyond the ordinary facts of who and how and why. It has to tell what the person is like and how they feel, neither of which is rational or logical or definable and is the epitome of the phrase 'I could tell you stories'- you could but you can't because there's too much to tell and no way to explain it. It being your mind, your /self/.

How I Started to Write-Fuentes

EDIT: I realized that I did the wrong thing for this assignment. Therefore, I have rewritten it.

Audience

Fuentes is writing for a well-read audience. He uses many references (direct and indirect) and quotes from literary novels such as The Count of Monte Cristo, Don Quixote, words from Dostoevsky (that one Russian dude whose name I cannot spell), etc. He also uses complex language and sentences that perhaps an ordinary, moderately literate audience could not comprehend.

He writes to an American (or non-Latin American) audience as well. There are cultural references (like the grammar list) that Latin Americans would presumably know and would not find thought provoking or intriguing. He also has to list old presidents and poets and things like that, which a non-Latin American audience would not know or find immediately obvious. It is apparent that he is speaking from a Latin American standpoint and forgets (or does not think necessary) to explain things that might not be understood by us. For example, he refers to the 'Eagle and the Serpent'. To some people, this would mean nothing, though they could presumably guess he meant Mexico by the context. (It really refers to the flag of Mexico, which has an eagle holding a snake in its claws [over a cactus?] because of an old Aztec legend. It's kind of like saying the Stars and Stripes).

~!~Lizard~!~

Monday 27 August 2007

Red Sky in the Morning

Red Sky in the Morning is a very nicely written piece. It is very descriptive without being boring and the descriptions are not just lists of characteristics of things but musings on what they really mean. It is amazing how the author can make whole pages of a story out of a simple meeting. She also uses italics and parentheses and other things to make the piece flow in a more interesting way, keeping the reader engaged and thinking.

Her premise, that memoirs are hard to write because they tell a mind, not a story, is also interesting. She explains several times that there are more stories in us than we can communicate, simply because there are too many and too personal and we don’t always know how. She gives an example, indirectly sort of; at the time, she didn’t really think much of the farm woman and her husband, she just remembered the incident. But years later, she can weave the experience into an idea- and a story.

She also makes a subtle point that it’s not the beautiful or outwardly interesting things that stick in our memory. It’s the things that hold a mystery, that you want to know more about, that we remember. She says she has trouble remembering the husband, even though he was the better-looking of the two, but she can remember the woman almost perfectly. That’s because she held stories that, as the author repeatedly says, that she could tell.

Because I wasn’t there for Friday’s discussion, I can’t comment on it.

~!~Lizard~!~

Wednesday 22 August 2007

Reflections on Class Thus Far

The class has been very interesting so far. We’ve discussed in depth all sorts of ideas pertaining to The Great Gatsby and its author, Fitzgerald, as well as Nickel and Dimed. Wednesday’s discussion in particular was way more complex than I expected it to be. That wasn’t a bad thing, because it was fascinating to see how other people understood the books differently than I did and what they thought about it.

The discussions also helped me to understand what exactly Fitzgerald was saying in his essay and in The Great Gatsby. All that wordy, semi-poetic language he uses makes it quite difficult to comprehend even some of the descriptions (such as the ash fields, which confused me).

The day that we were shown the Rhetorical Triangle was interesting in a different sort of way. We already knew the basic facts about it- for example, we know that every piece of writing has a purpose and uses logos, pathos, ethos, etc.- but we don’t consciously think about it. It’s surprising the way that we have to analyze things we already know in order to understand them.

One last thing: the vocabulary is finally difficult this year, which makes me happy.

~!~Lizard~!~