Documentary

http://youtu.be/gtV4LWnc8uw

Varying Diction

Garner (p. 143): gather or collect.

 

Fester (p. 143): (of a negative feeling or a problem) intensify, especially through neglect.

 

Prognosis (p. 145): a forecast, especially of the likely course of a disease or ailment.

Prerogative (p. 147): a right or privilege exclusive to a particular individual or class.

Acquiesce (p. 147): accept or consent to something without protest.

Stout (p. 149): rather fat or heavily built.

Ascetic (p. 149): characterized by the practice of severe self-discipline.

Quarry (p. 150): a person or thing being chased or sought.

Rascal (p. 151): a mischievous or impudent person, especially a child.

Forlornly (p. 153): pitifully sad and lonely.

Studying Perry’s Past

            Capote returns to talking about Perry and Dick, the two first suspects of the murder. However, he does not talk about their present situation or their whereabouts. Instead, he begins to describe Perry’s past in a very organized and precise manner. Capote depicts the main characteristics of Perry’s life that probably led to make the actions he might have committed. This is exemplified when the narrator explains, “The other children were put in homes as I could not manage to take them all in my home and them being part indian blood and welfare took care of them as I requested” (Capote 127). I realized Perry had a very difficult life and this probably affected his way of thinking. I found it very interesting to see the detail in which Perry’s father descried his son. It seemed as if he had been there for him his entire life and had never left him. Also, Perry did appreciate this manuscript as he thought it was the only valuable thing his father had actually done for him.

            Perry’s experience in jail affected every single member of his family, from his father to his siblings and their families. It is impressive to see the way in which Perry talked in a harmful way about his father. This is evidenced in the letter written to Perry while he was in jail saying the following: “Dad has lived & you show ignorance in calling him uneducated and unable to understand ´the scientific meaning etc´ of life’s problems” (Capote 141). Even though his father had always loved him and cared a lot for him, Perry never actually valued him and felt him close. On the other hand, he felt very close to Willie-Jay, a man who he met in jail and wrote some critics and analyzed the letter from his father. Perry value more a person who he just met and did not know him nearly as much as his father than his father who had given him all his attention throughout most of his life. Although this way another sharp change in style in the book, I believe it was completely necessary, since knowing some background information about the characters allows the reader to understand the actions in the literary present.

A Hurt City and Sudden Changes

             After Reading the next portion of In Cold Blood, it is important to highlight that Capote spends a lot of time describing the consequences of the murders and how they impacted the community. The death of the Clutters not only affected the close friends of the family, but the entire town. The whole neighborhood had changed. The trust that reigned over that community had shattered, since they suspected the assassin was among them. A community that does not work together and trust each other will go nowhere and will experience no progress at all. Therefore, Garden City was doomed to live without any activity for quite a long period of time. To avoid this from happening, Mr. Howard Fox, Bonnie Clutter’s brother wrote, “The deed is done and taking another life cannot change it. Instead, let us forgive as God would have us do” (Capote 107). The people of the city probably believed Fox and started to return to live a normal life, but the fear still remained.

            I found it very interesting to observe how Capote kept us thinking all the way through that Perry and Dick were the murderers. Through their insights and their thoughts, I had no doubt that they were the murders. However, suddenly, another character, Jonathan Daniel Adrian, appears and is now considered the main suspect of the crime. This sudden shift in attention by the audience from Perry and Dick to Adrian also causes a total shift in focus by the book. The narrative reaches a point of very high suspense when the narrator states, “Because, inside the car, what they’d found was a .12-gauge shotgun. And a hunting knife” (Capote 123). This has to be the killer! However, I am now more hesitant to take this fact for certain since last time I took such a stance I was proved wrong. The authorities have solid clues now that are expected to lead them to the criminal(s). 

 

 

The Other Side of the Story

             After thoroughly describing the whole Clutter family and their relationships both among them and with their community, Capote now turns to describe the other face of the event. This occurs in a very sudden manner. It is a jump from one extreme to the other. I found it very surprising to see the instant change of location and atmosphere when the narrator states, “Approximately four hundred miles east of where Arthur Clutter then stood, two young men were sharing a booth in Eagle Buffet, a Kansas City diner” (p. 89). At first, this seems like a random comment, but further on in the reading, I could connect several points. First, it is important to highlight that Capote introduces Arthur Clutter, at least in this part of the book, in order to link what he said about the murderers being very close to where they were standing and the story of the murderers. He does this in a way which is very sudden and unexpected by the reader, but at the same time it still is connected to the trajectory of the book.

            As I kept on reading, I learned through Capote’s detailed descriptions about the two murderers and their chains of thought. I found it impressive to observe can give such a great amount of information in only a sentence. For example, when Perry says, “Anyway, I don’t believe it. Neither do you. Own up, Dick. Be honest. You don’t believe this no-clue stuff?” (p. 89). Here, one can see that Perry is the dominant individual of the two. He assumes and almost forces Dick to think the same as he does. Also, I can infer that they are both very nervous about being caught, but are trying to disguise this anxiety by reassuring each other that the police of the town is not that intelligent in order to find out it was them. However, the main question still remains unanswered: Why were the Clutters murdered? Hopefully, with the opposite perspective of the murderers some clues will be given out.

 

   

Don Juan: A Rhetorical Masterpiece

                Yesterday I went to see the play Don Juan in school. I did not know what to expect, since I had never heard of it and was not familiarized with it. It turned out to be a great performance with very good actors and props. I truly enjoyed it and laughed a lot all throughout it. In addition to the entertainment the play provided, it is also very important to analyze the rhetoric behind the play. I found it very interesting to observe how most of the characters manipulated pathos in the audience. For example, the people at the Mexican beach, through their gestures and facial expressions, demonstrated their disgust toward the excited lifeguard. Also, the woman with the baby in the beach demonstrated her emotions of frustration toward Don Juan in a way that she transmitted the feelings to the audience and manipulated their emotions. Finally, Don Juan’s servants portrayed fear and lack of bravery on several occasions.

            Ethos was another one of the modes of rhetoric manipulated throughout the play. Don Juan’s mother from the very beginning established her character as an authoritarian and furious person. This allowed her to set her stance and to transmit her lines in a way that the audience would realize the certainty and directness with which she delivered her arguments. On the other hand, Don Juan’s servant established his character as a rather fearful and humble individual. This contributed to enhancing his character not only through his lines, but through his personality. It was impressive to see the last scene of the play, where Don Juan was devoured by all of the people he had dealt with. This might show how you are responsible for all your actions and sometime you will pay for all that you have done.

 

 

Getting to Know the Vocabulary

Bluster (p. 44):  To blow in loud, violent gusts, as the wind during a storm.

Lurk (p. 44):  To lie in wait, as in ambush.

Cinch (p. 44): A sure thing; a certainty.

Drift (p. 45):  To wander from a set course or point of attention; stray.

Chaplain (p. 45):  A member of the clergy who conducts religious services for an institution, such as a prison or hospital or is connected with a royal court or an aristocratic household.

Tarry (p. 48):  To delay or be late in going, coming, or doing.

Banjo (p. 48): A usually fretted stringed instrument having a narrow neck and a hollow circular body with a covering of plastic or stretched skin on which the bridge rests.

Quibble (p. 51): To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

Perk (p. 52): To regain or cause to regain one's good spirits or liveliness.

Chysanthemum (p. 40): Any of numerous, mostly Eurasian plants of the genus Chrysanthemum in the composite family, many of which are cultivated as ornamentals for their showy radiate flower heads.

A Skillful and Strict Clutter Family

            Having just begun the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, I found it very interesting to observe the thorough descriptions Capote makes of each individual in the family. Beginning with Mr. Clutter, Capote uses narration and exposition to present the characters and depict their main traits. I can predict that the family unit will be very important in this book, since Capote spends the first notable section of the book describing the relationship between the generations in the family and how this affects the environment in the house. For example, Capote states, “The Rupp family were Roman Catholics, the Clutters, Methodists—a fact that should in itself be sufficient to terminate whatever fancies she and this boy might have of some day marrying” (p. 8). I can relate this to families in the early 1900s and even some today, which uphold their religious traditions to high that they do not allow their heirs to marry someone who follows another religion. Despite this, Nancy still keeps the ring Bobby gave her as a symbol of her relationship.

            It is important to note that the Clutters are a very self-sufficient family and have learned how to deal with their own problems without the help of anyone else. Capote points this out when he declares, “Other than a housekeeper who came in on weekdays, the Clutters employed no household help…” (p. 9). It is impressive to observe how this fact allows the writer to continue the story by highlighting Nancy’s main skills, which are not few. The interesting part is that she does not brag about her abilities. This does not surprise me since the people who know they are very talented and have a high self-esteem do not need to go around bragging and forcing everyone to realize how good they are. With Mr. Capote’s fantastic cooking, architectonic, and designing skills accompanied by Nancy’s academic, riding, and artistic skills, the Clutter family has a very solid base from which to begin dreaming of a prosperous family. The point is, why does Capote give us such a detailed description of the family? Do the hunters from Oklahoma symbolize the beginning of a violent life?

 

 

A Great Controversy

            British rule in India has been for long a very controversial topic since it has brought in opinions from all political parties and has caused extended discussions of British duty in that country. The speech by Winston Churchill Our Duty in India is very well-written and very persuasive. His attack on the Socialist Party and on their ideals with what appears to be credible evidence adds profoundness to his perspective on British rule in India. At the beginning of the speech, Churchill starts to propose several questions crammed into a single one. The many questions fallacy is present when he states, “What spectacle could be more strange, more monstrous in its perversity, than to see the Viceroy and the high officials and agents of the Crown in India labouring with all their influence and authority to unite and weave together into a confederacy all the forces adverse and hostile to our rule in India?” This allows him to continue his speech giving arguments that appear to answer all the questions he proposed, when he is only answering one or two of them.

            Another fallacy that I depicted in the speech was misinterpreting the evidence. This type of fallacy is used when Churchill declares, “Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.” Here the premise and the examples given fail to lead to the conclusion. None of the proofs can guarantee that the British government cannot come to an agreement with Gandhi. Finally, a complex cause is used when he states, “This wonderful fact is due to the guidance and authority of a few thousands of British officials responsible to Parliament who have for generations presided over the development of India.” Churchill shifts his argument temporarily from blaming the Socialists for their lack of authority to state that the main and almost only reason why India is currently is good shape is because of the loyal British soldiers (obeying Conservative orders) in India. Churchill provides solid arguments that are very convincing to the audience and through his effective use of fallacies, is able to assert certain ideas and draw conclusions that seem to be the only correct ones.

 

 

Depicting Fallacies

                Not only speeches contain fallacies, some essays also do. This is the case in Shooting an Elephant, an essay that apparently tells a relatively simple story, but if analyzed thoroughly, contains several types of fallacies that persuade the reader and make him sympathize with the protagonist. Starting with an appeal to popularity, it is interesting to observe the way in which Orwell uses rhetoric in a way that is not direct, but through his characters. An example is when the protagonist states, “As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so.” The protagonist is assuming that since he is a police officer, that fact makes him an automatic target. His proof fails to lead to the conclusion.

             In addition, Orwell uses tautology to further make the audience take the standpoint he wants them to. This technique is used when he states, “The Burmese population had no weapons and were quite helpless against it.” This statement is just repeating itself two times. The proof is the conclusion, only paraphrased. Therefore, it is a fallacy. As you can see, the apparently naïve essay has a lot of rhetoric in it which actually works. At the end of the essay, I sympathized with the protagonists feelings and understood what he was going through. Lastly, misinterpreting the evidence is another fallacy that works extremely well in this text. When the protagonist is analyzing the situation, he thinks, “It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant — it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery.” The example has very little to do with the actual situation. Although it seems like an effective simile, it actually causes the audience to misinterpret the evidence as be persuaded by the character to make one think that killing the elephant is a very bad idea. Fallacies are crucial in speeches and I found it very interesting to see the effect they have in essays. The subtleness of how they are placed in the essay makes the audience be persuaded without noticing it.

 

 

Hidden Fallacies

            Most, if not all, of the greatest speeches in history contain fallacies in them. Although fallacies are considered as a sort of foul in rhetoric, they are very useful in some cases to persuade. In his famous speech at Kingsley Hall, Gandhi uses fallacies in a very effective manner. At first, it is very hard to spot them, since they are hidden in his complex use of logic in the speech. For example, the speech contains the many questions fallacy where Gandhi states, “Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules.” In this sentence, Gandhi combines several questions about the same topic but that could be answered in different ways. Instead of doing this, he establishes one conclusion that seems to cover them all. This allows him to cover an entire topic and answer some of the questions with the greatest controversies in very little time.

           Another example of a fallacy used is the fallacy of antecedent. This is present when he declares, “It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being….” Gandhi concludes that it is not a blind law because it has never been so it will never be. The use of this fallacy contributes to the persuasiveness of the speech since it seems as if the statement was completely true and inarguable, but it just contains a well-used fallacy. Finally, the use of a hasty generalization contributes to a speech which is delivering an opinion, but which appears to be stating an absolute fact. This type of fallacy is used when he states, “…Whereas humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.” There is no sufficient evidence that the acceptance of divine authority makes life’s journey easier, but in this statement it is stated as if it had all the evidence in the world. It is truly impressive to depict the diverse use of fallacies in this speech, since you can realize that even individuals like Gandhi, who appear to be talking straight from their hearts, actually use manipulative techniques such as these. How sneaky!

 

 

Analyzing the Counterpart

                Not only is it important to know how to use rhetoric in your favor, but it is also crucial to identify when people are using rhetoric against you. An individual who favors extremes will not receive much support, since he will demonstrate that he is clearly more interested in his personal benefit than in reaching a conclusion that favors the audience as well. This is an example of an individual that lacks rhetorical virtue, which is one of the key traits an effective rhetorician has to have. The best move to make is to establish a stance that is right in the middle of the two extremes. That way, neither of the two can attack you because of your position. A person who uses this technique can be considered trustworthy and reliable. On the other hand, a person who has a very defined position, but presents it in a very radical or very ambiguous manner, is not to be trusted and should be treated with extreme caution.

 

            Seeming to be disinterested is one of the best strategies in order to get the audience’s confidence. When the audience begins to think that the choices you are proposing benefit him, then he will start to trust you more and be more vulnerable to persuasion. In addition, it is very important to analyze the desire of the person to know all the aspects of a certain situation in order to make well-informed decisions and make efficient choices. An individual who, under any circumstance whatsoever, gives the same opinion, will not be very effective in persuading the audience. As Heinrichs states, “The practically wise person sizes up the problem before answering it” (p. 181). Demosntrating that desire to be engaged in the situation and wanting to thoroughly comprehend the problem can lead to and establishment of a relation between you and the audience. This relation will create a bond, which is vital to be able to manipulate them and be able to get them to agree with you.

 

 

Getting to Know the Rules of Rhetoric

            Logic and rhetoric are two different things. While logic tries to prove that something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, rhetoric is used to provide choices from which the audience can choose and try to make them agree with your proposals. Reaching a consensus is the best way to win an argument, since it makes the audience think that what they have chosen will only benefit them and that you are just a path to their well-being. Meanwhile, only using logic in an argument can result in fighting. Fighting is one of the only rules there is in rhetoric. Although rhetoric is very flexible when it comes to rules, it has certain suggestions that can help assure a better argument, at least from your side.

                I found it interesting to see the influence that deliberative speech has in an audience. To describe this point, Heinrichs declares, "It's okay to use sermonizing, demonstrative rhetoric in a deliberative argument to get the audience on his side, but then the persuader should instantly switch to the future tense" (p. 163). If you only talk about values and guilt, then your whole proposal will seem to be based only on the problems of the present, instead of proposing solutions for the future. Also, threatening or humiliating your opponent demonstrates a lack of virtue in rhetoric by that individual. I realized that most people tend to do this in a discussion, since they think ridiculing their opponent will help them gain the audience’s support. Sometimes it does. But this technique should only be used in extremely urgent cases when the counterpart directly and explicitly attacks you. However, these types of aggressive approaches will eventually lead to a stalemate in which neither part will get their point across and will not be able to reach a consensus. Attacking the other part in such a way will only build up anger and infuriate both parts. Therefore, neither one will win the argument. On the contrary, providing the audience with a choice allows them to consider various possibilities and probably you will be able to guide them to the one you feel is more convenient. Finally, there are times when certain topics become inarguable. Debating these topics is useless, since there is no way to win the argument. Be careful with rhetoric because the fact that is has very few established rules, there are many ways in which it can backfire you is not used effectively.

 

 

An Inspiring Victory Speech

       Barack Obama’s Victory speech, just after he was elected President of the United States for a second term, was very inspiring and used rhetoric to transmit the message he wanted and reassured his followers that their decision was the best one. Despite this, Obama uses certain fallacies in order to persuade the audience that the United States is in its best moment and with his leadership, it will achieve even more than what is has in the past. Obama declared that if everyone worked together and carried out their duties, then there would be big recognitions and successful moments awaiting them. The premise is not necessarily true, since nothing guarantees that hard work means there are excellent things waiting for you at the end of the path. Obama guarantees this. In addition, Obama’s excellent use of deliberative speech and establishing his verb tense in the future gives choices to the audience, which certainly supports the ones Obama wants them to. Obama’s clever use of rhetoric made his victory speech a very influential and powerful one.

Do Not Treat the Audience as Babies

                Truly getting into the heart of logos in chapter 13, it is very interesting to observe how the use of syllogisms can influence the argument. First and foremost, it is crucial that the audience understands the logic you are using and gets to the conclusion that you want them to. If not, you just wasted valuable time on invaluable persuasion. However, people will not be easily convinced if they think they are being manipulated in some way to agree with the idea that you propose. This is where enthymemes are extremely useful. They provide a type of syllogism that uses the same logic but skips the middle portion of it, which is unnecessary. It is best to use enthymemes with commonplaces because that guarantees you that the audience will comprehend the evidence and feel attached to the situation and the objective. A very important part when prooving a premise is showing examples. This method of using examples to evidence a point is called a paradigm. This influences the choice you want the audience to make. This evidence will also act as the premise, which is key to make your point valid and show the reader that it does work. Heinrichs describes this when he states, “It starts with a premise--a fact or commonplace--and applies it to a specific case to reach a conclusion” (p. 125). Once the audience believes the premise and reaches the conclusion, they will be easily persuaded.

            I found it very impressive that logic also involves using a lot of facts. However, the important part is not only gathering and knowing the information, but knowing how to effectively use it to convey the message. Presenting facts or comparisons to the audience, you add power to the premise, therefore guiding the audience through the path to reach the desired conclusion. If the audience knows that your ideas are not only backed-up by your point of view, but by several others, then the argument becomes much more powerful and convincing. I know there are some people who believe everything you tell tell, but it is better to be prepared for the more intelligent ones. At first the audience might be thinking: "Why is he teeling me this?" but soon after they might be asking themnselves, "Why did I just believe him and felt his point was the right one?" Using deductive or inductive logic will allow you to present commonplaces or examples that add profoundness and make the audience feel identified with your goal. Actually, it might even modify their identity in the long run. All of it because of you.

Getting Your Opponent to Agree

                One of the main goals of rhetoric is to get your opponent to agree with your point right from the beginning. The counterpart will most likely have a different proposal, so it is your job to convince him that your ideas give him more benefits. Being advantageous provides the opponent with a choice which is more beneficial for him. It is very interesting to see how rhetoric plays with the selfishness in human nature. Since the only way that someone will agree to a different idea is by showing him that the idea offers him many advantages over the other, rhetoric is a very effective path to make the opponent think that, while in reality that is merely an illusion. One way to induce this illusion is by establishing commonplaces. Clichés can sometimes be monotonous and ineffective, but are other times a good tool to get the counterpart to relate to your idea. The efficient use of clichés can actually make the individual belief in the idea and allows you to establish a common ground in which the debate can take place. On the contrary, if the atmosphere in which the discussion takes place is not familiar to the opponent, then he will take a defensive stance and reject all your propositions.

            In addition, it is crucial to highlight the importance of taking a defined and clear stance toward the topic being discussed. President Obama and Governor Romney establish their positions clearly with regards to the Middle East very often, since it is one of the most controversial topics in the country. This will add credibility to your argument and will give you an edge over your adversary. Sometimes, the best alternative when facts do not work is to “redefine the terms instead. If that won’t work, accept your opponent’s facts and terms but argue that your opponent’s argument is less important than it seems” (p. 109). Always have a counter attack ready if one of your established plans goes wrong. Lastly, I found it very impressive to observe that in most of the techniques described by Heinrichs, the best thing to usually do is to undermine the opponent’s ideas in a subtle way and impose your own not only as the best one, but as the most beneficial one for the opponent, not for you.     

Done With Ethos, Now Pathos

                After having thoroughly described how to manipulate ethos and the marvelous effects this can have on the audience, it is crucial to remember that pathos is another very important mode of rhetoric that complements ethos in an argument. Arguing is not only about establishing a clear character and using logic to persuade the audience. Sometimes this is not enough. The effective appeal to the emotions and feelings of the audience creates a strong connection between you and them. This connection will allow you to dominate their feelings and make them work towards what you want them to. A very efficient way to change the mood in an argument is by telling an anecdote. As Heinrichs says, “The more vivid you make the story, the more it seems like a real experience, and the more your audience will think it could happen again” (p. 81). The power of a detailed narrative is very impressive. It can manipulate the emotions of the audience almost instantly.

            It is the audience’s job to figure out the feelings being evoked and the emotions present in the argument, not yours. Therefore, you should not exaggerate the feelings you want to evoke. If you demonstrate or indirectly tell the audience which emotions you are trying to manipulate, they will acquire a preventive attitude and will let themselves be manipulated by you. On the other hand, by speaking in a simple manner and hiding your real intentions, you can trick the audience and manipulate pathos effectively. I found it very interesting to realize that stimulating anger in the audience is the best way to manipulate pathos. Heinrichs depicts that “the easiest way to manipulate anger…is to belittle that desire” (p. 86). Once you get the audience to be angry, then it is much easier for you not only to persuade them, but to make them commit to your ideas. I believed that infuriating the audience was a very bad idea, since they would not be very receptive to new ideas; however, if you use that anger correctly, the audience becomes vulnerable and will accept any way you propose to achieve your desire.  

Acting As the Victim

            It is not always the best idea to highlight your strengths and brag about them. Especially when you are appealing to your audience to make them do something for you, a different approach may be the most appropriate to persuade them. Pretending to be the victim in the scene is certainly very useful, since you appear to be the one hurt if the counterpart takes the wrong decision. It takes all the eagerness and the anxiousness one has to convey his message and prove his point and turns it into a seemingly disinterested argument. Heinrichs describes this very effectively when he states, “Seem to deal reluctantly with something you are really eager to prove” (p. 73). This makes the audience sympathize with you and probably try to help you in your case. This technique made me reflect upon several experiences in which I have tried by all means to persuade an individual of sharing my position in a certain topic and could not accomplish my task. However, when I was about to quit and began to stop insisting so much, the individual suddenly decided to share my perspective.

            Innocence is crucial for the audience to trust you. I found it very interesting to observe the influence an appearance of innocence has on the audience. I would have expected the audience to be happy with a very knowledgeable person who shows his intelligence right from the beginning of the argument. However appearing as an innocent person who is simply the victim of anxiousness adds credibility and honesty to the argument, which most people value. In addition, Heinrichs depicts a very important technique one should consider: “Make it seem you have no tricks” (p. 75). The audience will start the discussion with a very cautious approach to the ideas one presents. It is the arguer’s objective to make the audience sympathize with him and make them change their approach to a more open and trusting one. Once this has been accomplished, one can begin manipulating pathos, logos, and ethos to persuade them of committing to a certain idea and doing what is desired. Winning their trust first is essential to achieve the final goal.

    

If You Can’t Beat Your Enemy, Join Him

            One of the most important aspects to consider when arguing in making the audience relate to you. One very clever way you can do this is by understanding the concept of virtue and how to effectively use it. When highlighting the virtues you have, it is key that “the audience believes you share their values” (p.56). Virtue can vary a lot depending of the context in which the argument is taking place and who specifically is the audience. In order to be effective in sympathizing with the audience, they need to think you have the appropriate values and then they will begin to accept the proposed idea. I found this very interesting, since I recall that people almost always think that what they think is right, so one of the best ways to make them believe you have the appropriate values is by acting as if you shared common values with them.

                Another point that really shocked me was when Heinrichs discusses the effectiveness of tactical flaws in rhetoric arguing. I thought that explicitly showing your flaws was one of the worst things one could do, since the opponent would immediately start taking advantage of them. However, some tactical flaws are very useful, since they demonstrate that one has been completely dedicated and committed to the audience’s values, which should appear as common values. Another controversial technique Heinrichs mentions is that when the opponent comes with new pieces of good evidence or you feel that the argument is being won by the counterpart, you should change the position for which you stand in a subtle manner. I would argue that some of the greatest leaders and mass manipulators have been successful in achieving their objectives by standing the whole way by their initial values and perspective. But apparently, “those who stick to your former opinion in the face of such overwhelming reasons aren’t, well, reasonable” (p.64). Therefore, making this transition can save you from losing the argument. Although these techniques seem like if you were playing dirty, they are really manipulating the audience to transform your image into what they seek in the person, making you their idol.

Rhetoric: A Presidential Weapon

            President Obama and Governor Romney had their last debate tonight very close to the presidential elections in the United States. Both of them had to take their best arguments and make the people believe in them and give them their vote of confidence for such a crucial position. It is impressive how President Obama used logos to counterattack Governor Romney’s argument about the military budget. He declared that the United States was currently spending more on its military than the next ten countries in the top spending list combined. Therefore, it is not necessary to spend more on the military since it is not asking for more and this would also mean taking away an important amount of the money used for education and other vital services. Romney’s effective use of deliberate arguments is truly impressive. He provided the people of the United States with two choices: either to continue killing terrorists and members of extreme groups who continuously kill Americans or citizens of allied countries, or device an effective plan for the future in which further action is taken and leadership is demonstrated by the United States in order to prevent more damage to be done to the country’s citizens. On this same topic, Governor Romney also uses pathos when he describes why terrorists need to be killed. He reminds the horrible events that have occurred because of extremist actions by these groups and recalls the tragedy of September 11, appealing to the emotions of most Americans who feel that that has been one of the worst calamities that has taken place on their soil.

            Presenting an argument for the topic of education and its urgent need of improvement, Governor Romney does a very effective job in terms of demonstrative rhetoric. This can be seen when he says that the only way for the country to expect future entrepreneurs that take the initiative to create businesses is to have a good education system. He made it clear that he felt one of the most important things in a young child’s life was to receive high quality education and the state which he is governing has been ranked first out of the fifty states in the fourth and eighth grades in math and science. On the other hand, President Obama uses ethos very well, since he positions himself as the current Commander in Chief and makes it clear that he is very knowledgeable in the military area, one of Romney’s most vigorous arguments. This forms a character by which Obama stands by and supposedly will live up to. Also, President Obama makes excellent use of forensic arguing, since he blames Governor Romney several times of having proposed an erroneous point of view or idea. It is impressive to see the way in which it is not only important to have good information and a good argument, but to be able to express it in a way that is effective and that persuades the audience and makes them want to follow ones ideas.   

Persuasion: An Everyday Activity

            We think of persuasion as a very complex quality that only a few select individuals can achieve. In fact, persuasion is used by most people in their everyday lives. Although they do not necessarily notice it, they are using pathos, logos, and ethos to convince another individual. These are the three big modes of rhetoric first introduced by Aristotle. I found it very interesting to observe that logic is not the main path to persuade or win an argument, since people can defend themselves if they really dominate the topic. On the other hand, imposing a dominant image of you (ethos) and presenting yourself with a strong character sets an image that is crucial for arguing. Also, using pathos, or appealing to the emotions of the other part can allow you to make valuable connections that make the other reflect upon the point and eventually change his mind. Heinrichs uses one example throughout most of the chapter which at first seems to be a simple discussion about a simple issue. But that is only what is happening superficially. The way in which the author is able to break up the argument into the different modes of rhetoric amazed me. Even a young child can begin to use advanced persuasive techniques to convince his parents of a certain desire.

                Getting angry is the worst thing one can do in an argument. It is commonly thought that an angry person will dominate the conversation. This might be true in terms of voice loudness and rudeness, but not in the case of persuading. Keeping calm and making your opponent sympathize with you will give you a huge advantage in your argument. Heinrichs depicts a crucial idea when he declares, “Cicero hinted that the great orator transforms himself into an emotional role model, showing the audience how it should feel” (p. 43). One of the most important aspects of arguing is achieving the audience’s sympathy towards you and your idea. If the audience, in some cases only your opponent feels related or begins to acknowledge the idea, then there has been an effective use of pathos. Sometimes, conceding a few points to the counterpart is useful to make them feel comfortable and think that they are doing a good job in getting their point across, which they really are not. I was surprised to realize that the best arguments won are those that do not feel like intense arguments, which can start even with friends. Once the idea of an argument is induced in the opponent’s mind, he will lift up his guard and begin to attack you. Instead of attacking back, one should try to make the other individual accept your idea and not only acknowledge that it is a good one, but be so into it that he has a desire to implement it. This seems like a win-win situation but it is actually a complete win for the rhetorician.

 

  

Stop Fighting! Begin Arguing

           Having just started Reading Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs proposes a very interesting concept of arguing. At first, the discussion on rhetoric, while at the same time using rhetoric to convey his message, allows the reader to get a feel of the effectiveness of such a powerful tool. The author uses vivid and detailed examples to prove his point. For example, Heinrichs states, “Gottman found that couples who stayed married over those nine years argued about as much as those who ended up in divorce. However, the successful couples went about their arguments in a different way, and with a different purpose” (p. 16). The use of real-life examples helps the reader to visualize how the techniques described work and how they should be implemented. Starting with a love scenario, such as that of married couples, transitions into the next main point: arguing by seducing. These smooth transitions from one concept to the next allow Heinrichs to discuss many topics in the same chapter without being too sharp in the changes. Another very important piece of information that is presented is the way in which people confuse arguing with fighting. In fighting one tries to win over his opponent by all means, even if that means stirring up a sentiment of revenge in the opponent. On the contrary, arguing is a much more clever and effective way to get the other part to agree with a certain point or position. One might have to let the opponent win a few discussions, but in the end, with the adequate use of rhetoric, the winner will win in a convincing way without raising anger in the loosing part.

            It is also crucial to highlight the way in which the author combines certain examples with some of his main ideas. For example, when depicting the three main ways to persuade another individual, he reflects, “…When George Foreman tries to sell you a grill, he makes an argument: persuasion that tries to change your mood, your mind, or your willingness to do something” (p. 17). He even uses daily-life examples to illustrate his point. I found it impressive to observe the way in which the author describes the satisfaction of winning an argument and how one can become the master of persuasion only by correctly using the modes of rhetoric. Also, I find is essential to reflect upon the fact that rhetoric is irrefutable. If the counterpart cannot counter argue your point, then you are slowly beginning to win the argument. The best way to convince someone is by appealing to his emotions, using pathos, which is one of the most vulnerable points in a human being. But, still, one thing is convincing a person, and a completely different one is getting them to act like wanted. For that, you have to induce them into the same desire you have of taking action.

 

 

Not Everything Goes According to Plans

       In the next section of the memoir, the adventure is underway. There is no turning back. The author switches from using exposition at the beginning to using only narration. In this type of adventure memoirs, it would be very monotonous to use exposition since the attractive part is to decipher and take a stance according to a given situation. Guevara continues to use pathos and some ethos as his main rhetoric strategies. He is now trying to portray “Che’s” character as a perseverant youth who will never give up until he reaches North America. I found it very interesting to see how the journey begins by describing boring towns with no real attractions. For example, in describing  San Martín de los Andes, Guevara syas that “the road snakes between the low foothills that sound the beginning of the great cordillera of the Andes, then descends steeply until it reaches an unattractive, miserable town, surrounded by magnificent, densely wooded mountains” (p. 44). Guevara focuses more on the atmosphere and the landscape that he goes through more than the actual cities. Nevertheless, the cities remain the titles of the chapters, which means that they are in a sense important to the description of the journey across Latin America.

         Alberto designed a plan that projected a rapid and easy culmination of the journey in a few days. However, plans did not go as smoothly as they realized it was going to take them much longer than what they expected. This was due to all the obstacles they had to face in their trip. I was impressed by the great problem-solving techniques “Che” had and the efficient ways in which he was able to find good solutions instantly. The way in which Guevara describes this situations in a way presents “Che” as a hero from a very early stage. What is interesting is that he does not do this in the typical way of highlighting his main accomplishments and stating how great he was. Instead, Guevara thoroughly narrates very difficult situations in which the riders are faced with a harsh challenge and very few time for analysis. It comes down to the ability of improvisation. Also, the ability to adapt to completely different environments helps to manipulate pathos in this sense. Guevara declares, “At six in the morning, we started our first job…” (p. 45). This was certainly not what they had expected their trip to be like. It is their perseverance to accomplish their objective what makes them the true heroes and protagonists for the reader.

 

 

Traveling Through Latin America

       Just finishing the introduction, it is very interesting to notice how the author is able to combine narration with exposition. Vitier writes in such a way that he tells what Guevara experiences throughout his trip and at the same time he shows of how he feels it through vivid and clear examples of his journey. For example, in a narrative section, he points out, “Their stares are tame, almost fearful, and completely indifferent to the outside world. Some give the impression they go on living only because it’s a habit they cannot shake” (p. 24). In this case, Vitier provides very descriptive examples that show the reader what Guevara is seeing. This clever combination allows the reader not only to get a precise image of the situation, but also to get the in-depth description of the situation. The introduction is written in a way that the reader can not only understand what the book is going to be about, but get to known how the author is going to describe the story and which modes of rhetoric he will be manipulating. In addition, Vitier uses a lot of citations in which he constantly refers to Guevara’s books. This makes his points much clearer and more credible. It makes it seem as if Guevara was the one expressing himself in third person. This technique attracted me and kept me engaged in the introduction.

        When the adventure actually begins, it is impressive to see how the perspective completely changes. During the introduction, Guevara was presented from a third person point of view, which I thought would make not such a big difference. However, it does. As soon as the memoir begins, a first person narrator comes in and takes charge in telling his own story. This creates a very strong relationship between the audience and the character. Guevara is able to achieve this through the effective manipulation of pathos. Throughout the whole first part of the memoir, Guevara is selecting the details that make the reader realize the great amount of effort and the anxiousness the two travelers experience. The way in which Guevara is able to get the reader to sympathize with “Che” right from the beginning is truly amazing. The main character already has the reputation of a true leader and determined young man even before he actually begins to achieve his famous accomplishments. This is exemplifies when Guevara depicts, “The trip was decided just like that, and it never erred from the basic principle laid down in that moment: improvisation” (p. 32). By manipulating pathos, Guevara is able to appeal to the audience’s emotions and make them encourage “Che” to pursuit his dreams and feel pity when he when describes all the obstacles he has to go through. Will “Che” be able to get to North America? How do the experiences in his youth affect his viewpoints later on?     

A Never-Ending Debate

       Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner provide a very interesting debate about how language is used and how it should be used. Most of the people take the usage of language for granted and do not really realize why they make mistakes or the actual reasoning behind making the mistake. Here is where the “descriptivists” and the “prescriptivists” differ. Although both of them acknowledge that their goal is the good of the language and its appropriate use, the methods by which they plan to accomplish this task vary a great deal. Greene exemplifies this by declaring, “…I would open fire by saying that you preach stodgy nonrules that most people don’t obey, and that people like you don’t understand that language must grow and change” (Greene). This is a very harsh attack on the prescriptivists, since they actually preach rules than many people follow. I agree there are some exceptions that do not follow the rules of standard English, but the vast majority do. I share most of the ideas proposed by the prescriptivists because I think that there should be a hierarchy in language usage. According to the descriptivists, the people decide how language should be used and what is right or wrong. If this takes place, then language would change very often and there would not be a defined set of accepted rules by which to decide if something is right or wrong. The rules of standard English would become very subjective.

       Both of the writers use logos as their main rhetoric mode. They appeal to logic and present their argument based on very well-known writers' ideas. Their points seem to be said as a sequence of arguments which lead to their conclusions either as descriptivists or prescriptivists. I would say that it is almost the same debate that has occurred between conservatives and liberals. The conservatives want to have a defined structure that is based on the traditional styles. On the other hand, the liberals want a structure that changes and evolves as time goes by and as society progresses. Although the descriptivists have a good point in stating that language must evolve along with the people that use it, it is more important that those changes take place gradually and without any sudden shift in the basics. If this does not happen, even more dialects than the existing ones will form and each time they will be more different from the original language. I agree with both of the writers in the sense that there should not be a big debate over very specific wording concerns. Garner depicts this when he says. “I’m happy to live in disagreement with you on that tiny point – given that we agreed on so much else” (Garner). He is implicitly saying that prescriptivists have many of the qualities of descriptivists and vice versa. However, in the very end, Garner recognizes the fact that the debate will never end that “the fighting must stop” (Garner). This is a never-ending debate in which there will be no defined winner, but I am hopeful that language will still be ruled by a clear set of traditional rules and that will only change when it is completely necessary and will do so in a slow and gradual manner.

Prescriptive: Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage.

Descriptive: Of or relating to the study or the description of a language or a specific stage of a language, with emphasis on constructing a grammar without regard to historical development, comparison with other languages, or advocated norms for correct or proper usage.

Permissivism: Lenience toward or indulgence of a wide variety of social behavior.

Nonrule: A rule that states that a person cannot be held liable for a loss caused by his or her behavior if the loss would have occurred regardless.