Of Commonplaces and Clichés

Commonplace: the result of combining a cliché and a stereotype. Even though I hate both,  Heinrichs does make a point. Commonplaces vary but so should the settings. 

So I found a video which talks about rhetoric, jokes (this includes witty, facetious, and urbane humor), and commonplaces. Particularly the misuse of commonplaces. This man is witty. He says that if congresswoman Maxine Waters knows what happened to Whitney Houston she should "step away from the crack pipe, step away from the Xanax, step away from Lorazepam because it's going to get [her] in trouble." This is what results of congresswoman Waters calling Republicans demons and gangsters. Who failed with the commonplaces and is out of decorum now? I'd say both of them! To address and audience one needs to have a little background check on them. Had he been talking with friends the comment might have been funny but this comment on national television is a whole other level.

If people babbled, or repeated the same thing over and over about Maxine and one were to use that commonplace chances are your audience will reject you. Why? National television addresses a much to big audience and it's hard to win so many people. Commonplaces appeal a great majority of the people (thus their name) but there are too many opinions the speaker would try to mould. Here's where you need to find the broadest context, to define how to convince as many people as possible.

Other than humor and commonplaces one can give the audience facts and data. Logos, duh. This is called stance. The video teaches one how to convince your friends to vote. One has to use lots of rhetoric to convince them, especially facts to convince them voting is the right way to go.

"Controlling the Mood" Is In Da Hood

Now talking about pathetic, sympathetic, and empathy, pathos comes along. The chapter's introductory aphorism reminded me of APUSH. Back then, during the Great Awakening, preachers would give sermons with such fervor people were moved to tears. I wish I could move anybody to tears, even Mittens (my cat) would be satisfying. Between ethos, logos, and pathos, the last one would definitely need working on. I'm as sensible as baby skin. 

The text also showed me some interesting ideas. Emotion comes from experience and expectation. I might be wrong, but both of them relate to verb tenses.

Experience: what happened in the past. Thus, it is forensic but strangely doesn't mention blame.

Expectation: what will happen. Deliberative, but here there is no choice because the person expects whatever comes to him and has no choice.

Yes, I was wrong.

Anyways, the success of an argument which appeals to feelings is based solely on self-control. Ranting won't do the trick. Neither will name calling or having a fit. But under so much pressure to maintain composure in front of large groups, it's best to use simple words. Elaborating the speech will make everything look practiced. My only concern is that when one knows the person like a child knows his/her parents the speaker has enough knowledge to appeal on certain ways. What's the trick when one  has never spoken to the audience before? What should one do?

Chapter Nein

After reading more than eight chapters of Thank You For Arguing I've grown a little tired of lies. I realized rhetoric as a lie as a whole. You may think I'm repeating what I previously said, but I'm just supporting a hypothesis I considered before. In other words, rhetoric is having the ability to trick people. An example is ethos' third asset, disinterested goodwill. One can be the evilest person but if one is a good liar people will trust you.

I have two thoughts: Rhetoric is a strong weapon and one has to doubt people. The speaker wants you to think he or she cares for you when he doesn't, meaning that if a politician gets your vote, what will stop him from not achieving those things he promised? "Even if you are a chockfull of virtue, street smarts, and selflessness, if your audience doesn't believe what you are, you've got a character problem." (75) Why in the world would anybody read this and think about being a good person if they can (not so) easily trick others into thinking this? To make things worse, dubitio just expanded this web of lines into one that includes acting. Maybe Honest Abe wasn't honest after all. Maybe, just maybe, he made his audience believe he is honest, but not really... I'm not sure I like how rhetoric works.

Decorated Decorum and Not-So-Ephemeral Ethos

In any auditorium, an audience should be receptive and attentive out of decorum, nothing more. But getting this audience to like and trust you is a whole other deal. It's like trying to get a stranger to share secrets, very hard. 

The book quickly introduces some other three important ideas: the essential qualities of ethos.

- Virtue lets the audience know you share their values.
- Selflessness convinces them their interests are your only concerns.
- People with practical wisdom seem to know what to do in any occasion.

And talking about virtues I totally agree with Heindrichs. If a woman is with a guy she earns a reputation. If a guy is with women he is a hero. Depending on the audience, being or not being virtuous may suit the speaker's argument and convincingness. I was actually writing as I read and later into the book Heinrichs said exactly what I had thought. Truth is, sometimes a little lying is necessary to convince the audience. Decorum is about character but you don't have character. One thinks as on should.

This takes me back to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is the truth and values. They are different when they depend on other people because in rhetoric, being virtuous doesn't represent what is right but what your audience values. Once again AP Lang has proven everything is a lie.

Candidating Around

Fortunately the debate began with the most interesting topic, Libya. Both candidates sit beside a table and proudly appeal to character by wearing a pin of the American flag. Even though both men know how to argue, Obama seems more confident since Romney stutters, seeming weak. He definitely manages rhetoric because, after all, he has the hardest position to defend. In the debate he argued most convincingly. First, he appealed to character by stating that in his "job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe." The issue is demonstrative, showing the topic is related to values. Then he said that America must stand with democracy, appealing to ethos once more.

Then Romney, with a more softhearted tone, uses pathos when talking about the "4 people are dead in Libya," and how "[America's] hearts and thoughts go to them." He used present tense, thus the issue is related to values. Romney successfully changes to present tense in an attempt to convince the audience they they don't want another Irak or Afghanistan, convincing them that is their choice. Lastly, before changing to another topic, Romney says that what happens in Syria and Irak is unimaginable and they want a world of peace. Way to argue appealing to emotion.

Both candidates mostly appealed to values by using present tense, but since Obama is more relevant for the American people in terms of character, he used most ethos and forensic rhetoric. On the other hand Romney bases most of his arguments on the future where nothing can be held against him. Both candidates used rhetoric to suit their intentions in the debate.

To Lie or Not To Lie?

I don't believe what you say and you don't seem convinced by what I say. I think what you say is a lie and vice versa. So even if we don't think the same things, we do have something in common, the belief the other person's point in utter blasphemy. If it were a person, AP Lang would say that "it's all a lie." And since it is, Aristotle brought rhetoric to life. It did exist before though, but he gave it a structure so people could implement it. In a discussion where the other person doesn't acknowledge the veracity of my argument I must try to manipulate and change mind, mood, desire to act, or any combination of these. It is not easy I realized. Even though Heinrichs tried to convince me otherwise, Gaby and I both think there's a long way to go if one wants to use rhetoric successfully.

Actually, I doubt I have the ability to address each situation using pathos, logos, or ethos and aiming to change the person's mood, mind, and desire to act. Oh, and I forgot I must consider which tense is the most appropriate, past (forensic), present (demonstrative), or future (deliberative). Also, each of these has core issues of its own. Blame is related to the past because this already happened. Values are addressed in present tense and talking about the future questions a choice that might happen. And, generally, each of the tenses has an effect. I have to think about all of this to answer any argument and win it. To avoid getting owned I must literally overwork my brain. Maybe I never win arguments because I wasn't aware of rhetoric. Even though it's hard work, after some practice I might even have a debate about everything being a lie because if I succeed, what I say no longer will be a lie.

Pathos, Logos, Ethos, Chávez

I never imagined a book on rhetoric would ever make me laugh. I'm certain the book's audience includes teenagers because those jokes cracked me up. Heinrichs' allusions to pop singers Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are hilarious! Other than being funny, the book is actually interesting, but now I consider rhetoric as both a tool and a powerful weapon. Let's take Chávez as an example. That idiotic guy stands on a podium, convinces people to vote for him and wins the elections. Then he kills people, closes down embassies and frontiers, intimidates people, etc. Then he goes, addresses the audience once more and wins with 54% of the votes. I question these people's ignorance, but then reconsider. These people were tricked! Chávez used rhetoric to convince him his ideas and his interests would benefit the country. I'm sure these people don't know about pathos, logos, or ethos. Well, this guy is a professional "convincer,"to avoid calling him a liar. He appeals the masses, like every politician does. But he has his ways. He puts down competition so he can rise. He wears the Venezuelan flag to appeal patriotic people. He gifts home appliances to appeal the poor. How can compete with this level of rhetoric?

Ok, back to the lies and ways to convince people. To address a group of people, he must decide whether he wants to change their mood, mind, or willingness to carry put what he wants. I would think he aims for changing people's mind and making them both vote for him and support his ideals. But that's not all the time. In this particular speech, he also tries to change people's mood. The way he speaks and the harsh words he uses are convincing. For example, talking about the devil is something Muslims wouldn't understand but Christians and Catholics have the devil very present in their minds.

His techniques aren't the most subtle, but if he is doing bad things and people are keep on voting for him, he must be convincing a large group of people (not including me).

Alive Metaphors

George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" gave me more to talk about.

In the next last 20 pages I've read I noticed that Unferth doesn't use any "dying metaphors." In fact, most of these metaphors (and similes I daresay). Examples of these correct ways to create imagery would be on page 40, where Unferth writes about how George "clicked into place like a battery." Then, she exposes how the girls answered to her demands, "they faces like searchlights." (44) Both of these examples I've never heard before. They show Unferth's originality and how she is Orwell considers a good writer in terms of the correct use of today's modern English. 

This is supported because I intently searched for false limbs or pretentious diction. The only flaw in Revolution is the use of meaningless words. It's close to impossible to eliminate words that mean so much for one but might mean nothing to others. Unferth uses words like genius, hippie, etc. These words hold a stereotypical background that aids their concrete meaning but one can't plant thoughts in anthers mind. Leave that to Christopher Nolan's Inception. 

On a scale of 1 through 4, Unferth would score a 3 for correct use of the language in the present times.

The Year I (Stupidly) Fell in Love and (Even Stupider) Went To Join The War

Revolution, a title that gives me a lot to think about. Which revolution? When? Why? Could it be an internal revolution, a 360º change occurring in the author's mind? Nope. As I began reading the truth hit me like my brother does, really hard. All those socialist revolutions lead in Central America were gringos's adventure and Unferth and George didn't miss out on this.

So, how is Deb Olin Unferth writing? I would think Unferth is aiming for an audience of people who done some pretty stupid things and have lost themselves when in love, just like her. Some webpages say there is no correct or incorrect diction, just an appropriate one for whoever one addresses. What word choice would be suitable for this memoir about a woman who "[falls] in love and went to join the war?" Well, opposite to what I first thought, Unferth uses a broad vocabulary. Most of the words she uses are very simple, but others I have never heard before. The words she uses are so straightforward I thought English was Unferth's second language. I do feel Unferth's tone is neutral, but she does try to share with the readers how naive she was in terms of her love for George and uses pathos for us to feel sympathetic as we read what she went through. 

For the couple, it soon became "us against them." (25) Whatever they confronted and Unferth's feeling towards this were shown with the intensity of their words and actions.

Geroge and Deb work in a school where children who have seen their villages being burned down and hid in the bushes as their parent were ruthlessly murdered. "The first night of [her] civil war job [Deb] vomited four times." (33) That's pathos right there. Even though the couple's decisions have been stupid, I actually want to help these people. But on the other hand, when Unferth talks about a man she visited in her childhood, a man who "was blind but ... knew where the pictures on his walls and would bring [Unferth and her brother] and make [them] stand there. He could also play the ukelele. He was the most boring man I've ever known." (30) With this tasteless description about boring person Unferth passed on to me her feelings towards this old man.

Us Against The World

After reader, I now consider myself part of descriptivists, those who think believe that linguistic evidence proves correct usage of language and who "describe language as it is used." Even La Real Academia Española is a part of this. They have made slang a part of their dictionary. Times have changed and so has language. If slang has become part of formal writing, what's next? 

Immediately after I wrote this I had second thoughts. I'm not a descriptivist, I'm a prescriptivist. Prescriptivists "focus on how language should be used." That's what I support. People can modify the way they speak, but attempting to change how people write is a whole other story. It is not right.

I'm going to come forward with something here. Now I find myself self conscious when using the words "which," "that," and "who." I don't even know if I used them correctly in my first few sentences. But I can make mistakes since English isn't my native language, can't I? Nowadays, descriptivists accept that a native speaker can’t make a mistake. As a prescriptivist, a group of which I now consider I make part of,  I consider this utterly wrong. The messy part of this idea is that whatever the person says is right so how do countries full of immigrants work? And what about people learning the language? What should they learn if everything is right? Lane says he "[glories]  the real-world mess of dialects and slang." That makes non-natives have an absolutely marvelous time learning a new language with all the slang and no rules. I'd be ECSTATIC.

Then, Lane states how prescriptivists force non rules on schoolchildren. But ever since the English language had became more than a dialect, a "set of standard conventions for formal writing and speaking have been imposed." They are there for a reason and mustn't be modified. 

This reminds me of "Survival of the Fittest." The essay exposes how scholars could modify grammar because nothing was correct or incorrect. Some form of regulation was necessary to stunt the unparalleled growth of those creative intellectuals who sought originality through the modification of the language. Changes made by an insignificant number of scholars to limit these changes won't be likely to modify how people write unless severely imposed like English in Thiong' O's life. 

These regulations may be wrong, but its better to pass on a few mistakes in order to condense the spectrum in which these errors may reside. A little change is better than none. 

Lastly, Garner, my partner in the debate, appeals to the reader's logic by introducing examples and names that one must supposedly know. This might have worked because now I'm 100% a prescriptivist.