Kurt Vonnegut's "How to write with style" is a step-by-step guide on how to improve our style as writers. He notes the importance of this is out of respect for the readers.
Vonnegut uses the rhetorical appeal pathos to convey his points. He starts off by telling us to get real with our selves and to choose a subject we really care about because this passion will reveal glimpses of who we are and win the readers over(Vonnegut 66). Vonnegut reveals his humour in point two "Do not ramble, though I won't ramble on about that."(66). In point five Sound like yourself, Vonnegut states "lucky indeed is the writer who has grown up in Ireland"(66) This is the readers view into who they are spending time with. We see that he admires Joyce not only as a writer but is perhaps jealous of his accent and first language. You see how humble he is when he describes writers and himself alike as "ink-stained wretches"(Vonnegut 66) and compares his vocabulary "as un-ornamental as a monkey wrench"(Vonnegut 67).
When Vonnegut advises us to keep it simple he references Shakespeare and Joyce as well as the Bible. I find it ironic in a paragraph emphasizing "the simplicity of language"(Vonnegut 66) the examples used are from the most complex and hard to read material. I agree,however, with his meaning of using basic short sentences that are profound and move the reader emotionally.
I first got the sense that Vonnegut was specifically writing to Americans on page 66 when he was comparing different accents to his own. It is all a matter of perspective; what seems normal to one person may be odd to another. This was later confirmed on page 67 with his reference to the Constitution. He tells us, no matter what, we should treasure our first language and be true to ourselves as our readers will trust us. I am finding this to be a reacurring theme.
I appreciate that Vonnegut is recommending us to take pride in our own style and agrees that teachers seem to pound it in to us to write like "cultivated Englishmen of a century...ago"(67) If only we were tought the importance to be well understood with the same urgency we wouldn't be "exasperated by such teachers"(67).
Vonnegut asks us to pity the readers, as reading is an art that takes most people alteast 12 years before they can even begin to master it. This reiterates his opening point of having respect for the readers. He knows that writers don't have many options when it comes to style which makes having an unlimited choice of topics so meaningful. He warns, however, "if you have something worth saying and wish to be understood" don't break the rules of punctuation, string words together any way you wish and make up your own meaning (Vonnegut 67).
Upon reading the blerb within the borders at the end of this article I realized this was intended to stress to the American's the value of the printed word to communicate better on a whole. While riding the bus to work the other day, I noticed how out of the seven people I saw before me, all seven had earphones in, including myslef. We are so in tune with the technology that is meant to bring the world to our fingertips we are losing awareness of what is happening directly around us. To me, it seems we are losing the art of communication to a generation of texting and self gratification through I-pods or playing games rather than conversing with a neighbour. How can you truly be understood with words like these:hw cn u B sussed W wrds lk deez?
Looking back through the years, what do you think the language of the future will be?
Vonnegut, Kurt. "How to Write With Style". IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. PC 24 Vol 2. Print.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Hidden Cost of War
Jennifer Turpin’s “Women Confronting War” is about the staggering effects war has on women. Turpin brings to light just how many women casualties there are, how many women and children are uplifted from their roots and how often sexual violence towards women happens as a result of war.
Turpin grabs the attention of the reader immediately as no one generally thinks about war in the way she frames it with the rhetorical appeal of logos. She utilizes inductive reasoning by using several specific examples of what happens to civilians, who are mainly women, to present the larger picture of how women are brutalized by war. In general, this is very effective as her examples are shocking and touches the raw emotional nerve of the reader. I feel Turpin is attempting to teach this to everyone, but the piece comes across mostly directed to women’s studies.
Turpin’s most effective examples are when she is the most specific. In the paragraphs pertaining to Wartime Sexual Violence Against Women, Turpin uses quotes from eyewitnesses of such sexual violence as well as information from essays and interviews. She does this to emphasize that “[r]ape has been used as a weapon for ethnic cleansing, using attacks on women to humiliate and attempt to exterminate another ethnic group” (Turpin 326). Not only is this reaching out to the reader because it emotionally shocking but it also gets us to think about the psychological effects of war. It is also effective because the sources of her arguments are recent, in relation to when it was written. We tend to view the Serbian, Muslim and Croat soldiers she is referencing as being from a modern Western country that would be above using rape as a wartime strategy but this is contradicted.
Turpin’s least effective examples are when she drifts away from specific and modern points. This can be seen when she states “During World War II, brothels linked to United States military bases generally had two separate entrances: one for men of color and another for whites” (Turpin 327). This is dated and irrelevant and is followed with generalizations about Pilipino prostitutes serving the American serviceman (Turpin 328). This seems to me to be more of a speculation on why sexual violence happens and is more suited for a classroom discussion. Turpin would be more persuasive to stick with hard facts that previously had been advancing her argument.
I feel Turpin does a compelling job of conveying her thesis, pointing out Western nation’s guilt in the perpetration of wartime violence against women.
Do you think Turpin’s piece would be as compelling had she included brutal detailed examples of African warfare making it more of a global issue rather than just focusing on the Western nations?
Works Cited
Turpin, Jennifer. “Women Confronting War.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine A. Ackley, G. Kim Blank, Stephen E. Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 324-329. Print.
Turpin grabs the attention of the reader immediately as no one generally thinks about war in the way she frames it with the rhetorical appeal of logos. She utilizes inductive reasoning by using several specific examples of what happens to civilians, who are mainly women, to present the larger picture of how women are brutalized by war. In general, this is very effective as her examples are shocking and touches the raw emotional nerve of the reader. I feel Turpin is attempting to teach this to everyone, but the piece comes across mostly directed to women’s studies.
Turpin’s most effective examples are when she is the most specific. In the paragraphs pertaining to Wartime Sexual Violence Against Women, Turpin uses quotes from eyewitnesses of such sexual violence as well as information from essays and interviews. She does this to emphasize that “[r]ape has been used as a weapon for ethnic cleansing, using attacks on women to humiliate and attempt to exterminate another ethnic group” (Turpin 326). Not only is this reaching out to the reader because it emotionally shocking but it also gets us to think about the psychological effects of war. It is also effective because the sources of her arguments are recent, in relation to when it was written. We tend to view the Serbian, Muslim and Croat soldiers she is referencing as being from a modern Western country that would be above using rape as a wartime strategy but this is contradicted.
Turpin’s least effective examples are when she drifts away from specific and modern points. This can be seen when she states “During World War II, brothels linked to United States military bases generally had two separate entrances: one for men of color and another for whites” (Turpin 327). This is dated and irrelevant and is followed with generalizations about Pilipino prostitutes serving the American serviceman (Turpin 328). This seems to me to be more of a speculation on why sexual violence happens and is more suited for a classroom discussion. Turpin would be more persuasive to stick with hard facts that previously had been advancing her argument.
I feel Turpin does a compelling job of conveying her thesis, pointing out Western nation’s guilt in the perpetration of wartime violence against women.
Do you think Turpin’s piece would be as compelling had she included brutal detailed examples of African warfare making it more of a global issue rather than just focusing on the Western nations?
Works Cited
Turpin, Jennifer. “Women Confronting War.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine A. Ackley, G. Kim Blank, Stephen E. Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 324-329. Print.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Media Hype
Sissela Bok uses "Aggression: The Impact of Media Violence" to educate on the negative correlations media violence has on anyone exposed to it. Bok claims the violent media exposure, especially amongst the young, makes us fearful, numb to violence and wanting more violence with a set of aggressive impulses that would not be present without such media. Within the first paragraph I start to doubt Bok as a believable writer. Her statements like "the widespread belief persists that it glamorizes aggressive conduct, removes inhibitions towards such conduct, arouses viewers, and invites imitation" aren't credible because there are no sources backing up this claim and she is assuming the reader is not thinking critically. Perhaps this is why the rest of her piece is written in paragraphs that begin with an inflammatory tone on the argument against violent media followed by the undermining of her arguement through inadequate supporting evidence. Bok states her awareness of these inadequacies which makes her point unclear one way from the other. When Bok does provide a background for her assertions they are either a second hand anectdote, such as John Grisham's proposed legal action, or a seriously weak inductive reasoning, such as the tying of unrelated links between smoking and cancer as well as drinking and driving to aggression and media. By that line of reasoning you could argue anything.
Is television responsible for society's changing morals or is it merely a reflection of these changes?
Is television responsible for society's changing morals or is it merely a reflection of these changes?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Reaching Out
Stephen Lewis’ “Pandemic: My country is on its knees” is an attempt to reach out to Canadians in order to raise their awareness that AIDS is the most pressing issue facing Africa. The effects of the pandemic have reached into every aspect of life on the African continent. Without overcoming the tragedy of AIDS first, no other issue can be looked at and no other action will succeed.
Lewis strives to connect with everyday Canadians through his lectures and novel. In a very public way his communications share his experiences in Africa over the course of his adult life. His greatest strength is his reflective and informal style of storytelling. His style allows the reader to easily connect with the images he creates. He paints scenes such as the teaching hospital where ‘nothing was more common place than death’, when one PLWA group sells coffins to another or the disabled and helpless aging grandparents outlive eight of their nine children and stepped in to care for thirty-six orphans when no one else would. These emotional and personal case studies really jar the reader as they are a more persuasive argument than any statistic could be.
The least effective passages in Lewis’ article are when we are exposed to a sense of his paternalism. Lewis makes broad generalizations about all Africans and sees them as childlike in their innocence. The fact that one grade ten student did not know what a Jew was does not mean an entire society is free from intolerance. I do not agree with ending his focus on the success stories of western aid groups like the WFP education, the Rockefeller Foundation MSF and Oprah, instead of celebrating the role Africans have played in saving their own lives. I feel this gives the reader the sense that they cannot help themselves and can only succeed with our help. However by doing this Lewis has achieved his purpose of making Canadians aware and nudging them into action.
In recent news, the UN general assembly has debated the failure of the Millennium Development Goals, largely as a result of poor funding from Western nations. Do you think we are more inclined to help out with natural disasters rather than viral disasters?
Lewis strives to connect with everyday Canadians through his lectures and novel. In a very public way his communications share his experiences in Africa over the course of his adult life. His greatest strength is his reflective and informal style of storytelling. His style allows the reader to easily connect with the images he creates. He paints scenes such as the teaching hospital where ‘nothing was more common place than death’, when one PLWA group sells coffins to another or the disabled and helpless aging grandparents outlive eight of their nine children and stepped in to care for thirty-six orphans when no one else would. These emotional and personal case studies really jar the reader as they are a more persuasive argument than any statistic could be.
The least effective passages in Lewis’ article are when we are exposed to a sense of his paternalism. Lewis makes broad generalizations about all Africans and sees them as childlike in their innocence. The fact that one grade ten student did not know what a Jew was does not mean an entire society is free from intolerance. I do not agree with ending his focus on the success stories of western aid groups like the WFP education, the Rockefeller Foundation MSF and Oprah, instead of celebrating the role Africans have played in saving their own lives. I feel this gives the reader the sense that they cannot help themselves and can only succeed with our help. However by doing this Lewis has achieved his purpose of making Canadians aware and nudging them into action.
In recent news, the UN general assembly has debated the failure of the Millennium Development Goals, largely as a result of poor funding from Western nations. Do you think we are more inclined to help out with natural disasters rather than viral disasters?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
A Letter to Canada?
Margaret Atwood's "Letter to America" is addressing Canada rather than America. It is an attempt to make Canadians aware of our relationahip with America and the consequences if America continues on its current destructive path.
Being one of Canada's most famous writers, Atwood chose to originally publish this letter in the Globe and Mail, were this letter actually intended to reach Americans, she might have aimed for the New York Times. She states that America has plenty of soothsayers telling them everything they need to know so she isn't giving them any new information. This implies Atwood is either writing a letter she admits is useless or not writing to the Americans at all. She argues the desire to remain silent on an unpleasant issue needs to be challenged because America's business has become the world's business, with very real implications for Canada.
Atwood is making Canadians alert of the problems we face as a result of America's turmoil when she states that they are "our biggest trading partner" and they're "running up a record level of debt" so if they do "go down the plug-hole" we go with them. America's financial meltdown is a very real thing today and Canadians have all been affected by this. Atwood's letter is still relevant as it is only proving her point that "when the Jolly Green Giant goes on the rampage, many lesser plants and animals get trampled underfoot".
For the most part Atwood makes a very strong and persuasive arguement, however her opening section that relies on popular culture is the weakest element of her piece. She makes it clear that Canadians are strongly influenced by America's culture through the use of media as she references comic books, radio shows, music, novels and movies. It is obvious she has been affected for the past fifty-five years and Canadians can relate in a general sense but she undermines her ability to create a widespread shared identity with dated references. An appeal to pop culture is ineffective if noone under 50 is familiar with the source material.
Atwood finishes her piece with the need for America to summon it's great spirits of the past to stand with them before it is too late. The Tea Party movement often claims to be the modern incarnation of the founding father's ideals.Is the Tea Party movement America's 'King Arthur'? How would Margaret Atwood view a response to her advice that has its roots in an ideology so different than her own?
Being one of Canada's most famous writers, Atwood chose to originally publish this letter in the Globe and Mail, were this letter actually intended to reach Americans, she might have aimed for the New York Times. She states that America has plenty of soothsayers telling them everything they need to know so she isn't giving them any new information. This implies Atwood is either writing a letter she admits is useless or not writing to the Americans at all. She argues the desire to remain silent on an unpleasant issue needs to be challenged because America's business has become the world's business, with very real implications for Canada.
Atwood is making Canadians alert of the problems we face as a result of America's turmoil when she states that they are "our biggest trading partner" and they're "running up a record level of debt" so if they do "go down the plug-hole" we go with them. America's financial meltdown is a very real thing today and Canadians have all been affected by this. Atwood's letter is still relevant as it is only proving her point that "when the Jolly Green Giant goes on the rampage, many lesser plants and animals get trampled underfoot".
For the most part Atwood makes a very strong and persuasive arguement, however her opening section that relies on popular culture is the weakest element of her piece. She makes it clear that Canadians are strongly influenced by America's culture through the use of media as she references comic books, radio shows, music, novels and movies. It is obvious she has been affected for the past fifty-five years and Canadians can relate in a general sense but she undermines her ability to create a widespread shared identity with dated references. An appeal to pop culture is ineffective if noone under 50 is familiar with the source material.
Atwood finishes her piece with the need for America to summon it's great spirits of the past to stand with them before it is too late. The Tea Party movement often claims to be the modern incarnation of the founding father's ideals.Is the Tea Party movement America's 'King Arthur'? How would Margaret Atwood view a response to her advice that has its roots in an ideology so different than her own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)