WHAT WHAT

Hey everyone, just wanted to jump on the blog and say hi! Hope everyone is having an incredible start to summer vacation, I am. See you downtown, or come see me at Ruby Tuesday where I am now employed, or at Abercrombie on the weekends. I'm a work-a-holic, and other things that end in -holic, peace and love rhetoric buddies.

Kevin

rhetoricians beware... here I come.

Obviously, from a number of my previous posts, I think that one of the biggest problems with rhetoric is the fact that we are too readily eager to accept it without question. When I hear a speech, I want to be able to ask questions in a comfortable atmosphere. I think that when a speaker is scheduled to come and give a speech, they should present a loose outline of what they wish to accomplish through their words. I don't know about anyone else, but a brief Q and A session after a talk just doesn't do it for me. I need time to process through the information and research a little before hearing what the rhetoric of the speaker. Almost anyone who would be invited to speak anywhere should have a website or at least access to the website of the place he/she is speaking. Posting this would not take long and would benefit all those who wish to be prepared for the speech. Yes, this would keep the speaker on his/her toes both during and after the presenation, but why should this deter anyone from making this a reality? Half of the audience would never look at the outline, the speaker will be more prepared in order to avoid embarrassment after the speech and the public will become more informed without even realizing it. How is this a bad idea?! Furthermore, if the speaker truly has something important to say that they care about, why would they want their audience to be ignorant on their subject? See, everyone wins here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a speaker earn their money.
*Thanks to everyone for a great semester. It's been a lot of fun and very interesting (I know... fun AND educational at the same time- who knew?!) If anyone is here this summer come and look me up, I'll be serving at the Blue Heron... Good luck to everyone!
Alden

Rhetoricookies (or... EAT MY COOKIES!)

I love it when food and school combine! I brought the cookies in because I thought it was a good illustration of how I view rhetoric. Rhetoric always comes packaged up with some purpose. Good rhetoric is inviting, appetizing and makes you want more. It may even come with a message on it that lets you know exactly what to do with it. BUT... you never know what you are getting yourself into. You only see the final package, not all of the research that goes into it. The audience doesn't know what has been left out, over emphasized or covered up, they only see the result. When the audience finally bites in, their may be a few surprises... there may be nuts hidden in the dough or raisins that look like chocolate chips. Unless you take the information and find out what is going on inside, you never know what you are going to get. Chew on that next time you bite into a delicious cookie.

Final Post

If I could change one thing about rhetoric, and this is a large concept that is difficult to define, I would change the subtle deceit that so significantly characterizes the art today. If rhetoric is going to be true and truly effective, I believe that it should also be truly honest. If the rhetorician makes his point plainly and the audience is supportive, both parties achieve the highest and most pure level of success and satisfaction. I also believe that the skill of such a rhetorician would be magnificent since how they say what they say would have to be so masterfully and carefully conducted. In this way only truth could be promoted because only it could win and find agreement in those it addresses. This idea might seem confusing, but I am having a hard time formulating my hypothesis in words. Still, this is what I would change.

Thanks to everyone =)

Echoing some other posts, just wanted to put in my 2 cents about how much I enjoyed the course (despite the fact that I wasn't an active participant in the blog-- after spending some QT reading posts, I've started to wish I was)...

I've already applied what I've learned about rhetoric to many aspects of my life-- not only am I finding myself more interested in politics, I've also used rhetorical analysis' in papers for other classes (successfully and not-so-successfully... it was a hit in Holocaust, not so much in Early American Lit- go figure ;) but the point is, it's made me aware of the significance of persuasive language in society. It's everywhere, and it affects everyone. So many people don't even know what the word "rhetoric" refers to, and yet it's very much a part of our everyday lives. Scary to think about, but true...

On a lighter note! 'lil K, I just finished a rendition of the Arabia remix for the benefit of my roommate. I'm sure I didn't do it justice, but one of these nights when I finally bump into you downtown I'll make you show her yourself- haha. To the rest of you guys-- great class, good times--have a great summer! '05 grads-- good luck in the "real world" =)

Final Response

wow, it really is the end of the semester!!!! yippee, I guess.

I was looking over some of the responses to the final question. I like several of the answers that I have seen so far. I will make a few comments of those and add a few new ones.

This class really opened my eyes to a lot of new things. I guess I am kinda embarassed to say that I was really intimidated when the course first began. I only knew David and Alden from previous classes and stuff, but I didn't know anyone else. This class (or classical rhetoric) is required for a Communication Studies degree, so I had to take this class. Granted, it has been a real learning process for me. I'm not the biggest fan of English classes ( sorry Dr. F!!) because I have had some real jerks since middle school.

However, I am glad to leave this class with many new friends and a new outlook on English. If any of you ever need me, please do not hesitate to call! 803-517-0783

I guess this is kinda my reflection on the end... but it is really the beginning. We will leave this class more educated about the techniques people use to persuade us on a daily basis. We will be educated voters, consumers, as well as members of the human race. And, this class was amazing because we did work that went across the ciriculum and creative as well. I really enjoyed that portion of the class. To be honest, some of the readings were kinda confusing, so I'm sure my blogs are kinda out in left field.

Stuff I would change in the world of rhetoric:

1. A more diverse judicial branch in SC.
2. Banning alcohol advertisements from television, much like the same thing that happened with cigarette marketing.
3. Accountability of politicans while they are in office.
4. Ending banned books (some of my most favorite childhood books are on that list!!!!!!!).
5. English speaking lessons for G.W. Bush... no more nu-cler.
6. Not allowing our government to interfere in so many world affairs and telling the public that they are doing it for the good of the people
7. Stop proposing to drill in Alaska... stop trying to persuade us and change our mind
8. NO MORE POP-UPS. I hate them with a passion, especially when I am trying to type this blog!!

I think that is it. One thing that I wanted to mention from Annie's blog is that Internet censorship is difficult because there is no one owner of the world wide web. I just think it would be hard to regualte something that so many people have a part in.

That's it.... have a great summer. Congradulations to the graduates, good luck in the future. December grads '05... holla!!

Rhetorical Food... is that possible?

Well, I guess it is...
I wanted to do something as a little treat on the last day of our class... kinda like when you were in elementary school and you used to have the parties, or at least mine did.
If you noticed, the cake part of the cupcakes was chocolate. There is a lot of rhetoric that can be said about chocolate as we all know.
I put the flags on the cupcakes because I thought it would be a reminder of the terms that we have used throughout the semester in the class. I hoped that the words would springboard into a disscussion and review time of the words, but oh well.

Good luck on finals, and beware of broken desk chairs that can rip your shorts!

What I Would Change...

Honestly, if there were one thing I could change about how rhetoric happens it would definitely be to incorporate mandatory and extensive discussions about rhetorical components and how they are used (in both positive and negative ways) into the curriculum of school children—starting at a very early age. However, since this has been discussed multiple times, I’ll write about something else. =)
I think that another thing that should be changed is how rhetoric is handled within the political system. It’s hard for people to get beyond the rhetoric of politicians and realize exactly what it is their party is standing for. It’s a widely known fact that, in many cases, political parties are purposefully deceptive. Our society should not stand by and watch as people are manipulated intentionally. It’s gotten to the point where the real issues are overshadowed by rhetorical fluff. Since we live in a democratic country, we can’t take away a person’s right to vote merely because they’re ignorant to what is really going on in the world, and what presidential (and other political) candidates are doing. If each party was forced to make a brochure that resembled a cliff-notes booklet and distribute it to schools and businesses across the nation, I think the world would be a much better place. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but seriously—if these pamphlets were designed to be completely logos-based and written in a straightforward and easy-to-understand manner, more people would make themselves politically aware and involved. They could even be forensic— it could partially discuss things that they’ve taken part in in the past. Ah well, realistically speaking this will never happen. But as Jillian said, a girl can dream…

Lil K and my flow (REEEEMIIIIIIXXXX)

So I heard that Arabia was miles and miles away
In da land o' da sand west o' Californ-i-a
Where its night over there while over here its day
And terrorist bombs might ruin yo' stay

Arabi-aaaa (hit a low note here)

So I heard that Sadam called George W cryin
Cause George said there was weapons, but we found out he was lyin
And why in the desert are American flags flyin?
George says, we'll make them free or we'll die tryin

Arabi-aaaa (hit low note and hold)

(sound of a record being spun)
er-er-er -er -er -er

Well its not about oli and "I am not a crook"
But everything I do I hope ya'll just overlook
Cause I'm a good ole boy from the Texas state
So let good times roll and let the haters hate

Arabi-aaaa (low note, hold)

Rappers of Arabia, on camels they roll
Pimped out llamas across the sand they stroll
Turbans of silk they call bling bling
Cause rappers o' da sand make they lyrics sting

Arabi-aaaa (hold)

In the palace o' Sadam there was toilets of gold
While the people in the streets sleepin out in the cold
In Afghanistan
My boy Fran
Sole a flan
And ran, ("foreva eva? foreva eva? foreva eva?")

So now my raps a wrap and the semester's ova
Rhetoric's been great like chocolate Russel Stovas
So if you hangin' for the summa, come downtown, I call ya
Buy you a drink or 24 cause you know I'm a bawla.

SCENE

*Ya'll was da first to hear my flow, so keep it real bo, support me with dough, and I'll holla back, yo!

Rhetoric rocks my face off, and so do you guys!

Before I did Rent on Broadway.
Before I won two Oscars in the same night.
Before I performed Shakespeare at The Globe.
Before I went to London to the Royal Academy.
Before I hosted TRL.
Before I made my first blockbuster with Alicia Keys and Nicole Kidman.
Before I founded the East/West Coast Marathon to save cancer patients.
You heard me, Kevin Jennings, do a rap in rhetoric.

Guys, I gotta say, this class has been amazing. Its a class that puts a smile on my face before I even get there. Honestly, in my college years here at clemson, there are few classes that truly deserve a "Strongly Agree" on the evaluation concerning professor/class positive interaction. I think are class is truly positively engaged and interactive and I enjoyed it and I'm glad you guys got to hear the start of my career. From that note...or rap...

Modern rhetoric has truly brought to light many things concerning rhetoric. Focusing on a way to change rhetoric, I think the food activity in last class and my rap go along with my idea. Change rhetoric from simply words. Make rhetoric more artistic and creative, a visual representation. When we think of rhetoric, often times we think of a speech given by a political party because that is where we see rhetoric so easily, unabashed, not hidden, but laid out point by point.

However, theatre is art and art reflects society. There are many contemporary plays that were written because of politics of the time, or things in society that needed changing. And if people can come and see it changed on the stage, then they can see that change more readily in their own lives. As a Performing Arts/English major, I know both the power of words and the power of art. Things affect everyone differently. Whereas, a speech on inner city problems crafted so carefully with logos, ethos, and pathos would bore someone to tears and they would never be receptive of it, a 15 minute theatre sketch showing the gang murder of a young kid in the streets over a fight over drugs could bring something much farther home than a speech.

Thus, I would like to see rhetoric changed in the avenues it is presented. A cookie with a title, a poem, a play, a song, a RAP (haha), or whatever it may be, take rhetoric to different venues and put it out there.

Best wishes to you all, I have enjoyed every bit of our class. And all that stuff at the beginning of this blog, is what I plan to do, but remember, You heard me first in rhetoric. So support your rhetoric class!'

KEVIN JENNINGS (a.k.a Lil K and the C-Town Playas)

"The semester is over, rhetoric's been great, like chocolate russel stovas"

blog. strange word. bright logical official gabber?

I've been thinking about this quite a bit today, and when I read the other posts, I found that I wasn't alone in my opinion. I agree, being taught to reason and weild it to its full range of possibilities would clear up so much in our fuddled world. I was talking to a guy from South Africa recently (did I already post on this?) and he was talking about how a lack of education, plus hunger, can be the most detrimental thing for the society. We were talking about Rwanda and Darfur, and he kept pointing out that if the people had been better educated, the genocides wouldn't have happened. The radio rhetoric in Rwanda spurred the people to start a mass slaughter...it's uncanny. I also think that if people were educated about rhetoric things would get a lot better. You could look at commercials, and think, "oh, I know what they're doing. no way I'm buying that crap." Small example. My plan would be to up the anty for our education system, teach kids to use reason and show them the techniques of rhetoric. This way, they would be able to take a logical look at speeches and evaluate the implications of what is really going on and make reasonable decisions. Of course, by my plan everyone would be required to care about the implications of their votes, their purchases, they're judgements. It may not be entirely possible, but it's okay to dream.

Before, taking Modern Rhetoric I did not truly understand it and the effect it has on our daily lives. Since taking the class I have noticed how rhetoric has influenced me to make many of the decisions I have made in my life; from fashion, to dieting to college decisions to what I eat and even drink (occasionally). If I could change one thing about rhetoric it would be how it is used in the media. I am not pro-censorship in anyway but some things should be limited. Simply because society later allows people to blame (sue) the media/music for actions they claim these things "encouraged them to do." I believe that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children see or do. So, there should be laws that limit the media or laws to protect the media from those who try to take advantage of it when they make bad decisions.

If you could make one change as to how rhetoric happens-- this could be large, like getting rid of all censorship of television shows or small, like revising the book about the danger of comic book violence--what would you do, and why?

Well, this is simple. I would do all that I could to render flagrant, pathos-laden rhetoric null and void.

I think about this a lot. Take for instance the teaching environment in SC schools: the teachers lecture, the students take notes in order to do their best to regurgitate the information on anything that is graded, then repeat as needed (this stucture is mostly do to the fact that we are taught to go to college not to learn, but to get a job).

I've been told several times by professors and fellow students from up North (Yankees? How dare I!) that this is completely different from their education system. They are taught first that an education is important to be empowered, not that it is meant for employment. They are taught not to regurgitate what they have been taught, but to reach their own conclusions with reason.

So, I wonder why northern states have a typically liberal (this doesn't mean "democratic") voting body? They're just naive? Perhaps, they've been taught to question the information presented them. They see through empty rhetoric because they do their own research on what is being said.

This could be applied to journalists too. Their job (aside from on the major news networks) is to research what is happening. Perhaps, the fact that they aren't taught to ingest everything that is put before them is the reason that journalists, when surveyed, lean left.

Just a hypothesis.

People on the right tend to think that it is something to do with the way they "are" (Journalists are all liberals). I would beg to differ. Perhaps, any reasonable person presented with the same information as these people would come to the same conclusions.

So my approach would be to stop letting the teachers talk the whole time in class and to start teaching kids how to do reasearch (not in the manner that we do in SC, teaching kids how to do it but not actually making it an essential part of the curriculum).

Teachers should give extra credit to kids who take time to present an argument that is in disagreement with what that teacher may have taught the class. That's to say the kid presents an argument and proves it with a body of research.

People would say that this is impossible, that kids would never do that. I, again, beg to differ. There is a teacher who for the last 20 years has been teaching elementary students (1st graders I believe) to do just this. Not only that, he teaches the children to recite shakespeare, they play (the whole class together) un concierto before recess, and, get this, the kids LOVE it! This professor has won many awards in the US and has gotten one of teh highest awards possible from the queen of england.

This guy is so loved by his students that he was actually saved from financial ruin by a student of his that he had had twenty years before.

Oh yeah, the thing is too, all of these children are very poor. It's a public school in California, and all of his students are the children of immigrants (disproving the idea many people have that poor kids don't want to learn).

Yet, here, when someone says something that is clearly wrong, like the fact that Sudan had no relations with bin Laden, if I tell them they're wrong they look at me like I'm rude or I think I'm better than them! I would like people to tell me that! How ironic is it to say you believe in education while also ascribing yourself to the belief that it's impolite to tell someone when their glaringly incorrect?! I don't get it.

I honestly want people to tell things like that, and if they show me why then I'd have no choice but to change my views.

All I want is for people to have reason. If people would approach life using reason, we wouldn't have many of the problems that we have now. First and foremost, people would start with the understanding that disagreements aren't personal, they're a means to figure out the best approach to solving a problem. If anyone can disagree then you haven't diffinitively proved your point.

Also, rhetoric that is void of a definitive meaning would be rendered useless. For instance, no politicians would ever be able to use terms like "freedom is on the march," "Lock box," etc. Before anyone would ever even let them use words like that, they would have to explain exactly what they meant by them, and how they logically intended to implement their plan.

It's funny, people said that they were always so unclear as to what Kerry wanted to do, yet when there was a study done to see how much people new of what either candidate wanted to do, they had the same responses for both candidate as to what their objectives were. However, people still felt that they new what Bush wanted. It's important to remember that Bush is the first Harvard MBA holder to be el Presidente. You think that has anything to do with Bush repeating over and over the same slogans to "sell" his platform? Read In Your Face (which is not a partisan book.....that's to say it is not a Bush bashing book, its written by an economist (implied "conservative") from Georgetown....his last name's Johansen, I think). Anyway, if people used reason, if people had been taught the importance of education aside from getting a job, then we wouldn't have MANY of the problems we have now.

I think this is a product of the post-GI Bill/WWII generation that was able for the first time to go to college. Going to college for them was so important because it was so uncommon, and the people who went had to work hard, which is why they got jobs (i.e. they really were better qualified, they really did have a passion to learn). Now, it is normal to go to college, college is the base. It really doesn't mean much of anything. People don't come to learn, for a large part, but the generations above us still push all of us to go to college with the mindset they had when they went to college.

Am I being redundant?

I'll quit...here's the story of the teacher in california:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4608476

Voila....

Final Blog

For my final blog, I would like to say that I believe that the one thing I would change about how rhetoric happens would be to change how people understand rhetoric. I would add rhetoric to a good high school education. I know that an understanding of rhetoric used to be one of the basics of education but somehow along the way, we have lost an interest in it. This is completely backwards because rhetoric now affects our life more than ever. I feel that it would be extremely helpful to the American society if people had an education in rhetoric. Changing the way that people understand rhetoric would allow them to make much more informed decisions about everything from politics, to advertisements, to life in general.
If people had a basic knowledge of logos, ethos, and pathos and were able to analyze speeches, commercials, and anything in these terms, then people would be less likely to fall into the traps of fad diets, lying politicians, etc. I feel that education is the key to understanding and if people were more educated then they would more likely to make good decisions. We have had a great numbers of examples of this in class this year. For example, the people who believe that Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11 or those who fall easily for pathos rather than for logos or ethos.
I feel that this is the most important thing to change how rhetoric happens.
Good Luck to everyone on exams!

If I could change the world…

Well, not quite.

But if I could make one change as to how rhetoric happens I would do away with the rhetoric of body image. The media today tends to portray women and their bodies in a sexually degrading way. The media exploits a wrong perception of what the average American body should look like. From movies, magazines, to television sitcoms, there tends to be an obsession with this sense of the “perfect body”—an ideal that is not only unattainable but dangerously unhealthy.

There is no encouragement towards a healthy body with a balanced diet and regular exercise—a healthy lifestyle—but encouragement towards losing weight as quick and as painless as possible. I don’t know how many commercials I’ve seen where thin models who have “used” diet pills share weight-loss “testimonies”: “I lost 50 pounds, and I didn’t have to change anything about the way I live my life!” These testimonies can hardly be true, and if they are, this form of losing weight can have detrimental effects on the body.

I have had several friends who have struggled with eating disorders, and it’s frustrating that the media seems to advocate these types of lifestyles.

As was stated with cigarette advertisements, dieting seems to be something that is also directly targeted our culture. The end is praised above the means to that end—and weight lost is worth any cost along the way.

I think maybe a way to avoid these problems would be to start educating students on the benefits of healthy lifestyles and the dangers of unhealthy ones. If we replaced the negative perceptions with positive perceptions on body image, maybe there would be a significant change in the way society views that “perfect body.”

On a different note--I just wanted to thank all of you for a wonderful rhetoric class! Good luck with your exams... ONLY ONE MORE WEEK...

Final blog and week at Clemson (EVER) :o(

Well, I am graduating in two weeks, so I went to my last class EVER last night. I was much more sad than I had previously anticipated that I would be.

BTW, for all of you who are in town for graduation, I am getting together as many people as aI can to go DT to celebrate with all of us who are graduating so...I hope to see you all down there. Kevin - you owe me one last dance at TD's :o) HaHaHa!

One last thing before I get into the "final blog" - Rebekah, I agree with you 100% about the annoying people in the library during exam week. One more ocmplaint is that you can never find a place to park or study. They need to have reserved ares for people who use the library for more than one week a semester. I had to sit on the floor last semester to meet with a study group. Ok, I'm done with the rant.

On to what to change about the way rhetoric happens. I must say that I have to agree with Christy and Rebekah. Education of rhetoric is the most powerful tool. The most important thing that I feel like I have learned this semester is how to analyze rhetoric in people's arguments so that I am not conned into something without understanding the argument and the rhetorical basis of the argument - especially the individuals ethos.

In my Holocaust lit. class, we read a bok called "Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing" by James Waller. The book basically describes that the people who committ these atrocities are ordinary people, like you and I, that in certain circumstances and in certain conditions are promted to committ extraordinary evil. The premise of the book is that if you are educated to look for certain things and you understand that you are capable of this kind of evil, then you are protected from doing it. I'm applying the same sort of premise to rhetoric. If you know what you are looking for such as logos, ethos, pathos, kairos, telos, deliberative, forensic, etc., and you understand how these devices work along with the way the rhetorician is using them you can make better judgements about their message.

I feel like a lot of people get conned into things because they are not educated in certain areas and don't know what to look out for, but if you go into a situation being educated, you can protect yourself from making a bad decision. When listening to someone speak, whether it be someone trying to sell you a vaccuum or the next president, understanding the design under their speech makes a difference. Understanding the dynamics that make up a speech could cause you to choose on side over the other. So, I feel that if I could change how rhetoric happened, I would make it so everyone understood the design and underlying techniques so that people wouldn't be fooled by someones trying to take advantage or persuade them in a negative way.

Good luck to everyone on finals! I know this week sucks. Also, congrats to all graduating seniors!! Hope to see you all DT!

OKay, if you need a laugh, you really need to watch this

Hey gang,
A couple of friends of mine made this spoof of a Clemson University infomerical... some of you may have seen this. Please watch it, it is worth 5 minutes of your time for a good laugh!

http://www.clemson.edu/~dsims/mymovies/clemson's%20new%20promo%20video%202.wmv

Post a response to the blog if you get a chance

Finals week: when people who don't normally come to the library come to the library

The funny thing about rhetoric is that most of the time we don't know it's "happening," even though our lives literally revolve around it. I didn't know what rhetoric was until I took this class - the theory especially was helpful because it clarified what rhetoric is, and at the same time left the definition open for further change. And so I guess I'm still learning what rhetoric is - but I have the tools to be able to pick out ethos, pathos, logos, kairos, etc... it helps to have words to describe the ways in which you're being convinced.

So, now the question: if I could change how rhetoric happens, what would I do? I think it comes down to defining the terms being worked with. (ARGH! I am so annoyed as I'm writing about this because the kid next to me has his headphones up so loud he may as well be playing the music from his speakers! Do I ask him to turn the music down, or is that rude? If I knew the kid it'd be different...but I really have the urge to punch him. Maybe I should ask him nicely to turn it down some before I get really mad and do punch him.)

So, back to rhetoric. A better understanding of rhetoric - the terminology - would help rhetoric to "happen" better. That is, that if kids in school learned the basic elements of rhetoric and their uses, not only would people eventually be more prepared to respond wisely to convincing speeches, but hopefully the speeches themselves would get better because speakers would realize their speeches need multiple elements within them. It helps me now, to be able to say a word in my head and link it to what a speaker is using to try and convince me.

So there's my final blog. I did nicely ask the guy next to me to turn down his headphones, and he said okay...but maybe he's deaf or something because I can still hear the music as well as he can. All you music listeners out there - buy quality earphones so that you don't drive the people around you crazy. If a meaner person than me was sitting here today, that kid might've gotten punched in the nose.

Good luck on the final, everyone - it was fun! If anyone wants to hang out this summer, get coffee and talk rhetoric I'll be around...but with a new, and improved name! 'Bye!

the VERY soon to be Rebekah Pesce

Final...

This might be the last one so everyone have fun...don't stress (it's not worth it)...and above all go down town when you are done!
The one thing that I would change...
Make politicians tell the truth. Strap every one of them up to a polygraph when they give any speech, (to congress or the public)! It is far too easy to lie, deceive…We elect people for a reason but they never keep there promises. The whole system is corrupt and a lie detector would keep things HONEST….he he.

Tues...

Richard,
Good job, Wertham and comics was not a topic I would have expectedWertham’sWertham’sWertham’sWertham’s Wertham’s, you made it work for you (I sound like Paula)
You said that comics could/would never make it into a real literary art form and that it is mostly Wertham’s fault…That comics would be reserved for kids and specialty shops…Weren’t they started for kids?
Anyway, this is interesting to me because my Uncle, 54, is a proud collector. While it is true that most of his comics center around superheroes…some don’t. Anyway, he buys comics by the dozen and goes to at least one comicon each year with a friend from Illinois. I went with them one year just to see what it was like. I figured it would be mostly kids and older men dressed in costumes grasping for sanity. It was some of that but there was another aspect. The thought that it wasn’t just “nerds” and that it was acceptable to be a collector. After all, most people collect something! In addition to the DC and Marvel there was a lot of Simpson’s garb and other comic strip/tv stuff. That’s were I spent my time. I’m a huge fan of the longest running tv series ever! So I have a question. While comic strips have disowned themselves from comics…where do animated shows stand? Surely Wertham has not done anything to hurt them…

Thursday...

First,
Great idea for the final...(did that come across like sucking up?)
Rap...Great...Tru
Food...
Thanks for the sweats!
My Chicken was lame, I'm sorry I didn't bring edible food...but there was a lot of Rhetoric behind the idea...
For those of you who missed it, I brought in fried (rubber) chicken. The entire athletic department eats no other meat in the entire week before the USC football game! After the game we eat Chick fila here or Bojangles there, (They also eat Bojangles). They eat their own mascot! Damn carnivores.

Internet trash

If I could make one change as to how rhetoric happens it would have to be getting rid of the trashy internet sites. This would be a small step, but large in its effects. Seeing as our society is technologically driven and dependent, the internet has become a source of truth for many, myself included. Though there are ways to block certain sites from the eyes of children, most kids find a way to see all that the internet has to offer. There are so MANY topics that I could address, but I will only touch on two. For starters, how about those sexy pornographic websites? For horny adults, maybe they are ok, but how about the bored kids after school who have nothing to do but surf the net? I think these sites are encouraging our kids to try these sexual acts they are witnessing. They are seeing their favorite stars acting like sluts, excuse my language…(example Paris Hilton, Pam Anderson) and are likely to believe that if they do the same thing, they could become quite popular and sexy too. Sex is something for two consenting adults, who should be in love, in my opinion, to indulge in. Sex is not for these middle schoolers who think it is cool to perfect their oral sex skills on the school bus. Because I want to be a teacher, I’ve been in the school setting a lot lately, and I’m noticing the change that our students are becoming more and more promiscuous at an early age as time goes on. It is not a stretch to think that the internet could be teaching these kids their values today. What these kids are not seeing are the consequences of what sex can lead to.

Another issue, one that I touched on in my presentation includes those horrible websites advocating fad diets. Despite all the warnings you hear that say, “Don’t believe everything you read/see on the internet,” I still tend to believe almost everything I see. Our kids/teens are being subjected to these advertisements and are being led to think they are fat, even when they aren’t. They trust these sites that are telling them they will lose weight if they try this product or that pill. They don’t think that companies would be lying to them just to sell a product. It’s not just the websites that try to sell you bogus remedies for being overweight. There are actually websites that kids can go to that tell you the best way to throw up your food. There are websites that promote eating all you want for one day then not eating anything the next as weightloss solutions. (When I saw this, I wanted to try it, so why wouldn’t our self conscious adolescents think the same way?) With all that is being put on the net, kids are bound to be influenced to try these unhealthy weightloss solutions. The temptation is too great when all you want to do is look like your idol who happens to be a size negative 2. Our kids are being exposed to absolute junk and it is influencing who they are becoming.

The internet is promoting sex and unhealthy weightloss, shoving it in kids faces, but the kids are not exposed to the many awful consequences of what these sites are promoting. Deaths from sex and dieting occur all the time. Adolescents are in the “It won’t happen to me” stage, so they are not concerned with warnings against these sites and even if there are warnings, they would probably ignore them. To take off all controversial websites would be impossible. New ones would just keep popping up everyday. I am not offering a “cure” for these unhealthy misleading sites, because I know it is virtually impossible to shield our kids from this. If it wasn’t on the internet, it would be in books. If not in books, on the bathroom stalls of the schools. I just think that we should be aware of what we are promoting and should consider all the trouble it can lead to, especially for our kids who could have such bright futures before them.

Tuesday

Didn’t get a chance to write on Tuesday. This week has been CRAZY—as I’m sure it has been for all of you—and I’ll be glad when it finally comes to an end next week. I wanted to commend you, CA, for your winning speech. You’ll definitely have to take a picture of your giant trophy so we can all take a look! HA!

I was really impressed with Richard’s presentation on the censorship of comic books. I have never really been into comic books, and I only recently read my first graphic novel: Maus I and II. I would highly recommend these to anyone who is interested in reading this type of writing. I had never really considered comics as an effective medium but this comic was quite different from what I expected. Written from the perspective of mice you would think that it would be easy to keep a safe and “detached” distance from the emotional turmoil of the Holocaust. I was wrong. The writing was real and candid, and almost instantaneous personal attachment was achieved through Spiegelman’s characters. I suppose that is a little different from the typical superhero comic.

It was interesting to consider Spiegelman’s comic in light of Wertham’s claims on the effects comic books have on children. Wertham advocated that anything even remotely involving violence would encourage children towards deviant or violent behavior. Richard made the point that Wertham may have failed in his studies to account for the chance that children were using comics as a scapegoat, blaming their violent behavior on the violence portrayed in what they were reading.

I wonder—what would Wertham say of Spiegelman’s comic that revealed the harsh realities of the Holocaust?

I believe there is material that can encourage deviant behavior, though I don’t know that we can hold these sources as responsible for our actions. Our actions are our own. Rhetoric may lead one to a choice, but it can’t make you choose.

Anyways, I don’t know how reliable Wertham’s ethos could have been when he considered himself “Freudian” in thought.

Richard gave a very informative presentation on Tues. I haven't read comics since "Archie" in like Elementary school and maybe the Sunday comics in the local paper. Of course the whole censorship idea doesn't realy apply to those but it was interesting to see how something as innocent as comics are targeted. It was also interesting to see how someone used rhetoric to influence censorship, rather than the obvious uses of rhetoric (ex. influencing others to purchase something). Oh yeah, great job on the speech CA and another wonderful performance Kev.

Rhetorical Food

I brought Fried Rice as my rhetorical food because when I was younger I had a teacher who used Chinesse Food to explain communism. She said that chinesse food is like communism because it is all thrown into the wok together. Everything is made equal in the wok because it is all given the same flavoring and all the items in one thing come out exactly the same. This is similar to communism because all the people are put into one thing and everyone is made the same. No one is allowed to "taste" different or be "cooked" in a different way. I know it isn't exactly correct but I thought that the food represented its society which is in some way rhetorical.

Speaking of musical interludes.....

Shameless self-promotion: I'm playing at Uptown Sushi tonight. I've been playing there about every other week for the last semester in a half, but tonight is the going away party. There's a smorgisborg of different people that come and play with me: violin, percussion, piano, electric guitar......anything can happen (go wrong)....

If any of y'all go out tonight, come by. I'll usually start at about 10:30.....

I feel dirty...(not like that....I mean I feel dirty for the shameless self-promotion).....

Final Blog Posting (and a thank you!)

Hello all,

Sorry for the delay. Your final blog posting should address this question:
If you could make one change as to how rhetoric happens-- this could be large, like getting rid of all censorship of television shows or small, like revising the book about the danger of comic book violence--what would you do, and why?

And the thank you:

You have made this class a real pleasure for me this semester. I've appreciated your creativity and your engagement and, of course, the musical interludes :-). I hope that you will stay in touch, and maybe even blog on occasion. Have a great summer!

-T. F.

I used to read Archie

I grew up reading comics that adhered to the rules of the comics code, and so perhaps it is for that reason that I never heard any real qualms about them being gross or causing crime. I was an Archie and Jughead fan growing up; now when I come across them I have to laugh at them because they really are pretty ridiculous. But I didn't commit any overt acts of crime, either, so...hey, maybe Archie kept me out of trouble.

Just kidding. Where I wanted to go with this, though, is into the realm of anime. I don't read or watch it, but I have friends who do, and they don't call it cartoons because, somehow, it's different. Maybe because it deals with all those things the comics code tried to abolish? Is anime a separate genre, or is it just trying to be?

To play the devil's advocate I do want to mention here that while not all people who are into anime are antisocial, all the ones I know are. And by antisocial I don't meant they live in a hole; they are social with human beings, but not in the context of a normal conversation: the computer must always serve as an interface. I don't think it's anime that does this, but rather the convenience with which the computer tempts people who naturally have a hard time facing people. Naturally people who like comics are drawn to read them on the internet, and to talk to people at the same time. The difference with comic books is just that - they are a physical artifact that can be collected, kept, viewed and touched. And maybe this is what separated anime?

Just curious - if there are any anime fans out there, please shed some light on the topic - thanks!

Speaking of growing to like the blog...

I'm somewhat embarrassed to say, although I don't know why, that I just started my own blog. I don't know what it will turn out to be, but maybe it's a good way to arrange my thoughts....

I can make it through this week...

Don't you hate it when you get to class and realize that the seventy page paper you've been working on all semester didn't actually save last time you hit "save" and then you email half of it to yourself to turn in that morning by 11? Wow. I'm dead.

Alden, don't be scared. He's not my favorite hero. And my mouth is very rarely ever that dirty.

Robert brought up a good point when he said "how are we supposed to use this stuff?" I think it all goes back to the issues we've cared so much about. It goes back to why we're in school. I am at least speaking for myself here when I say that I'm not going to be rich from college...or I would have gone into physics or something. I picked my path because of the things I care about. Probably, what we're supposed to take away from this class is a firmer grasp on how to approach these things we care about. Annie could make a great campaign for tazers and be able to acheive her desired affect with her audience. I'm too scattered to pick just one example for myself, but I think you get the idea.

Richard, wonderful job. Your presentation sort of captures the nature of modern rhetoric. It seems all of the presentations have dealt with issues on the forefront of our understanding of rhetoric. When it comes to book banning, mass manipulation through commercials, being able to speak out against the things you're unhappy with, these are all issues that might not have been seen as being used rhetorically, according to Aristotle. It seems they would have made merry discourse about whether or not the stuff is harmful, but here we are saying there is a certain amount of rhetoric to these issues. So does this mean that rhetoric creates a product? I'm still not sure on that one. Perhaps the man who opposed comics would have been happier if comic book makers would have taken a little more responsibility for the rhetoric in the comics. Is anything ever just entertainment? Who knows.

C.A.--great job with your speech and congratulations on the massive trophy. =)

Everyone, it's been fun. I've even grown to like the blog, go figure! Hopefully I'll still see everyone around in the fall.

Tues Presentations

Richard did a wonderful job with his presentation. I am not much of a comic reader myself but he did a good job of expressing the passion that some people have towards comics. I believe that his presentation fits in nicely with the topic of parental responsibility. He told the story of a man who tried to ban comic books due to their content but the actual problem is with the parents’ lack of explanation. If the parents simply did not allow young children read the comics or fully explained the difference between comics and reality, then we would not be having this problem.
I was also surprised to see the range of topics that comics are able to cover. I had not previously realized that comics could cover such serious topics and social issues. I suppose that I had fallen into the trap of the belief that almost all comics dealt with superheroes. I feel that comic strips are a wonderful medium because they act as humor does, allowing someone to make a point without offending the reader. I was very impressed and surprised by what Richard had to say.
Also, great job to CA! I enjoyed your speech and completely agreed with what you had to say! Thanks for presenting it for us!

Comic Books

Okay, so today in class was the first time that I actually seen a comic. I always knew that they existed... I just kinda thought they were a boy thing. I see that I was wrong with that assumption as many females in the class were all about some comics.

I think censorship, for the most part, is wrong. I believe that it violates our freedom of speech. The whole thing with the censorship of the comic came from one man. When one person tries to take responsibility and tries to make an impact on a part of culture, it should really be examined so we don't have more dictators running around on the earth. From what Richard said in his presentation, the comic industry was really a catch-all for the blame of what was happening with America's youth at the time. I seriously doubt that an artform such as comics could have corrupted the entire generation. I get so tired of politicans and other influencial people looking for cause and effect relationships that don't really exist. This whole thing with the comics reminds me of McCarthism and the Red Scare. Let't point fingers at everyone else but ourselves, and especially our competition so they will go out of business and we will control the market.

That may have just been a ramble, but those are my thoughts. I am sadened that the opinions of one deranged man drastically impacted the comic industry in the way that it did. Didn't we learn our lesson in Colonial America that requiring printed material to have a stamp on it to be a bad sign?

A journey through the semester.....what's it all about?

......beacause I don't know what I haven't done. I counted 20 posts, so I'm just going to sort of wander......

- The Bill Hicks video page I put in my last post has a 30minute video towards the bottom of the page. It's really freaking funny....

- The first leg of our journey (and maybe only, depending upon how much of a rant I go on), is trying to dicover how to actually use this stuff in our everyday life. To clarify, I mean simply rhetoric, not the specific topics we used to learn about rhetoric.

I for one am absolutely captivated by these philosophers (yes, there, I said it). I really dig this stuff, BUT I don't understand how you go about applying it in your every day life. The purpose of this course couldn't have been just to come out being able to go to a speech and say, "He had way too much pathos," or "That speech was surely epideictic, not forensic." These are all things that we knew before the class, even if we didn't have specific words (For instance, the first statement could be translated, "That speaker was way to much like Michael Moore or George Bush in the way that he tried to use our emotions and lie by omission without really giving enough facts."). Do what's the point?

I Think about this a lot, because, like I said, I like studying all of this philosophy. Reading things by people like Walter Benjamin, Derrida, Foucault (who also wrote about the public sphere), etc. is so incredibly interesting. Things become so clear afterwards about history, about language, about culture, but how do you apply it to daily life? When someone says someone says, "How can you say there are no definite periods in history? Do you think that today we're just like people were a thousand years ago?" Should I says, "Well, yes, I do, and the answer is simple. You see, we still can't approach the Real. That's the capitol "r" Real. Or the symbolic chain. You see we can't trace it all back....we can't get close to the Real..." and so on.

Have y'all (yes, I just typed "y'all" it doesn't seem right to say "you" or "you guys") seen I Heart Huckabees? It is quite possibly one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Seriously. It deals with this whole concept. One scene in particular comes to mind in talking about this. It's when Marky Mark (I know he's "Mark Walberg" now, but he'll always be Mr. "Good Vibrations" in my book......he's actually VERY good in this movie......I didn't know he could act) Where was I? Oh, Dustin Hoffman (who's an "existential detective") shows up when Marky Mark's girlfriend is leaving him because she's fed up with all of his talk about how people that are driving everywhere in their SUVs are using up petroleum that is killing people in third world countries. He leans over to their daughter and says something like, "You know Mommy's pretty shoes, honey? They were probably made by a little asian girl in some third world country who was going blind working 16 hours a day in a sweatshop." The little girl yells, "But I don't want the kids to go blind!"

....okay, I'm not really doing it justice. Just trust me it's funny. Anyway, Marky Mark says he's frustrated because he doesn't understand why we learn about all of this stuff if we don't use it. When we hear about the petroleum, the sweatshops, etc. what do we do?

Are we going to write the FCC? Are we going to start a new totally unbiased news source? What?

Crap, that's not even the point, I wasn't supposed to talk about the specific topics.

So, now that Habermas expanded the public sphere, how are we going to show that importance to people?

What are we going to do now that we know about the "tyrannizing image"?

Will Lassie save Tim from the well?

I don't know. I can't quite figure it out.

Tune in next time....

- There's a new terrorism report published by the state department that says that terrorism is way up since the beginning of the Iraq war, but the state department won't publish the numbers. Isn't that kind of messed up?

I could actually be mixing up two different reports. Hold on, I'm going to check......

Okay, here we go:
"New State Dept. Terrorism Report Will Omit Statistics"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4606088

....and more, this is a little more apochalyptical (I added the BOLD):

"Terrorism's Up, But Who's Counting?"

Source: Knight Ridder, April 15, 2005

For the first time in 20 years, the U.S. government will not be publishing Patterns of Global Terrorism, a Congressionally-mandated report from the U.S. Department of State intended to provide a full and complete record of countries and groups involved in international terrorism. Last year, the Bush administration was embarrassed when the report tallied 175 significant terrorist attacks - the highest number in two decades, contradicting the administration's claim that it is winning the war on terrorism. According to U.S. intelligence officials, this year's numbers are far worse - 625 attacks, or nearly four times the amount of last year's embarrassment. In a State Department briefing, spokesman Richard Boucher said the department plans to issue a different report, with the statistics omitted. The numbers would be released someday, Boucher said, but "I don't know when."

from: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3621 (which is "liberal")

....and, yet again (this one's right from Myrtle Beach):

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/11499036.htm

- What else? My roomates just called me to watch something on TV about exorcisms and snake handling....I'm a little freaked out about what fundamentalist religions are doing to our country. Both from within and from without.

- Burke: "Our thoughts and ideas are never free from the language we use to frame them." I would specify that by saying the "words" not the language. You may ask what's the difference, and I respond, "Exactly."

okay.....I've completely lost my train of thought.....

My favorite Bill Hicks quote.....

This is my favorite Bill hicks quote, its the one I mentioned about news stories talking about drugs, it's about half way through:
http://anon.salon.speedera.net/anon.salon/mp3s/bhicks2.mp3



Video archive:

http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_content.php?n=multimedia_video_bill

Richard and Comics... well not together...

Richards presentation on comics was very interesting considering that I have never been much of a comic reader... I prefer violent video games myself. I just think it's funny that there are so many people out there who are willing to bend over backwards in order to put down something that other people care so much about. Comic books are a crucial medium when you think about simply the ways people absorb information. Visual learners are running amuck in the United States with less knowledge than they would have if not for Mr. Kill Joy Comic Book Critic. There are some really interesting comic novels out there right now... the Road to Perdition being one of them. There is also another really good one who's name escapes me right now, but the cover is light blue and white... anyone? I plan on reading this novel very soon (as soon as I recall the name of it). There was also a comic done of T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland which I highly recommend since people spend their entire lives trying to figure out that poem. On the presentation alone, I think Richard did a great job of giving us interesting and relevant information! Way to go!

paging Senator Bartle

C.A.- you are the bomb.
Alden

HABERMAS IS MY HERO!

Just kidding... I just wanted to see if anyone would click on that just to see what madness would drive me to say that Habermas is my hero... don't get me wrong, he is a great man and everything, but he is not my hero...anyway...

Habermas strives to extend the idea of the Public Sphere, an idea of the Enlightenment of the 18th century which I believe was started by (or at least attributed to) Kant. The public sphere is a theory that people can be faithful to the state or their job in public but be able to disagree with it in private. There is no need to continue being a soldier at home as well as on the battle field, although it is very hard to separate the two places. Habermas' idea is that a public sphere can be created in any place at any time even if it does not co-operate with the ideas of the public. People function in social groups and identify themselves with these groups. poeple also act in different domains; work, interaction and power. Everyone looks out for themselves through working, everyone must interact with other people to a certain degree and people are always trying to free themselves from power sources which contradict their ideologies.
In the 20th century, the idea of the public sphere is no longer talked about in public. Habermas sites coffee shops as a new medium for the public sphere. Wherever people are gathered with a common interest, the public sphere emerges. Stereotypically, coffee shops are full of people who are trying to get out from under "the man."
*tangent* yes, I do hang out in coffee shops thank you very much and if anyone has a problem with this assumption, get a nose ring and apply for jobs at various locations... the coffee shop owner won't bat an eyelash (and yes, I do realize I just opened up a discussion about people with nose rings, but I'm not going there right now).*end tangent*
People are constantly striving to make their situation better. The great thing about America is that we have the freedom to do this in public whereas other culture have to hide in basements to simply share a cup of coffee over conversations focused on tyrannical governments. The rhetorical part of this argument iswhen "speech acts" are brought in. Habermas speaks of constatives, regulative and avowals where people claim something which could be anything and the audience agrees to listen. The second describes the regulations inflicted upon the speaker and on the audience by the speaker. The third- avowals show the pathos of the speaker, what he hopes and feels and wishes or wonders. these types of speeches seem more idealistic and theorized than normals rhetoric but I think this form of speech is crucial to the advancement of society and of rhetoric

Bill Hicks is my new favorite

I loved Jillian's presentation on Bill Hicks. I admit that I had never heard of him before this presentation for which I say shame on me. Here is a man who is using his gifts (yes, I do consider cleverness, humor and a filthy mouth as a gift) to make people think. He makes people laugh before they stop for a minute and say, "hey, was I supposed to laugh at that, it's kindof tragically true." I think that this was his mission. He was cynical and dry, but there was a passion in him that I can respect. I don't agree with him in all of his humor and some of it definitely made me look around to see if anyone else could hear what he was saying, but if this man is the only education that someone gets about the dire straits of the world... I say we need more people like him. Jillian, you did a wonderful job presenting to the class and I appreciate that this man is your hero (although on some level that fact is scary.)

CA :o)

CA,

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your speech in class yesterday. Thank you for sharing that with me and the class. I felt like you conveyed a lot of interesting information that I actually did not know about the history of Clemson. Thanks again and congrtatulations on winning second place!

Comic books

Growing up, I was never into comic books and my older brother wasn't really either, so I was never exposed to the kinds of comics we saw in class today. I was actually surprised how good and accurate the illustrations were. After that class, I have been considering sitting down and reading one. The only comics that I ever really read were like the Sunday paper comic strips, so all really censored stuff. I have this semester read Maus for my Holocaust litertature class and really enjoyed it. It was well written, illustrated, and covered an intense topic. My favorite part was the section where Speigelman addresses his mothers suicide. The whole concept was an amazing juxtaposition because it took a very serious topic and presented it in a comic book fashion, even giving the characters mouse, cat, and pig characteristics.

Richard made a good point to say that the comics were not responsible for the actions of children or any other people. Werthman for one thing had questionable logos, but more than that, as I have been doing research for another paper of mine for senior seminar I am addressing suicide, which is another area where people like to name scapegoats and blame the suicide on other outside factors rather than face the real issues. In the 80's, metal and rock were heavily blamed for suicide, leading to goth later in the 90's.

Although Werthman had tons of ethos, he used it out of context for his own purposes. He made an easy correlation between child delinquency and comic books. Because he had such indredible ethos he was able to say just about anything and have people beleive him. The correlation he made about the boys and comics completely ignored any other factors that could have contributed to the boys' behavior. Richard showed an interesting comparison and flipflop in his opinion when he showed that Werthman favored fanzines and thought the boys making and reading those were perfectly fine.

The information that Richard brought up about the comic council was very interesting as well. I was reading through some of the guidelines and found myself laughing, because so much of what was heavily emphasized on the list people are not bothered by so much anymore. I also thought it was interesting to point out that comics have changed in scope, and have begun to cover other areas besides super heroes, such as political comic books. It agreed with Richard that the comic council and the neccesity to include some sort of superhero aspect to each comic seems trivial and takes away from the real message the author is trying to get across to their reader.

Overall, I thought it was a really informative and insightful presentation. It was very interesting and I learned alot about a topic that I knew relatively little about.

Comics

Though I don’t usually read comic books, I used to indulge in some Archie J When I think of comics I think of the nice little Garfield, Snoopy, Blondie comic strips. I certainly didn’t think of violent gory stories that needed to be censored from children. I partly think I was never exposed to these kinds of comics because I am a girl and blood and guts and superpowers just don’t appeal to me very much. But had I been a boy, I probably would have read these kinds of comics growing up, except I don’t think they would have made me turn into a delinquent. Wertham seemed a bit overboard to me to think that comics were what made little kids into child abusers. I think Richard pointed out that Wertham’s logos was bogus, The case studies he did were slanted if I remember correctly. Wertham’s use of pathos would seem to work on parents who were concerned about censoring what their kids read. He leads us to believe that comic books will mess with kids’ minds and they will be, if they aren’t already, screwed up and become bad. Parents who hear this, of course, will become concerned and probably feel that they are bad parents if they let their kids read comics. The rating system, which seems like most aren’t taking it seriously, sounds like a good idea to me in order for parents who are worried to censor what their kids are reading. Wertham I drawing some very exaggerated conclusions I think. I think in order for the comic book to be able to influence a child to do something morally wrong and horrible, the child has to be very young and not emotionally developed yet to understand the consequences of their actions. Otherwise, I think the majority of comic book readers are probably mature enough to know right from wrong and they would most likely take the violence as entertainment. How many little boys do we know that grew up playing with toy guns, playing violent video games, and other things of this nature. Now how many of them grew up to be killers, rapists, deviants? Not many, I’m sure. Violence is just a form of entertainment to young boys, and most would never follow up on what they are reading or playing. They know better than that. Although I didn’t quite follow the last comment that made Richard say that Wertham was wishy washy about his view on comic books, the fact that he was supposedly somewhat fickle about the subject at one time would eliminate any ethos he had. If I am going to believe somebody’s argument, I am more likely to believe the person who stands their ground, doesn’t back down, and sticks to one side. It would be very hard for me to believe someone as credible if they are changing their own mind about the topic. As for my opinion about comic books, again, I’m a girl, the violence doesn’t turn me on….Give me Archie and Betty and Veronica and I’m set.

The Controversy of Comics

My mind was opened today after seeing Richard's presentation on rhetoric in opposition to comics. It is amazing to me that the very things that were isolated for censorship and attacked as inappropriate and outrageous are commonplace if not mild to what is considered the norm today. Sex and violence are what we expect to comprise the main appeals and actions of current entertainment.
I was also interested to learn that comics were the medium chosen to educate many men enlisted in the army to perform basic tasks such as oil changes. Today this genre of literature is commonly employed to relay instructions and tell stories. Judging from Richard's collection, there still also seems to be a healthy readership of comic books as they were originally cherished.
I agree that Wertham was somewhat biased in his judgements, and I admire the way that Richard both praised and blamed him to give weight to his own argument and to remain objective, but I cannot but wonder that if we were exposed to the same materials at that time period if we too would not have come to the same conclusion about the explicitness and questionableness of the content of comics. I think that it is easy for us who have become callous to such explitives today to conclude that past judgements were silly and immature.

My life in word processing.....

Hey y'all,

I'm really sorry I had to miss class today. I didn't think I would, but I have five papers due today, literally, and two of them are in FRENCH! I just could not make it. I'm sorry.

Have a good one,
Robert

Today in class

Hello,
I will be giving my speech that I wrote for the Trustee's Medal Competition. The topic is on women who have roared from Clemson in honor of the 50th anniversary of co-education at Clemson.

Please think of one woman that attended Clemson and who has "roared" for their alma mater.

Thanks,
CA

An interesting illustration...

Back to the American dream for a moment. I think this is such an important topic for a rhetoric class--but, I've started reading a book called The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy by Georges Bataille. At one point, he is talking about how our actions are utilized by society. He says, 'As soon as we want to act reasonably, we have to consider the utility of our actions; utility implies an advantage, a maintenance or growth."

I think this can be related to the American dream in that society has a use for everyone, whether that use is as high of a dream as the person wants or is as high as that person is capable of dreaming.

He likens this situation to a bullring, and does it quite elegantly. The first thing I thought of was our discussion on the American dream ideal. This is such a nice illustration:

"Imagine an immense crowd assembled in the expectation of witnessing a bullfight that will take place in a bullring that is too small. The crowd wants badly to enter but cannot be entirely accommodated: Many people must wait outside. Similarly, the possibilities of life cannot be realized indefinately; they are limited by space, just as the entry of the crowd is limited by the number of seats in the bullring."

He goes on to talk about the various effects of this pressure. Pretty nifty stuff.

On cursing

What is cursing, and why do we have such a big problem with it? What separates a curse word from any other word? And isn't it true that the tone of voice a person uses to say a word can make just about any word into a curse? By posing these questions I'm not saying that I talk like a sailor; like Alden, I grew up in a home where you couldn't even say "shut up" without having to lick a bar of Jergen's. I don't swear because of the impression it leaves on people, that I'm vulgar and rash and don't think before I speak. But as to why certain words are considered curses and others aren't, it's a learned thing.

In French the word "pisser" is the dictionary term for urinating. There is absolutely nothing vulgar about it. If I piss, though, that's vulgar. I do number one, or, if I'm speaking to a small child, I pee or go potty. Then there's the term for doing number two - I poop. Other, more vulgar people - they take a shit. So we see that two of the most natural human functions are vulgar, as if we want to separate ourselves for them. So how about the term for making love? There's a word for that, too - but I might get in trouble if I put it on here. Actually, I just don't like saying it. Why? I don't know, except for the connotations it carries with it. It isn't the word, the sound at all - it's the cultural baggage that word carries with it that makes it an acceptable or unacceptable word.

I learned in 11th grade that when the French took over the English back in the day, the old English (a Germanic-sounding language) became the vulgar form of saying things, and the French the proper way. That mixture of language became what we know as English today...and it's why we still say "poultry" (from the French word poule) instead of chicken. And why we say beef (boeuf) and pork or ham (porc or jambon) instead of cow and pig. And mutton (mouton) instead of sheep. Doesn't explain the number one, number two thing, but it does serve to generate more questions! Thought I'd share.

I'm going to go eat my sandwich now, made of a processed meat which may contain parts from all the animals mentioned above. With a little mayo and mustard, though, you'd never know. Just don't read the package.