Song

On page 62, Buford learns the supporters' "Hector Song" regarding traveling around on the tube for free:

Ha ha ha

He he he

The Hector's coming

But he can't catch me.

On the racks

Under the seats

Into the bogs

The Hector's coming

But he can't catch me.

Ha ha ha

He he he

The ICJ is on the jib again

Having a really g-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-d time.

There are a few rhetorical devices in this song that are interesting just because it's interesting that a song this short and simple would incorporate rhetorical devices. There is repetition with the "ha ha ha" and "he he he" at the beginning and the end, which shows continuity in the feeling of the song (62). "The Hector" alludes to the British Rail ticket collector while the "bogs," "racks," and "seats" all allude to the train carriage and how it is set up - this part implies that the supporters run and climb all over all areas of the train in order to stay away from the Hector (62). There are two instances of rhyme with "he he he" and "but he can't catch me," showing that the giggles of "he he he" are related to the fact that Hector cannot catch the football supporters on the train to make them pay (62). The rhyme shows that the supporters find this fact very funny, and they go so far as to say it twice. 

So turns out this nonsense song isn't quite as nonsense as I previously thought, but actually has as little bit of meaning underneath the rough exterior. 

Tattoo

As Buford admires the tattoos of the Manchester United supporters with a kind of sick amazement, he reveals a lot to the reader about the people who wear them. The flesh of the supporters is "bright pink... and burning rapidly," implying sensitivity and weakness (48). This weakness is compared to the "hot needle poking its way across the skin, filling the cells underneath it with ink"and suddenly the skin of the supporters does not seem so fragile (49). "The pain... the blood... [and] the rawness" that Buford describes makes the reader cringe and "wonder about the person that would do this to his body" (49). The tattoos that these fans print onto their bodies are not feeble, half-hearted matters. They are full-on, demonic pieces of art are ingrained in their flesh in very conspicuous places. These supporters are very serious. They supporters have made this their life and purpose. Buford, as he realizes this, cannot help but criticize the ridiculous of it while admiring the dedication. He describes the people as "something to behold" and explains the tattoos as "murals on the flesh" (48). However, he cannot help sneaking in sly criticisms such as "and in the hope, perhaps, that Robson would neither be traded to another football club nor ever die" when describing a name tattooed across someone's forehead (49). The tone of this passage is at the same time awed and critical of the behavior exhibited.

The Way - Documentary

First Thoughts

My first thought when I started reading Among the Thugs and understood what it was about, was "wow that's so true." I love soccer and I play soccer, yet I lived in Scotland for four years and never went to a single professional soccer match in the UK. The games are exactly the way Buford describes them. People drink a lot in the UK to begin with (tends to happen when you're stuck on a cold rainy island with no sun your whole life) and the normal amount of alcohol assumed by the British is approximately quadrupled in the presence of footy, as they call it. It gets pretty rough. All professional stadiums in the UK that I've seen have bars available for every seating level. And the tour guide at the Arsenal stadium made sure to tell us about the time when nearly the entire stadium missed a goal thirty seconds into half time because they were all still in the bar buying more drinks.
And it's not like it's a really diverse crowd going to see these games, no way. Large, white, football-going British men all look alike. Mick from Among the Thugs is slightly more hardcore than most, yet I would say he's a pretty adequate stereotype.

Moral of the story, Bill Buford is an extremely brave man for mixing in with those men voluntarily. I certainly preferred to keep my distance.

Don Juan

I enjoyed CNG's version of Don Juan, it was very funny, but at times it was hard to follow. And I, not being familiar with the story of Don Juan at all, found myself a little lost. Here the version of the play I watched afterwards to see if I could follow it better. I couldn't. That version is very traditional and I didn't like it one bit and I didn't understand it. 

The most confusing part about CNG's version of the play was the ending. It seemed really random to suddenly damn him to hell when there was no mention of religion throughout the rest of the play. I guess that was one thing the traditional version did make more sense in: the religious aspect was present throughout. 

Overall, however, the play was very well done and very funny. 

Fallacies: Shooting an Elephant

Fallacies from George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant":

"The young Buddhist priests were the worst of all. There were several thousands of them in the town and none of them seemed to have anything to do except stand on street corners and jeer at Europeans."
Hasty generalization. I highly doubt that every single young Buddhist priest in the town was always outside with literally nothing better to do than annoy Europeans.

"...with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts."
Reductio ad absurdum all the way. He doesn't really mean that. 

"It was a bit of fun to them, as it would be to an English crowd; besides they wanted the meat."
Hasty generalization again. Maybe they were already headed in that direction, maybe they were worried about the elephant's welfare, maybe they were worried about Orwell's welfare... Moral of the story is that Orwell has no way of knowing that each and every one of those people were following him because "it was a bit of fun to them" and "they wanted the meat."

Fallacies: Churchill's Speech

Fallacies from Churchill's speech "Our Duty in India" March 18, 1931:

"I am against this surrender to Gandhi. I am against these conversations and agreements between Lord Irwin and Mr. Gandhi."
This is the same fallacy as Homer Simpson makes in chapter 14. Here Churchill implies that the conversations are equal to surrender. It's a false comparison.

"You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi."
Seriously Churchill? Let's not be so ridiculous. This fallacy is completely reductio ad absurdum.

"Why should these unpractised, unproved, unrepresentative, self-chosen groups of Indian politicians disdain the immense possibilities offered within the limits of the Statutory Commission's report, and demand an immediate setting up of a United States of India, with themselves in control, and the British army at their orders?"
Hasty generalization, how does he know that all Indian politicians are unpractised, unproved, and and unrepresentative?

Fallacies: Gandhi's Speech

Fallacies from Mahatma Gandhi's famous speech at Kingsley Hall in 1931:

"That law then which governs all life is God. "
This could fall under many fallacy categories, such as fallacy of ignorance or misinterpreting the evidence. We can't prove that God does not exist, but that does not mean that He exists. Also, no examples are given to support this conclusion. 

"And is this power benevolent or malevolent?"
This fallacy is that it is possible for the power to be something other than just benevolent or malevolent, so it's a false dilemma.

"I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists." 
This fallacy is a misinterpretation of evidence, because one could say that while "in the midst of death life persists," but that evidence could also be interpreted as "in the midst of life death persists". 

Testing

Yes the election is over, yet the political ads are still out there and what better source of rhetoric than a video trying to convince about three hundred million people to vote for one man to be their president. I'm using this political ad from the Obama Biden campaign to practice detecting methods of persuasion.

The Needs Test
My interests are having a job in a few years and not having to worry about money. It appears from this video that Obama cares about the American worker and believes in helping him or her continue to work. Sounds about right, our interests line up.

Checking the Extremes
The opposition in this case is the Republican party, and members of that party are described as having "turned their backs" on the American workers. A direct example is even cited of Mitt Romney wanting to "let detroit go bankrupt". It is described as an extreme, turning your back on something can be seen as an extreme action, but then this claim is backed up with evidence... So does it count as calling something extreme and therefore calling itself extreme? I see governor Romney's comment as extreme, because it does sound very extreme. But by doing that do I turn myself into an extremist? Things to ponder.

That Depends
This is a tough one to apply here because he's focusing on one issue in particular. He doesn't say "that depends" anywhere, but shows that he can respond appropriately and successfully to at least one issue. Nowhere does he say how he would respond to a different issue in similar circumstances, but nor does he say that this is the one way to fix everything. So this test isn't really applicable here.

Comparable Experience
Well, the persuader in this case doesn't exactly show an example from his real life. He is not an American worker in the auto industry. But in a way I can see how he does; the whole video is an example of Obama's life because it shows how he handled the situation successfully. But then again it's not exactly a comparable experience because not many people get the chance to be president of the USA. Another one to ponder because of the uniqueness of the situation.

and last but not least,
Sussing
The persuader here definitely cut straight to the chase of the issue. From the first words of the video he is talking about the issue at hand, and he stays on that one topic for the entire video. It is concise and comprehendible, the persuader doesn't try to cram too many things into one video. He keeps it short, sweet and to the point.

Calling Fouls

"Rhetoric is an open palm, dialectic a closed fist" - Zeno 

(For more information on Zeno, watch this video)

This aphorism by Zeno opens chapter fifteen. To understand it, we must first understand what rhetoric and dialectic are. Rhetoric, as we know, is "the art of influence, friendship, and eloquence, of ready wit and irrefutable logic" (4). Dialectic, however, is a new one. Dialectic is "the mannerly dialogue of formal logic... Precise, self-contained, and boring" (155).

So, rhetoric keeps the argument open. Dialectic on the other hand commits the foul of "turning an argument into a fight" (155). Dialectic, with its closed and uninviting fist, blocks the argument or "argues the inarguable" (158). Rhetoric is the open discussion where dialectic is the fight. The fight can be many things, yet it always keeps the discussion or argument from moving forward and being productive.

This closed fist could be a fallacy, the use of an incorrect tense, humiliation, innuendo, the use of threats, or refusing to consider the other side. These are Heinrichs' fouls. He insists that there are no rules in rhetoric, so these things bring the argument "out of bounds," hence the name fouls instead of errors or sins (170).

Paradigm

So, the word paradigm occurs one time in this chapter. One time. Once. I almost missed it actually. I could tell I was nearing the end of the chapter and beginning to worry because the topic of my blog was still apparently nonexistant. I panicked, thinking that I would have to read the entire chapter again. I began blaming Anderson Cooper and North Carolina for taking my attention away from the text. I began to question the purpose behind watching election night, the winner will still be same the winner tomorrow morning. I found myself reaching for the remote control when, suddenly, I saw it. There, a side note on page 131: Paradigm. The definition is as follows, "the point you prove with examples is technically called a paradigm - a rule that you apply to the choice you want your audience to make" (131).

So Homer's "I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to hell?" uses a paradigm (131). The paradigm Homer uses is that going to church is a waste of time. He claims that he is a good person so he shouldn't have to spend time hearing otherwise. He backs up this claim with the examples that he loves his kids and works very hard. For the examples used to prove your paradigm you can use facts, comparisons, or stories.

Paradigm seems like a useful tool of rhetoric, but hardly worth an entire blog post. Yet here it is. Now, back to the election.

More Vocab

Oops, two vocab posts in a row. Not my fault, I didn't know. Anyhow here are lots of exciting big words from chapters 11 and 12 that also happen to be important in understanding what Heinrichs is saying.

Advantageous: Basing the argument on what's good for the audience, not you.

Commonplace: Any cliche, belief, or value that can serve as the audience's public opinion.

Babbling: When your audience repeats the same thing over and over, a commonplace.

Definition: A statement of the exact meaning of a word, phrase, or situation.

Stance: Attitude toward something or starting off point.

Redefinition: Accepting your opponents terms while changing their connotation.

Term Changing: Not accepting the terms your opponent uses but rather inserting your own.

Definition Jujitsu: Use your opponents terms to attack if they favor you.

Definition Judo: Use terms that contrast your opponent's, create a context that makes them look bad.

Framing: Same as defining; define the issue in broad context and then deal with the specific problem using the future tense.

There are lots of entertaining videos about AP English on youtube, however none of them are concerning these exact terms and rhetoric devices.

Vocabulary

Chapter eight makes many good points, but also uses many big words. So I took the liberty of defining them for myself here down below:

Quintilian: Named after a Roman rhetorician, believed that history and philosophy can increase an orator’s command of copia and style.

Disinterest: Not being influenced by personal involvement, impartiality. 

Uninterest: Having no interest, curiosity, attention, or excitement towards a subject.
Frankness: The quality of being honest and straightforward in attitude and speech.

Dubious: Hesitating or doubting
Lucidly: In a clear manner. Syntactical: Relating to or conforming to the rules of syntax.
*I got my definitions from the little info place on google where the definition pops up when you search define: a word.

In Response

I read Andressa Quadros' blog Rules Get in the Way and I don't exactly agree with all of her points. It was in response to chapter seven in the book and made the point that it is not always possible to be practically wise because rules and other things beyond our control get in the way. Heinrichs states that practical wisdom "is when the audience thinks you know how to solve the problem at hand" and that it "entails the sort of common sense that can get things done" (67). I think Andressa had this a little confused in her response. She claimed that it was impossible to be practically wise in her experience at Columbia this summer: "How on earth are we supposed to 'make the right decision on every occasion' (68) when rules and regulations cloud our sense of judgment by turning reason into a yes or no answer?"

This is not the way that I interpreted Heinrichs' meaning of practical wisdom. According to the way I understood practical wisdom, it is being able to make the right decision in the context of the situation. For example, although it was impossible for Andressa to get back to Columbia from Six Flags because the locker system broke down there are ways she could have avoided receiving such a harsh punishment from the summer program. Upon finding out that the locker system was not working and that they would be unable to make the curfew, it would have been wise considering the situation for someone to use a payphone to call a member of the Columbia staff to let them know about the dilemma. If there was no money to be found, the group could have gone to an information or help point and tell a member of Six Flags staff what had happened to see if they could lend a phone. If they didn't know the number to call, they could have looked up the number for Columbia university in the phone book and been directed to the office of summer programs from the main line.

So it's clear that rules do not have to get in the way. Practical wisdom is finding a way to make the right decision even when it appears impossible.

Bragging Virtuously

I'm trying really hard not to start off every blog by talking about how much I like this book, but so far it's not working out very well. I really like this book. It's just so useful! I thought reading nonfiction like this would be unbearably boring but I'm enjoying it so much.

In chapter six the author talks more about how to be persuasive with a few specific techniques. He talked about virtue, bragging, flaws, and switching sides. Virtue in a rhetorical context is extremely different from virtue in any other context, and it was interesting to see him explain the changes in its definition. I was able to grasp the concepts that he demonstrated through his examples because they were interesting and relatable.

Also, the way he ties this virtue in with ethos is very effective. Ethos is showing your audience that you share their values so they will see you has virtuous. However, I found a video on youtube that explains logos, ethos, and pathos but the definition of ethos was very different than this one. In the video he states that ethos is making yourself be perceived as an authority and for this reason you will be believed. Yet Heinrichs does not present ethos in this way. Heinrichs present ethos as making yourself familiar to the audience - not in tone but rather in beliefs. If the audience thinks that you have the same objectives as it does then you will be much more convincing. In my opinion, the video is correct in that ethos is about credibility, but I disagree with the point about authority. Intelligent people will not tend to blindly believe authority figures. People must be given a reason to believe someone other than their higher status. Ethos is showing the audience that you are trustworthy and credible because you share their values and you are on their side.

Debate Night

This debate, from the start, is much more interesting than the last presidential debate. Tonight, Obama and Romney are much more direct - interrupting and trying to talk over each other. I like the topic of international policies and relations much better than the others, probably because it's slightly more relevant to me but also because I know much more about it than things like tax policies. 

As they discuss the international policies, currently with Syria, both candidates speak with a lot of pathos. Especially when they were talking about the deal with Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, the way Romney said that they can't "kill their way out of it" was an extremely impactful statement. Obama also uses pathos when he talks about the "American blood on Gaddafi's hands" because that hits home with so many Americans. Also when Obama speaks about visiting sites where missiles had been fires he says he imagined himself in the place of the families of those who had been attacked, "as if those children had been [his] children."

There is also a lot of logos being used as Romney talks about what should be being done with Libya, Syria, and Egypt. Obama is also using logos in his rebuttal showing that Romney's ideas are not that different than what is already being done because what they are doing is exactly the right thing to do. Really there is heavy logos on both sides. I mean obviously, it's a debate. They have to be logical in defending their policies and ideas so people will understand them. 

Ethos comes strongly into play as well because the candidates are aware that people don't just vote for a presidential candidate, they vote for a person. Obama is sure to bring up Romney's lack of continuity in his opinions on different issues and Romney mentions Obama's inability to fulfill his promises from last election. They attack each other a lot, not even just their policies but things that they have said and then they say that what the other one said is a lie. They adress each other frequently and directly. It feels very aggressive.  


The candidates use deliberative rhetoric when comparing policies and plans for relations, such as Obama's "let the American people decide who is going to be more effective." The forensic rhetoric they use is in how they refer back to previous statements and plans if they have been effective or not or contradicted current plans. This requires accuracy and checking each other's facts from the past. The last, demonstrative rhetoric, is the most evident. Both candidates speak about their moral values and how they relate to their policies. Everything is very emotional and inspirational and pulls in their personal beliefs. 

Overall, it was a very entertaining debate. I enjoyed watching this one, even though the candidates mainly agreed on most things. It is an interesting and relevant way to examine rhetoric in the real world. 

Getting People to Agree With You

I think I am really going to like this book. The first thing that made me like it was the way the author writes: informally and understandably. I like the way he comes across on the page, he seems like a nice guy, and therefore I believe him when he tells me how to make people agree with me. There's some how-to-the-what in there - if he had written in a less personable style then I would have been less likely to enjoy reading and therefore less inclined to to like the author as a person and believe what he told me. Pretty nifty little trick he's got there.

I also really like it because it's useful. The things he's talking about are things that happen or can be used everyday. I'm already thinking about how I'm going to apply these concepts in my college essays: what do I want my reader to do in the end? Accept me, like me, think I'm a cool person that they want at their university. How do I do that? Make them feel the same things I feel towards my subject, make them think that it's the correct way to feel, and then make them think that I'm so correct they just have no choice other than to accept me into their university. If only it were so easy. But I do understand all the points that Heinrichs is making and can clearly see how effective the methods he talks about are in real life.

He's right when he talks about the importance of rhetoric in the introduction, it is an extremely useful tool. The proper use of rhetoric is a skill that everyone should know - especially those who dream of being very successful in the future. Getting people to agree with you is a skill that has many obvious benefits if you're good at it. I want to be good at it. I'm looking forward to finishing this book and seeing if I can get my way more often. If I could also get into college that would be cool as well.

It Wasn't Malaria

As Zell and Hughes reach the end of their trip to Haiti and they find themselves low on money, Zell wakes up one morning extremely ill. The way Hughes describes the situation shows his true care for Zell as well as Zell's personality. The main rhetorical mode used here I would say is pathos as Hughes gets a little sentimental with his friend in such a weak state.

The morning that Zell wakes up extremely weak, Hughes is "frightened" as he asks if a doctor is necessary (35).  The fact that he was not just nervous or mildly concerned shows the true connection these two men have made over their time travelling together and have really become excellent friends. Also, Hughes was willing to pay for the doctor, medicine, and extra night at the hotel in order to stay with his friend, despite the fact that "all of this unexpected expense meant that [they] would have scarcely twenty dollars left to get all the way from Havana to New York" (35). However, Hughes does not get worried or frustrated about the money but instead goes on to praise Zell, "a big husky young Negro," and reminisces over their times with the girls in Cap Haitien. Hughes describes Zell as "a solid, amiable, easygoing fellow" that sometimes got over excited in anger (36). This use of fond diction shows Hughes' care for Zell and how much their friendship means to him.

Wandering Stylishly

I enjoy Langston Hughes' writing style because it's very sincere and descriptive. The diction he uses is not simple, but it is not assuming or overly complex. Hughes wants to be understood by his reader. This makes his writing very clear and his ideas comprehendible.

When he and Zell arrive in Cap Haitien I think the main rhetorical mode that Hughes employs is ethos. When they are staying in the capital, Hughes tells the reader that, while Zell tried to learn Spanish, he "devoted [him]self to the local patois" (20). The use of the word devoted shows the reader that Hughes did not just have a vague interest in the language nor did he try for a few days and then give up. The fact that Hughes devoted himself to patois tells us that he did not give up until he learned it. Just the choice of that one word gives the reader information on Hughes' personality and cultural sensitivity. 

This trait of Hughes' shows up many times as he describes his time in Cap Haitien, and it is one of the reasons I like him so much. As he describes the Haitian conga dance he creates a picture of men and women "solemnly enticing each other as though in a trace... Too self-centered to be vulgar" (22). This description caught my attention because many other American travelers may have just left that description at "a sex dance undisguised," yet Hughes was careful to be accurate and sensitive in his description of this scene (22). He chose his diction carefully to portray this image of Haitian culture exactly as he saw it. 

Hughes' sincerity and sensitivity shows through his precise and clear diction. He is careful about what he says and how he says it and this makes reading his work enjoyable.

Enough of this Ridiculousness

Greene is a self-proclaimed "descriptivist" - someone who describes language as it is used, while Garner is apparently a "prescriptivist" - someone who focuses on how language should be used. Greene claims that Garner would call him a "permissivist" - someone who is very lenient toward or indulgent of a wide variety of social behavior.

The debate is interesting to read, yet at times a bit difficult to follow. I don't know the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses and had no idea that you weren't supposed to use "which" for one of them or "that" for the other. The intricate grammar details in the debate were completely lost on me. However, I did manage follow the two different sides and then come to the conclusion that they really aren't very different at all. Both Greene and Garner are moderates of their respective labels, so really only slight technicalities differentiate the two. Basically, very basically, Greene believes that the language that is used is correct and will overpower any set rules while Garner believes that even native speakers can commit errors in language and that we must have rules to guide these. Its a close one, but I'm going to have to side with Garner.

I think its ridiculous that the "that" vs "which" debate is a very legitimate thing and many important writers have thoughts on it, because honestly no one cares. Details as small as that one are not noticed by the general public, and even then usually forgotten by the people who made them up in the first place. And most of those really old rules from when they were writing the bible definitely should not continue to apply - times have changed. However, other than the old and ridiculous ones, rules in language should exist. They may be regional, I'm not saying that people speaking English in India have to abide by exactly the same rules as people speaking English in Canada, but in general guidelines must exist. Its like the Pirate Code from Pirates of the Caribbean, "they're more like guidelines anyway." People can't just talk any old way they please and claim to be correct because they are native speakers. I'm a native speaker and I often make mistakes in grammar as well as say "yall" on a daily basis. Yet I know when I commit errors in grammar (or sentence structure or whatever it may be) because of the guidelines set in my head regarding my language. It doesn't mean to say that people without these guidelines are illiterate or dumb, just that they haven't had the proper education, but without the basic grammar rules they are still incorrect.

If people just spoke any old way they wanted to, no one would understand each other. If we spelled any old way we wanted to, it would be impossible to understand the difference between "know" and "no" or "there", "their", and "they're". The point of language is that it is common, that it allows communication. If you let people in different areas just do whatever they want with it, eventually no communication will be able to occur. Loose rules should be in place, yet reasonably so with cultural and global aspects taken into consideration. Basically, the way things work right now.

Memoir Book

Our compilation of class memoirs can be found here. Enjoy!

First Impression of Wandering and Wondering

Just from the beginning of I Wonder as I Wander by Langston Hughes, I can tell I am going to love this book. We've read some poems by Hughes in class and of course he is an amazing writer. This is, of course, translated in his memoir. When we looked at him poems in class it was always just that - looking at his work and what it meant and what he meant and what it all meant but never who Langston Hughes was. My first impression from reading his memoir is that I can tell he's a person. A real, living, feeling person and not just a name below the title of a poem. After I read this memoir I can tell that I will have a different perspective on Hughes' writing and will definitely try to read more of his work to complement the memoir. He says himself that writing "put [his] inner emotions into exterior form, and gave [him] an outlet for words that never came into conversation"(3). This makes me even more interested in reading more of his poetry to see if I can recognize aspects from his life events and emotions reflected in his work.

Q as in Quotation

The essay "Q as in Quotation" presented a negative and a positive side of using quotations in writing and, frankly, was rather confusing. The author used lots of big words that I didn't know so I looked them up at Dictionary.com in the hopes that everything would make sense afterwards.

Semantic: Different meanings of words or other symbols of language; from Semantics: the study of meaning or linguistic development
Capitulation: Surrender
Riven: Distressed
Caesura: A break in a metered verse
Tacit: Implied or understood without being stated
Presupposition: Something assumed beforehand, taken for granted in advance
Expressivity: The quality or state of being expressive
Kowtow: Act of obedient or compliance
Jurisprudence: The science or philosophy of law
Sublime: Elevated or lofty
Coercion: Using force or intimidation to obtain compliance
Undialectical: from Dialect: the practice of logical discussion to investigate the truth of a theory or opinion
Filiation: Decent from a parent, the relationship of one thing to the thing that it came from
Sovereign: Supreme rank, power, or authority
Stenographer: A person who specializes in taking dictations
Impoverish: To reduce something in quality, to exhaust the strength
Credo: A formula of belief
Barter: A trade by exchange of commodities
Rapprochement: Establishment of harmonious relations
Erudition: Knowledge acquired by study or research

After that was done the text was still complex, but at least I knew what the author was saying. He or she begins the essay claiming that the use of quotations is a bad thing, comparing it to "cutting one's own flesh" and complete submission. The author states that if you use quotations, "the reader will see you only as surrounded by alien prompters" and that "he who quotes capitulates." These are all very negative images and claims, yet in the second half of the essay he or she changes their stance. At the end of the essay, the author states that "quotation opens up an in-between space for encounters" and is necessary for the exchange of thoughts. The author then praises quotation for being the clear "in-between space that allows identities to circulate in dialogue." This essay shows two sides of using quotation in writing and how it can be positive as well as negative.

This is related to what we've been talking about in class as far as embedding quotations and using them properly. It shows how quotations can be good for your writing as well as bad and that writers should be aware of this fact whenever quoting a source.

Tone When on Fire

The climax of the story is when Brent lights himself on fire; the reader knows that that is what the first part of the story is building up to and that is what the memoir is centered around. However, for being the main focus of a 319 word novel, this entire scene is about two pages long and Brent is on fire for a paragraph. And that's it.

What is also interesting about the scene is the way in which it is presented by the writer. There is description of the pain, "all over me, eating through me... This hurts too much," but there is no extreme pathos in this description as I had been expecting (17). It is brief and to the point. Sentences are straightforward: "I fall down. I'm going to die... I unlock the door and open it. My hand is all black. I walk out" (17). The scene feels dream-like, as if it is not really happening. The short sentences add to the surreal feeling because the action seems to float along.

The tone is really what makes this scene feel so surreal. It feels like a dream to the reader because the author is talking about it as if it were a dream. He describes everything almost objectively. Even the parts concerning pain seem to have little involvement from the author. It does not feel like you are reading someone describe the time when they set himself or herself on fire. It feels like you are reading someone describe someone else being on fire, but the person doing the describing is a machine.

The details presented are matter-of-fact. Nothing is gloomy or shocking and the description is very objective for such an intense experience. Taking both of these into account, my final judgement on the tone would be that it is matter-of-fact, which is incredible because we're talking about someone lighting themselves on fire here. I think that as Brent went through the actions it must have felt very matter-of-fact for him at the time so it wouldn't make sense for the author to embellish it with loads of pathos upon remembering it. Honestly he probably didn't want to. As a reader, I'm glad he didn't. The author's apparent removal from the scene makes it easier for a reader to stomach what is happening in the scene and to not throw the book out the window because reading about a fourteen-year-old being on fire is not a comfortable experience. In this sense, the tone of the on-fire scene is realistic in the sense that it is probably exactly how fourteen-year-old Brent felt at the time but also comfortable for the reader to understand and the author to write about.

Talking About Tone

Near to the end of the book, Brent has yet another new psychologist named Mark Nusbaum. The tone in this scene is difficult to determine because, although the reader is very aware of how Brent feels at the moment, the view of the writer towards the scene is not immediately apparent.

Brent in the scene is annoyed and unhappy; he does not want to be there. His first thoughts regarding the doctor are "another Mark, another mustache," he is not impressed (240). Further on through their conversation he becomes more and more agitated: "Jesus, I am so fucking sick and tired of the fucking psychologists and their stupid little games to try and figure out what's going on inside my head. If they really want to know, they should just ask me" (240).

Despite young Brent's obvious frustration, the writer's tone towards the subject does not appear to be frustration. The tone of this scene is best described as either sarcastic or neutral; the author does not continue to feel the anger he felt towards this scene when it actually happened. The scene is presented as a dialogue with minimal narrative. What the author does include is Brent's thoughts towards what the psychologist is asking him to do. This information is presented almost matter-of-factly: here's what happened and what was said and nothing more. However, by the narrative of what goes on in Brent's head, the author seems to almost be mocking his younger self and the instant rebellion against everything that characterized his thoughts. The writer is not critical or ashamed, he is just aware of how juvenile his thoughts were at the time and presenting them with this knowledge gives the scene a slightly sarcastic tone.

I think this tone is appropriate according to the context of the scene. It does not change, and I don't think it should. Imagine writing about the thoughts that ran through your mind ten years ago - probably not your proudest moments. I believe the case is the same for Runyon. However, as he is spending an entire novel discussing the inner working of his teenage self, he chooses to be sarcastic instead of ashamed. Of course he can see how dumb he sounds now, yet he presents his rebellious mindset truthfully. Though, with any writing, the author always has an opinion on what he is writing about. In this case, the Runyon cannot help but let a little of his critical sarcasm towards his younger self come through his writing.

Lyrics

Brent is always relating his feelings with lyrics of popular songs from the Beatles or Michael Jackson. The music always seems to come up when he's feeling something that he is not sure how to express.

When Brent sees "the other burned kid, Harry" he is very disturbed: "Jesus, what a freak. It makes me feel sick to look at him" (165). Suddenly, words from Michael Jackson's song Man in the Mirror pop into Brent's head.

I'm starting with the man in the mirror/I'm asking him to change his ways.

Brent wonders to himself why that song was in his head when he doesn't even like Michael Jackson, but to the reader the juxtaposition of those particular lyrics next to the description of the other burned boy is very clear. Brent attributes it to the fact that he had seen a commercial where Michael Jackson was on fire. To the reader it is clear that, as Brent looks at Harry, he is literally looking in a mirror. He is disgusted by the image because he does not realize how similar it is to his own.

The Beatles are also quite relevant during Brent's experience. He listens to their tape in the car and he sings their lyrics to himself when he's in a stressful situation. In the car the lyrics he notices are about memories and change:

There are places I remember/All my life, though some have changed/Some forever, not for better/Som have gone, and some remain.

In this scene Brent is not paying much attention to his father in the car with him but rather zoning out and listening to the music. This song and the lyrics strangely fit perfectly to Brent's situation, making me suspicious that the author really had no idea which song was playing in the car at that time and just looked up lyrics to Beatles' songs that would fit nicely with his story.

Brent stands in his closet, crying, with his head in the shirts. "[He] can't stop crying. [He] can't stop," the doctors had been in his room with his parents bringing up his past suicides and the things they had found in his bedroom at home (192). He is extremely stressed in this scene and he isn't able to come up with his own words to express his feelings, so he borrows the Beatles':

Help, I need somebody,/Help, not just anybody,/Help, you know I need someone, help.

These lyrics in particular perfectly match the way Brent was probably feeling in that situation and how he really needed someone to understand him and ask him the right questions.

We know that before the "accident" Brent really enjoyed hard, loud rock. However, when his family gives him an Aerosmith CD for Christmas he admits that "it's too noisy. [He] likes the Beatles better" (302). It makes a lot of sense that after such a shocking experience he would prefer more relaxed music to very loud and exciting music. I think he's had enough excitement for a while, and it's interesting to see this musical transition through the story.

Brent's Situation vs. Mean Girls

Brent has a strange dream about halfway though the novel that makes a deep impression on him; he cannot shake the awful feeling it leaves him with all day. He dreams that he is "driving a station wagon and [he's] going up to the top of a waterfall because [he's] got to get rid of these bodies. [He] killed them" and he feels such deep regret, yet he doesn't "remember why [he] did it" (174). This was a very strange dream for him to have because it's not as if he's being very violent or active in his current state. I think it must have been the guilt he feels for hurting so many people around him when he only really meant to hurt himself. This must have been the reason for his guilty feeling in his dream, that so many people have been affected by something that he never meant to drag on for so long. It was just a spontaneous decision and action and he didn't think of the consequences. However, now that he is faced with the consequences and has no option but to accept what he has done to himself and the people around him, Brent realizes that he has no only burnt himself but also his family and friends that he never wanted to hurt.


This train of events reminded me of a movie that one would not usually relate to a story about an eighth grader setting himself on fire, though it does contain a burn book. Mean Girls tells the story of a young girl, Cady, who comes into a new high school and is trying to fit in. She starts sitting with the popular girls because she's pretty so she fits in. It was just a small action on Cady's part that she thought was very harmless. Soon however, everything spirals out of control and she begins acting horribly and saying horrible things. In the end the entire school is involved and it all started from one little action that evolved in a way no one would have expected, much like Brent's situation.

Sacrilege

When Brent moves into DuPont and is just getting to know the people there and how things work, he sings a couple lines from the song "Imagine" in the shower one morning. The nurse, Rose, immediately makes a comment that "it's sacrilege" and he shouldn't sing it (153). Rose asks Brent, "How'd you like it if there was no heaven?" and he replies "fine with me," (153). Rose knows that Brent tried to kill himself by setting himself on fire, and she seems quite religious so she would also know that if you commit suicide you don't go to heaven. So why on earth would she ask him his thoughts on heaven? I realize this is a memoir and its not like there's hidden symbolism behind it or anything, but it got me thinking about Brent's views on God and when He appears in other moments of the text.

The narrator uses the phrase "oh God" very frequently in the story once you really start to pay attention.  When he goes on his big date night with Tina to see a movie, Runyov exclaims "oh God, Bill Murray is so funny" and again "what is that? Oh God. That's not gasoline, is it?" (129, 130). One use is to express joy and the other is to express discomfort or dislike.

God comes up again when the narrator is masturbating in his room at Children's, Brent thinks "oh God. Oh God. Oh God," as he well, you know (113). Kind of an inappropriate place for God, but here the character brings Him up to express pleasure.

When Brent becomes extremely uncomfortable viewing the video of his parents discussing his accident and lying about the cause of his burns, God shows up again: "Oh God, I have this sudden tightness, this sticking feeling in my chest like I've been breathing Krazy Glue," (121). Here the character is expressing extreme discomfort and confusion, yet he uses the same expression that meant many other things in different contexts.

At this point I was kind of like, okay this kid obviously puts no meaning behind the word God because of the way he uses it... Basically I've just wasted a blog post on something that is completely irrelevant. But then I remembered another place where God shows up in the story!

Right after Brent gets his new skin grafts and Calvin takes him for a bath the young boy is screaming all kinds of profanities, he includes God in many of them. Once he calms down he apologizes to Calvin, then says to himself "if there is a God, I hope he understands too" (95). This made me realize that Brent did acknowledge some weight behind the word God. It doesn't change the ways in which he uses the word in other contexts, its just interesting to see that semi-religious part of an eighth grader. It shows the reader that this isn't just a story of a boy recovering from a horrible event, but also a narrative of a confused teenager just trying to figure it all out. Brent's not sure if there is a God, he's not sure if he likes that one girl, he's not really sure about a lot of things. He is really just in those awkward middle school years where no one really gets it. The uncertainty that he shows through his experiences with God as a word and as a higher being is a subtle reminder to the reader that we're not just dealing with burned-up-Brent but regular-middle-schooler-Brent as well.

Emotional Manipulation

Throughout the memoir, the author has a habit of ending paragraphs with these one-liners that are usually shocking or maybe not even that, they just reveal something extra. Just a few examples: "And now they're both smiling and crying, and I've never seen them look so proud of me," "I didn't realize I was such a monster. I don't know why, but I didn't," "I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish. I wish I'd stopped. But I didn't," and "I'm not going to cover anything up. This is me,"(71, 75, 106, 121).

All of these lines strike me as interesting because they are placed at the end of paragraphs or even chapters as a way to add emphasis. All of them are attention-catching, the reader can't just scroll over them. They all contain strong pathos; they are emotional statements that resound within the reader because of the blunt way in which the author presents them. They come straight from the mind of that eighth grade boy, he's trying to get to to feel sorry for him. The reader notices, but it works.
The story, keeping true to its 14-year-old narrator, is strongly emotional in the way that a 14 year old boy would tell it because he'd want you to have a reaction.

Also, in keeping with the 14-year-old narration, is the way the narrator bounces around between his views on himself, what happened to him, and his family. As Runyov beams that he'd "never seen [his family] look so proud of [him]," he wishes that "they'd all stop saying how proud they are of [him]," just a few pages later (71, 99). This emphasizes the present-tense of the narration because we see his mind even as he changes it. This gives the reader a more intimate connection with the way the character feels than if the author had simply explained they way he changed his mind many times throughout his experience. This intimacy gives the narrator more control over the reader in a way, we feel whatever he wants us to feel because we are so involved in his emotions. The pathos mentioned earlier comes into play here because every emotion that the boy in the story feels is felt by the reader, thus he manipulates us in a way to sympathise with his suffering by making it also intensely felt by the reader.

But don't get me wrong, this emotional manipulation if you will is by no means in-your-face. I find it rather subtle in fact. When I was describing the book to a friend she asked me how I could read it because it sounds so sad. Actually, reading the story doesn't make me feel sad because despite all of the emotions thrown at the reader, self-pity is not one of them. The narrator doesn't feel sorry for himself throughout the memoir so it is not overwhelming for the reader. Even as he describes how he "didn't realize [he] was such a monster," he was strong in his stance that he was "not going to cover anything up," and he would accept himself for how he made himself look (75, 121). Of course there is still emotional manipulation going on here, yet it is not in a way that makes the reader feel sorry for the character but rather admire him or at least respect his acceptance of the consequences of his actions.

Burning Thoughts

The first thing that struck me about The Burn Journals was the style in which it is written. The narrator just talks about what happened to him. Its like the reader is there in his mind. There is no sign of self-pity or anger or really any other feeling than just the facts. I can't imagine how strange it must have been for the author to write this, because really he is reliving every second that he remembers in order to write it down exactly in the way that it happened. It doesn't sound like a man reflecting back on something that happened when he was in eighth grade, it sounds like reading an eighth grader's thoughts on something that's happening to him right at the moment. The author sticks to the eighth grade point of view extremely well. He also doesn't hold anything back. The reader is experiencing everything with the narrator. This is an effective way of telling the story because it makes the reader's connection with it much more intimate, it feels more real. Also the story never appears sad because the narrator makes it very clear that there is no self-pity, even when he describes his pain or shame its with a matter-of-fact tone. Even throughout the story it is clear that he feels this way about himself as he goes through it all. For example when a nurse tells him he should be glad that he doesn't remember everything he replies "I don't care if they are terrible memories. They're mine," (36). This attitude makes the memoir readable and bearable because even as the author discusses horrible situations the reader sees it through his thoughts which take out all of the drama and excess emotion from the experience.