Some First's

As I continued reading the book, I realized the Capote is in no way trying to confuse the reader or dissuade him/her from the truth. He is being perfectly blunt and honest about everything. I had never read a book that gives you all the information on the first few pages. Lack of information is what usually keeps the reader interested, since they want to be able to figure everything out. But this is certainly not the case here.

So I began to wonder what his purpose was. It is evidently not one of those typical mystery books, since the reader immediately knows the Clutter's will be murdered, and soon later figures out that the killers will be Dick and Perry. So what keeps the reader going? What makes him/her interested? And then I realized on of the only pieces of information that Capote is holding back: The reason why the two delinquents kill an entire family. After becoming aware of this, I realized that this was actually the reason why I  wanted to keep reading: Just to find out what reason this family might have given to the killers, what could be so bad to have them killed.

Not only is this the first book I've read where almost all the information is immediately revealed, but it is also the first one that does not have a main character. Sure, anybody might argue that the Clutter's are obviously the main characters, since they are the focus. But I disagree exactly for this same reason. They are the focus because they were murdered, and they are murdered before chapter two even begins. So how could main characters cease to appear in more than half of a book?

Instead of a main characters, this book shows different points of view regarding the murder. It shows how Bobby reacts to the news, "helpless to help but wanting to" (72) and then crying; tells about Mrs. Myrtle Clare, who considered the terrified attitudes of her neighbors to be ridiculous and reffered to them as "a lily-livered lot, shaking in their boots afraid t shut their eyes" (87); and follows Alvin Adams Dewey as he attempts to solve the mystery.

It is definitely a strange book, but this is exactly what makes it impossible to forget about. 

A Minute - Long Caesura

A Minute - Long Caesura

"Now on this final day of her life, Mrs. Clutter hung in the closet the calico housedresses she had been wearing, and put on one of her trailing nightgowns and a fresh set of white socks (P. 30)."

There are two reasons why we might say something. There's the obvious one: that we want someone else to know something. This one we use all the time: when we tell our friends or families good or bad news, when we give random bits of information about ourselves to people we dont know, etc. But there's also another reason why we might say something: because we want to hide something else. This one we rarely take into consideration, but we actually use very frequently. We might talk about something in order to distract our audience from something else. For example, if I know my mom is about to find out I was the one who stained her shirt, I might change the subject to something, and give tons of information on something that isn't even relevant.

In In Cold Blood, Capote gives us an enormous amount of information and details about the characters in the novel. The book is mainly made up of very long sentences clogged up with what the audience mostly considers as useless details. There's this sentence, for example, in which he even dares to subtly change the subject at least twice: "Now, upstairs, she changed into faded Levis and a green sweater, and fastened round her wrist her third most valued belonging, a gold watch; her closest cat friend, Evinrude, ranked above it, and surmounting even Evinrude was Bobby's signet ring, cumbersome proof of her "going-steady" status, which she wore (when she wore it; the least flare-up and off it came) on a thumb, for even with the use of adhesive tape its man-size girth could not, be made to fit a more suitable finger." It's quite a long sentence, isn't it? However, there's so many details, that the audience can actually retrieve bits of information that might come in handy later:
- Nancy's room is upstairs.
- She has a cat, Evinrude.,
- She has a boyfriend, Bobby.
- She lives in a town where people actually care who's dating who (inference of Mr. Tangen).
- She didn't wear the ring that much.
- She fought with Bobby quite a bit.
So if from just one sentence we can have all this information, imagine how much we have in a chapter? However, now the real question comes in: Is Capote giving us all this information as hints for further on? Or, is he using it as a way to hide other details and hold back on information to catch us off guard later on - well, as off guard as possible, since he already told us six people will die?

"Then, touching the brim of his cap, he headed for home and the day's work, unaware that it would be his last (P. 13). "

In Cold Blood: A True Account of a Multiple Murder and its Consequences; that's the title of the book. Yet, despite the fact that it actually points-out that the book is about a death, this key event hasn't even really occurred in the first two (short) sections of the book. The first section does end with a murder, as it states in the final paragraph that "four shotgun blasts... ended six human lives (P. 5)." So the reader becomes increasingly interested, believing that something exciting will definitely happen in the next section; but then... it doesn't. The second section begins before the shots, as if section one hadn't even ended that way. And then, at the end, just like in the previous one, it ends with a murder.

So why is Truman Capote (the author) taking so long to actually get to the part of the murder? Is it to torture the reader or leave him on edge? No, this is not the case. In order to grasp the reasoning as to why Capote decides to dawdle, one must look at the other part of the title: "... and its Consequences." What the author of this feature article is doing, is describing things before the murder so the audience will later grasp the effects it had on places and people.

In the first section he describes the town of Holcomb in great depth. He explains that it is a "lonesome area (P. 3)," that people's accents have a "prairie twang (P. 3)," and that people felt so safe "they seldom...locked their doors (P.5)."He also implies that it is pretty abandoned, as even the bank is no longer running. Yet, it is evident that this is about to change, as he says that "until one morning in mid-November of 1959, few Americans - in fact, few Kansans - had ever heard of Holcomb (P. 5)." The morning he's talking about is probably the morning after the night of the murder, which marked a change for the town.

In the second section, Capote describes the Clutter family. He does so in such depth that it seems odd at first. He explains that Herbert William Clutter is married to Bonnie Fox and they have four children: three girls and one boy. The family seems pretty normal. His daughter, Nancy, even uses the common fallacy of appeal to popularity (ad populum), asking her parents to let her go to a "Spook Show" because "all her friends were going (P.8)." Capote not only describes the family, but also the house and the land. The house was designed by Mr. Clutter, with a white exterior and with carpet-covered floors inside. The land consisted of 3,800 acres on which crops such as wheat, milo seed, and certified grass seed were harvested. Capote also adds that there were also animals living on this land.

Although Capotes description is very thorough, I noticed that he never mentions the vicinity of many people. On the contrary, there is barely anybody there with the Clutters. "Other than a housekeeper who came in on weekdays," Capote says, "the Clutters employed no household help (P. 9)." Later on, he adds that "the Stoeckleins... lived in a house not a hundred yards from the main house; except for them, the Clutters had no neighbors within half a mile (P. 12)."So the social interactions the Clutters had were definitely not many. I'm not sure, but this could - or could not - be some sort of foreshadowing aid Capote is giving us. Aside from that, he never actually says exactly who was killed -except for Mr. Clutter, who Capote says is living his last day. Yet, I'm almost certain it will be Mr. Clutter and his family. Capote says six people were killed; and, well... there's Mr. Clutter... his wife... their three daughters... and their only son. That adds to six, doesn't it?

"It is our duty to guard those millions from that fate." - Winston Churchill

The argument between England and India during the 1900’s is an important subject that continues to be studied today. It has become a controversial topic, with some siding with the British and the rest supporting Gandhi’s protest (notice my use of the False Dilemma fallacy). However, who would have thought that this renowned conflict was based on lies? Oh yes, it was, because both Gandhi and Winston Churchill were experts on rhetoric. And what is rhetoric if not a bunch of lies appearing to be telling the truth?

In “Our Duty in India” Winston Churchill speaks of the necessity of keeping India under British control, as he clearly tries to convince the audience of the vitality of this. If even the retelling of an experience uses fallacies, then of course this persuasive speech will use them as well. Although they were well hidden, these fallacies were definitely there throughout the speech. Among them is the fallacy of false dilemma, which is clearly evident when Churchill says: “But win or lose, we must do our duty.” Based on only this statement, Britain can either win or lose the conflict with India. However, there are other possible endings to this conflict. What about making an agreement? Then they wouldn’t be losing or winning, would they?

Winston Churchill also clearly uses a fallacy when he says: “Gandhi stands for the permanent exclusion of British trade from India. Gandhi stands for the substitution of Brahmin domination for British rule in India. You will never be able to come to terms with Gandhi.” This can be understood in two different ways: Either he means that the two first sentences prove the third, or he simply wants the third sentence to be understood on its own. Either way, it’s a fallacy. The fact that Gandhi wants to impede British trade and rule in India in no way proves that it is impossible to come to terms with Gandhi. This then, is a fallacy of misinterpreting the evidence. However, what if someone argued that that final sentence was meant to be understood on its own and not as an effect of the previous two? Then it is still a fallacy: The fallacy of bad example. In this case, then, there is nothing even pretending to prove that it is impossible to come to terms with Gandhi. But then again, barely anybody notices it anyways. I do thanks to Heinrichs. That’s one of the perks of knowing about rhetoric.

"I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." - George Orwell

We often tell stories about personal experiences. And when we do, we obviously want our audience to side with us when it comes to the occurrence. That's where rhetoric comes in. No, contrary to my previous beliefs, rhetoric isn't only used in arguments: It is also employed when the audience doesn't even know it is being convinced of something. And, I must add, this might even be the most advantageous way to use it. So George Orwell does this, and uses rhetoric skillfully in a retelling of a controversial experience.

It is definitely difficult to spot the fallacies in this speech (especially so, since they are certainly unexpected). Pathos is clearly obvious, though. Throughout the entire retelling, Orwell uses this rhetorical technique in order to acquire the audience's sympathy. The use of pathos is clear in statements such as "... I was hated by large numbers of people (the audience will take pity due to the strong word "hate")," "... in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind me (he is implying that the Burmans manipulated him)," and even the quote I chose as the title of this blog post (by saying this, he is justifying his actions in a way he believes will draw the audience to his side - and it does).

So as Orwell uses easy-to-spot pathos, he strengthens this technique with hidden pathos-based fallacies. Hasty generalization is definitely one of the most common ones. It is obvious when Orwell says, for example: "I was young and ill-educated and I had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East." Yes, he did just say that EVERY Englishman living in the eastern hemisphere faces problems in this new region. But obviously not all of them do. Therefore it is a hasty generalization. With this fallacy, he sought to earn the audience's sympathy by portraying Englishmen as the victims, and men from the East as the oppressors.

False choice is even more common than hasty generalization in this speech. It is especially used when it comes to the decision of shooting the elephant. Orwell says: "The people expected it of me and I had to do it," and "I had got to shoot the elephant," along with other statements that just strengthen the view he wants the audience to have: That he did not shoot the elephant by choice, but because there was nothing else he could have done. However, is this actually the case? Shooting the elephant was not the only option. He could have just not shot it at all, or given the rifle to someone else to do the honors, or created an even more interesting distraction... the possibilities are endless. Yet by not admitting so, the audience is automatically drawn to him. I was weary about everything he said the entire time, since I was looking for fallacies, so I did not fall into the trap of his rhetoric. But I have no doubt that others were victims of pathos and even ended up shedding a tear or two.

"All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible." - Mahatma Gandhi

Speeches are convincing, that's their purpose. A person stands up and talks to others... but all with a sole purpose. This speaker might appear to be altogether selfless and doing it all for his audience. However, this is what he's supposed to do. Otherwise, why would people support him if they feel he's doing it for selfish reasons? They would never favor him, because in the end, everyone runs on selfish ideals. But then, how does the speaker pretend it is not for himself that he is doing it, but for the overall good of everyone? Well, through the use of fallacies, of course! Many speakers use these, and their audiences don't even notice. Among these speakers stands Mahatma Gandhi, who fills his Kingsley speech with fallacies but to a successful extent, as these are quite hard to find.

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules," says Gandhi as he begins his speech. It's a long sentence, isn't it? Well yes, long enough to hold two fallacies, even. First of all, it uses hasty generalization, because Gandhi is simply assuming that people don't know about their rulers. He doesn't even explain how he got to this conclusion, and yet, he generalizes on people's view of their rulers. In addition, this is definitely a many questions fallacy. Gandhi is squishing many issues into one: who rulers are, why God rules, and how He rules. He is simply treating all these questions as one, thus making this a fallacy.

Afterwards in his speech, Gandhi explains that what is governing everything "is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern conduct of living being...." But this is a fallacy of ignorance: Just because he has never heard of a blind law being able to govern "conduct of living being" does not mean that this is not possible. Just because his theory isn't disproved, he assumes it's true.

Further on in his speech, Gandhi asks "And is this power benevolent or malevolent?" referring to God's power. However, is it actually either good or bad? Couldn't it be anywhere in between? By ignoring all the other choices, Gandhi is committing a fallacy of false dilemma. He follows this sentence by saying: "I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the mist of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists. Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is supreme Good." This is definitely a wrong ending fallacy because, how does the fact that life, truth and light all persist, make Him benevolent? And how does the fact that He brings these three items automatically turn Him into these three items? Gandhi also out of nowhere adds to more items (love and Good) and pretends that they belong in his conclusion, but in all actuality he just inserted them, applying the wrong ending fallacy. And this "wrong ending" is what ends this entry, hopefully giving it a good ending and demonstrating Gandhi's hidden, ulterior techniques.

"And, after all, what is a lie?" - Lord Byron

After reading chapters sixteen and seventeen I looked through my classmates' blogs as a means of inspiration, since I had no idea what to write of. I then noticed that many, including Daniel Solano's and Lina Merizalde's assessed the importance of identifying that someone had good values and is looking out for our needs. However, all I could think about while reading the chapters was how much I wanted to be as convincing as the salesman mentioned in chapter sixteen. Considering Heinrichs is a rhetorician, he shouldn't be trying to break such a persuasive person. If I were him, I would be complimenting the salesman non-stop. But no: He decides to focus on how the salesman isn't looking out for Heinrich's mom's satisfaction, and even creates an imaginary conversation in which his mom ultimately humiliates the salesman, or at least shuts him up in a rude, uncalled for manner ("If I look at it [the pool table], will you take me to the shirt department (P. 175)?").

Let's face the ugly truth: No one will ever look out solely for your own needs and not his/her own. Yes, not even parents, otherwise they'd give you all their food so only your needs could be fulfilled. So why would a salesman, of all people, want the best for you? Thus when buying something, you shouldn't even ask yourself whether the salesperson is completely disinterested and selfless and only cares about your needs. I mean, why would he? He has his own life to carry out. So why would he put a stranger's over his own? But by all means, this salesman shouldn't be humiliated. It's his duty, for God's sake! And he's doing a great job at it, I must add! He convinced a woman of buying an item that was probably at least four times the price of the one she was originally considering!

So, I don't understand why Heinrichs is focusing this chapter on how not to be like his mom. I mean, you shouldn't have to be taught how to not let people convince you of something you don't want. If you don't want it, you won't buy it. Otherwise, even a small part of you must have wanted it in the first place. Not buying it in the end, consists mainly of a strongly set mind. What Heinrichs decides to teach is simply some extra information that most people won't need if they have enough will power and clarity of what they want. However, I believe that what he should be teaching us, is how to be like that amazing salesman! That guy probably didn't even get education on rhetoric, and yet he is so good at it. So Heinrichs: Don't criticize him, pay tribute to him and teach us how to be that good. Because selling is even harder than saying no, as this video further demonstrates:

*No need to watch the entire thing. With just a minute, you'll get it.

"Never Argue the Inarguable (P. 158)."

We use fallacies all the time. Many times we do so unintentionally. Sometimes we don't even realize we're being fallacious, and other times we do and ask ourselves, "What did that reason even have to do with what I was saying?" but walk away content with the fact that our audience didn't notice the lack of relationship between our choice and our proof. However, there are many occasions in which we use these fallacies and we do get caught.

After seeing this, I immediately realized that this would be considered a fallacy. Harry Styles (the boy who answered the question) was probably trying to make a point. However, the lack of connection between the interviewer's question ("Can you walk out on the street and just be yourself?") and Harry's answer ("London's quite big."), is immediately identified by the other band members. Turns out that Harry might be in one of the most popular bands in the world, and he might have the looks, but when it comes to rhetoric, he's not very good (as far as this video is concerned).

At least he tried, though. Because in rhetoric, what's even worse than being caught in your own fallacy, is completely disturbing rhetoric: The Rhetorical Fouls. There are seven ways to completely impede an argument - not settle it, but block it. When one of these occurs, the argument reaches a dead end: You have killed it. These are the following:

- "Switching tenses away from the future (P. 170)" By using present or past tense, you're portraying the argument as something that simply is that way and can't be changed. Thus, there isnothing more to argue because the present and past are real and inarguable.

- "Inflexible insistence on the rules - using the voice of God, sticking to your guns, refusing to hear the other side (P. 170)" Heinrich's explanation speaks for itself. 

- "Humiliation - an argument that sets out only to debate someone, not to make a choice (P. 170)." Instead of trying to argue with somebody and convince him or your audience, you only attack him and/or his values, putting a stop to rhetoric and the argument. 

- "Innuendo (P. 170)."It completely stops the argument because if your opponent objects to what you said he "can look like a fool (P. 167)."

- "Threats (P. 170)." Giving no choices, but forcing an opinion on somebody instead. I can relate it the most to angry parents: "You will come and you will be nice about it!" There's nothing to argue there: I either do what they say or we get into a fight (remember that there's a big difference between a fight and an argument.)

- "Nasty language or signs... (P. 170)" Self - explanatory.

- "Utter stupidity (P. 170)." Have you ever argued with somebody that's so ignorant that  it seems like he wins, but only because he just denies everything you say?  He's simply halting an argument, bcause you will eventually get bored of comebacks like "Well, no!" or "That's not true," (or commonly in Spanish: "Claro que no!") that contain no further justification. But what when both people are equally ignorant? Then it just becomes an annoying, pointless set of ongoing "No!" "Yes" "No!" "Yes!".... ("Claro que no!" "Claro que si!"....). This type usually goes on between toddlers and siblings. Don't stoop to the rhetorical level of a two - year old.

"Rhetorical Deduction uses a commonplace to reach a conclusion (P. 133)."

As I read Chapter 13 of Thank You for Arguing I began realizing of all the ways we are fooled in our day to day life. Everyone around us uses bad logic, everybody from our parents -  saying "Then if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" - to politicians - "Every American family has to live within their means. Their government should, too (P.122)." And then I realized an example of deductive logic that I, as a girl, see all the time: beauty.

This example is actually made up of two parts. Society begins pushing this rhetorical deduction into girls' heads as off a very young age:
"Women want to be pretty.
You are a woman,
Then you want to be pretty."
Due to this, young girls become concerned with being pretty, because, well, they're "women," so they must be pretty as well... or at least try to be.

This example of deductive logic sets the commonplace for a next situation. It leaves girls vulnerable and makes them easy targets to companies with the objective of making them "pretty."So these companies use the following example of rhetorical deduction:
"If our product makes you pretty,
and you want to be pretty,
then you should buy our product."

This advert is a perfect example:

Although, to be honest, it is one of the most boring advertisements I've ever seen, it does the trick and employs deductive logic. Notice how not a word is said, yet, the message is clear: This product will make you "chic, trendy, glamourous, [and] beautiful." It wants women to say "If this product makes me pretty, and I want to be pretty, then I should buy this product." - well, in a much more thoughtless way like "I want this product."  Interesting how society works hand in hand with the beauty industry. 

Vocabulary

Deduction:  "Deductive logic applies a general principle to a particular matter. Rhetorical deduction uses a commonplace to reach a conclusion, interpreting the circumstances through a lens of beliefs and values (P.133)."

Enthymeme:  "We should [choice], because [commonplace] (P. 133)." 

Induction:  "In rhetoric, induction is argument by example. This kind of logic starts with the specific and moves to the general (P. 133)."

Fact, Comparison, Story:  "These are the three kinds of example to use in inductive logic (P. 133)."

Paradigm: A set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles.

"Commonplaces are powerful weapons. Do not aim them at your foot." (P. 103)

After twelve chapters of Thank You for Arguing, things are beginning to get complicated. It's not because Heinrichs doesn't explain well - He's a great teacher of such a complex subject! It's due to the fact that there are so many ways to win an argument that it begins to get confusing.It's funny how before, I had about three ways to win an argument... and now, there are so many, it's hard to keep track of them. As a result, I decided the best way to keep them all organized im my head is to define them and exemplify them. So what better place to do it than my blog:


The Advantageous (Approach):
"You make the audience believe your own choice to be the advantageous one." (P. 107)

This video is a Samsung Galaxy Ad. However, it starts off seeming like an iPhone ad instead. Due to this, it is a perfect example of the Advantageous approach. It begins by having people in the ad speak highly of the new iPhone release, calling it an event they'll remember for the rest of their lives. However, the Samsung Galaxy is then portrayed as a much better option, saying it is "magnificent"and "amazing." By the end, it is obvious that those in line for the iPhone would much rather have the Galaxy, but they pretend they don't by mocking those who have it or making up lame excuses as to why it's not meant for them ("I could never get a Samsung... I'm creative"), thus adding witty humor to the ad.

This is also an example of Definition Judo ("Make your opponent's most positive words look like negatives" (P. 113)). It uses irony to make the iPhone buyers' positive comments seem negative, thus never directly trashing it. They do this by having the customers say (enthusiastically, though) that they've waited for nine hours and have nine more to go, and that the iPhone has a kind of "retro, old - school style." Although the ad's character say these like they're good things, the ironic tone of the ad-makers is evident, and they succeed in making these iPhone-praising comments seem negative.

The Commonplace: 

"The assumptions and outlook on the world that define an individual." (P.101)

In this video, Obama starts with logos, stating, for example, that when he took office the US was "losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month." By starting with logos, as Heinrichs puts it, Obama makes the audience "think that [his] opinion is a very small step from the commonplace." (P. 107)

After using logos he establishes the commonplace: "get folks back to work," "make the middle class secure again,""create one million manufacturing jobs," "double exports,""tax breaks to invest in America,""produce more American energy," "preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers," "train 2 million Amercians with the job skills they need,""expand student aid,""reduce deficit by $4 trillion,""wealthy pay a little more," and "end Afghanistan war and rebuild America."

By establishing so many commonplace ideas, he is reaching out to the greatest amount of people, establishing it in the broadest context ("one that appeals to the values of the widest audience" (P. 120)). By saying he'll have the wealthy pay a little more, he is getting the consent of the anti-capitalists, yet maintaining that of the rich since it is only a "little more."

The Commonplace Label ( Anyone who opposes [the commonplace] will risk seeming like an outsider" (P. 107)) will certainly apply here as well. Anyone who disagrees with Obama in this video will risk coming across as an unpatriotic American who doesn't care about improving the United States' economy, life conditions, and education.

"An argument rests on what the audience believes. Not on what is true." (P. 74)

People are always thinking about choice that would be convenient to them. Because of this, a person who seems to be interested in others' wellbeing instead of his/her own, stands out and will probably earn more support than one who seeks his/her own wellbeing. It is hard to have no opinion at all concerning a certain situation. So, although your thoughts and decisions will obviously be biased, pretend they're not. For example, the young lady in the picture above seems very concerned with helping the older woman. However, what if this worry is just an act and she is only helping her so that the old lady will give her something in return? Doesn't really look like it, but that's the point: Make your act as believable as possible. 

Jay Heinrichs mentions three tricks in order for your audience believe that you are completely impartial and just pursuing their own interests:

1. "Seem to deal reluctantly with something you are eager to prove." (P. 73)

2. "Act as if the choice you advocate hurts you personally." (P. 74)

3. "Make it seem you have no tricks." (P. 75)

When you act as if you arrived at a decision after giving it much thought, the audience is much more likely to follow your path than if you show that you automatically made a decision. Looking at the choices as if you were unsure of what to decide, and then walking through your thoughts until you reached your final decision is just like leading your audience to your final choice and will most likely work on them.

It is one thing to have the audience believe your decision will not benefit you in any way, but to have them believe it may harm you will make them believe in it even more. In addition, not only will this most likely have them choose your choice, but it may also improve the image they have of you. You are portraying yourself as a completely selfless person, who only cares about the wellbeing of others. Due to this, they may begin to trust you with other decisions. 

Above all, it is imperative that nobody realizes what you're trying to do. Seeming reluctant and acting as if a choice harms you, will most likely hide your motives from your audience. But there is actually a technique that will minimize the notoriousness of your ulterior motives: Act nervous. If the audience thinks you are vulnerable, the idea of you trying to fool them won't even cross their minds. They will also be to busy worried for you and rooting for your success. Just like this, you have set a link in which the audience supports you. 

All of these techniques work. Each one is better under certain circumstances, so by having the three of them, you have the key to success in about every situation. By using them adequately, you'll be soon able to manipulate people and no one will even realize so. 

"That's practical wisdom: Flexibly wise leadership. All great heroes have it." (P. 68)

From a young age, school has taught us all about facts. It doesn't really teach us how to solve real-life problems but rather those in books. Thanks to school, we know all about what happened in World War II, how to replace "x" with a number, etc. This is called being book smart. To be honest, anybody can be book smart. It's simply about knowing facts. However, it is not very often that solving for "x" saves your life. This is where being street smart comes along. Not everybody is street smart, but it may be even more important than being book smart.

Being street smart is being able to make practical decisions. All the knowledge on science, mathematics, history, etc. won't stop you from getting mugged. However, being street smart will help you know that it is better to wear inconspicuous clothing and to keep your phone hidden from sight when walking through a dangerous street. So while being book smart may help you get a job, being street smart will help you live.

Teachers continually say that if you don't get good grades, you won't do very well in life. But there is so much more to life than grades. My uncle, for example, graduated from CNG with the second lowest ICFES score in the grade (the lowest one being his best friend's). With that, one might infer that he went on to become a low-payed employee, because, who would hire someone who got a low ICFES score, right? Well, he went on to become one of the most important architects in Boston. He was nice to people and knew what to do in certain situations, which made them like him and hire him, despite the fact that he didn't have the best grades in school.So there's more to life than factual knowledge.

It is no wonder then that being street smart classifies as part of ethos in rhetoric. Since not everyone can be street smart, people look up to those who can. They trust them, because they seem smarter when it comes to life. Being street smart and rhetoric, I believe, actually go hand in hand. If you're street smart, you can have those who are book smart do what you want them to. And this is rhetoric. So just by acting as if you know how to solve a problem, you'll become a leader, and people will be behind you for guidance, right there where you want them to be.

"You don't even have to do what your heart knows is right; you simple must be seen to have the 'right' values..." (P. 57)

People commonly ask us not to judge, but truth is, we're judging others all the time. When we see someone, we judge him/her and automatically decide whether we like that person or not. Some people are more attracted to poised and elegant - looking people, while others bash these and prefer someone who appears more down to earth and simple.

Whenever we speak to a new person or audience, they are immediately judging us. They might be evaluating the shoes we're wearing, how our hair looks, whether we're "pretty" or "ugly,"the sound of our voice, our gestures... everything -not to make you nervous, just making my point clear. So it is important to appeal to them the instant you walk into the room. That's why it's so crucial to know your audience: You'll know what it is they like, and this way, make it hard for them to dislike you. This is decorum.

However, putting all your efforts on your looks won't do. People might like you after judging your appearance... but they will not trust you that easily. In order for your audience to be approachable, to be focused on what you're saying, and to like and believe in you, you must keep three concepts in mind: Selflessness, practical wisdom, and virtue. Selflessness makes the audience believe that everything you do, you do it for them, and this way, they'll develop a liking towards you. If "you appear to know the right thing to do on every occasion" (P. 56), they'll admire you and be attentive to what you're saying. These are both not that difficult to manage, but then there's values. You have to know your audience and uphold their values. You can't approach a group of nuns and begin talking about your wild Friday night... they won't like it, and they won't like you. Similarly, you can't approach a group of scientists and talk to them about how much you love God. They'll lose all interest in you and won't like you very much. So talk to people about what they like and approve of and you'll earn their attention and respect. It doesn't matter if you don't exactly believe in what your audience does, "this kind of persuasive virtue does not require purity of soul and universal goodness." (P. 57) So my advice to you is (unless you're a really bad liar), if you are completely against your audience's values, just fake it until you're fooling even yourself.

The Final One

At 8:00 PM the third and final Presidential Debate began. Both candidates sat in front of the camera and just by looking at them, I was sure that they would be using rhetoric from then on. President Obama and Romney both appealed to ethos just through appearance. Both of them wore American flag-shaped pins and in addition, Obama wore a blue tie while Romney wore one that was mostly red. To any spectator, this would just be another tie they're wearing on another day of their very public lives. On the contrary: Since they're always watched and analyzed by more people than they're aware of (I doubt they even imagine they're being examined by around thirty Colombian sixteen - year olds), they must strive to maintain the best reputation possible. So anything they do or choose is far from arbitrary. And so I realized, the color of their ties represents their political party: Red stands for Republican and Blue for Democrat. So right there, even before they began talking, both of them are already using ethos.

 Obama also uses ethos when he says that that "as commander in chief" he "must keep the Americans safe." By beginning this sentence this way, he is subtly yet powerfully stating that he is no other than the one with the power right now, which gives him credibility and authority. In addition, with the last part of this sentence, he is appealing to pathos. By saying he will protect Americans, he is establishing a sort of paternal relationship with his audience, this way making them trust him and feel safe with him.

There's also plenty of logos in this debate. To go against Romney when he defended raising the military budget, Obama used facts and stated that the US currently spends more on the military than the combined military expenditures of the ten countries that follow the United States. This credible fact obviously shocks the audience and makes them lean a little closer towards Obama. However, Romney also succeeds in using logos. After explaining that education is crucial in order to have entrepreneurship and a successful economy in the future, he utilizes logos and adds that Massachusetts, the state he governed, ranked first out of all fifty states in terms of science and math education grades four through eight.

Although both ethos and logos are used by Obama and Romney, they both use pathos the most. Romney makes use of it while he arguments why terrorist should be killed: He makes allusion to many terrorist attacks including 9/11, which I consider to be America's soft spot. Just by mentioning the terrible even of September 11, 2001, thousands of victims or sympathetic individuals are leaning towards Romney. Also, when Romney says that the US "can't kill [its] ways out of this mess,"he appeals to pathos, as people rethink the situation and begin to believe (whether it's actually true or not) that the solution isn't murder.

Obama also counters Romney's arguments with pathos several times. He stated that Gaddafi "had more American blood on his hands than any individual other than Osama bin Laden." By saying this, he is again earning the hearts of tons of Americans who suffered due to Gaddafi's actions and seek justice. He also uses pathos when he says he pictured himself as one of the relatives of those who were attacked. This way, he is sympathizing with his audience and portraying himself as a down to earth man who cares about those who suffer.

So when it comes to speaking about themselves, they are both very eloquent. However, they were not as effective when it came to interacting with the opponent. They constantly interrupted each other, made faces of disapproval  and even got to the point of laughing at the other's argument. The both used forensic language in order to blame the other and bring him down. Obama blamed Romney several times of having a mistaken idea and blames him of contradicting himself on opinions and issues. Romney also blames Obama of not keeping his promises from the past election.

It's difficult, knowing how much good things to say about oneself and how much to blame the opponent. It must be just the exact amount: Not too much to have the audience realize what you're doing, but not so little that you have valuable opportunities go to waste. It's a hard decision, but rhetoric definitely makes it easier.

"Keep your argument in the right tense." (p. 37)

Our life basically consists of words. We're either thinking, talking, or dreaming, and all of those usually include language. So it's unbelievable, after being so used to words and basing my life around them, to realize that they can be a lie. By using rhetoric we can completely alter our words, and then everything becomes a lie.

It's not only by being subtle that we are able to manipulate people with our words, but also by changing our verb-tense. If we use past-tense rhetorically, it's called forensic and its purpose is to place blame. When we use present-tense, it's called demonstrative and it's used to discuss values. And finally, when we use future-tense, it's denominated as deliberative and is utilized when referring to choices.

So evidently, when trying to change somebody's mind, it is best not to use forensic. Sentences as simple as "Where you the one who left the light on?"  not to mention "You left the light on," automatically make their audiences raise their guard. Subconsciously, with sentences like these, people feel victimized and become pretty defensive. So the best way to reach an agreement is definitely not through blame.

Sentences in present-tense, though not as anger-awakening, are not the best way to reach an agreement either. They simply either state or question somebody's morals. "Do you approve of abortion?" or "You approve of abortion,"are just phrases about somebody's values and beliefs. It's not trying to convince them of anything, so it will do barely any good when it comes to persuasion.

However, there's deliberative, and that one is they key to have someone do things your way. Instead of focusing on the past or the present, this technique allows you to focus on the short and long-term benefits your choice would bring. "You would be able to carry out a much safer lifestyle and spend more time with your family." Don't you think this statement in the future-tense does a lot more to convince someone to move than these would: "I don't understand why you chose to live under such dangerous situations," or "Are you comfortable living this way?" With the first one, the person will obviously feel blamed and will not feel inclined to agree with you. With the second one, if the person answers "no", then s/he will start rethinking and consider your choice, but if s/he answers "yes,"it automatically put an abrupt stop to your argument.

Just by knowing that conviction is easier with the help of the use of deliberative rhetoric, everything becomes so much easier. It simply consists on implying that as long as your choice is supported, the future will be better. If I knew this before, this could have helped me with so many conviction situations I failed at. It could have aided me in getting my parents to buy me toys when I was younger, as Nanda explains in her own blog entry, or even to persuade my parents to let my go to certain places or do things they're reluctant to allow me to do in Bogota (like walking through the streets). But now, after learning this shot and simple, yet very beneficial trick, I'll be sure to use it and do my best until I get it to work.

"The happy ones argued. The unhappy ones fought." (P. 16)

I bet we all know our share of people who "win" arguments by simply talking louder than their opponent or by intimidating them. However, if this is the method they use, it can't be called and argument: it's a fight. And they are not even actually winning. As Jay Heinrichs puts it in his book Thank You for Arguing, "aggressive loudmouths often win temporary victories through intimidation or simply by talking us to exhaustion; but the more subtle, eloquent approaches lead to long term commitment." So it's not having the wittiest comebacks or having the other person shut up what makes you a winner: It's manipulating your opponent without them even realizing so.

Heinrichs supplies the reader with methods that seem really simple. There's a tactic composed of three steps:
1. "Stimulate your audience's emotions." (P. 22)
2. "Change its opinion." (P. 22)
3. "Get it to act." (P. 22)
It's pretty straightforward: Change your audience's mood so that the likelihood of it conceding will increase, then act and get it to think what you want it to, and then actually make it do what you want it to. Three simple steps that, if done correctly, will allow you to control the person.

Seems easy, doesn't it? But once I began thinking of how I would use these techniques, it got difficult. How exactly could I make my audience feel and think what I want them to, without them being aware of my manipulation? And even more difficult: How would I then have them do exactly what I want them to? If in the first place it wasn't their idea, if I make one mistake, they'll change their minds. You never actually say what you want from them. Instead, you must imply it with such subtlety that they'll end up believing they made up their minds on their own. I really want to learn how to do this, though. So for now I'll start with trivial situations and as I improve (hopefully I will) I'll allow myself to go on to more important, life-changing persuasions.

Heinrichs also provides another method to use once the argument is already taking place. It actually consists on "losing" the argument, as surprising and illogical as that may seem. It consists on "conceding your opponent's point to get what you want." (P. 20) That way, your opponents will feel they won and without being aware of it, they will let you win. This sounds easy as well, right? It is much simpler than the other method, but I still find it a bit complicated. Although it's easier than fooling someone into believing they came up with an idea (which, I must add, sounds a bit like the movie Inception) it is still difficult to hold in all your anger. You might be dying to prove the person wrong and you might have hundreds of comebacks lined-up in your head, but trying to beat the person won't make him/her be nicer to you. On the contrary, they'll become hostile and deny you what you want. So although you'll win for a moment, you won't in the long run. Due to this, you must keep all the banter to yourself and concede to their point. But it's hard for stubborn people (like me) to admit they are wrong... even if it will benefit them later. But that's something  we must get used to, I guess, and learn that by "suffering" a bit for a few seconds, you'll end up winning exactly what you wanted.

Although these methods are pretty complicated to me, it is obvious that Heinrichs masters them perfectly. It's the book's second chapter, so he's still proving the usefulness of rhetoric in order to make sure his audience is fully interested. I assumed he would use rhetoric to convince us, but I was shocked at how subtly he used it. I barely even realized it. He begins saying "Learn [rhetoric's] tools and you'll become the face to watch. The rising star." (P. 18) Although by then I was already interested in rhetoric, these sentences enthralled me. I continued reading: "You'll mold the minds of men and women to your will, and make any group yield to the dominion of your voice." (P. 18) I began thinking of how great this sounded. And then it hit me: He was using seduction! He was displaying his topic as irresistible as possible, and it was working perfectly. Even after realizing that he was using rhetoric on his audience, it still worked on me. That's how good he is, and I hope I'll be able to become this good later on.

"Believing we were Jewish offered me the possibility that my parents were still in hiding, that we were all in hiding, that all the underground emotional tunnels in our house were not just figments of my imagination (P. 22)."

Can you imagine your childhood and everything you thought you knew about your family turned out to be a lie? Helen Fremont (author of After Long Silence) lived more than thirty years without knowing who she truly was. She was raised a Catholic and was told her grandmother died in a bomb explosion, but turns out this is all a lie.

Fremont describes certain events of her childhood, this way setting a background and also giving hints as to what will happen further on in the story. However, she doesn't narrate what happens year by year, or else it would get pretty boring. Instead, she skips twenty years into the future, and starts recounting bits of when she was thirty and began uncovering information. She does this transition in time in a very smooth way. After giving many hints from her childhood she says: "It never occurred to me that someone in my family might actually be Jewish, until a few years ago, when I was already in my thirties and working as a public defender in Boston (P.20)." If it weren't for the fact that she's so much older, the skipping of time would even be imperceptible. It's interesting how she uses time in this memoir. She gives just the right amount of details and then skips forward, never boring the reader. This memoir is, so far, all in past-tense. By writing it this way, it never seems choppy, as it could sound if she were writing in present-tense with bits in past-tense.

I really like the way Fremont writes. She doesn't just tell how someone looks, how something is done, etc. but actually describes it. In other words, she doesn't use "meaningless words" (term from and essay by George Orwell titled "Politics and the English Language." It refers to words that are relative and don't have the same meaning to everybody). There's a part in the memoir, for example, in which Helen is introduced to a woman. Instead of only saying she's "pretty" or "ugly," Fremont describes the woman as a "statuesque high-heeled, slim-hipped woman... When she laughed, her yellow hair seemed to break around her shoulders like waves on a beach (P. 21)." By describing her this way, Fremont is allowing the reader to make his/her own judgements of the woman. In my opinion, she's pretty. But there might be others who disagree, thanks to how the author's technique.

Later on, Helen is talking to her mom while the latter prepared Christmas dinner. Once again, instead of telling, Fremont shows. She could have just said that her mother was preparing the turkey, but she goes for a more vivid description as she writes: "My mother was hacking up the turkey now, twisting its legs with her bare hands. The bone and cartilage broke, and steam poured from the leg sockets (P.23)." With this graphic description, the reader is able to create a mental image of what everything looked like, and Fremont's neutral tone also allows the audience to build their own outlook on what is being described.

Once again, Helen Fremont ends a chapter with important and surprising information. Among the last paragraphs of the second chapter she writes: "My grandmother was Jewish. My grandmother, a woman named Helen Buchman under the Nazi occupation, was writing a postcard that would be read and stamped by the censor, writing for a shred of hope, the trappings of a Catholic cover (P. 28)." This is when Helen Fremont actually discovers and is sure that she is Jewish. The proof has been revealed, and now the best part begins - I hope: She will begin to dig back and discovers Holocaust secrets from her family's past.