Baggage

Everyone carries baggage with them. There are things that we cannot let go of and just take them with us, whether physically or mentally. There are also those things we carry with us but we wish we could leave behind. Those memories that we wish we could forget but, thinking about it, helped shape the person we are. Perry is the prime example of what I am saying. He carries baggage, literally, but more than what he physically carries, is the meaning behind every single object that weighs on him.

In Mexico, Dick and Perry run out of money and want to go back to the United States. This is the part when the luggage comes into play. Dick doesn't really carry memories with him but Perry does. He has a bag filled with things that are meaningful to him. Now, as the result of not being able to take everything with him, Perry must choose to let go of some of his material possessions. This is easy. Give it away and that is it. The thing is, Perry's objects are more than just clusters of atoms coming together to make something, each of these objects means something.

First there is the book his dad made that details many things about Perry's life with his father. His father was a bit hard on him but they cared for each other dearly. Perry had broken his dads promises in the end and was leaving him to the side. This kind of shows an inconsistency in Perry's attitude toward his resolutions. His mother let him down when she became a drunk and whether he realizes it or not, the fact that he does not drink is a psychological demonstration of how he was affected by it. He is fearful the drink will turn him into that which made him go through so much.

The letter from his sister was very interesting. She seems to lead a normal life and if anything, the only thing the letter seems to boast about are the children. When she says: "IT IS NO SHAME TO JAVE A DIRTY FACE- THE SHAME COMES WHEN YOU KEEP IT DIRTY." I found it interesting how it is all capital letters. She is highlighting the point that Perry might have done his wrongs but if he keeps doing it, that is when it is really wrong. throughout the letter his sister continues to capitalize certain words like : respect, common decency life, and living. She seems to want Perry to follow in her path and urges him to go to their father. 

Perrys baggage makes him who he is. this is why it is so important to him to pick the right pieces. Yet, how can one simply pick out certain memories from a whole?

Full: A Documentary

Crazy?

Perry keeps bringing up the murder and its annoying Dick. He keeps wanting to talk about it and questions whether they will really get away with it. In this particular moment is when all the quirks and issues of the murderers really come out. Especially about Perry but then it highlights what a cold person Dick really is.

Perry seems serene in the surface but the more you read on in this book, you realize he has a troubled past. One of Dicks descriptions of his partner is from when they were in jail together: "Perry could be "such a kid" always wetting his bead and crying in his sleep, and often dick had seen him "sit for hours just sucking his thumb…". (pg 108) This really does show that maybe Perry was severely traumatized when he was little and clings to that child part of him. Maybe he clings to it because he doesn't feel he went through that stage and is fixated on it. There is a branch of this in psychology made by Freud that involves stages a human goes through. When someone becomes fixated on one of them he grows up to have troubles as an adult.

Dick is the badass of the two. He is only taking advantage of Perry and completely using his love for maps and treasure against him. He wants to believe Perry won't doubt what they have done since he is not bothered by it. He does not want to discuss what happened and simply chooses to go on living. Maybe this foreshadows how Perry will be the one that comes clean about the murder first. 

Perry is troubled by what happened and even says that he never thought he would do something like that. Then when Dick asks him about his previous murder, a "nigger" he allegedly beat to death, Perry seems weird. The murder of the Clutters shakes him up more because he is certain they wing get away with it. He believes that "anyone could get away with a thing like that. Because I don't see how it is possible. To do what we did. …" (pg 109). He is shaken and is bugged by the feeling that something is going to happen. this brings attention to his believe in superstitions and questions them.

I think the murder will get to Dick eventually. Right now Perry is Macbeth and Dick is Lady Macbeth. He is the first one to start "seeing the ghost" of the murder that they have done. Dick might not be a femme fatal but sooner or later his actions will catch up to his psychology and he will be rubbing spots off his skin.

Consequences Beyond Death

When a crime occurs, one normally thinks that it only affects some. The murdered, the killers, and the loved ones of the dead but it goes beyond that. In my previous post I discussed how the crime of the Clutters affected their whole immediate community, but there are others. When we watch shows like CSI or NCIS, we never stop to think how these crimes later affect the investigators. Granted these shows are fiction but in real life there are detectives and CSI's that go home after dealing with death all day long.

Capote knows this and when he subtitled his book, "A true account of multiple murders and its consequences." he thought about all kinds of consequences. More than focusing on the obvious consequences a crime entails, he decided to expand it. In the prefix the reader knows that Capote did intensive research to write this book and talked to everyone who had something to say about this case.

A very unique approach to the consequences mentioned is Al Dewey, the key investigator of the crime. Instead of simply mentioning the facts about the investigation and what was done by the team, Capote captures how this crime deeply affects the personal life of this character. The boundary between work and home is violated for Al dewey since he even gets calls to his home about the murder. Whether they be inquiries from family friends or fake confessions, the investigator can't escape the murder.

Dewey's children also feel the threat of what has occurred. The youngest son is described as feeling endangered by it even though he vaguely understands what is going on. Mrs. Dewey also feels a change in their home environment that goes beyond the crime scene photos that now sit at their kitchen table. She is supportive of her husband but the consequences of the murder are spreading to her children.

Its understandable when she asks her husband: " Alvin, do you think we'll get back to normal living?" (pg 105). After a traumatic event everyone wants to be offered security and return to what was familiar. The consequences for this family is a complete change in this and probably, no return to normal living. At least, not until the crime is solved. As if Capote knows this, when Dewey is about to respond the telephone rings and puts and end to that conversation. It practically freshadows the idea that until the crime is solved, normal living will always be interrupted.

Picture Perfect

Society always wants perfection. It seeks for there to be no mistake and for everything to be picture perfect. When this is not so, there is calamity and fear. The places where this is least expected is where it hits the hardest. The impact creates mistrust and a shock that is hard to return from.

More than just a simple murder, the death of the Clutters is a stain in the picture perfect society that they live in. They represented everything perfect about it and that is why it affects the town so much. It makes the people feel lost and vulnerable. This is the first tme anything of this nature has happened in this town and the people don't know how to react toward it. This brings out new feelings within the citizens of the town that no one knows how to filter.

The distrust begins amongst the neighbors when this act takes place. Old friends and companions now "endure the unique expierience of distrusting eachother." (Pg 88) since this community is small and everyone knows everyone, this distrust has a bigger impact than if it was a big city. The wording Capote uses to describe this is correct. It is something new to them and it is a new expierience. Most readers probably don't understand this because they have expierienced this. It really highlight how unique this is to the residents of Holcomb.

A very good example of how this has affected the citizens of Holcomb is from a schoolteacher:

"Feeling wouldn't run half so high iif this had happened to anyone except the Clutters. Anyone less admired. Prosperous. Secure. But that family represented everything people hereabouts really value and respect..." (Pg 88)

The words used to describe what people value and respect show how the view of perfection was the Clutters. There is no mention of them as individuals or admiration of them for who they were. It is only what they represent, a seemingly perfect piece of society.

Rope It Up

The murders have happened.There was not sort of indication except for the few sentences that foreshadowed the end for the Clutters. All along it was known that this book is about a murder. The title pretty much says it and the subtitle does state it. Being a narrative about murder, I would have thought the author would make the actual murder the climax of the story. The events were presented in very unemotional way.

The only moment that the reader could have know or at least infered that the murder was about to happen is when the murderers are arriving to River Valley farm. It is not that they see any sort of sign that announces to the reader their exact location but the description of the trees:"The headlights disclosed a lane of Chinese eals; bundles of wind blown thistles scurried across it." (pg 57). The description of these trees has ocurred before and I thought it was very savy of the writer to focus on the description. Along with the  description of the trees there is also the directions the murderers take. Throughout the narrative, the author is constantly bombarding us with directions on how to get around Holcom. If one pays attention, most sections begin with some sort of description of the setting.
The author does not begin the blood bath by describing how the murders were commited but leaves us as if we were as lost as the characters who found the bodies. The reader might know that the murders were commited by Perry and Dick, but the actual description of the murder doe snot ocurr. It must be kept in mind that this is a narrative of an actual murder. The reasearch Capote must have conducted was from police reports and official documents that only present hard cold facts and not lengthy descriptions. Even when describing what was seen by those who testified Capote mentions that "they later said" or "recounted", which leads back to the idea of the oficial documents.

One thing that rcaught my attention, was that among the descriptions of how the bodies were found, there was special interest in the rope. Earlier on in another section it was mentioned that "Perry studied the stock, tested it. Having once served in the Merchant Marine, he understood rope and was clever with knots." (pg 37). This detail would have seemed unimportant but, all three victims were tied by a pro. The pro being Perry. Nancy was the one tied the simplest. Kenyon and Mrs. Clutter were tied a bit more intricatly with their hands and feet tied by the same chord and attached to the piece of furniture. Mr. Clutter is was the only one that seems to have been tied in a way that was for torture. Its these sort of details that the reader has to notice but I do wonder what the importance of this rope will be.

Tattoos and Appearances

I am close to getting to the fiftieth page of In Cold Blood and the murder still has not occurred. The lives of the to be murdered Clutter family is still being described. In class we discussed why the author does this and came to the conclusion that the family is society or show what society expects. The author also continues to describe what the murders, Dick and Perry, are doing before the murder. The way time is managed in the narrative is revealing but does not offer any clue as to why the murder is commited.

Up to now there is no sort of connection between the family and the murders. Which just makes it seem as if the Clutters were picket at random. The murderers also don't seem to be working for anyone who would want to hurt the Clutters. This all adds to the suspense and mystery of why this all American family is killed.

One thing I find curious is Perry. He does not portray the typical aspect of a murderer. Sure he has tatoos but just because of that doesn't mean he fits the profile. Even the description of his tatoos as being "elaborate-not the slef-inflicted work of an amateur but epics of the art contrived by Honolulu and Yokohama masters." (Pg 31). While Dick has a more hardened personality which are shown in his tatoos, Perry seems a soft man.

Maybe its the description of him being injured and his way of thinking that add to this. When the murderers needed stalkings to mask their faces this description was very unique:

"The notion presented a drawback of course: nuns, and anything pertainiing to them, were bad luck, and Perry was most respectful of his superstitions." (Pg 42)

I think this highlights the simplicity of Perry. He just seems like such an innocent guy that does not seem like he did time or is about to commit a murder. Along with this description they talk about Dick having a really high IQ so maybe Perry is only being taken advantage of by Dick. It could be possible Dick wants to pin the whole murder on Perry and him being simple minded is perfect.

The author could also just be presenting him as the weaker of the two murders to later show how his appearance can be deceiving. Isn't it true that some of the worlds most dangerous people seem to be simple and kind?



Maimed: Wound or injure (someone) so that part of the body is permanently damaged.

Quandary:A difficult situation; a practical dilemma.

Still Warm Blooded

This week we started reading In Cold Blood, a novel by Truman Capote. The novel requiered the author to do extensive research and even though names were changed, the stories are basically the same. the title pretty much tells the reader that the book will be about murder but the subtitle hints that the bigger part of this will be the consequences. The question now is whether it will be the consequences of the murderers,  those close to the deceased, or maybe the deceased themselves.

These first pages have described the setting of the story, Holcomb. This small town is in Kansas and is described as "an aimless congregation of buildings" and "a haphazard hamlet" (pg 3) the setting is not where one would expect a murder story to take place. The author spends the first few paragraphs describing Holcomb and while the descriptions are very imahinative and clear, the metaphors and similes used make this small town seem dangerous and harboring danger.

After the description of Holcomb, character being to be introduced. Frist there is Herbert William Clutter, a well off land owner. He is a stern man who is very religious and condones drinking. The author uses foreshadowing to let the reader know Mr. Clutter will be murdered when he says:

"...he headed for home and the day's work, unaware that it would be his last." (Pg 13)

The next section of the book describes a man waiting in a coffee shop for a guy called Dick. The guy in the coffee shops name is Perry and is half Irish and native american. There seems to be no sort of  association between Perry and Mr. Clutter but in a later section it seems as though Perry and Dick will be the murderers of the story. There is talks of a gun and what seems to be allabies to where they are. This creates suspense for the reader.

The last character described in depth is Nancy Clutter. She is practiically described as perfect and if she were to apply to college in the present, she would have a long list of activities to put on her application. Her sections feel a little out of place between her father, the man who will be murdered, and the murderers. The author might do this intentionally to hint that maybe Nancy will be an innocent bystander of the murder that occurs. Then again it might go back to those consequences mentioned in the subtitle.

Fallacy Overload

Winston Churchill. Former president of England during some of the most trying times the country has faced. After dealing with World War Two, the issue of the independence of India came into the picture. In this speech Churchill speaks about the issues, but also weighs in on how it is not beneficial to anyone. This speech was full of fallacies. It wasn't that hard to spot them and its still surprising how many were used.

First, hasty generalization is used throughout the whole speech. Whenever things are assumed without concrete proof, which happens a lot in this speech, there is hasty generalization. When Churchill talks about how the British got hurt or how the people of India don’t know where to turn. He is making conclusions regarding these issues with very little proof. Along with this, there is a constant repetition of ideas. Using this tautology, Churchill reminds the audience how the Indians can’t rule themselves, will erupt into social chaos, and how the British are keeping things under control. He repeats the premise many times to showcase the point that the British are the best thing that could have happened to India.

There is a prime example of slippery slope when Churchill says: “in imagining that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Gandhi and Lord Irwin are going to bestow peace and progress upon India, we should be committing ourselves to a crazy dream, with a terrible awakening.” Basically we can expect the worst from doing something reasonable. Along with assuming the worst he uses the fallacy of antecedent to make it seem that things will continue as they are. Especially when he mentions Socialist and how what they are doing now wont change in the future.

Churchill is saying this speech in front of a large crowd and uses the fallacy of appeal to popularity to get a patriotic sentiment from the audience. When he uses the word “we” he is referring to the English and how it is their burden to help the Indians. When he says “Such are the follies we are forced to expose.” He isn't simply referring to the government but to every single person listening to his speech.

To finish my post, there is the use of unit fallacy:

“…are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow countrymen whom they call 'untouchable'.”

There could be more or less people who are being denied rights and this number is probably not exact. By saying specific numbers of any kind, the audience might be swayed to believe that the data is real.

Shooting Dilemmas

With the other two speeches I have looked at, they were from people from both sides. In this speech by George Orwell, we see a different side of the British Imperialism issue. Here is a young soldier who has to be there because it’s an order and not because he wants to. In this speech he decides to shoot an elephant but the reasons he chooses to do this aren't as clear or honorable.

In the first paragraphs, Orwell describes how he was treated by the natives. He stood out because he was an English man and was despised by the Burman’s. He creates n appeal to popularity with this idea. He describes how soldiers were ill treated, how he did not have a really good education, and all these reasons that would make the audience feel bad for him. He uses all of this so that later when he shoots the elephant, the audience agrees with his decision. Through this he realizes the power of the white man:  “I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” The audience could say they agreed with him since he makes it seem that if that course of action wasn't taken, he would suffer the consequences.

There is also hasty generalizations that push him to shoot. He says that all the faces watching him wanted him to shoot. How could he have seen all the faces? There were probably those who didn't want him to shoot the elephant at all. This hasty generalization makes the fact that he shot the elephant more appealing to the audience. Orwell plays the victim in the issue if you think about it.

The straw man tactic is the whole essay. To attempt to describe what it was like to feel pressure by the people in Burma. The story of the elephant is the authors way to have an argument against his opponent by using a topic he is familiar with and knows about. This makes his point look better than his opponents because he is the one posing the situation. 

Lots of Fallacies There Ghandi

In the speech given by Ghandi  at Kingsley Hall in London, he talks about God and how He is perceived. I read and listened to the speech. By doing this I was able to appreciate how what he was saying was to cause and impact on the British. Tying it back to what we have been learning in class, there are some fallacies in the speech that are not easily spotted. Before I begin analyzing the fallacies, I just want to throw out there, I liked the speech and am in no way attempting to butcher it.

In the first paragraph, Ghandi uses a hasty generalization. He presents all this information about how the existence of God can be reasoned to a limited extent. When he says that last sentence he is drawing conclusions out of scanty data or evidence which is actually more his ideas turned into evidence. This is clear in the art sentence when he closes that idea generalizing the idea. It is also important to point out that in the first paragraph it becomes clear what Ghandi will be discussing since he introduces the topic clearly. This could show the straw man fallacy since he chooses to get his point across by tackling a topic that is easier for him to talk about.

The second paragraph discusses the village of Mysore and how the population didn't know who their ruler was. By giving this specific example Ghandi shows the use of straw man once again to tackle the argument in territory that is known to him.  The Chantelier fallacy is present in the third paragraph when he talks about the research and how he interpreted it. This doesn't necessarily mean it leads to this specific conclusion and how he could also be using the fallacy of misinterpreting the evidence. It is mostly his ideas and making his ideas sound like the right conclusion.

The final paragraph has a lot of tautology since the premise of what God should be is repeated constantly. For example when Ghandi says: "Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is the supreme Good. But He is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if He ever does. God to be God must rule the heart and transform it. He must express himself in every smallest act of His votary." He is mostly just repeating the same idea in different ways. That God is this and does that. Also in this last paragraph, there is use of the fallacy of antecedent since he says situations will be a certain way continuously because they have always been that way.

Infomercials Unmasked

Its Sunday morning and you wake up at six a.m for whatever reason and made the mistake of turning on the T.V. Prepare to face the consequences. The commercial above comes on and since there is nothing else on, you are immediately entangled by the images of firm behinds and happy people. First you are apathetic toward the pajama pants but as the commercial goes on you start thinking: "Hey maybe these aren't so bad!". When thoughts about how you can wear these on your next trip to the grocery store and be comfortable as you put the groceries away creep in, stop. Just stop and really think.

You should first notice the disconnection in this seemingly perfect commercial. The persuader is saying that you can use pajama pants for the situations presented and be happy about it. What about what you want? Do you really want to wear some tacky looking pants out in public while your children are near by? You might be comfortable but the commercial fails to show that you really cant wear these state of the art pants for everything.

Then there is the state of character of that feminine voice from the heavens that is just too happy. No one sounds that happy when they talk about pajamas and jeans. Here, this woman is temporarily that virtuous being that is teaching us all there is to know about pajama jeans and how they benefit you. There is a choice being presented and she cares about you picking these pajama jeans over just regular sweat pants, which lets face it, are better than all the pajama jeans in the world. Last, there is the mean. Are pajama jeans too extreme or not extreme enough for you? The situations being given make it seems simple but if you really sit down and think: would you even wear these out in public and risk someone feeling the texture and ratting you out?


I do give props to them in their phronesis or practical wisdom. This persuader makes it clear that these pants fit all sizes. By doing this, the advice is matched with the particular circumstance and might make pajama pants a little bit more appealing to you. Right after this, the comparable experience is put into play. In this commercial its the different situations in which you could wear your pajama pants, that could ultimately make you picture yourself going through that experience.

All in all, I don't believe anyone would get a sudden urge to buy these pajama pants after they really analyze the situation. Its all a sham to get your money and make the world tackier. So know what to look for and oppose a tackier world!

Those Old Shows

Logical fallacies are put into a different category than the rest. Heinrichs does this on purpose in Thank You For Arguing, by explaining it in chapter fifteen. The name of the fallacy discussed is the fallacy of power which is the fallacy that assumes that the person in charge is always right. With this fallacy Heinrichs explains that "there are no right or wrong decisions in an argument , there is only likely and unlikely. (pg 157)".

So if there is no right or wrong, could an argument go on forever? It is important to note that one should never block the argument. An argument wants to reach a conclusion, a satisfactory conclusion that leaves both sides knowing they gave it their rhetorical all. Whenever an argument is "blocked" it is called a foul. I think of this foul like the foul ball in baseball. The pitcher and the batter are both ready, each with their own set of skills ready to show it off to the world. The pitcher and the batter can both commit fouls if you think about it. the pitcher can manipulate the ball so that the batter can't hit it, therefore ending the "argument" or baseball play. The batter can hit a foul ball and that can also put an end to the bas argument (see what I did there?).

The golden rule learned in this chapter is: Never argue the inarguable. All parts of the argument must remain on task and using real persuasion. To do this, no fouls must be done. Still, even the author admits that in the rhetoric world, there are very little rules. The success of the argument depends on those taking part in it.

Discussing the fouls that can be commented, humiliation is one of them. Humiliation is a foul because all it seeks is to gain the upper hand or just ridicule the victim. Does not really go with playing fair. Within humiliation there is innuendo. Remember all those old T.V shows we watched when we were little? Well, whether they were Disney or Nickelodeon, some of them had sue funky innuendos. We didn't catch on to most of them because we aren't the geniuses we are today. For example in the Flinstones there is a perverted joke that I would have never gotten when I was six and glued to my T.V watching the characters. This right here is a pretty um interesting innuendo.

Tyra, Paco, and Logos

Chapter thirteen of Thank You For Arguing, brings the reader back to logos. There are different ways to use logos to make your argument stronger and appeal more to the audience. The author says that by being comfortable with the logic you are going to employ in your argument, and not afraid of letting the audience into it. In a sense you are Tyra Banks when in comes to logic, not scared of completely making a complete fool of yourself because your logic is powerful and others embrace it.

Tyra Banks is not the best example for this but its more a personification of the situation. When she tells the upcoming models in Americas Next Top Model  how they should do things, she goes all out. Why? her logos lies in years of experience in the modeling world and the fact that she knows what she is doing. So what happens next? Tyra shows the models (and national television) how her logos applies to the situation. If the question was about hair flipping, Tyra doesn't just hair flip, she hair swats to prove her point. 

Logos is about having confidence in what you know and not being intimidated by the audience. With deductive logic you apply a general idea to something more specific. this logic is connected with enthymemes. An enthymeme puts a commonplace and a conclusion together. Almost all the ads we are exposed to have this kind of logic because it supports a choice. For example lets take my favorite commercial One Million by Paco Rabanne. Basically the premise or commonplace is that everyone wants something they don't have and want it fast. Then the more specific case is that by wearing this cologne you can achieve anything you want by snapping your fingers. 

The next logos strategy is inductive logic. This is the opposite to deductive logic. You go from the specific and apply it to the general. Here you are not basing your argument on an already existing belief but you are creating one. This kind of logic comes with three kinds of examples you can use to  make your inductive logic stronger: fact, comparison, or story. Saying facts just means you say common things that highlight your point to the audience. if you are talking about how badly you want new shoes, you talk about how they help your knees, are aerodynamic, and can help you get a date. You don't say random facts about the contents in a Maruchan cup. Then comes comparison which is kind of like facts but saying a pro and a con and how that con makes you better. The last example is a story, whether it is fiction, non fit ion, a joke, or something from the media, you can use it in inductive logic. 

Please Don´t Kill Me For Referencing Bad Literature

I am about to give an annoying example. In Twilight there is a character that controls how the people around him feel. Why do I mention this guy? In chapter nine of thank you for arguing, the main idea is pathos and how important it is to have a sympathetic feeling between the speaker and the audience.

With the power of pathos, the judgment of the audience can be affected. Aristotle believed that emotion came from beliefs and combined the emotional with the rational together.

The author then continues that emotion actually comes from experience and expectation. If we go back to Jasper, his mood controlling abilities were usually more useful when the characters were going through a hectic experience. His ability of controlling the mood eased his audience.

The key is to give the audience the sensation of an experience so you can arouse more emotion.

The best way to do this is by telling a story. Make the story detailed and vivid so that the audience "will think it could happen again." ( Pg 81) Details can be powerful when you want to make someone feel a certain way. This week for example, I've been trying to get my parents to feel bad about making me take the Saber courses. Each day I tell them every detail about how I sit in a chair being taught by some really boring people and describing ever single homework that I have to get done.

Its important not to let your emotions take over, though. Gradually use pathos in your argument and really keep it in check at the beginning when you are just exposing your points. You could use humor since it is a good way to give credit to your ethos and makes for a good way to tap into your audiences emotions. Aside from humor, patriotism, emulation, and anger are also great ways to work your pathos. 

Act Out That Rhetoric

Acting is essential in anyone attempting to give a good speech. Acting has to do with the whole idea of seeming vs being, since you seem to be something but really you are just acting. The character you personify when you give a speech is who you think will appeal more to the audience. Selflessness and likability are combined in the third ethos asset. This asset is full of tricks that need a little bit of acting from the speakers part. The tricks discussed in this chapter have to be believable to the audience therefore the one using them, has to be crafty on how they go about getting the listeners to agree.

 The first role in this ethos "play" is the interested uninterested. You have to "sound as if you reached your opinion only after confronting overwhelming evidence." (Pg 73) to fully assume this role, you must seem completely unattributed by what you do want. That way it will be in what you are saying and seem more appealing to the listener. Along with this role, you must act as if what you want doesn't benefit you. It pains you to be saying it. Remember Lizzie Mcguiere's little brother? He was a master at this technique as you can see in this video in minute four. 

 The next role you must assume is to make it seem like you are not assuming a role. In the eyes of the audience you are who is giving the speech. The book calls this dubitatio. When you assume this role, you use your acting skills to "seem to be in doubt about what to say" (pg 75). Ease into your character rather than starting strong from the beginning. Just always keep in mind to be in character so that your audience doesn't notice the real seeming vs being complex that hides behind every speech.  

 An actor could go a long way in this business  They would achieve fame fortune and power by acting a role. Ethos is all about seeming versus being. Makes me think of the governator and how his acting chops got him there...

LMFAO Knows Their Rhetoric

LMFAO talks about working out and rocking a sexy body. If you think about it, they are trying to persuade us of this fact. They pose situations in which they highlight their um attributes so that the audience begins to believe it. Did you honestly think they were good looking before you knew why? LMFAO played us. They wanted the world to know they were sexy and they have achieved it. Dany Glover used to be sexy right? When did fully exposing the reasons you are good looking become so open and believable to some?

LMFAO must have used techniques from this book to brainwash us. In their song, LMFAO don't base the topic around why its good for them to be sexy and know it, but rather why it is a privilege for the audience to know it. By singing the "argument on what's good for the audience" (pg 98) they make us believe that they really are a gift to the world. Not to mention the never ending repeat of "look at that body" and "I work out". By using this technique of babbling what they really are doing is creating a commonplace. This is the jumping of point of their argument since when have we not stopped and stared at someone or know what it is to work out. By creating these situations, the listener relates to what LMFAO is saying. Can anyone oppose exercising  without seeming lazy? No! Here is where the common place label comes in and makes anyone who doesn't agree seem like an outsider.

This song has connotations. Some of them not appropriate for a school assigment blog. The song doesn't accept the terms used in every day life and changes them. When they sing the wiggle part, it could have been shake it. They added their own term to make it more appealing and in favor of the popularity of their song. Also, "Wiggle wiggle" could be that group called The Wiggles. LMFAO uses its own redefinition for wiggle to mean epic movement of the hips. 

LMFAO are also clear users of framing techniques. Their choice of words are common place words that let anyone relate and favors the catchyness of their song. They offer different contexts in which the audience can find themselves so that it is in its broadest context. Next thing you know, this song is sounding more appealing at the gym or the beach. By using future tense in some parts of the song, they highlight that no matter what situation or problem, their sexyness will get them through it so that the audience doesn't panic.

*very exagerated blog post to explain rhetoric. Some thoughts written not according to what the author truly believes.

Do The Hamlet

The audience is always right. For all intents and purposes this is an important idea if you are trying to persuade someone. In chapter six of Thank You For Arguing, ethos is explained more in depth. The chapter discusses the importance of seeming a certain way towards your audience. The goal is to convince the audience of something whether its approving your plan or voting for you, so play the part the audience expects you to play.

In a sense this chapter reminds me of Hamlet because the whole dilemma of that play was seeming versus being. No one is saying you have to pretend to be crazy or be crazy to capture your audience. Each group has its own set of values. If you uphold or seem to uphold that groups values, you got it in the bag. The book describes someone who upholds the values of a group as "rhetorically virtuous" (pg 57). Ideas can vary from group to group and it is important that you understand the values important to the group you are speaking to. You have to match the beliefs of your audience so that they are receptive to what you are saying and therefore, attracted to your ethos.

Ethos is also affected by bragging or letting someone else do the bragging for you. Going back to Hamlet, it is kind of like him acting crazy. Sure he could act as bizarre as he could, but it was people spreading the word of his madness that sped up the process of... more craziness in that play. The power about what others say about you is very important. You could brag and brag all you want but that might end up tinting your ethos rather than making you more appealing to your audience. Instead if, oh I don't know, someone let it slip that you once saved a sheep from a burning barn and more people started bragging for you, it would make you seem great at the mouths of others.

The last two tools discussed in this chapter are making a flaw noble and switching sides. By revealing " some defect that shows your dedication to the audiences values." (pg 63) they will be instantly attracted to whatever you are proposing. There are risks with this strategy since it could make you look like a suck up but if used the right way, it will be touching to those you want to persuade. The last strategy is the trickiest to pull off. When you realize that your side is going to lose and make a quick jump into the other team. Hamlet jumped from being sane to being insane to persuade others around him (sort of). The last strategy is more of a back up plan and should only be used in emergencies.

So whether you actually agree with the values in your audience, you have to make them think that you do. To sum it up, do the Hamlet.

Political Debate and Find the Rhetoric

This is the first time I watch a presidential debate. You could say I am not really that into politics but this debate was watched on a more rhetorical quest. Get it? Over the past few lessons we have been discussing topics that revolve around rhetoric, the art of persuasion.  What better way to play "Find the Rhetoric" than with the last presidential debate?

Throughout the whole debate the easiest things to identify was pathos. Every time there was an uplifting moment of "America is…" it is to raise a sentiment of nationalism among the American people. Any talk of peace was a way to uplift the viewer and playing with their emotions. While discussing the question about U.S polices in Syria, Romney made a clear use of pathos when he mentioned the refugees and the dead offering condolences. Then when discussing if an attack on Israel would be considered an attack to the U.S, Romney mentions obamas alleged apology tour but Obama has got some pathos in his back pocket. He rebuttals by saying that when he was just a candidate and went to Israel, he visited the Holocaust museum and was showed where missiles landed close to children's bedrooms. Needles to say, pathos was present in all the discussions in the debate in one way or another.

The debate had lots of talks of the future. Lots of verbs in future tense were used to illustrate what each person would do if elected president. This is where lots of the future plans were discussed and where the choices were discussed. Basically anything involving the future used a deliberative way of speaking so it was not that hard to pick up. It was also no surprise that the forensic way of speaking was also evident. Whenever the candidates got candid with each other and accusatory, forensic was there. An example of this (among many) was in the first question when Obama accused Romney of inconsistencies in things he had said or pointing out things he had said. Romney also accused Obama of making countries in the Middle East think that America is not that strong when he went on an apology tour, making negative comments about America.

Logos is not that hard to miss. Every time a candidate stated any sort of facts or explanations about what was going on, they were using logic to explain it in their advantage. Figures were not used as much but when discussing testing in Massachusetts Romney gives fact about how 4th graders and 8th graders performed. Obama wasn't far behind. He presented facts about his administration and when discussing the deficit. It was not just about presenting these facts. By combining logos with forensic, a key point could be made against the opponents. Whenever any logos of figures was used it was usually followed by accusation.

The only two rhetorical topics that were a little harder to spot for me were ethos and demonstrative. Demonstrative, I assumed was mostly when there was talks about what was being done and any sort of inclination toward values. When the words "We are" were used I assumed there was a demonstrative verb involved in what followed these words. This was pretty challenging but Obama showed more of this since he could actually talk about the present and say what was being done. Ethos was also pretty challenging but I found one or two examples. When the character was put into question, ethos showed through. Obama pointed out Romney's strategies and decisions, and while it could also be forensic, it was an attack on the person Romney is. Whenever an accusation was made towards the reputation of the other was made, ethos was part of the debate.

All in all, the debate was really interesting and clearly showed what it is like to control an audience and peoples opinions. The rhetoric used in this debate can make someone want to vote for one person or make someone completely hate that person. Oh politics...

Getting A Toy And A Little Sheldon Cooper

Arguing involves logos, pathos, and ethos. Aristotle said that by combining these  three skills,  we "appeal to the brain, gut, and heart." Of the audience. The brain takes care of organizing ideas, the gut dictates whether the person is trustworthy, and the heart gives us a longing to want to participate.

In the book Thank You For Arguing, the author gives an example of the use of logos, pathos, and ethos, when he mentions an argument with his son. These three skills evened out the playing field since the author knew what he was doing while the boy just did it. This makes me realize we all have an ability to use logos, pathos, and ethos to our advantage.

When a child is trying to convince her parents to buy her a toy, Aristotles big three can come into play so that the toy will actually be bought. The child can pick up the toy and ask her parents to get it for her. If the response is a denial followed by a reason, the child can use what the audience says to work in favor of their argument using logic. Ethos comes into play when the essence of the child is annalized. How can a little kid not be trustworthy and deserving of a toy? The child can observe in her parents eyes that they are about to crack and can now work in some pathos so that seeming to "struggle for self control" (41) and a genuine emotion, will guarantee the buying of the toy.

Pathos adds a little more to the argument because by using sympathy, you understand what the audiences emotion is and you can change it to work in your advantage. The other two skills are as important but emotion always has a lasting effect on others. People remember when you gave them advice from the heart rather than simply pointed out why their problem occurs.

Think of ethos and logos as Sheldon Cooper. His reputation is well known and his logic is outstanding but he always fails in social situations because of his lack of tact. He is missing pathos and is a clear example of how pathos is a key component. If Sheldon life was an argument, he would outshine anyone in the first two skills but would always fail in the end because he lacks the ability to be sympathetic  and can't read other peoples emotions. When he does, its creepy.

Fighting Versus Arguing

In chapter 2 of Thank You For Arguing, the main topic of discussion is how fighting and arguing are different. The author explains that rhetoric is all about arguing and not fighting. When a person fights they use aggression, but when they argue the goal is to change another persons mid set. Fighting will not get you anywhere since its primary tool is not even relate to persuasion. By arguing you can manipulate the other person to agree with you and "want to do what you want."
An example given in the text is arguing with a police officer. There is a clear difference between going all rude on the guy and assuring you will get a ticket, and conceding. This is a clear point in this part of the chapter. By conceding to your opponents view, you can get what you want. By avoiding the fight with the officer and respecting his authority, you will probably leave ticketless. even an officer admits that they don't want you to fight with them. Click here and keep in mind that the officer should be saying fight and not argue.
 The other technique used for this case was having an excuse. Once, my mom got pulled over by an officer because it was pico y placa. I was dead asleep on the copilot chair and not sleeping in the most attractive position (mouth open kind of look). My mother decided to start telling the policeman that I was sick and that she was taking me to the hospital. It was not true but it did let us leave, ticketless.
The chapter continues with three main points to seduce:
Changing the mood
Deciding what you want
Get it act
When you change the audiences mood, you make them more willing to listen ergo easier to manipulate. Then when the mood is right you can manipulate them to want what you want them to want. The last step involves more emotion since you are about to make someone do something without them thinking it is a big deal.

This is all about being able to use persuasion to your advantage without fighting. Instead of punching someone, think about making them do something you want without them even realizing it. That will actually get you something rather than cause physical pain.

Amazon Simplicity and Change

The book Gringo by Chesa Boudin, keeps making me learn and understand South America every time. I just finished the chapter in which he goes into the Amazon and everything he encounters there. What I most enjoy about this memoir is that even though it is told by a gringo, it is very open minded. I have talked with gringos that think that their country needs to come into South America and take over so that "something good will happen." This mentality wears me out. It is refreshing to know that there are Americans that have grown up knowing that there is more than meets the eye to South America.

Boudin mentions the "gringo wild card" in every country he is in. From this, one can infer that he understands the position he has and doesn't try to disguise who he is but he attempts to go beyond it. In the chapter about the Amazon, Boudin travels in an uncomfortable cargo ship and when he reaches his destination, stays in a cramped little apartment with fifteen other people. Not once is there any complain about the uncomforted of the boat or any criticism of how the people live. This just makes it clear that Boudins memoir was not written to criticizes latin america but to understand it just as it is. This, once again, demonstrates his informal register when he describes what is around him and how he reacts to it.

An example of this is his description of the small apartment he stayed in:
"Lara shared a simple two- bedroom apartment above a minimart up a flight of cement stairs with peeling paint and behind a rusty steel gate... Seven children shared one bed and others alternated between the big bed in the second room, thin mattresses on the floor, the couch and hammocks." (page 91)
What I think stands out about this description and shows Boudins neutral tone towards the realities of South America, is how he describes it. I am sure that not many Americans would take in this scene with such calmness but would rather take to criticize the way of living. They would bust out the always famous phrase of: "In America ladidadida".

Boudin understands what it means to be American in Latin America. He knows that at times, human connections with those around him might only involve what latinos think he could offer them. A job in the US or just giving them money but Boudin goes beyond this. He writes that  he can't separate his personality from his nationality and this is why he doesn't bust out his money while he traveling. The subtitle of this book is "A coming-of-age in Latin America" and when Boudin reflects on issues like this, he demonstrates how he is growing and learning because of the experiences here. By understanding this, the memoir is so much more than what it seems because as you see change in the countries he passes, you see a change within him.

Smart Gringo

One thing that is amazing about this memoir, is the change in setting. More than that, it is how the author adjusts his attitude towards things every time he encounters something new. It can be intimidating to be a foreigner in latin america, especially an american. Chase Boudin is open to anything and through his travel, he encounters new situations that not only shape him as a person, but give an interesting dynamic to his memoir.

Boudin has a way of writing that is understandable for anyone to relate to the text. To achieve this, He uses an informal register. By writing in an informal register, he is able to add spanish words, give his own opinion, and fully explain latin America. Giving his own thaoughts and opinions is crucial since this is how a foreigner is viewing things as opposed to a latino.

A clear example of this is the protest  in chapter two. Here, Boudin narrates what he sees through his foreginers eyes. This means he takes in more details than someone who is used to these protests and only gives an over view. Some details he gives are the molotov cocktails " assembled from beer bottles filled with gasoline" (page 33) or the appearance of the police " dressed in Olive green, with body shields and gas cannons." (Page 33) It is details like these that keep the reader hooked and interested in the text.

Boudins word choice is very simple and I haven't come across any words that I would consider challenging. Boudin also uses the original spanish he hears and then translates it into english. it is more powerful for the text to be there "raw" before it is translated since, the anger is felt more passionately or the mocking tone. I believe that is what Boudin was trying to show by leaving the text in spanish first. For example in page 57 when Boudin only uses the words "gracias hermanos" and "muy importante" when he talks with professor Vitale, you get the sensation of how much it meant for Boudin and how there is a reason he picked those words. He wanted to highlight that even though rude things were said in spanish there were others with a deeper meaning for him.

As I continue reading, I hope to have a better understanding of latin america. It is hard not becoming enveloped in this memoir that explains south america so clearly even to a latina.

Debating the Usage

Reading the debate from the New York Times, I agree with Lane. He uses various examples in his writing to prove his point like The Elements of Style and the Bible. Both writers presented their points clearly but his point seemed stronger.

To further understand what is going on here there are two kinds of language "teams". There are the descriptivist who try to describe language as it is used, and the prescriptivist who focus on the usage of language as it is expected. Personally I believe language never stays the same and these rules that are applied, are a good tool but shouldn't dictate how a person uses language. This is why Lanes view on the subject appealed to me more. 

lane submits a meta rule that would let language grow while still applying some rules to it. In this meta rule he proposes that "When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide."Even though the other writer does not agree with his meta rule, I think its a good way to work from an error in something to the usage of it. This way it can be applied in a way that in a sense is mainstream and anyone can understand.

What really got me to take this side was when Lane wrote: "I glory in the real-world mess of dialects and slang, and think that some popular prescriptivists have imposed some bogus nonrules on too many schoolchildren.". It is true that most of the times what I write is not really how I talk with my friends but it all depends on the register. Still, wouldn't it be pretty interesting to see how slang could come into writing without the rules dictating how it should and shouldn't?

CNG Diction/ary

Here is the link to our book.

CNG Diction/ary

First Impression: Gringo

I don't know why I am so attracted to these kinds of memoirs. I think that being Latin American I am always curious to see how someone from another country views us. We clash so much with other countries since we are "under developed" and they apparently have it all figured out, that their opinions have come to be known to be stuck up and imperialistic. I always want to find that foreigner who is not completely brainwashed into believing that I have anything to do with cocain or have never eaten hamburger ( true story). Gringo by Chesa Boudin, is a memoir about a foreigner that embraces Latin America for what it is and tries to make sense of it through first hand experiences.

After starting to read the memoir, Boudin has made a good first impression. He uses a reflective tone as he narrates what it is like to live in Guatemala. By having a reflective tone, he is able to give information as well as narrate his experience. As you read along about his stay with Doña Eugenia, he gives facts about the history of Guatemala and how the United States has been heavily involved. It is thanks to this tone that the reader can get a big picture on the situation and understand the narrators surrounding better.

There hasn't been much use of quotation in what I have read. Boudin sticks to narrating most of the information but when a quotation does appear it is in italics. I imagine this is this way because the dialogues he engages in are in another language. Boudin also states at the beginning of the memoir that "conversations and descriptions are approximately re-created on the page from memory" and since this is the case, he will probably keep them to a minimum.

There register in the memoir is informal. Boudin uses "I" a lot in the memoir but also uses spanish words, colloquialisms and contractions. This all demonstrates that he is in an informal register but the right one. If he wrote in a familiar register, it would be more a diary and not able to give the serious facts he gives from time to time. This register offers the perfect balance between familiar and formal for the reader to take what is being read, more seriously.

Punctuation Galore

Nicholas Bakers two essays, Survival of the Fittest and Q As In Quotation, are all about punctuation. Q As In Quotation only addresses the use of quotations and Survival of the Fittest is geared towards how punctuation has evolved to what it is today. Baker compares his two topics throughout both essays and has a informative tone as well as a sarcastic one at times.

In Survival of the Fittest, Baker uses a lot of historical facts to explain how we went from using three commas for a pause or how the semi colon came to be. He writes about how writing went form one person to the next and as it went this way, it evolved. It would take elements from the past to come up with new ways of spacing until it reached what we have today. The essay demonstrates how what was going on at the times had an effect on the way people punctuated. For example when Baker mentions Dr. Parkes book, he mentions how he uses the two halves of a semi-linked by an em-dash. Then Baker explains that this might have been so as a way for Parkes to "protest American trends in copy-editing".

Each punctuation mark has a story of its own that can be traced bath to historical figures like the greeks and monks in monasteries, that led it to reach the punctuation we know today. It was because of the continuous changes done to the punctuation marks that they have come to be what they are. This helps explain the title of the essay since it truly is the "Fittest" that survived. It also shows how it was smart of Baker to make allusion to Darwin throughout the essay explaining the "evolution" of punctuation and which "traits" were passed down.

The evolution of punctuation focuses more on punctuation used for pauses but in Q as in Quotation, it is all about quotation marks. Baker talks about the ideas people have of quotation marks and how they are viewed as useful and how they are not. Throughout the essay Baker explains how quotes have to be used the right way so that it doesn't feel like a pause in the flow of what is being written. He personifies quotations as witnesses that gives information and the quotation becomes described as  "nestling into it by way of a difference from the rest of the text". Baker believes that a quotation is not something negative when see with care.. he writes that the author must keep in control and makes sure the quotations has value in what is written. By allowing a quotation to be a part of someones writing it demonstrates : the measure of an individual's willingness to open his internal universe of meaning to dialogue".

All this relates to what we have been looking at in class in the sense that we have been discussing the proper use of quotations and comma splicing. We have also been discussing essays and these two essays along with their content are the mix of everything we have learned being put into practice.

Until the End

For the past two weeks, I had been reading My Colombian War. After finishing it, it became clearer that the author applies many of the things that we have learned in class to make the memoir clearer and an easier read. Throughout the reading, Paternostro writes about her own personal life as well as giving information explaining the problems in Colombia. The reader can tell that this memoir is her journey to understand the country she is from and through the memoir, she also manages to explain Colombia to anyone who is not from there in a clear and calm way.

Paternostro uses an informal register throughout the whole memoir. Paternostro explains personal things but never gets as close as in the familiar register. She offers specific information throughout the memoir but does this and then precedes it with a personal story that takes the reader back to the informal register. Away to describe the informal register of this memoir is that while it is intimate it is also informative and if Paternostro hadn't used the informal register, the memoir wouldn't be what it is.

The reader can tell the register is informal throughout the memoir because it is written in first person, the use of contracitons and the word choice. Paternostro translates a lot of the words originally said in Spanish but words like "marimbero" "guajiro" or "aja" are kept in the memoir for the story to keep some of the spanish words which cant be directly translated.

Paternostro wrote this memoir as a self full-filling story that combines her love for journalism as well as her home. It is a journey of self discovery and the register allows her to tell her story in a way that anyone who picks up the book can relate. The register has also helped make the book a success because it pulls the reader in not just as an informative text but with the intimate side, anyone can find themselves in its pages.

T.S In the C.C (Colombian Coast)

What is important to know about T.S Elliot? Well after an extensive and exhausting google search here are the basics: Thomas Stearns Eliot was a poet who acording to nobleprize.org "Eliot has been one of the most daring innovators of twentieth-century poetry. Never compromising either with the public or indeed with language itself, he has followed his belief that poetry should aim at a representation of the complexities of modern civilization in language and that such representation necessarily leads to difficult poetry." The question now becomes why am I adding a little background to Eliot? And just to avoid any confusion, no I dont think he was ever in the Colomban coast (physically at least).

As my reading of My Colombian War continues, Eliot made a surprise apearance in chapter fifteen when Paternstro and her old friend Allegra are driving around in Allegras car listening to his poetry. While Allegra closes her eyes as she drives (drving hazard!), Paternostro explains that to her Eliots poetry speaks about Barranquilla. Paternostro on the other hand, has a more realstic view that she says is "a muddy Magdalena" and a Carrbean Ocean that fills her with judgement.

How can these two have such dfferent views on one writers poetry? Paternstro has a more negative view towards everything around her involving Colomba while Allegra has taken up a seaming ignorant attitude towards all the troubles of the country. This is when the persective of each makes the interpretaton of the same text different. Yet here with Googles help, the descrption of Elots poetry seems to resemble Paternostros views over her friends. From reading the text, it is obvious that Colombia classifies as a modern cvlization with lots of complexities and yet it is curious that the authr doesnt find these complexities reflected in the excerts in the book. The text below is in the memoir and is from Elots The Four Quartets:

 In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstacy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.

This excert descrbes Paternstros situation perfectly. The way I see it, this cold either be descrbing Paternostro or Colombia. Paternostro is going through a stiuaton that does not resemble the person she has become. She has been led this way because of her own ignorance and has reached a point she is what she is not. Now just go back and re read what  jst wrote and thnk about Colomba and the same things apply. Paternostro is connected to Colombia in that they both suffer from the complexities of a modern socety.

Yet, how many times throughot the memor has she not pointed ot that she does not feel Colombian? Even when she fnishes her article she will go back to where she feels she is from and even though her life right now in the memoir is a T.S Eliot poem, it will go back to what it was before. It just makes me wonder if as soon as she finished wrting this memoir, her connection to her country dissapeared.

Time and the Truth in a Memoir

The way "My Colombian War" is written, the reader gets different understandings about the central topic at different times. In a memoir, it is more challenging to remember how you felt at the time or what you thought. Paternostro gives facts to the reader with no emotional attachment because she was either not in the country or narrates the news with no basis in herself.

A memoir like this one seems to play with time in the sense that as Paternostro describes certain situations, she goes back and forward with her own expieriences, facts, and her families expieriences. As it combines these three elements, the reader gets a clearer picture of the topic Paternostro bases her memoir on. By combining the personal expieriences with the explanations of certain facts, Paternostro ties herself with her topic in a way that this can truly be considered a memoir.

For example, when explaining a marimbero is, Paternostro ties it to herself by telling the story of how her friend Allegra dated and married one. Through this relationship a marimbero can be closely detailed when Paternostro describes them as men that drove fancy cars "wore designer everything: Versace sunglasses, Versace jeans, even Versace perfume." (Page 130-131). Paternostro is writing about these marimberos from the present and by offering this clear example in her past, the reader can fully grasp what a marimbero is. In a sense, the way Paternostro uses time in the memoir helps explain what is unknown to the reader clearly, without ever losing that sense that this is a memoir.

Reading My  Colombian war, you become very trusting of the author. One assumes that, this being a memoir, everything is considered true but if its hard to remember event the most important moments in our life, who is to say Paternostro isn't making some of this up. In the case of this memoir the trust you place on the authos is because of these details. When she goes into depth describing small detaills like the unform of the girls at the Marymount school or the way she felt in certain situations, the reader becomes more trustiing of the story. In the back of the readers mind some of these details could be fake but they add more meaning to the memoir.

The question then rises to be, how much of a memoir is memory and how much is what our memory thinks it remembers. Its possible some of these details might have been distorted because of time but then that wouldn't exactly make them fake. In a sense it could be thought of as the character from Fight Club. While he isn't fully aware of what happens his subconcious is and just distorts the details. So you have a part of you that does remember and a part of you that, like in Fight Club, needs to be tapped in order to be unleashed.

Circle of Stereotypes

"The pair of americans persuading every local farmer that they could find along the entire  Caribbean coast of Colombia - from the tip of the Guajira all the way south to Santa Marta- to grow marijuana for them." (Page 113)

In one of my lasts posts I said that I believed that Paternostros tone was reflective but within this reflectionn can't she be accusing? These are after all her own reflections and if that is the case, all humans accuse others of things in reflections. In this part of the memoir, Paternostro is explaining how marijuana came to become a cash crop in Colombia and when she explains that it was actually two guys from Queens who convinced others to grow, one can feel a bit of accusation in what she writes.

In Chapter 13 is where all the explanations  about marijuana are being given. There is special emphasis in the fact that it was not Colombians who imposed it and those that in the end benefited from it, are made to sound as traders or even another kind of person not thought of as Colombian. A stereotype given to those that participated in this:

"Guajiros are known to be Colombias pirates, the pioneering smugglers...the men who entered the trade began to settle in Barranquilla and soon the word "guajiro" became synonymous with "drug trafficker"..." (Page 114-115)

These stereotypes and the way Paternostro writes about these Guajiros, make the reader assume a position based on what she has written. Obviously not all people from la Guajira can be described this way, probably less than half aren't this description. Stereotypes are usually used to accuse someone of something and in this chapter, the reader gets a sense that these Guajiros are to blame.

There's a sense that around this topic of drugs any Colombian would react. But as a Colombian, it is annoying when other countries blame the growth of the popularity of pot solely on us. Here is the proof that if it wasn't for the americans that came with their big bahs of money, and in a sense turned the Guajiros into a scapegoat. When people look back, they don't blame those two Americans from Queens, they blame Colombians in general. The Colombians in turn blame the decided scapegoat.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Servant and Master

In chapter 10, Paternostro talks about a little servant girl they gave to her. It isn't until now that Paternostro actually starts realizing how odd the situation was. As a reader, I can't help feeling a little bit uncomfortable with the situation. Paternostro seems to want pitty because she has servants and it ends up seeming like she is very spoiled.

Imelda seems to symbolize more to Paternostro but the way she explains the story makes her sound very naïve. She seems to be playing on the pathos of the situation and sounding a bit fake. Imelda was Paternostros childood servant who ran away but now, that they are both old, have reconnected. When she talks about them as kids and how she views the world now, it makes me a little uncomfortable. She just makes herself sound so spoiled and naïve.

Paternostro explains her childhood but then Imelda and her meet again as grown women. When this happens the social roles in Colombia can be explained further because even though years have passed there is still that relationship of master and server. Imelda came to visit Paternostro but still acts as if she were her servant. That just makes the question whether servants and their masters ever think of each other as something different. Paternostro doesn't even really use the word friends to describe their relationship.

The disconfort is aparent when Paternostro thinks to herself:

"My inability to feel comfortable being a journalist when I'm living as one of the masters begins to weigh on me, making me feel like a fraud. Why do I blame it on everyone but myself that I cannot live here?" (Page 102)

Paternostro thinks that it is because of exterior motives that she can't stay in Colombia but I think it is also within herself. I think that because she has been away from Colombia and has lived most of her life "servantless" the idea seems old and undeveloped. She is uncomfortable with the idea that here in Colombia someone can be so overpowering of another and that even to this day, no one does anything about it.

Carnival Queen Phenomenon

When we don't want to deal with things, we push them away and try to focus on the good. Maybe you have been dating someone who takes you for granted or isn't the nicest to you, but you convince yourself that there is more good than bad. in a sense you are blinding yourself to the truth because admitting it feels like it wouldn't change anything. What am I getting at with this? I am trying to explain the carnival queen phenomenon.

Paternostro finds herself trying to research the information about modern Colombia and its violence.  However in this chapter, it is very interesting how every time she sees the newspaper, they are talking about the carnival queen.  Paternostro says the picture of

the queen takes up half a page, and below her is a small box saying seven other people were kidnapped. this highlights how people in Colombia push their troubles away and put them in small boxes to only be noticed by a few.

What gets my attention about this is that Paternostro highlights something no one would outright admit here in Colombia. Her, being a character away from the setting, sees everything with a fresh pair of eyes. When a topic has been around for so many years, a person can forget what it means or that it is still a topic at hand. I think this is the toughest critique Paternostro has done in this memoir.

Being Colombian, I admit it is not that you don't think of the war but you do put it away a lot. I would rather Colombia had a better reputation than being known for kidnappings or drugs. I think that is why we push it away so much. Why should we let the war define who we are as a country? Isn't it enough that they have already ruined so much? Still I will admit that it is dumb to live as if there is no war going on. The carnival queen phenomenon is just that. It is not wanting to look something in the face and admit there is more to it than meets the eye. Paternostro uses this specific example to show how it is shoved away into a little box. In the quote below she explains it a little more: 

"Everyone who passes in front of the paper has something to add about la reinas dress; no one and I mean no one comments on the news of the kidnappings. But the reality is the I am looking for a the war and they are, rightly or wrongly, putting it out of their minds." (page 82)

Its as if everyone is putting a wall up and only letting the things they want to deal with in. It might not always be a carnival queen that is blocking everything but it shouldn't over cloud everything. Sure it is good to focus on the good over the bad but the bad shouldn't be completely pushed out.

Two Authors

It might not be obvious from the beginning but there are two different authors to this memoir. No, I am not accusing Paternostro of fraud. It is true that there is one person writing this memoir but the way she approaches it, splits her in two. One is the serious journalist with an edge, from America who is viewing everything with an unbiased attitude but not writing completely formal. Journalist Paternostro comes out whenever historic or any information is presented not directly having to do with her. The other "author" is foreign/Colombian Paternostro who talks about her family and mixes her life as an American and a Colombian. Having two sides to the story, the reader gets both ideas for every topic.

War is a topic some understand more than others. Paternostro doesn't pretend from the beginning of the memoir that she knows everything. All the information she gives sounds like her journalism self and not her Colombian self. She explains the different conflicts in Colombia in a clear way that anyone can understand but when she talks about her own personal experiences, she becomes foreigner in a Colombians body. She states facts about the M19, the paramilitary, and any sort of informative aspect, in a straight and informative way but not completely formally. This is really helpful to those that have no idea what the situation in Colombia is like and how it got this way. To give an example here is how the author explained how more people joined M19:

"In the early seventies, Manuel Marulanda ordered Lucho Otero, one of his commanders to form and urban cell. Otero called on his university pals, mainly middle class public school kids, although the call reached the boys of the elite, especially those around in Bogotå, who were already hooked up to what was going on around the world." (page 67)

The information is there but it is not fully formal. Word choices like "kids", "pals", and "hooked up", give the information an informal way that a newspaper would not use but adds to Paternostros style.

When Paternostro writes about her family and her own views, she still has a formal edge to her but adds her own personal views on subjects and feelings. She is there as her Colombian self, participating in gatherings and meeting up with old acquaintances but manages to sneak an explanation of something through her American views.For example when she is visiting people, you can see the difference in her writing:

"I like to sit around these women talking together uncensored and unrestrained. It allows me to take the temperature of cultural politics, important to my idea…" (page 72)

The writer uses the word "I" a lot which is used mostly in informal writing. She does not talk about facts or figures but rather what she likes and doesn't like which is something completely personal.

By having these "two Paternostros" explaining Colombia, the reader gets information and an inside scoop. Its as if the normal news and the scandalous news mix together to make one story around one topic. It gives this memoir a very unique style.

Reflecting

In class this week we discussed tone and this just got me thinking about Paternostros tone in her memoir. Here is a woman who is writing about writing about Colombia and trying to see it more clearly after years of trying to block it. Paternostro is very truthful in this memoir and doesn't hide her view on Colombia and this all gives way to understanding her tone. As a result being the reader of this novel, I believe the tone that most describes it throughout the text is reflective.

Paternostro doesn't simply tell a story but actually thinks about it. She questions why things are as they are and drags the reader into these thoughts. It is not only  what goes on around her but she also tries to understand what her behavior reflects of who she is. For example in this quote, Paternostro is debating wether she truly is Colombian or not:

"I still define myself as Colombian when asked where I am from. But am I really? When does one stop being what one was born to be?" (page 21)

The writer does not ask questions to someone outside of the story when she says this. It is about her own thoughts of who she is. She continues asking questions like these to herself in the book and there is just a sense of detachment for either of the countries she calls home. The reader can also infer that the author does not want to get attached to where she is. As the author puts it: 

"I remind myself that I am here as the journalist who writes in English and who embraces American Liberalism wholeheartedly. I insist on this invisible armor because to admit that I am here for any other reason… is terrifying." (page 46)

This quote is another example of this sense of detachment  from everything. The need to where this "armor" and think of things in an American journalist way, shows that she is trying to view things critically and analytically as she reflects what she wants to achieve.