McKenzie V's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

This story is about a well educated white women going to an area that has gangs, shootings, and prejudice. In this personal narrative, Marni Asplund-Campbell comes to a school with teenagers that live underprivileged lives. She had three questions: why, how, and what to teach. With each question, Asplund-Campbell came experienced change with the students and within herself.

What became her first concern. What to teach? Knowing the circumstances of the lives of students she decided on intolerance. Many of the students that she teaches have seen and dealt with intolerance. Having intolerance towards others, and other being intolerant of them.

How to teach them? How can I ask students who work graveyard shifts to pay the rent, whose mothers and father are crack addicts, who know that there is a better than good chance they will be dead by twenty-one, to care about literature, about writing? Clarifying the motives for the teacher and the students.

Why? She has the students read Night, which is about a man's experience in a holocaust camp. She knows that the things that the students have seen and experienced have felt similar and unjust. The students find similarities with intolerance. Afterward, the students thanked the teacher. It helped them open their eyes and think more about their lives.

This is story is similar to the movie Freedom Writers. A well educated Caucasian woman enters a culturally diverse high school filled with many students who suffer from prejudice and intolerance. Then the teacher presents materials that the students relate to. Then the students began to change and become more attentive and they participate more. The teacher finds reason for her job and through some internal conflict, so finds her reasons why. 

Carlie H's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

It’s so easy to read this and expect an inspiring story about how a young teacher changed the lives of disadvantaged youth. That’s the stereotype. Hollywood promotes it, and according to Asplund-Campbell, so does Harvard. We all expect it, but the reality is that it doesn’t happen like Hollywood. In fact, most times, it doesn’t happen at all.

So why do it? What’s the point of even trying at all? Why face such a challenge? I chose to write on this article because I didn’t get it. She struggled so hard for practically nothing as a result. I had to read this over and over. What was the point? The students were the same as before. Didn’t her fancy Harvard education teach her anything?

Then I got it. It wasn’t about her Harvard education or her students. It was about her. This was her personal essay, so it was about her internal change. Her internal change wasn’t about how she overcame the struggle. She didn’t. She even said that she ran away from it all in the end. Her personal discovery was why she even struggled at all.

That was her message: discover why you struggle. At first, she struggled without reason, and it caused her to despair. Gradually she found a reason, even if she didn’t know it yet. She loved her students and found a connection with them. Her struggle became meaningful to her when she realized why she was trying so hard.

I think it’s that way for any struggle we face. At first we don’t get it, and we can’t understand. We rage against it saying, “Why does this have to happen to me?” Sometimes we get through it but never really discover why we struggled so hard, and in the long run, it doesn’t make much of a difference. We forget it and move on. Sometimes though, we get an epiphany, and our struggle becomes something deeper. It gains meaning, and we connect with it. Those are the struggles that make a difference, maybe not to the world but to us personally.

So now I get the point of “Feed my Lambs.” Asplund-Campbell didn’t make as much a difference to her students as she did to herself.

Sven W's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

Reading this article reminded me of the movie Stand and Deliver where Jaime Escalante teaches high levels of math to some undereducated and underprivileged kids in some inner city high school.

            Reading this story reminded me of hearing about how in other schools people can’t go to the bathroom because they get attacked there. In my school the worst thing that happened in the bathrooms was people turning the light off. I don’t know if I ever appreciated the safety of my school as much as I should’ve.

            She says that on the test she gave them difficult essay questions and that the kids mostly answered with insights she had given them two days earlier but she seemed pretty content with that. This reminded me of a test I had on The Great Gatsby in high school where I kind of knew what the essay questions would be and I ended up using a lot of information for multiple questions and I think I was faking it a lot or maybe even “b.s.ing” but I got 50/50. I think I either took advantage of my teacher’s methods or it was just graded easily. I find it interesting that the teacher didn’t really seem to have a problem with it. I think she must’ve felt that even if they had simply learned something by almost copying and pasting then that was good enough, at least for these inner city kids. If this were a higher quality school she may not have preferred that.

Niles W's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

Frankly, this sounds a lot like freshman physical science back in high school. That year, my school began offering one AP class to freshman, Human Geography. While it did not count towards graduation, I still took it anyway for the experience (good thing too, because it exempted half of my social science GE requirement here at BYU). Because of the added workload, I decided to play it safe and take regular physical science rather than join the other honors kids in honors biology. Originally, I was torn between leaving my friends and having an easier workload, or staying with them and possibly getting slammed. Fortunately, it turned out that I would have been slammed if I had gone the bio route, so it was a prudent decision.

As it was a regular class, the dregs of society came together into one huge melting pot of bad coffee. I was one of 7 white kids, in a class of thirty-five. We stayed together much like the description in “Feed My Lambs”. The other kids were insanely distracted/distracting during class and made it hard to concentrate. I wasn’t a nerdy-study–all-the-time type either. It was that bad. I have to admit though that the distractions were often hilarious and totally worth it.

Basically, I know exactly how Asplund-Campbell felt during her time teaching there. We had a student teacher assisting in our class as well. He always made a good effort, but never really seemed to make too much progress. That’s where my story and Asplund-Campbell’s differs. Mine has less of a happy ending. I wish I could say everyone passed and we all owe to that student-teacher, but that was not the case. In his defense, only six people failed and not by much.

As for Night, I read it for 10th grade English as well, just like the kids in the story. It has always been a powerful reminder to me about not only Nazism and the Holocaust, but for the consequences of action and inaction. One of my favorite quotes of all time from Sir Edmund Burke “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” In the case of night, that is exactly what happened. The good men of Germany did little to nothing to stop the evil men of Germany. It was only when the Allies had Germany on the ropes that anyone moved to stop the atrocities. Thus, we should all look out for what we can do and not look out for what we can avoid.

Anna S's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

Ever since I was about seven years old I’ve wanted to be an elementary school teacher.  As I’ve gotten older my dream has been to teach at an underprivileged school.  I am well aware that 99.9% of the time it does not end up like the movie “Freedom Writers”.  I am well aware that there will probably be days that I come home crying for these kids and there’s absolutely nothing I can do about it.  I am well aware that most kids in those situations don’t have people who care about their education and college is usually out of the question.  Despite all of that or maybe because of it, I really want to teach those who don’t have a chance. 

This article was honestly probably the best one for me to read and respond to, even though I didn’t pick it.  I loved the part at the end where she talks about how she thought she was going to come “empower” these kids, but she was so disillusioned about it.  I see myself doing the exact same thing.  She had to get off her high horse a little bit in order to face those kids at the eye level of humanity.  Literature really can unify people in ways that nothing else can.  There is just something about the book Night that everyone can relate because it exposes human nature at its very best and very worst.  It makes people wonder, “What would I do if it were me?”  I don’t think any of us can honestly answer that question until we’re put in such a situation.  It is when Asplund-Campbell reaches this common ground that she can effectively communicate with her students.  We’re all human, no matter where we live or our situation in life.  The emotion in Night is something everyone understands, even if they can’t describe it.  Will I be able to get off my “empowerment” high horse long enough to relate to my students?  I don’t know, but I hope I remember that humanity is a universal language.

Brandon W's Response to "Feed my Lambs"

My first reaction to “Night: Feed My Lambs” was “Oh. Another one of these stories.”  Inexperienced young white teacher teaches a rowdy class of inner-city minority kids that are unresponsive and dangerous, yet in the end you know they’ll come to love her and feel better about themselves.  Lovely.  That isn’t cliché at all.  I swear there’ve been a billion movies and books about this already.  Why do we need another one? 

That was my initial reaction until I saw the subject material that they covered.  Marni Asplund-Campbell illustrated her unit on intolerance with Night by Elie Wiesel.  That made all the difference.  Night is a powerful work, a memoir of a survivor from the death camp of Auschwitz.  I had to read Night my freshman year of high school.  I really have never forgotten it.  I remember feeling nauseated at the descriptions of the atrocities in there, wondering if I was going to make it through the in-class reading without making a mad dash to the garbage can.  It totally shocked me how human beings could be so vile.  I knew about the Holocaust, from earlier lessons in school and outside learning, but to read a survivor’s account was just…awful.  Yet I’m glad I read it.  I highly recommend it to everyone I know.  It’s the kind of thing everyone who’s old enough should read, even if they really don’t want to, so that it will never be forgotten.  A thing like that should never happen again. 

I think it was Night, more than any teaching technique put forth by Asplund-Campbell, that made the students sit up and take notice.  I can certainly identify with the statement put forth by one of the students after she had read the book: “It certainly made me think.”  The students most likely felt empathy at reading Night, as they are the ones society looks down upon.  They can also identify with the death and destruction seen in Night, as many die extremely young and live in poor conditions.  Nothing on the scale of a death camp, naturally, but the students perhaps gained an appreciation for the conditions they live in after reading about what they could live in. 

Asplund-Campbell states that giving the disenfranchised students empowerment was a false illusion.  Perhaps that is so, but I think she succeeded in giving them perspective.

Catelyn G's Response to "A Rose for Emily"

I can identify very well with Miss Emily. She was the oldest member of a small town, living in the past but unwilling to be fooled by the present. I was the oldest girl in my tiny branch, daydreaming in sacrament and yet somehow remaining young women class president every year. We were both subject to circulating gossip because of our odd actions in usually predictable situations. Miss Emily and I were often on the receiving end of questioning stares and curious glances.

My fictional companion was the enigma that gave the town’s inhabitants a good story to chatter about. By becoming uninvolved with anyone in the town, she became the life of the very establishment she shunned. Her lack of participation in the gossip became the very generator spilling out “She will kill herself” and “She will marry him”.

In my branch, I was the girl who cut off all her hair and wore skull gloves in the chapel.  While everyone else was skipping off to combined activity, I drug my feet and scowled the entire time. People would laugh at my lack of sociality and I found out later that they would regularly ask my mother “what is wrong with poor Catelyn?”

People thrive on rumors. Excitement builds as we reach the climax of a conversation spinning around gossip. We’re very interested in finding fault in others as it helps pull the focus away from ourselves. And we also like a good story that surprises us at every turn.

Just like the townspeople finding the gray hair in the pillow, as readers, we like to imagine the worst and then jump in surprise when the writer can take a completely different turn-or at least I like that. While I read, I partake in a mental, one-way gossip of sorts. I automatically assume that the protagonist is no knight in shining armor (because what good character is?) and is eventually going to catch me off guard in one big shebang.

If I reach the end of a book with not a single “Wow, wasn’t expecting that” moment, I get as disappointed as my roommates when they find out that so-and-so didn’t really participate in “recreational kissing” with the boy in building 8. And just as let down as the people in my branch were when they realized that I was only a rebellious teenager and didn’t have a mental malfunction.

Faulkner realized this while he was writing “A Rose for Emily”. The rumors that make a small town go round will also dig into a reader’s brain and drag them further and further into the storyline.

Tori F's response to "A Rose for Emily"

First off, I actually really wanted this one; because 1. It's Faulkner. and 2. I'm from the South.  Southerners need to be represented for this one.  Period.  Why?  Because Yankees and Westerners don't know what they are talking about when they refer to the South and when they discuss this short story.  Why?  Because they don't know a thing about us (they just think that they do).

Now that that's out of the way...  when I think of Miss Emily I think of my great-grandmother.  Why?  Because she held to the old South and old Southern values, etc. until she passed away at age 93.  She would always talk about those [insert old South word here] that lived down the street and how this (before she was put in a nursing home) used to be a good white community, but those [insert] seemed like pretty fine people (though she'd never talked to them, of course).  Did I mention that we called her Great-Grandma Davis?  Because we did.  You wanna know where the "Davis" part came from?  Yup, that's right.  Jefferson Davis is my who-knows-how-many-greats-uncle.

Miss Emily represents the old South in many ways.  Her dad dies (the Confederacy loses the war), and she becomes anti-social, isolated.  A bunch of carpet-baggers come and pump up the blacks.  She leads Homer into a false sense of security, and then poisons him.  I could go on, but that would get very long and annoying (I think I would even put myself to sleep).

So the real question of this story is why is it so important?  Why has it lasted so long?  Why do people still talk about it even though it was written before we were even born?  It's because it's true--in so many ways.  To the new generation, the old South is a "contemporary" and a nuisance.  It is something we pretend to understand, though we know nothing of it.  It is something we will always remember but never come to terms with.  "It" is Miss Emily Grierson, a woman true to her values even when her values destroy her and poisoned by her past yet fearful of her future.  "We" have killed her.

Okay, now that that's over.  Let me explain some things to you Yankees/Westerners that you may or may not know.  First off, we do in fact still call Northerners Yankees.  Secondly, only hard-core hicks say things like "the South will rise again" and ride around with the Confederate flag on their truck (they also wear a lot of camouflage and go "huntin' and muddin'" frequently).  I could keep saying "next," etc. but I'm lazy.  When I see the Confederate flag, all I think of is Georgia and how a bunch of black people got together and had them change the state flag because they were convinced that it was the Confederate flag (even though, in my opinion because I haven't actually had time to look this up and many people also agree with me on this one, the Georgia flag was created before the Confederate flag (duh!) and the Confederate flag was probably based off the GA flag!).  I get very heated when people pronounce Georgia like they've lived there and actually know what they're talking about... even though they do not (we do not say Georgia like that!).  Also, Tennessee is, in fact, in the South.  Texas is not (unless you are from Texas and think that you are, when in reality you are not... the same thing goes for Florida).  We do not (as a whole) like country music.  We have actual trees.  It's humid, which means that the actual temperature and what you feel like the temperature is are two different things (i.e. it feels hotter in the summer than the temperature and it also feels colder than the temperature in the winter... it's the type of heat/cold that shoots straight though you).  We can actually breathe the air.  We have trees in our mountains (instead of "trees" i.e. twigs i.e. sticks, etc.).  We don't have to water our yards, and we are not all baptist.  Sweet tea, fried chicken, green beans, mashed potatoes, etc. are general staples of the South (i.e. KFC and Chick-Fil-A make bank).  We (in general) do not have that "southern drawl" or talk like "hicks" (only people who live in the boonies and whose parents have likewise lived in the boonies for most of their lives really have an accent).  We do say "y'all" and frequently (it comes naturally, so it doesn't sound as weird when we/Texans say it vs. when Yankees/Westerners say it).  And we all have Southern pride (unless you weren't born in the South... then, if you have any at all, you have "mock" Southern pride... because you're still a Yankee... unless you're from the West, because then we don't have any problems with you).  We also make fun of Yankees who move to the South, but in a loving way not a I-hate-you-because-you-beat-us kind of way (kind of like a "they've seen the light" kind of way ;) ).  I could go on, but I don't feel like it.

Amber S's response to "A Rose for Emily"

An old lady lived a pathetic life with little happiness and then died alone, just her, her servant, and her dust-covered house. That was my immediate impression upon reading this short story. But upon further thought, I realized that Faulkner had not written a mere social commentary, but a horror story. I reviewed the story, putting the pieces together. First, Emily’s father dies leaving her depressed. Second, she falls in love with Homer Barron, but he appears to be losing interest. Third, she purchases some arsenic with no explanation. Fourth, Homer disappears and Emily rarely, if ever, leaves her house. Finally, after her death, investigators find what she made into a bridal room, complete with her dead lover on a bed. The pillow next to his head is indented and upon it rests one of Emily’s hairs.

She poisoned her man with arsenic. And then stuck his body in a room where she would lay next to it. This is not normal, and rather disturbing – and thus it is a horror story.

I thoroughly enjoyed Faulkner’s visual descriptions. He described Miss Emily as “bloated, like a body long submerged in motionless water….her eyes, lost in the fatty ridges of her face”. Latter, when purchasing the arsenic, she stared “with cold, haughty black eyes in a face the flesh of which was strained across the temples and about the eye sockets as you imagine a lighthouse keeper’s face ought to look”. Faulkner’s word choice and descriptions create a marvelous mood and leave little space for the reader to even remotely desire the company of Miss Emily.

Throughout my reading I was trying to figure out the title’s meaning. There is no rose in the story, although the word “rose” is used several times, both as a verb and an adjective. Eventually I decided that the story itself is like a rose for Emily. Faulkner’s story is a sign of pity for a dead woman, a tribute to her life – despite how pathetic it was. The story is a sympathetic rose for a woman who lived a tragic life. 

Amy C's response to "A Rose for Emily"

I have grown up some since the last time I read “A Rose for Emily.”  My views of people have changed.  That said, one would think I would like the story more.  LIES AND SLANDER (yes slander, this is written)!  I found this story exactly as dull as I did the first time through.  It would seem I have more brain growth to undergo before I understand why English teachers make students read this story.  For the time being I will make up reasons as to why I have read and reread “A Rose for Emily” and perhaps by and by I will agree with one or more of them. (A few words of caution: the following probably is not what most people get from this short story nor is it necessarily true.)

First, there is a lesson to be learned from the story.  Society needs to stop trusting people.  Everyone who seems nice is, in reality, a terrible family member who will turn their posterity into crazy people who murder homosexuals then sleep with their dead bodies.  Proof: had Emily’s neighbors looked beyond the successful and respected status of her father and had courage to stop the domestic violence, Emily might not have turned out as messed up as she did. 

Second, stories don’t have to be good to be famous.  They only need be disgusting and controversial.  Proof: the plot of “A Rose for Emily” is unbelievably blegh (and by blegh I mean boring).  A post-colonial girl was oppressed by her father as post-colonial girls usually were.  She didn’t handle it well.  The oppressive father died.  The girl grew into a woman and fell in love with a gay man.  She killed the gay man.  She slept with the gay man’s body.  She grew old and died.  The town found out she slept with the dead gay man.  I have shivers of excitement just thinking about it…not.  There’s no good plot however the story has three things going for it: 1) female oppression.  We females love to complain about being oppressed and will read anything that paints us as victims.  2) homosexuality.  This is less controversial now but we know that it was unheard of in the story’s setting so we are interested.  3) sleeping with dead people.  Ew.  But ew is good.  We like to be disgusted.  Because of the controversial and disgusting things discussed the story is famous.  I’m guessing that’s because society thinks anything controversial and disgusting is important.

Third, and perhaps the most important reason why I have been assigned this story multiple times, is because I need to learn how to do things I don’t want to do.  Proof: fine I don’t have any proof for this.  It’s just a hunch. 

I am a better person for having read “A Rose for Emily.”  I have no clue why or how, but I’m sure I must be.  And if in the future I become an English teacher, I will probably make my students read this story so they can feel the same things I felt and learn the same lessons I learned and waste the same time I wasted…then again, maybe by then I will realize that the time wasn’t wasted.  We shall see.

Aaron C's response to "On 'A Rose for Emily'"

I will be thoroughly honest when I saw the title of my RFIW as stated on the blog “A Rose for Emily” two thoughts popped through my mind; oh crap not you again, due to weeks spent on reading and analysis of the short story in my AP Literature class in high school, and I thought we were learning people’s thoughts on concepts or other’s writing not reading short stories. I was pleasantly surprised first when I turned to the correct page in the book and saw it was titled “On “A Rose For Emily” “ by Cleanth Brooks and not “A Rose For Emily” by Faulkner.

Cleanth Brooks introduced a new concept of Faulkner’s story.  I always believed “A Rose For Emily” was a representation of his view on the decaying Southern aristocracy. But as Brooks revealed Faulkner was indeed really writing about people in his short story.

I found it interesting how we can take the story of “A Rose for Emily” as a warning. Many warnings are seen from her as a “lighthouse” but the most pressing one would be the danger of pride and isolation.  She stated she believed that it was to show that pride and isolation lead to insanity but I would not go as far to say that. But I believe that pride is what would lead to isolation do to the fact that you push others away from you. This isolation will lead to an emptiness in our life and leave it lonely and void of meaning. 

Whether the insanity of isolation and pride captures us is up to us. The key to keeping at bay is to continually care for the other individual whether in friendship, love, or service. Even the smallest gesture of actually stopping and listening to a person’s response to our, “Hey how are you?” when we see them. This will build in us the knowledge of the value of individuals and how we treat them permanently filling it with purpose.

Jamie R's response to "A Rose for Emily"

While Faulkner had many themes in A Rose For Emily, I found decay to be quite prevalent throughout the story. The town of Jefferson, the house, and Emily all grew old. Emily lost her mind and her looks. The house lost the beauty it once had due to old age, and the town of Jefferson changed from what she once knew. Faulkner wrote a really good but sad story about an old woman who loses her mind. A Rose For Emily shows the way in which we all grow old and decay. It’s really quite the bedtime story.

Emily is a traditional woman, staying the same over the years despite many changes going on around her. She represents traditions and honor. Emily lives in a timeless world of her own making. Life as she knows it is gone along with her sanity.

Emily’s house, like Emily herself, is a monument, the only remaining emblem of a dying world. Emily’s house also represents alienation, mental illness, death and decay. It is a temple to her living past; the past which she refuses to let go of.

This story made me think of haunted houses because Emily has the typical haunted house. She is the only one to ever walk in or out and no one ever sees, or hears anything from the house. It used to be the house on the block that everyone envied and now it is falling apart.

Emily resembles Boo Radley of To Kill a Mockingbird and Willy Wonka of the Chocolate factory. She is a characterization of the girl who is acclaimed for her beauty and allure in much literature. Or how her one love, Homer Barron, which the town believed had left her, was actually poisoned and left in her bed. No one knows the Emily that exists beyond what they can see, and her true self is only visible to them only after she dies and the secrets of her life are revealed.

Tygan S's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

Remember that your job as a missionary is to convince others that they're wrong. The more others disagree with you, the more argumentative you should be. They will only give in if you are more forceful than they. This may escalate to yelling or even violence. Therefore, never try to convince anyone who has a physical advantage over you.

Regrettably, the church prohibits alcoholic consumption. Fortunately there are other means of increasing your competitive edge. Staying up late, drinking lots of sugar, and watching or listening to one-sided political commentary are all very effective.

The following story is an ideal example of convincing others that you're right.


Imagine my companion and I are in an investigator's home teaching him the Restoration. I usually don't take a companion, but my current companion agrees unquestionably with everything I say. This particular investigator has been eagerly taking lessons from another companionship, so we decided to come in and seal the deal.

“How can I know if the Book of Mormon is true?” he asks.

“Let me put it this way,” I begin. “A total of six-hundred fifty-four million, three-hundred and twenty-one individuals know the Book of Mormon is true.”

“Really? But, I thought—”

“Yep. That's from the Granger Institute's Worldwide Religious Statistical Report. Very reputable. Did your other church use it?”

“Uh, no, I don't think so—”

“They probably aren't mentioned.”

I allow for a moment of silence to let that to sink in.

“So, do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?”

“What? Well, no, not yet.”

“Why not? What reasons could you possibly have for not believing it? As it were, I quote, 'it's the best book on Earth.' Gordon W. Tanner said that, e.g. President Gordon W. Tanner.”

“Uh . . . .” Our investigator looks confused for a second. “I'm having problems accepting that Joseph Smith was really a prophet.”

I burst out laughing and my companion sniggers. “Wait, you're serious?” I shake my head, smiling. “Do you believe the Bible?”

“Well, I'm not sure . . .”

“You're begging the question. In terms of biblical personas who reference the Book of Mormon vis a vis, not to mention the cross-implications to Joseph Smith as the prophet, per se, 87.3% indicate that Joseph Smith is, as we say, a prophet, and the remaining 22% indicate that those references are, in fact, indicative, Q.E.D.”

I can tell I'm being very successful because our investigator is starting to look defensive. When they look defensive, that means they're intimidated.

“You know, this really isn't a good time for me—”

“It never is.”

“I'm sorry, but this just doesn't really feel right, would you mind if—”

“You're being defensive.”

“Could you please . . . leave right now? I have—”

“Really? You know who else didn't listen? Hitler.”

“I'm asking you to leave. I'm going to call the cops if you aren't out of my door in thirty seconds.”

My companion and I back away, out the door. “Hitler. Hitler didn't believe the Book of Mormon was true!” The door slams. “HITLER DIDN'T BELIEVE JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET!”


That's the secret to missionary work: get the words out. It's the words they're going to remember.

Josh H's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

This article left me amused and confused. In Dave Barry’s article, “How to argue effectively,” he sarcastically explains 5 different ways for a person to win an argument. When I started reading this article I couldn’t help but laugh at his theories and suggestions because of his sarcasm. I enjoyed reading this because it really has nothing to do with actually winning the argument or arguing effectively, but instead on how to get people to think you are smart. He suggests that in order to win an argument you should drink liquor, make things up, use meaningless words and phrases, use snappy and irrelevant comebacks, and compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler. At first, I was quite confused at my response because the article does not realistically show what it claims to, about, “How to argue effectively.” Instead of learning from the article, I ended up laughing at the material and its cynical tone.

After pondering the article, I realized it represents the worldly point of view of arguing because he only shows how to impress the opponent and fool them about how much you actually know. He first suggests drinking liquor because it urges you to be more outgoing and argue about something that you would not know like, the economy in Peru. He says, “If you drink several large martinis, you’ll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy. You’d be a wealth of information.” (Barry) Although he makes a point about getting into conversation, I do not believe that drinking liquor is an “effective” way of arguing. He goes on to advise people to lie and use exact prices and dates whenever trying to prove a point and if challenged, respond with weighty sounding words or snappy comebacks. To me, it seems that Barry does not really care about effectively arguing but instead throwing the opponent onto its back in shock of his knowledge and poise. If I were his opponent, I would think he was a tool for trying to be somebody he isn’t and an idiot for thinking that it works.

All together I find myself being a hypocrite about the whole thing because I am probably one of the easiest people to argue with because half of the time I don’t know what to say, and have no guts to say what really comes to mind. I’m one of those guys who cannot put their thoughts into words even if their life depended on it. You see, every single time I get in the situation, I can never think of a comeback but instead, I think of the BEST, DIRTIEST, MOST CRUEL comebacks a few hours/days later. I give credit to Barry for his ideas about engaging in conversation and staying composed during the argument but find his other points pretty radical. My favorite part about the article was when he recommends, “When your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong… subtly say: ‘You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler’” How can they come back from that? All I know is next time I can’t think of anything to say, I’m going to use the Hitler line.

Cara G's Response to "How to Aruge Effectively"

Initially after reading Barry’s article, I dismissed the advice as humorous sarcasm and assumed none of it was really meant to be useful. But as I was thinking about what to write in my response, I realized something. The “advice” Barry gives is, ironically, actually how most people argue. Take political commentators and politicians for example. Glenn Beck’s arguments have been criticized for excessively comparing Obama and his tactics to Hitler and the Nazis. Almost every politician uses “meaningless but weighty sounding” words and phrases on a regular basis. Facts and quotes given in speeches or debates are often cited incorrectly and taken out of context, which is essentially making things up.

But politicians aren’t the only ones who use Barry’s techniques.

Think about the last time you were in an argument. Unless you’re a champion debater or something along those lines, I’m sure you did at least one of the things Barry listed in his article. I know I have. When I argue with family members, I make stuff up, use big words that don’t even make sense in the context of the argument and exaggerate the facts. We all argue fallaciously at times. That’s why Barry’s response is so hilarious.

Obviously, the main objective of this article is to be funny. But they wouldn’t put it in RFIW if that was its only purpose. Sometimes the best way to teach someone how to do something is to tell them what not to do and I believe that was Barry’s intent; to teach us sneakily.

But, I believe there is one theme of Barry’s definition of “arguing effectively” that is actually effective, and that is arguing with passion and confidence. Humans are driven by emotion. So even if your argument is logically ridiculous, if you put enough of your heart into what you’re arguing, people might actually believe you.

Even though the article was relatively short, I believe it packed a punch. I’m definitely going to try out the word “parameters” the next time I get a chance.

Ren H's response to "How to Argue Effectively"

This very humorous article seemed to contain many valid points in which I took careful note of.  My roommate and I always argue with each other for fun and find ways to bicker at one another for any reason. The second I finished reading this article I put these rules and suggestions to the test.

I always give my roommate a hard time for taking long naps during the day due to his lack of sleep during the night. I immediately instigated a quick debate on how sleeping more during the night would benefit him more physically as well as make him more of a pleasant roommate to be around. He began to protest, but I instantly threw him some made up statistics and facts about how a better sleeping pattern would result in a healthier lifestyle, as suggested in this article. And to my pleasant surprise, he responded with the question “where did you get your source?” Smirking, I replied with a made up source that I predetermined in my head the minute before in a matter-of-fact manner. I was obviously winning this argument and he knew it. I then proceeded to continue with this argument using many “meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases” (using my personal favorites ‘per se’ and ‘so to speak’) as well as the numerous “snappy and irrelevant comebacks” which left my roommate completely dumbfounded. I left the room completely content, just like anyone would when they win a good debate.

I greatly enjoyed this article for it not only was it an enjoyable read but it contained many valid points on how to win arguments without actually being knowledgeable in the given field on which you are debating. It also gave me insight on ways to effectively establish dominance within the dorm when it came to debates. I was not originally very good at arguing effectively, but I’m not gonna lie, it felt realllllly good to actually win one for once.

Joe C's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

Joe Clements won the Falcon of the year award for being just an awesome dude in 2010. In 2006, Joe joined Hanford High school, a high school that teaches students how to effectively write and other skill that normal people should have. He spent  nearly four years trying not take advantage of dumb teachers and trying  understand what  drug addicts were saying when they  said things like “ dude I was like dude, then he was like duddde, then I was like DUDE!” but he eventually realized it was hopeless.  So in 2010, he took up being a student at Brigham Young University.  After 2 months of being a poor college student he wants to retire in favor of mooching off Mom and Dad, proper amounts of sleep, Mom’s cooking, and joining a book club full of 55 year old women called Rock Bottom Remainders.

I am awesome at being awesome. Just ask any of my not as awesome friends. I can be more awesome then anyone at any time. Everybody knows this and they don’t even try to compare themselves to me. In fact, as a sign of respect, very few people actually talk to me.  You can be awesome to.  Simply follow these rules.

Don’t Drink Liquor

Suppose you’re at a party and some hotshot stud muffin is talking about how cool he is, and is starting to impress your date.   Give him a few more drinks, stick with your sprite, and wait a bit he will begin to start slurring his words, making incomplete sentences and losing his sense of balance. At this point start to slowly move back and forth in a circular motion, then watch as he sways and eventually falls over.  Your date if she is worth being with will have realized how dumb the people are for drinking and like you even more.

Have Facts to back you up.

Suppose when you’re on a date and you’re trying to impress her.  Don’t say: “yeah I am pretty awesome.” Say instead:  My GPA is a 4.0, I am captain of the chess club, the math Club, the Wookie club… and the Football team. If your date asks you to prove it, pull out your Eagle Scout card and say: “Scouts honor."

Use the proper language for your Audience. 

The proper Lingo is imperative to being awesome.  Suppose you are walking down the hall of High School. When you walk past the Jocks Fist bump and follow it up with a deep “SUP”.  When walking past the Hip Hop gangsters, drop you pants so your butt is hanging out and say “Wazz up Playas”.  When walking past a bunch of very attractive young ladies, say “hello ladies, look at your man, now look at me, now back you your man, NOW back to me, sadly he isn’t me.”  Then walk on. People will think you are the next best thing since sliced bread.

Concede and counter.

When you’re awesome many people around you will begin to think they are awesome as well. To maintain your awesomeness you will need to set these people straight in the nicest way possible.  For example, when they say “ oh did you see that touchdown I just scored”  reply” yes I did see your touchdown, however did you see my ten bazillion touchdowns before that” answers like this will appease the person, yet set them straight on your pure awesomeness . 

Seal the deal.

When a dude is clearly cooler then you are, bring out the heavy artillery.  Before he talks to a girl give him a candy bar with stuff that will give him bad breath and  that will cling to his teeth. After he has been engaged in the conversation for a while swing by with your minty fresh breath. You will surly win her over.  Well now you know how to be awesome.   Don’t try to pull any of these things on me it won’t work.

Sophia G's Response to "How to Argue Effectively"

What. The. Heck.

The article tells us to get drunk to learn to argue? However, it provided some much needed laughs on a boring Sunday afternoon. While it was full of nonsense it also held some very valid points. It is usually true that the winner of an argument is the one who can keep their cool longest. I pride myself on being a very good arguer. Coming from a family where I was the only girl with three brothers it became a necessity to learn to argue. Especially when your older brother is the King of Nonsense. This article jogged some funny memories I have from my childhood. These memories varied from convincing my younger brothers to do weird things, arguing pointlessly with them just to get a rise and of course arguing just because I was older and “always right.”

My favorite part about the article was the section about the snappy and irrelevant comebacks. This I have found to be particularly useful in everyday life. My favorite one I learned was the phrase “what are your parameters?” I liked this one because most people will not know how to respond or will respond angrily with something like “you don’t even know what you’re talking about!” In which you can reply “You don’t even know what I’m talking about!” Again, complete nonsense but highly effective.

I did enjoy the article though. It was quite amusing. I have never argued with a drunken person, but I hear they are quite defensive and almost impossible to convince of anything. Like I said before, making things up does tend to be my forte. Making up facts is fun, fast and effective. It gets your point across and hopefully dissuades any further arguing on the subject. This was definitely a much needed laugh though.

Rachael F's Response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

What I immediately thought of as I was reading this article in Readings for Intensive Writers, was the article in Why Write called “The point of Political Correctness.” It seems that there is a fine, somewhat indefinite line between the bad nice that Bell talks about and the necessity of not offending those around us.

Wasn’t Jesus nice? How then could it possibly be so bad? Bell answers this question with a list of accusations against niceness. It “edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, shortcircuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love.”  I would add that it is the great enabler of our day. This seemed a rather brash analysis of something that I had been taught as a child was a virtue. But upon further reflection I found it interesting that Bell uses words such as “compassion” and “love”, not as synonyms, but as opposites of nicety. She manages to completely disparage our society’s misconception about being nice without undermining the importance of true human kindness and courtesy. The difference, she explains, is whether we are doing something nice because it is what is expected from us, or because it comes from the heart.

Her examples of the repercussions of niceness is startling and detailed. I would have never thought to connect road rage with niceness. Or Sex offenders. Or lazy teenage students.

Yet the article in the article in Why Write emphasizes our need to be nice when we write. It has been difficult for me to reconcile these two ideas in my head. Maybe one must conform to the niceness that society expects until one is a known writer, at which point you are allowed to say what you want. Or maybe it really is important to say firefighter instead of fireman so we don’t offend feminists, even though that seems ridiculous to me.

All in all I don’t think there is one umbrella answer, since each situation is different. But I think Bell’s topic is bold and necessary for us to learn as we are forming our own opinions and even our own way of living since we are all starting a much more independent stage in our life here at BYU.

Mary F's Response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

I completely disagree with Elouise Bell. The problem isn't people being nice, it's people being fake. There are many people in the world who pretend to be nice to get favors or to look better or to seem like the perfect, happy Mormon wife. However, there are people who are genuinely nice. Niceness does exist in the world, and I think that instead of scorning those who do practice niceties, we should try to protect those who are nice from those who are faking it.

Bell gives examples of emotionally-scarred women burying all their aggression, children who are practically brain-washed into being "nice", and happy Mormon folk giving each other the finger and being rude and ridiculous while driving. These are really terrible incidents that do happen in the world, but being nice has little to do with it. There is a difference between being nice and being hypocritical, or being subdued by others. Notice that almost all of the examples she gives have their roots in Utah, and more specifically Utah County. Now, I'm not saying that people from Utah are automatically more hypocritical and fake, but there is definitely more pressure here to be perfect.

Most people do have genuine niceness in them, everyone has a dark side as well. The point of being nice is to try and do your best, not to be perfect. I know it makes me feel better when I hold a door open for someone, or help them pick something up that they've dropped. That's how most of us were raised. If we do those things because we enjoy them, that's niceness. If they are simply done to put up a facade of decency, then niceness has nothing to do with it.

Bell does make some good points, but I believe that she is being far too cynical. Hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and the indecency of others are to blame for the situations she cites. I happen to like niceness, and I would like to think that I haven't been brainwashed or suppressed into thinking so.

McKay E's Response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

Reading Eloise Bell’s article “When Nice Ain’t So Nice” scared me. Each point she made about the use of “nice” in our society seemed to highlight everything I try to do. I have been described as your “overly nice person who does everything he can to help others.” I hate feeling angry or hurting others. I have never really paid attention to any feelings of anger or “dark side” tendency as she describes them, but I have had several people predict that one day my niceness will snap and I will become a mass murderer. This is obviously an extreme prediction, but I do worry that I may not be balanced emotionally. 

It is interesting that she should mention the high amount of pressure to be nice in today’s world. I never considered the fact that I would feel guilty if I didn’t live up to the “nice” standard, but looking back this is a legitimate point. In school I would always see other people do things that seemed so rude and obscene in my opinion, that I would never be seen doing...and this could easily be explained by the high “nice” standard I had been taught by my parents and the community that largely affected my upbringing. I would never want anyone seeing me talk back to people, or crying, or yelling at someone. I know that keeping my “nice” composure all the time ensures that people hold a high opinion of me and my personality. 

What if I have a “dark side” driven into hiding by the need to have such a positive image in society? What if I am slowly building up unvented anger and hostility that will some day explode and become apparent to everyone around me. I think I have a fear of being  mean to people. It is very probable that this fear of cruelty has forced me to ignore negative emotions at times in my life, although I never thought they would stay inside me forever...waiting to become expressed.

The biggest comfort I have facing this dire possible outcome in life is the fact that I have a family on this earth. I know Heavenly Father does everything for a reason and having a family unit on this earth is no different. It is reasonable for me to assume that your family is one place where you should always have someone you can talk to. I know that I have had several late night discussions about life with my parents, or my older brother, even more so now that I am in college. These moments of discussion allow me to express fears and doubts in a positive and constructive way. Talking it out, I know that emotional conflict is resolved and I am able to move on being “nice” without having to worry about have to face my anger the next day. I think forgiveness and repentance work the same way. I know I don’t have to worry about being overly nice and killing everyone someday because I can let go of everyday’s repressed anger or frustration by forgiving my fellow man and looking forward with love. 

While this good piece of news if comforting, it doesn’t put away Bell’s terrifying argument that society can be “too nice.” I am a living model of societies “Mr. Nice.” After reading this article I don’t feel like altering my lifestyle. I won’t change my nice ways and start openly expressing my anger to anyone how crosses my path, but I will be more conscious of my negative emotions and how I express or repress them. There is definitely a point where being “too nice” can be unhealthy. Hopefully I will be able to recognize that point before I cross the line.

Takami K's Response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

I had never before thought that there could be something wrong with being nice.  What would I have thought if I had been asked, “When, if ever, would it be a bad thing to be nice?   When can being nice be a bad thing?  What negative repercussions exist from being nice all of the time?”  If you haven’t read the article yet, I recommend taking a moment to think about these questions before moving on.

One point Bell makes in her article, “When Nice Ain’t So Nice,” is the idea that being nice is often a false show of emotion.  She argues that children are raised to be nice, which usually means to be “docile, obedient, and subservient to the parent…”  I’d like to add to that subservience to other authority figures, such as teachers and friends’ parents.  I agree with her entirely; when a child receives a compliment as high as, “You’re such a good kid,” it basically means the child has been nice.  A parent might shame a child by calling him or her a “bad child” when the child disobeys a command, or does some act of aggression.  Children are taught to want to be good children, in general.  I find it hard to think of a better alternative, however.  Bell does not advocate abandoning niceness altogether, because it is rather necessary for the function of society.  I find it hard, however, to find a better alternative to raising children.  I’ll come back to this idea in a bit.

Bell also says that Utah, famous for its niceness, also has the highest amount of antidepressants taken per capita.  Research has shown that one of the leading causes of depression is repressed anger. 

Taking into consideration the fact that children are taught not to express anger in order to maintain niceness, it seems logical to deduce that the way children are raised contributes to depression in later life.  Bell states that people withhold their anger in relation to their neighbors, children, and friends; then, it comes out when driving.  Bell’s entire assumption is based on the idea that people must get angry and that there is no such thing as a nonviolent way of releasing anger.  I think society may benefit from teaching children proper ways of releasing anger (as compared to the status quo, where I believe no such education is in place).  However, it may help even more to teach people how to not get angry.

Though some people are more prone to anger than others, anger is a choice in all occasions.  If people could simply reduce their amount of anger, all of the problems cited in Bell’s article would indeed be solved or dramatically reduced.  She uses violent letters sent to the editor anonymously that are “hostile and mean-spirited.”  She also cites violent driving on the freeway and neighbors who beat their wives and molest children.  I do agree that all of these things are problematic and do exist in today’s society.  Her suggestion for improvement is to allow children from a young age to let out their anger so that it does not bottle up and lead to something like this when they are older.  I think that if people could simply have less anger to bottle up in the first place, the problem would be solved without all of the excess steam that billions of children letting off their anger may produce.

How can we not get angry, then?  The short answer is, to choose not to be angry.  Some people in public situations may choose to get angry for a show of manliness or ferocity.  In private settings, one may choose to be angry because that is the easiest way to react to a maddening situation.  If my computer were to shut down right now and lose this paper I had written, reacting in an angry way would not help my cause at all.   By recognizing that and allowing logic to take precedence over emotion, I can override the anger reflex and simply start working on the paper again or go  about some way to recover the document.  In short, I am asserting that getting angry is a waste of time and energy, and does nothing constructive in the long run. 

I think I could go on even more, but for the sake of She Who Is Like Unto Aphrodite’s blog-readers, I will stop.

Kiersti E's Response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

“More deadly is the Nice Lady who never raises her voice, never utters the slightest profanity, but whose devastating words and emotional abuse leave permanent scars as disfiguring to the soul as any physical battering is to the body.”

My mom can give the worst unsuspecting, but terribly effective guilt trip. And you all know what I mean because I think all mothers do this. She has asked me if I have time to help her with dinner. On one of these reoccurring occasions, I was loaded down with homework and did not even see light at the end of the tunnel. I told my mom,

“No, I’m sorry.” She kind of gave that half sad sigh, half disappointed sigh as she said,

“It is okay” and left the room, quietly closing my door behind her. So what did I do then? You know what I did; I did what every other guilt-tripped child would do. I charged out of my room, hastily put on that kitchen apron and in an upset-trying to be sweet-voice, I asked my mother what she wanted me to do.

“I asked if you had time, Kiersti. And because you don’t have time, I’ll manage somehow. You don’t have to help me. I definitely don’t need your help if you don’t have the time” My mom mildly explained to me. What she really was saying was:

“I gave you a chance to feel good about helping me because you know I really do need help, but now you feel bad. It is your own fault, but since you feel so bad, you really can go back to doing homework and stop feeling bad.”

If I wasn’t frustrated before, I was definitely frustrated now! I calmed down enough to be relaxed and helped my mom prepare the rest of dinner.

My mom will never admit to giving us, any of her kids that is, a guilt trip. We all know that she does it though and in the worst way. My mom won’t own up to this because she is too “nice.” We’ve learned it is just better to surprise her by doing something around the house she would’ve asked us to do later anyway.

“Nice, in short, ain’t so nice.”

Ciera L's Response to "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

As I read “When Nice Aint So Nice” it reminded me of a story, more so a joke my best friend’s mother told me.

            There were three women sitting together, just chatting over a cup of tea (don’t worry, I’m sure it was Word of Wisdom/Honor code approved tea). Looking upon them they seemed to just be having a friendly and casual conversation.

            “My parents bought me dresses and shoes and gave me money.” one woman in green stated loudly.
            “How nice.” said another woman wearing a blue dress.

            “Well my daddy owned the biggest restaurants around and gave me whatever I wanted.” said the third woman in yellow.
            “How nice.” said the woman in blue.

            “Well my parents had me home schooled by all the best teachers and advisers, and I learned etiquette and all sorts of cultures.” stated the woman in green haughtily.
            “How nice.” said the woman in blue.

            “Well my parents sent me to award winning boarding schools and eventually schools like Harvard and Yale and Princeton. I learned everything only the best scholars learned.” said the woman in yellow, not to be outdone.

            “How nice.” said the woman in blue again.

            Both women finally turned and looked at her.
            “And what about you?” said the woman in green harshly.

            “My parents brought me up and sent me to schools that taught me to say “How nice” to stupid women (this wasn’t said quite so nice in the story I was told though) like you.”

When Elouise Bell started speaking of the “Nice Lady” this story immediately came to mind. She talks of how women are much more deadly because of the silence and passiveness. How all of us, not just women, hide our anger behind our niceness. It made me think about what we really mean when we speak to each other. Which leads me to another part of her essay where she mentioned how we all wear masks, how we all say “I’m fine.” when really, we are not.

People in the world have so many problems today, but personally I think the biggest one is communication. I mean, how many times have we watched movies where the protagonist is in love with a certain character and that character loves the protagonist as well. But somehow they never quite figure it out and signals get mixed and misread and everything gets screwed up.  It is all in the communication. If the silly protagonist had just said “I stinking love you!” then the other character would have understood, instead of having to read the answer of “Well sure, if you want to.” to their question of “Want to hang-out some time?” But no, everything is confused and jumbled and makes no sense. We don’t say what we mean, we always have to say something else, something “nice.” People don’t actually tell you how they are feeling when you ask, it’s always I’m fine, or I’m ok. They don’t tell you how they feel because they know you are just being “nice” as well, and in reality you don’t actually care.  But this isn’t always true, and it’s probably not even mostly true. In fact we probably do care more often than not, but it doesn’t change the fact that on occasion, we do say things just to be “nice.”

But the craziest part is how Bell turns being nice into a bad thing. Her explanation seemed flawless as I read and still seems to hold steady in my mind and still makes me think about it. It goes as far back as playing on the playground. We learned to be polite, to take turns on the swings, to wait in line to play tetherball, etc. We learned to be “nice” and submissive to adults. We learned all we needed to about suppressing our anger behind nice. Maybe it really is because we suppress our anger during face-to-face interaction that we are so crazy and angry on the roads.

Because of Bell’s philosophy, I now have my own. I imagine that if we wanted to know the true intents and characteristics of a person, we need only look at how they treat others on the road or when they aren’t interacting in a very personal way. Because like Bell said, that is where we are not so “nice”, we are rude and ugly to the faceless people we interact with, although there are some who are not. In these instances, we may have truly “nice” people, and not in the bad way that Bell turns it into.

Nice has been turned into such a loaded word for me. It is impossible to think of it as a simple “nice” “four-letter word” anymore. It has become much more. We should all take the time to figure out what kind of nice we truly are.