If you're in BYU Writing 150H sections 122, 126, or 129 you're in the right place.


My name is Dr. SWILUA. (Pronounced "Swill-oo-ah") That's short for "She Who Is Like Unto Aphrodite." It's my official title, thanks.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Heather's "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

A Not So Nice Critical Analysis

Elouise Bell, in her article “When Nice Ain’t So Nice”, tackles the universal problem of bottling up one’s anger. Bell argues that being nice, when a situation calls for the opposite, is a problem that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints specifically have. While her assumptions may be correct, though contradictory to my experience, Bell’s examples fall short when trying to support her opinion. Bell also argues that nice people aren’t always so nice after all; that they are in fact the ones to be cautious of. While Bell’s arguments stem from mainstream thinking, it’s hard for one to agree with her due to her ineffective usage of hyperbole, metaphor, and examples that are not harmonious with her targeted Mormon audience.

Throughout Bell’s article, she lists various examples of nice deeds following them with acts of aggression. When describing how nice students at Brigham Young University are, Bell states that they would “…walk clear across campus to turn in stray Number Two pencils to the Lost-and-Found depository.” While this statement is a clear exaggeration, or hyperbole, it didn’t have to hurt Bell’s argument. However, Bell laid the groundwork of this particular paragraph on the basis that BYU students are nice. Bell’s desire to convince readers that the very same BYU students were writing “…letters dripping with innuendo, invective, and scripture-laden scourging” is not achieved due to her hyperbole. Students do not in reality walk across campus to return Number Two pencils. If this part about the students is not true, then why should readers think the other half is? This is not the only instance that Bell uses a hyperbole that does not have the desired effect.

Toward the end of Bell’s article, she mentions the Nicene Creed. She changes it into the Nice Creed and lists the beliefs of nice people. Much of the creed invokes laughter at nice people and the lengths they go to, to maintain their composure and niceness. Bell stretches herself too far on the creed though, going as far as to say that they would say “…nothing in response to…being run over by the bus”. This is yet another clear exaggeration calling into question Bell’s validity. Instead of persuading her readers to believe as she does, even possibly to take action and end this fake niceness, Bell gives herself the appearance of an immature writer making readers question if they should even read any further.

Bell creates a very detailed metaphor about a Queen who awakens to find that her newborn baby has been abducted. While metaphors are typically effective rhetorical tools expanding one’s understanding; this one is not. At first there are clues of the baby but as time passes the mother of the Queen urges her to break off the search, accuses her daughter of being selfish, and then even goes as far as to offer her another child that is much “nicer” than her own. This metaphor is ineffective for two main reasons. The first reason being that if such a situation were to happen in real life, the mother of the Queen would not have behaved at all the way she did. No mother would call her daughter selfish for trying to find her abducted child and then try to force another one upon her. Furthermore, this metaphor is ineffective because the point that Bell is trying to make is unclear. Niceness is not mentioned at all within the metaphor besides saying that the replacement baby is nicer. The resemblance or comparison that Bell tries to make is lost within her ineffectual metaphor.

Lastly, Bell argues that nice people do not like to know about poverty and death, for these are, respectfully, “distinctly not nice” and “unequivocally not nice”. Bell has made it clear that the church and its members are those especially guilty of niceness, which is what makes this argument so very confusing. Poverty is indeed a matter of concern for the church, not because it is un-nice though, but because the Lord has commanded church members to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. As for death, LDS religion focuses on it and the afterlife heavily. The Prophet Joseph Smith went as far to say that if we had just a glimpse of the glory of heaven that we would all be tempted to commit suicide to get there. Here is yet another example of a futile argument made by Bell.

While there may have been some truth to Bell’s statement that “…it is niceness which can corrupt all other virtues”, she does a poor job of convincing her readers. Bell’s poor examples, hyperboles, and metaphor are but a few of the rhetorical tools that she failed to take advantage of to assert her view convincingly.

8 comments:

  1. Well written! Having written about the same article and loving it, it was difficult for me think how it would be ineffective. You've built up convincing points that are supported well with the text.

    I wouldn't include the question about how "the other half" should automatically be considered to be untrue. It makes you seem less formal.

    Also I would rephrase "it's hard for one to" in your thesis statement, it makes an ignorant assumption about how the article effects other readers.

    Overall, nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your thesis is clear and you follow it pretty well. I agree with many of your arguments (especially the #2 pencils and the Queen metaphor), but thought some of them were a little weak. While it may be true that Bell's target audience is members of the Church, I'm assuming that she's referring to nice people in general (not just nice Mormons), which weakens the argument in your last paragraph.
    Good job, I enjoyed reading this analysis!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Be careful not to reverse your sentence structure. For example, the opening sentence would make more sense as "In her article...Bell tackles..."

    There are a lot of passive verbs in this. You can easily eliminate many of them by rewording your sentences. For example, in the middle of the second paragraph, you could reword the sentence to say "Bell does not achieve her desire to convince readers..." I realize that this sounds awkward, so you could switch some words around.

    I was a little confused at the end of your first paragraph when you said "this is not the only way..." After I read the second paragraph, I understood, but it would be helpful for your opening sentence of the second paragraph to say something like, "another example of this is..."

    The line where you refer to Bell as an immature writer is an attack on the author, not on her work. This does detract slightly from the validity of your argument since it is a logical fallacy. Your personal feelings about the author do not make your argument stronger.

    The quote from Joseph Smith needs a citation.

    The paragraph right before the conclusion is very weak. I wasn't entirely sure what exactly you were arguing. Just because Latter-day Saints help the needy does not mean they like poverty, which is what you were implying. I think you needed to back up your opinion a little bit more in this paragraph.

    Your conclusion probably could have been a little bit longer. You want to wrap up all your points, restate the thesis, and leave your readers with a final statement.

    While I do not agree with your opinion about this article, I admire your originality in your approach to this analysis. I think you had some good ideas, but you probably could have developed your paragraphs a more to make stronger points. While you did follow the outline you established in your thesis, I wasn't always sure what exactly you were arguing. Remember that this is an analysis of the work, not the author. I could tell that you had a very strong negative reaction to the article, and I think your paper could have been more effective if you removed some of the aggressive tone.

    Overall, I think it just needed more revision.

    Jamie Jasperson

    ReplyDelete
  4. I haven't seen many posts about how the author was ineffective and I think you were very brave to do to write one. Like Christina said, it was kind of weird to read the opposite view point since I just wrote an analysis about why Bell was effective.

    I think you made good arguments but you could have expanded them further. Also, Jamie said it was obvious you disliked the article, which I agree with, but it would have been really difficult not to have a negative tone if you're arguing the author's point.

    But really, good job. I enjoyed reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you missed the whole point of the article. You seemed to only skim the top of the pages and you didn't delve into what she was really trying to say. When I read this article the first time it somewhat made me upset, but then once I put aside my own prejudices and actually read it, it turned out to be a very powerful article. Your logic for why it is ineffective is not very convincing. In your last paragraph you even seemed to go off topic when you talked about people committing suicide to go to Heaven. I had no clue where that even came from. Maybe try to dig a little deeper into the article next time and stay on topic.
    Aubrey Bennett

    ReplyDelete
  6. Though I disagree with your opinion on the paper, I applaud you for your unconventional approach. You ripped Bell's work to shreds quite effectively, and I respect you for that. You supported your arguments fairly well, though I would like to see some more strength to your points, rather than the illogical ranting that I sometimes see come through as you try to be "not so nice." I agree with Aubrey's statement above - I would like to see a source for that quote from Joseph Smith Jr. I'll end on a good note here: I totally agree with you about the queen metaphor. I was completely lost too; I couldn't make the connection. Glad to see someone else felt the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your points made a lot of sense and were presented very convincingly.
    Your paper had good flow.
    Overall, a solid paper. Great work!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually, I approve of your stance with this article. I didn't personally like it. Kudos for the bravery.

    One suggestion

    "This is not the only instance that Bell uses hyperbole that does not have the desired effect."

    This is sort of in a weird place, coming as it does at the end of a paragraph. It would make much more sense as an introduction to the next paragraph where you go on to provide more examples of hyperbole. Where it is located currently seems to make it a weak attempt to support your argument by implying she does this a lot, yet you provide no evidence towards that fact.

    One argument that you could add (and something that perplexed me personally) is that Bell goes to all this trouble to attack niceness...without pointing out a solution or alternative. Does Bell think the solution to niceness is perpetual public rage? That we should throw things at our neighbors rather than driving without courtesy? Please, Bell, teach us how to regulate our anger properly, don't just tell us we ought to be "less nice."

    Best,

    Jarom Harrison

    ReplyDelete