Slight Change of Plans for Office Hours

I just sent y'all an email. I might have said "tomorrow's" office hours, but it's 3am, I should have said "Friday's," or "Today's."

Oh well.

The other instructions still stick. Read over the instructions in your email, and we'll get anyone who wants to meet a meeting.

thanks, y'all. (no need to comment)

You have some options for class today.

Check either your email or Blackboard "announcements" for more information.

Jeff L's Analysis of "How to Argue Effectively"

Critical Analysis for Dave Berry’s How to Argue Effectively

In a humorous sense and hilariously mocking article to those who feel they know everything, Dave Berry has envisioned perfectly how to effectively argue with someone, having no current knowledge of the subject, and still being able to win the argument. This is no easy task, hence forcing some different approach ideas. The author creates a refreshing new perspective on the subject, breaking the mold of the typical argument with hilarious alternatives towards keeping the argument running and alive. In light seriousness, Berry uses humorous suggestions to effectively keep an argument alive, gain the support of an audience, and humiliate/frustrate the opposing arguer.

One instance of this change of perspective is the advice to drink liquor, and make things up. It goes on to say that by drinking liquor, the desire to fight back and actually enter the argument will drastically increase. At this point it’s safe to say that usually the argument is just to prove a point that it can be won. The suggestion to make things up follows up with the liquor, giving an answer for every question that will be asked by using exact figures, and made up academic sources. A solidifying statistic is hard to and rarely questioned in an argument. This portrays the off-the-wall approach that Berry is arguing with its risky originality in entering an argument by falsely proving that the topic is previously known knowledge. This process shows how by always having answers and keeping a strong stance can lead to an elongated argument that frustrates the competitor, and gives possibility for a supportive audience.

Another thing he encourages is the use of meaningless but weighty sounding words and phrases such as “let me put it this way”, “as it were” “in terms of”, and “per se”. Also listed are some Latin abbreviations i.e. “e.g.’ i.e., and “Q.E.D.”. This type of wording works well as seemingly scholarly phrases continuing to aid the reliability of what’s being argued. These fillers that light up the statements with believability and add a false sense of knowledge when in reality; the topic is new and foreign. In order to gain supporting audiences and keep the argument alive, these words act as supporters and fillers to the ideas that need refining touches to the rough drafted ideas in the head. They will continue to frustrate the opposing arguer, as well as showing confidence in what’s being said in the argument.

Adding onto the previously stated instructions, is the importance of taking not just a strong offensive side, but a defensive side as well by using snappy and irrelevant comebacks against the opponent. Some effective examples include “you’re begging the question”, “you’re being defensive”, and “don’t compare apples to oranges”. These are comebacks to revert to when the argument presented by the opposing seems to actually make sense, and needs to be confronted with authority and confidence. Whenever the opposing side feels like ground is gained, this will take away the short victory, and make them second-guess their arguments by taking them off guard. This is an example of one of the humorous ways to prolong an argument and giving it the potential to drag out as long as necessary for either the opponent to give up on the case, or to be lost in a confusing mess. These comments turn the pressure back on the opposing arguer, and give reasonable chance to frustrate and humiliate them, by manipulating them with irrelevant phrases.

The final instruction in winning is degrading the opponent’s stance by comparing him to a n object of public disgust. The example used by Berry is the comparison of the opponent to Adolf Hitler. This is sneakily accomplished by slipping in phrases such as “you remind me a lot of Adolf Hitler”, or “that sounds like something Adolf Hitler would say”. The point of doing this is to make the opposing arguer and the audience second-guess their thought process over the argument, and shift support. This is another irrelevant way of surprising the opposed with off-the- wall phrases that don’t add to the argument or relate in anyway, but simply degrade the opponent. This is the ultimate way of humiliating the opposing arguer that is hard to get around. This can cause them to become more frustrated, due to their confusion and growing loss of their supporting audience.

This essential guide on how to effectively argue creates a hysterical type of argument that takes on a new perspective on what it means to win an argument. This type of arguing does not necessarily mean that it’s proved that the victor knows more about the subject in question, but at the same time, is able to capture the attributes in winning an argument. It tackles the argument by defeating and confusing both the audience and the opposing argument to believe that the winner is not necessarily right, but that the loser is wrong. This argument strategy takes control of the audience, leaves the opponent confused, humiliated, and frustrated, and ultimately is created by a humorous outside-of-the-box look at the argument.

A Reminder

You get credit for reading any post with the label "Stuff SWILUA says." (So that I can double check these points, leave a comment--just your name is fine--on each post.)

You can click on the label to see all of the posts at once. (You only need to read this semester's. :)

To get full credit, you should also read one of the "rants" I link to on the sidebar. For that credit, leave a comment on this post.

University Writing Would like your Feedback

Dear Writing 150H Student:

University Writing would like to know more about your learning experience in first-year writing. Will you please take a few minutes to leave us your feedback? We take our students' opinions seriously, and we're always looking for ways to improve the way we teach writing at BYU.

You can access the survey here: https://byu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3xv5BhLeyJGaka8

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Brett McInelly, Coordinator of University Writing

Brian Jackson, Associate Coordinator of University Writing

What you need to have in your "Honors Portfolios" other than the Tabbed Section Dividers you print off Blackboard

Some of you are asking about this. I'm going to tell myself it's because we didn't finish that class day (and not that you weren't there or didn't pay attention) and answer it just this once.

1. a paragraph about each BYU semester you've attended under the "undergraduate experience" tab.

2. performances you've seen (since coming to BYU) or art you experienced (etc.) logged into a printout of the "GW Log" (Downloadable from the Honors website, or you can pick up a hard copy in the basement of the MSRB.)

3. your GW papers (NOT the same copy you'll have graded, but the same papers)

4. and any other work you've done this semester or other semesters that you're proud of. (not just writing.)

I think that's it. The folder should be filled in "to-date." Basically, that just means that everything you've already done goes in there and stuff you haven't done doesn't go in there yet. Since you've experienced Winter 2012, a paragraph about it goes in. But you don't have to write about Fall 2016 yet. You won't have references yet, probably don't have a dedicated Honors service project yet, and the transcript part will be your "final" transcript upon graduation, so you don't have that yet, either. Email me if this is confusing. I will shake my head in wonderment, but I will answer your questions.

kcs

Writing Exercises!

These are for homework. I don't think they'll take too long. (And some of y'all have already done some.)

1. Emotion exercise. Think of a time you felt extreme emotion. Any kind. Don't tell me what emotion it is. Just tell me (1) What you heard. (2) What you saw. (3) What you felt. (tactile sensation, physical sensations, not emotional.) (4) What you tasted. (5) What you smelled. (6) To finish it off, give us two last things. First, a time marker ("It was 1999" or "I was Seven" or "It was prom night") and second, what was going on. When you've done all that, read your writing out loud. Do you still need to tell us what emotion you were feeling for it to be clear? If so, how can you change some of the words of 1-2-3-4-5 so that you don't? (Think connotations. "Clobbered," for example, has a connotation of being beaten, badly defeated. It has pain and sweat and slobber in there. These can all certainly imply emotions!)

2. "Grandmas." Write down 5-10 things that the word "Grandmas" makes you think of. Then, think of your own Grandma. Write down 5-10 things about your Grandma that are NOT on the list above. Think about the fact that if the word "Grandmas" made you think of all of those other things, that all of those things are already in the connotation of the word "Grandma" and you don't have to re-use any of them. Strategic use of words for their connotations makes your writing more efficient, and also less boring.

3. October 29, 1999. Think about that day. Now, without telling me anything that you're not 100% sure is true, tell me about what you did that day. How much do you have written down? A lot? I don't think so. Second part of exercise: Do the same thing, but give yourself permission to lie and/or fudge the truth. Question. When you did this, did you suddenly remember something from your past that you're pretty sure IS true? (Even if it was on a slightly different date than October 29, 1999. No one says you need to give a "hard" date to your narratives. Just time markers like "I was seventeen.") Sometimes the human brain is pretty funny. So while you don't want to fill your narratives with lies (because what if you go on Oprah and she reams the crap out of you for it? She's done it before), go ahead and give yourself permission to create a DRAFT that's full of lies. This is especially good to do if you can't think of what actually happened. It's probably in your brain somewhere, you just have to trick your brain into accessing it.

Khrystalle's Analysis of "We do Abortions Here"

Khrystalle Weathers
Writing 150
Critical Analysis Paper
The Reality of Working in an Abortion Clinic

Of all the careers available to today’s society, working at an abortion clinic proves to be one of the most emotionally trying, mentally controversial, and involves separation of physical and emotional processes. The challenges and stresses of this career are openly revealed within this account provided by Sallie Tisdale. Her first-hand involvement brings forth the reality of this career path by drawing the reader into her experiences and making each specific situation real and relatable. In We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story, Sallie Tisdale uses anecdotes, internal dialogue and pathos to effectively communicate her experience as a nurse performing abortions on a daily basis.

One instance of an anecdote is present on page 183 when she shares her experience; “Soon I am talking to an eighteen-year-old woman pregnant for the fourth time. I push up her sleeve to check her blood pressure and find row upon row of needle marks, neat and parallel and discolored.” It is an extreme example of the type of women that Tisdale found herself working with. She simply does not state that she works with women of all extremes, suffering from addiction, failed contraception or a variety of other hardships, such examples are scattered throughout the text to communicate countless points. This more powerfully contributes to the story by providing real accounts of real women which forces the reader to realize the reality of the topic.

An example of internal dialogue takes place on page 184, “I look at abortion as if I am standing on a cliff with a telescope, gazing at some great vista. I can sweep the horizon with both eyes, survey the scene in all its distance and size. Or I can put my eye to the lens and focus on the small details, suddenly so close…How can we do this? How can we refuse?” This is an internal conversation that Tisdale experiences, debating the moral standing of her chosen career. She banters back and forth with herself, establishing both pros and cons to her field of work. Majority of this article is written from the first person perspective, leaving immense amounts of room for internal dialogue. Including this tool successfully draws the reader in, thinking of each of the author’s experiences from a more personal point of view, sometimes placing themselves in her shoes.

An instance of the use of pathos is present on page 188, “Maggie helped her onto the table, and as she lay down the fetus was delivered into Maggie’s hands. When Maggie told me about it the next day, she cupper her hands into a small bowl-‘It was just like a little kitten,’ she said softly, wonderingly. ‘Everything was still attached.” This is a direct example of the ongoing debate as to whether or not a fetus is considered alive or human, Maggie’s experience demonstrated the realness of life before birth. Her apparent overwhelming of emotion is hard to ignore, the loss of life, whether it be in a born or unborn child, pulls on the strings of anyone’s heart. Various examples similar to this are utilized throughout the story to, once again, make the issue more real and relatable.

In We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story, Sallie Tisdale uses anecdotes, internal dialogue and pathos to effectively communicate her experience as a nurse performing abortions on a daily basis. Many of her very personal experiences are cleverly and artistically incorporated into her piece. Each of the tools that she involves throughout her paper makes this article incredibly compelling and surprisingly interesting to read. Her perspective, as someone who has chosen to pursue a career in this field , is unbelievably intriguing and effective at opening readers’ eyes to the other point of view.

Austin's Analysis of "The Solitude of Self"

Austin Walters
Honors Writing 150
Kerry Spencer
3-17-2012
Solitude of Self

When is it that a person has progressed to their full potential? And how is it each individual can gain their own internal greatness? In “The Solitude of Self” Elizabeth Cady Stanton provides us the answers to these questions by using powerful analogies, stories, and intuitive reasoning to effectively show us that the ability to look deep within and discover ones true potential of who they really are is of limitless value.

One example Stanton gives of needing to be capable of finding who you really are is in the scenario of a household fire. When everyone in the home awakens to flames enclosing around them and smoke billowing into their lungs is there one person who is at more of an inconvenience than another? The answer is no. Thus why should any individual be obligated to “point the way to safety” for anyone else? (166) The woman and the man both should be equally capable of having attained their own self sustenance and be capable of escape and as mentioned in the text a woman and man both can, thus showing they are on equal grounds. When Stanton contests Galatians 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burdens,” with, “…humanity has not yet risen to that point of self-sacrifice; and if ever so willing, how few the burdens are that one soul can bear for another!”she emphasizes the value of unlocking our full potential yet again. (167) No person can fully bear another’s burdens, only partially. Will you be the one curled up in the corner needing help or the one who is bursting into rooms saving those incapable of saving themselves? That is the difference between who has had their solitude of self and developed that complete inner potential and become their true selves.

One story given to extend her argument was that of the king’s daughter in Shakespeare’s play “Titus Andronicus.” Being in a far worse scenario than many could imagine, with her tongue and hands cut off, she had no one to count on but herself. With this ailment simple tasks to us such as; eating, talking, dressing, or even opening a door could seem impossible to say the least. In many of our minds she would have more than enough justification to ask for help or say it is far too much to ask, but she knew what the better road was to take. It may not be the easiest at times but in the end it is the better option because as Stanton stated, “nothing adds such dignity to character as the recognition of one’s self-sovereignty; the right to an equal place.” Although “young and friendless” this girl still begins to find her solitude of self because she too recognizes what is to be gained from it. In the end this girl builds a character within herself that in no way could have been formed if constantly depending on others. Without that time of realization of what needs to occur ahead of her she could never have reached such potential.

Another story Stanton shared was that of Prince Kropotkin and how he managed his extensive time in prison with no tools such as pen, paper, ink, or books.

To this he replied:

“I thought out many questions in which I had a deep interest. In the pursuit of an idea, I took no note of time. When tired of solving knotty problems, I recited all the beautiful passages in prose and verse I have ever learned. I became acquainted with myself, and my own resources. I had a world of my own, a vast empire, that no Russian jailor or Czar could invade.”(Stanton 166)

Hopefully it does not take as drastic of an experience as this to help someone find their true self, but through this Kropotkin explains that no matter what happens to an individual the solitude of self will always be there. And by doing this he further cements into our minds its immense value. We too can have “a vast empire,” just as Kropotkin and, just as mentioned, what makes it of limitless value is that it cannot be taken from us. In fact it is what makes us who we are and drives our inner abilities.

Along with these stories, Stanton shares another brief analogy that effectively portrays her meaning. It reads:
“In hours like these we realize the awful solitude of individual life, its pains, its penalties, its responsibilities; hours in which the youngest and most helpless are thrown on their own resources for guidance and consolidation. Seeing, then, that life must ever be a march and a battle, that each soldier must be equipped for his own protection, it is the height of cruelty to rob the individual of a single natural right.”(Stanton 165)

Compare our lives to a soldier at war. By having our true selves recognized we are protecting ourselves from possible dangers. This “protection” we give ourselves is so valuable that Stanton claims it to be “cruelty” to deprive someone of having it.

The instance of intuition that Stanton gives is when she states “Nature never repeats herself, and the possibilities of one human soul will never be found in another. No one has ever found two blades of ribbon grass alike, and no one will ever find two human beings alike.”(Stanton 164) By this one can instantly conclude that they too are that “one in a million” or that “unique blade of grass.” By telling the audience that everyone, after attaining their solitude of self, has something that no one else in the world can offer. If individuals such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, George Washington, or numerous others had not come to such a realization the way we live and the worlds we live in would be an entirely different place. This intuition makes us look within ourselves and wonder if we, in time, may to be that individual who changes innumerable lives forever. Something indeed of limitless value that once again starts with something so simple as to have our own solitude of self.

Stanton also states that because we are all so different our deepest feelings and the way we feel in their occurrence is not fully understood by anyone but ourselves as well. Because no one understands it like we do, by saying this she emphasizes just how important it is for us to be able to rely on ourselves. We cannot rely on others because others do not understand because as Stanton later states, “…our most bitter disappointments, our brightest hopes and ambitions, are known only to ourselves.”(Stanton 165) Thus, although being an individual is found through our solitude of self, it makes us become even more of an individual and needing to rely even more heavily on our own strength. It becomes more and more valuable as we become more and more of a unique individual.

By showing us all of the different instances in the past and also those that have potential yet to come, Stanton shows us the endless possibilities of solitudes value. Whether it be saving yourself, or others, from a fire, overcoming personal trials, or realizing that you are the one that can make the difference, Solitude of self is something only you can find for yourself. As mentioned, one soul cannot bear all the burdens of another and thus we need to be able to carry them for ourselves. This ability opens up the door for so many great opportunities and the list only continues to extend if one can apply it to themselves.

Works Cited

•Elizabeth Cady Stanton. “Solitude of Self.” Print. Rpt. In Readings for Intensive Writers. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. 5th Edition. Provo: BYU Academic. 2007. 163-169. Print

Torin's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"

In his article Zeal Without Knowledge, Hugh Nibley conveys his knowledge of the importance of both zeal and knowledge with much zeal. Dr. Nibley mostly relies on logic to effectively express his view that knowledge is extremely important and zeal is crucial for knowledge and to convince us that we must pursue obtaining both of these attributes. He backs up this logic through the use of many analogies and examples.

The first instance of analogy occurs when Dr. Nibley is explaining the idea that the human brain can only concentrate on one thing at a time. He compares this to wearing a pair of glasses with two differently shaded lenses. He explains that instead of seeing a blend of the two colors we see the two colors flashing, first one then the other. This analogy helps us to realize how limited our concentration is. This idea helps to set up the basis of Dr. Nibley’s argument, because, as he pointed out, if we were able to see things from a larger perspective we would see things more clearly and there would be no reason to have to search for some knowledge.

Dr. Nibley’s next step is to explain why we have this limitation in the first place. For this, he uses the example of the guilt we feel when we sit down to watch TV. He explains that this limitation is essential to our mortality. Without it there would be fewer decisions to be made. It is so we can pick the most important things, and is the reason we feel that guilt while watching TV. This starts to explain Dr. Nibley’s argument that we should search after knowledge because we have been told that it is one of the most important things.

Yet another analogy that Dr. Nibley uses is the comparison of the brain to the body. He explains that just as the body needs to be continually filled with food, the brain needs to be constantly filled with knowledge. After going without food for a period of time, the body will begin to crave it. Similarly the brain will start to crave new information, and if it doesn’t get it, as Dr. Nibley explains “the mind will do anything to escape [this state]; in particular, it will invent knowledge if it has to.” This further explains the need to continually seek after knowledge.

Dr. Nibley next compares zeal to an engine. He explains that it is the force that drives us. “Without it” he says “we would get nowhere.” He then goes on to compare knowledge to the clutch, throttle, breaks, and steering wheel. Without those key items we cannot give direction to the force we are applying. Our engine becomes useless, or even destructive. Without knowledge, what good is our zeal? Zeal in ignorance can only lead where we do not want to go. This example helps Dr. Nibley describe the extreme importance of zeal, but also explain how it becomes counterproductive without knowledge.

Dr. Nibley continues by comparing zeal to energy. Through nuclear power, we have unlimited energy. However, we still lack the information needed to use and control it. As Dr. Nibley puts it, “we have the zeal but not the knowledge. Dr. Nibley uses this to show what potential we have if only we strive after knowledge to go along with our zeal. When there is so much to gain, this helps people realize the importance of this task.

Using these arguments, Dr. Nibley effectively tries to persuade people of the importance of knowledge and zeal. Without knowledge, zeal is misguided and can take you in the wrong direction. Without zeal, knowledge can’t effectively be applied to situations. Dr. Nibley’s knowledge is clearly and persuasively conveyed, and it is clear that he wrote this paper with much zeal.

Shauna Holdaways Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"

Shauna Holdaway
Writing 150
Dr. Kerry Spencer
15 March 2012
The Challenge of Mental Limitations

Born with the natural right to agency, each human individual has always had to live a life full of choices and prioritizing. We all must naturally give up certain opportunities at the cost of obtaining something we determine to be better or worth it. In Hugh Nibley's article "Zeal Without Knowledge," he discusses the phenomenon that humans can "think of only one thing at a time" (207). Because of this limitation, people are required to choose from a vast selection of thoughts and impressions what they will focus their time and attention on. With so many potentially worthwhile subjects to occupy our minds, the difficulty lies in simply choosing which are the most important. Nibley uses a juxtaposition of zeal and knowledge, a resonating perspective through religious theory, and an infectiously witty tone to emphasize his claim that each individual must take great care in choosing where his thoughts and priorities lie.

Throughout his article, Nibley compares the qualities of zeal and knowledge, describing their individual significance yet vital dependence upon one another to effectively direct the mind of any person. Nibley claims that "the substance of thought is knowledge" (209). Therefore, the mind cannot even begin to function without a foundation of knowledge to draw from. This claim of Nibley's allots an enormous weight of importance to the subject of knowledge. He even asserts that the mind not only needs knowledge to function, but that it must be constantly expanding as well. He then goes on to introduce the topic of zeal. He declares that the zeal within a person is what will ultimately force them to take any action, that "zeal is the engine that drives the whole vehicle" (210). Just as he proved the importance of knowledge as a solid base, he likewise argued that zeal is the important instigator that needs to present in every individual. Nibley's juxtaposition of these two traits created a clear formula for readers to understand that both zeal and knowledge hold equal importance. He then goes on to complete the formula with the solution that zeal cannot have any effect if knowledge is not present and vice-versa. His use of strategic structure emphasizes the dependence that these two qualities require of each other. He even addresses the opposite side by acknowledging the evils that can come from each of these qualities. He claims that knowledge, when unrestrained and void of purpose, begins to create a sense of pride within a person that ultimately leads to destruction of thought. He goes on to again use a juxtaposition to show that zeal also, can have no valuable effects without a basis of knowledge. His address of the positive and negative qualities of both zeal and knowledge clearly depict their interdependence and emphasize their importance in the process of cultivating one's mind for success.

Nibley then furthers his discussion of zeal and knowledge through the viewpoint of religion. He alludes to many scriptural principles and aids his argument with the integration of quotes from the prophets of old to validate his case and ignite his claim with purpose. He begins by refuting the common misconception that God is subject to the same limitations that we are, and then addresses the question that most naturally follows: If God has no end to his mental capacities, then "why this crippling limitation on our thoughts if we are God's children?"

[finish religion analysis]

[paragraph on tone analysis]

[conclusion]

*My draft is obviously not finished, but here is what I have so far, so tell me what you think and if I'm on the right track!

Sage's Analysis of "Zeal Without Knowledge"

In “Zeal Without Knowledge,” Hugh Nibley emphasizes the importance of thoughts and their direct effect on gaining knowledge. People should be “directing our minds to the highest possible object” thereby becoming the individuals that they are meant to become. He points out that many members of the church find zeal as more important than knowledge and actual learning as he says that it doesn’t matter how much zeal a person has if they do not have knowledge. To show this, he uses metaphors, appeals to logos, and thought invoking quotes, which allow him to successfully show his audience that knowledge must be sought for along with zeal in order for it to be worthwhile.

Hugh Nibley uses the tactic of metaphors in “Zeal Without Knowledge” to demonstrate his purpose. He compares being allowed to choose what you think about to “choos[ing] from the heap whatever gem [someone] wants- but only one.” In this example, all attention is focused on one object and all others would drop into the background. By using this metaphor, Nibley demonstrates two imperative principles. The first is that thoughts are so important that they can be compared to treasures. Just as someone would treat a treasure with care, one should also treat thoughts with care. He goes on to discuss how modern society doesn’t understand the importance of thoughts because of their involvement in media—watching TV, or “merely sitting in meetings.” (209) The other important principle is that human beings can only think about one thing at a time. Each and every thought is a choice. “If every choice I make expresses a preference… then with every choice am I judging myself, proclaiming… to God… the things which I give supreme importance.” He emphasizes the belief that every thought should be used to better oneself. In another metaphor, he compares zeal to an engine. “Without clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel, our mighty engine becomes an instrument of destruction.” (210) The comparison also can be seen between the mind and an engine. The clutch, throttle, brakes, and steering wheel can be compared to knowledge. The more knowledge that is obtained, the more control there is over the “engine.”

Nibley appeals to logos while demonstrating his point. He quotes Niger Calder with information on one of the recent scientific studies writing, “Two of the most self-evident characteristics of the conscious mind [are that]… the mind attends to one thing at a time, [and] that, at least once a day,… the conscious mind is switched off.” These studies show how important each and every thought is. Nibley gives an obviously ridiculous example. “We think it more commendable to get up at five a.m. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o’clock to write a good one- that is pure zeal…” (213) No one would really believe that a bad book is better than a well written book simply because the author woke up earlier to work on it, yet, through this example, Nibley shows how ridiculous humans can truly be. It makes it seem crazy to believe that zeal is more important, or even as important, as knowledge.

The last tool Nibley uses, and his most powerful tool, is quotations. Knowing that most of his audience will be members of the LDS church, he quotes scriptures to demonstrate his point. Since the scriptures are such a large part of the LDS religion, many people agree with his use of them without question. His use of quotes helps convince his audience of the importance of thoughts in gaining knowledge. “’Sin is waste. It is doing one thing when you should be doing other better things for which you have the capacity…’ Probably 99 per cent of human ability has been wholly wasted,’ writes Arthur Clarke.” (209) He points out that idle thoughts are not only sins, but shows that even the most righteous are in constant need of repentance, and that everyone falls short because of the small percentage of human ability that is used.

People today should be, like Abraham, “seeking for greater light and knowledge” (Abraham 1:2). Learning should be a continuous and consistent process. Considering the human mind only has the ability to think of one thing at a time, it is extremely important that all thoughts are used to benefit and better oneself. Through using metaphors, appeals to logos and quotations, Nibley shows that one can successfully accomplish this way of learning through their willingness to train their thoughts and consistently seek for knowledge.

Today is the last day to get 5 extra credit points!

Here's how you do it:

Read the essays from the Mormon Artist Lit Blitz contest. They are all (by definition of the contest!) super short. Reading 13 will take you, like, 7 minutes. (That's a guesstimate, so don't send me emails telling me your times!)(Although, actually, that would be kind of interesting, so go ahead and tell me how long it took you to read them all!)

Once you've read them, follow these voting instructions and vote for your five favorites. (Note that you do this via email, not by posting on the link!) (You do NOT have to vote for my essay and I probably won't even know WHO you voted for.)(In fact, the only reason I would know is if you either didn't quite follow the instructions or you copied me on your email to the Blitz. Neither of which I expect y'all to do unless it's 3AM and your mind is all hazy.)(But the contest is over today, so don't wait until 3AM, that'll be too late!)

To actually *get* the extra credit, send me an email telling me that you read all the essays and sent the Blitz your vote.

If you have questions, email me like always.

Shelby's Analysis of "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings"

Shelby Nelson
Honors Writing 150
9 March 2012

A Very Strange Tale with Enormous Questions


Viewed by many as one of the greatest storytellers of the twentieth century, Gabriel García Márquez does not disappoint in his short story “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings”. As a Nobel Prize winner in literature, Márquez is well acquainted with the art of drawing his audience in with his unique storyline while simultaneously prompting them to search for deeper meanings beneath his written word. “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” achieves this by hooking the reader with its world of magical realism and then revealing the themes or motifs, such as how the presence of cruelty seems to be overpowering that of compassion as well as how superficial humankind can be.

In the literary world, unbeknownst to the average reader, Gabriel García Márquez’s name is synonymous with the term magical realism. As evidenced in “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings”, he flawlessly incorporates the fantastic into a seemingly every day narrative, lending his stories a fairytale-like quality. Márquez sets that mood from the very beginning of his story with the light hearted words “On the third day of rain...” which function as his own “Once upon a time…” of sorts and prompt the audience to comfortably immerse themselves in the story. Throughout the rest of the work, similar language, such as “nights glimmered like powdered light”, is used to continue the whimsical mood. A bit of whimsy is just what the more “normal” parts of the story needs. Otherwise, things could become quite depressing following the life of a poverty stricken, crab plagued family with an ill child. Unless one counts the decrepit and aged man with wings that falls from the sky and into their backyard. That is when Márquez really starts going above and beyond the call of making our reality coexist with the miraculous. Supposedly, any normal couple would suffer full-fledged panic attacks at the sight of a winged man (or possibly angel) showing up in their yard. But in Márquez’s world, they “very soon overcame their surprise and in the end found him familiar.” Evidently, an angel falling from the sky is accepted, but does not occur on a regular basis. Later on, the reader learns of a woman with the body of a tarantula, adding an additional crossover between the fantastic and the realistic.

Now, after enticing his audience with a magical and yet applicable world, Gabriel García Márquez commences to hint at the not-too-obvious themes or motifs. The first one being that cruelty, not compassion, is second nature to the characters can be considered parallels of Marquez’s own audience. For instance, rather than immediately tend to the obviously ill old man, the couple leaves him in the mud as they go and ask the “all-knowing” neighbor for advice. Thankfully, the couple “did not have the heart to club him to death”, but came to the decision that they would send him off with a raft and maybe three days’ worth of supplies. Sure, they are no longer bordering on man (or angel) slaughter, but their solution is not exactly the most benevolent of options. Drawing the comparison to those in the world of the reader, Márquez seems to be calling out society as a whole, saying that when it comes to service or compassion, society endeavors to involve themselves as little as possible if there is no direct personal benefit. Only when there is the possibility of making a profit from gawking spectators does the couple deem it necessary to put the angel up in their anything but comfortable chicken coop. Moving on to the gawking spectators, one would think that someone would feel enough guilt to stand up for the poor, caged angel. Instead, they taunt him, pelt him with rocks and spoiled food, and prod at him with a cattle brand; hardly neighborly actions. At first glance, it appears that no one is capable of compassion, but every once in a while there are brief moments of kindness. Such as Pelayo (the husband) when he “watched over [the angel] all afternoon from the kitchen, armed with his bailiff's club” the first night, in fear that someone else would do as his “all-knowing” neighbor’s advised and do away with the old man. This could easily be the point Márquez is trying to make the audience grasp: that compassionate acts are all the more distinctive because they happen on rare occasion.

A second underlying motif or theme in “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” is how humankind is characterized as extremely base or superficial. Unfortunately, there are easily drawn parallels to society here as well. Returning to the gawking spectators, all those nosey neighbors seem to having nothing better to do than find entertainment at the expense of others. The people have an almost unholy joy in “having fun with the angel, without the slightest reverence, tossing him things to eat through the openings in the wire as if weren't a supernatural creature but a circus animal.” There is an ill, ragged, and winged old man holed up in a caged habitat and the people look to him for the basest form of entertainment: exploiting another’s misfortune. The situation is repeated when the new “entertainment” arrives in town. A woman who had disobeyed her parents as a child was punished by her body turning into that of a giant tarantula. The gawking spectators were more than happy to “ask her all manner of questions about her absurd state and to examine her up and down so that no one would ever doubt the truth of her horror.” In other words, so they could all boast about seeing and talking to the freaky spider girl and revel in her misfortune. When looking at society, once again outside of Márquez’s story, it does not differ too much from the gawking spectators. A large amount of what people deem as entertainment focuses on or exploits the misfortune of others. It seems that society finds comfort and even happiness in the thought that someone else’s life is much worse than their own. Márquez indicates that parallel perfectly within his story.

“A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings” is definitely a very unique story. It is with such a unique, magical realism story that Gabriel García Márquez is able subtly convey themes involving the foils of mankind to his audience. His story invites the reader to search for those deeper aspects within the text and try applying them to their own lives. Whether they discover that they should strive to be more compassionate, avoid being stereotypically superficial individuals, or do not read anything into the writing, the audience will undoubtedly enjoy Márquez’s superb skills as one of the best storytellers of the twentieth century.

Krissi's Analysis of "A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings"

Corruption

Starting in the year 1948, Columbia underwent a Civil War, dividing the country in two. This horrific war resulted in a minimum of 180,000 deaths. With the nation split both socially and politically, the morals of the people were being lost, and the idea of the natural man was seen everywhere. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, a Columbian, expresses the corruptness of the people seen in this day through his short story “A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings.” He does this by juxtaposition, word choice, and by introducing us to various groups of people and showing us their reactions to a Godly Creature, also known as the angel.

One tool that shows the corruptness of the people is by introducing us to the people themselves. The people are divided into five groups and each shows a different part of corruption including pride, counseling God, lack of faith, and the desire for worldly things. One particular group is the priest, who is a learned man, supposing that he knows the ways of God; however, just like in the times of the Columbian Civil War, the priest steers the people away from good, playing a huge factor in their corruption. Marquez says that “The parish priest had his first suspicion of an imposter when he saw that he did not understand the language of God or know how to greet His ministers.” The word “His” is capitalized to make a satirical statement. The priest supposes that he will be greeted by warming arms, prideful in all that he does. The priest is not the angel’s minister, and therefore, does not greet him. This is just one example of corruption among the people, and there are many more.

The use of word choice also demonstrates the corruptness of the people by using alien-like words to show that the people are foreign to the angel, or good.

When Elisenda and Pelayo first try talking to the angel, the angel answers back “in an incomprehensible dialect”. The word incomprehensible shows that the people are out of touch with their own morals. They are so far away from what is right that they no longer can speak the language of the angels. Another example of word choice is when the priest goes to see the angel; the angel is in the corner against the wall, trying to heal him from the way that the people had irreverently treated him earlier, saying that he was “Alien to the impertinences of the world”. The words alien and impertinences give a strange sense. The angel is not accustomed to the evils of this world. He is pure and should be treated with respect; however, the people have not done this. The word choice here works together to show the corruptness of the people.

Juxtaposition, another tool of writing, is used throughout the story. The first instance where we see juxtaposition is in the way that the description of the angel. The angel is first described as being “dressed like a ragpicker. There were only a few faded hairs left on his bald skull and very few teeth in his mouth, and his pitiful condition of a drenched great-grandfather took away any sense of grandeur he might have had”. Later, when the doctor checks him out, he is explained in a way that makes him seem majestic, strange, and like some kind of supernatural creature:
The doctor… couldn’t resist the temptation to listen to the angel’s heart, and he found so much whistling in the heart and so many sounds in his kidneys that it seemed impossible for him to be alive. What surprised him most, however, was the logic of his wings. They seemed so natural on that completely human organism that he couldn’t understand why other men didn’t have them too.

These two different ways of explaining the angle contrast each other. The first gives an idea of some earthly beaten up human with no strangeness, while the other expresses the perfection in the wings, and the majestic sound of the kidneys. By doing this, Marquez illustrates how the people feel about the angel. The majority of the people seem to look down upon him, and as a result, treat him with disrespect. In contrast, the doctor sees the beauty of the angel, thus showing the reader that there is something special with this supernatural creature. The tool of juxtaposition shows the reader the corruptness of the people by showing that the old man is indeed an angel, yet the people cannot see this and therefore, do not treat him like one.

Corruptness is seen throughout the entire story. Marquez uses the tools of juxtaposition, word choice, and the use of different types of people to illustrate this. The story shows the same corruptness that was also seen during the Columbian War.

National Weather Service Issues Warnings about the "immediate threat" of death for those who hazard to drive in the Snow! (i.e. why I will be attending class via G-chat!)

just got a gazillion alerts about the "extreme danger" going to appear on the highways up here tomorrow (tomorrow = Wednesday, March 7). snow-ice-slush-wind drama, I guess. sometimes they make a lot of fuss for no reason, but most times they don't make enough fuss, so I am going to listen, I guess. (and, yeah: it is now Wednesday and I'm looking out my window and thinking they made a bunch of drama for NOTHING. maybe it's just because it's, like, the *only* snow storm we've had all year. :)

Summary: I will not *physically* come to class tomorrow, but that's OK because I want you to do some stuff without my help anyway. (and if you do need help, enter the power of the internets and real-time long-distance chatting capability!)

here's what I want you to do in class:

1) work in groups of 3-4 (if you really, really, really hate group work, I guess you can elect a "class captain" to lead a class-wide discussion, but I think you'll do better work in groups, so unless there's, like, extreme objection, do the group work thing.)

2) first, practice some logic chains. think of four "controversial" subjects that have at least two viewpoints. (we did abortion, so not that one, but I'm sure y'all can think of others. school vouchers, civil unions, sanctions on Iran, existence of Israel, low-carb diets, mustaches and the Honor code, basically anything people get mad about.) take each viewpoint, and trace the logic back through the logic chain until you get to an axiom. find the common axiom in each controversy, and compare the differences between the logic chains on each side of each controversy. If you need a reminder of what a logic chain looks like, there's a Blackboard handout in the "Persuasion/Angry Letters Aids" folder called something like "problematic bias and axiomatic ethical logic chains." It has an example of pro/anti abortion logic chains you can look at.

2) Next, get a computer (use the podium one if you want) and go to the NSAL example papers on Blackboard (under "sample papers" which is in "course materials"). Read the two "good" NSALs, and then read the two "not-so-good" NSALs. (You might not have time to read them all out loud, so read a page or two of each, then skim, or read silently maybe?) Using the NSAL "checklist" (under the "persuasion NSAL aids"), talk about how the presence of research strengthens the papers, and discuss the other things that make the papers "good" or "not-so-good."

3) turn the following in to me: first, your four sets of logic chains, noting the shared axiom. Second, your observations about the differences between the two sets of NSALs. Why were the good ones better than the not-so-good ones? How did research help/hurt? Were there non-research-based differences? (Turn this in either through email, or just give me a hard copy on Friday. You only need to turn in one summary per group, but make sure all your names are on it.)

Questions? Email me. Or, if anyone has gmail and is interested, I can be available for g-chat during class, answering questions as they come in. Yay internets! I could probably do Facebook, too, but I think we'd have to be friends or something. If y'all care, send me an email at the start of class, and we'll figure it out.

here's to a not-so-snowy Friday. see you then,

k

Clarissa's Analysis of "Mother Eve"

Clarissa Gregory

Freshmen Writing 150 Honors

3/1/12

Evil Eve?

Few women are subject to more scorn than Barbie and Eve, both are viewed as awful role models by society. Barbie’s issues are physical and mostly cursory, but Eve’s controversy lies in her personality and decision making skills. By appealing to ethos and logos, Campbell is able to correct widely accepted and deeply rooted misconceptions about Eve and the Fall and replace them with correct doctrine effectively by going through fifteen points systematically in her essay Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor. By using etymology, Campbell appeals to logos. By using quotes from authorities, She appeals to ethos.

Etymology is a matter of fact, the roots of words are generally irrefutable; Campbell uses etymology to appeal logos and correct misconceptions. The first word she breaks down using etymology is “help meet”. She explains that the word “help meet” means “even with or equal to” and that the Hebrew roots imply equality, rescuing, and strength. This is a stark contrast to society’s belief that “a help meet is a person of lesser stature”. When society reads Genesis and gets to the word “help meet”, people view Eve as being lesser than Adam she is more a servant than a companion. This false impression is rooted in misunderstandings. Campbell exposes these errors using etymology, her use of simple logic appeals to a sense of ethos, and helps lay the foundation for correct doctrine.

Many people believe that had Eve resisted temptation, Heavenly Father would have presented a more pleasant alternative than current reality, by using a powerful quote from an authority, Campbell appeals to ethos and replaces an incorrect belief with true doctrine. She quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie, “Adam, our father, and Eve, our mother, must... fall... become mortal. Death must enter the world. There is no other way. They must fall that man may be”. McConkie states in no uncertain terms that the Fall had to occur, it was the plan, not plan A. Campbell doesn’t have enough authority or credibility on her own to go after such a deeply held, albeit wrong belief. As she observed, even at BYU some students don’t know better. But no one in her LDS audience will argue with Bruce R. McConkie. By quoting him she lends credibility to her argument and is able to quickly weed out a misguided belief that would undermine the rest of her paper if allowed to remain intact.

Campbell uses etymology to appeal to logos and address the idea of original sin. Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat the fruit, many people believe that by eating the fruit and disobeying, Adam and Eve sinned and doomed all of mankind. She found from a Hebrew scholar, that “the word command used in the Creation stories [was not from the] same root word as commandment as used in The Ten Commandments... the command used in the Creation story was from a different verb form. Its usage seems to indicate a strong, severe warning.. possibly temporary in nature”. This etymological detail provides great additional detail and lends credibility to the idea that eating the fruit was merely a transgression, not a sin. This detail may seem trivial, but is essential. In this part of her paper Campbell is laying the foundation, she is taking on deeply rooted false ideas, the misguided version of the Creation story upheld in the world has done a lot of harm. Because of the errors in the Creation story, people have a place to point to and say, “there, women are inferior, sinful, and shouldn’t make decisions”, because of the errors people turn from religion as a whole because aren’t interested in worshipping a sexist god who would pick favorites. Point by point, Campbell is taking apart and rebuilding the story of the beginning that has influenced much of society. Her words go against popular belief, so her argument has to be iron clad. She fortifies her stance using etymology and by doing so appeals to logos.

The traditional story suggests that Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs, an afterthought built with “spare parts”, in an appeal to ethos Campbell quotes President Spencer W. Kimball. In the eyes of her predominantly LDS audience, its hard to find a more authoritative source on gospel matters than the Prophet. So, when she quotes him saying that “[the account of the rib] is of course, figurative”, she puts an end to argument. She establishes that Eve was her own person, not an extension of Adam but an equal.

Campbell uses etymology to appeal to logos again when debunking the myth that God cursed women with suffering in child birth. The language “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”, is austere and plainly seems to state that child bearing pain is a punishment. Plenty of people believe this, after all, aside from women all members of the animal kingdom go through childbirth generally painkiller free out in the dirt, and they don’t scream about it. Medieval logic would infer that women suffer pain because God cursed them. But that isn’t so, looked at in terms of Hebrew and science God’s words become informative rather than punishing. The Hebraic word that gets translated as sorrow in fact means “‘to labor, ‘to sweat’ or to do something very hard’”. Campbell goes on to explain, “The Father is not cursing or causing pain to be inflicted on Eve; he is making her aware that her newly mortal body will experience pain in the process of childbirth, a pain that will come and go and repeat itself many times”. It would arguably be much crueler not to warn Eve. Scientifically this interpretation of God’s words makes sense, it is logical. Logically, if God’s words are instructions not chastisement, then He is being loving not judging her, and if so than Eve is not hated by God. For centuries, women have been treated as inferior, even God liked men better. The Creation story was the root of this, and its effects have negatively impacted all of Christianity. What kind of people would want to worship a God who cruelly inflicted pain, who didn’t like women, and who punished all humans with death as a result of their progenitors choice that they had no hand in. The difference in the meaning of little words completely changes the story and supports her argument irrefutably.

In the course of a few pages, Campbell corrects thousands of years of misinformation. She is able to do this because she uses etymology to appeal to logos and quotes from authorities to appeal to ethos. Because of her sources she is able to take incorrect assumptions viewed as fact, and replace them with true doctrine. The little changes completely alter the way Eve and God are characterized. Because she effectively appeals to logos and ethos, instead of being angry and argumentative at the end of the paper her reader is able to embrace the points she makes.

Alicia's Analysis of "Mother Eve"

Alicia Lutui

Dr. Kerry Spencer

Writing 150 Honors, Winter 2012

“Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Women”

Beverly Campbell is a very experienced and well educated woman who has held the title as the director of International Affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She has worked with various types of people around the world from different cultures and religions. In her article, “Mother Eve, Mentor for Today’s Woman: A Heritage of Honor”, she uses logos and ethos to effectively analyze her opinions on the world’s deranged beliefs that our oldest mother Eve is to blame for all the trials, tribulations, and agonizing pain this world suffers. Their ignorance and stubbornness for these misinterpretations of scriptures and incorrect images and ideas cause not only Eve but women in general to be portrayed and treated as if they are abominations to this life.

Throughout the article, Campbell constantly uses deductive logic to portray her point of view. Most of her evidence comes from latter-day prophets; she uses their counsel and guidance to prove her claims. For example, when discussing the matter of whether or not Eve was actively or passively included in the Garden of Eden, there are quotes from President Spencer W. Kimball and Elder McConkie and after a brief but clear analysis of their doctrines, she writes, “. . . in this phrase ‘man’ is always in the plural from the beginning. . . Thus the name of Adam and Eve as a united partnership”. She is basing all of her evidence off of other’s discoveries and revelations. She speaks with complete confidence in her sources therefore and never leaves room for any questions. And at the end of every section of her article he always states how misinterpretations and/or how clarity changes the dynamics of every story. Her analyzing and use of deductive logic to prove that many Eve is a “cornerstone” for this gospel and many others is effective. Also, she does a phenomenal job making it clear that those who do not believe the words of her sources are uneducated and ignorant.

Another example of logos throughout Campbell’s article is found when Campbell is explaining what “help meet” means. She gives a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, and then she breaks down the word origin in Hebrew. Her explanation and analyzing of the word only makes her article stronger because of how clear and reasonable her explanation is. She states that the literal meaning is “even with or equal to” and then she breaks down the word which says that it means “to save, or as a savior” and to “be strong". After which she tied in a personal experience with how definition had helped a sister-in-law. She made her explanation clear and personal only making it le arguable. She then ends the section by stating that Adam and Eve were equal partners, just like how all men and women are equal today.

Aside from logos, she also uses ethos to make her argument even more credible. Campbell was a director for International Affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and also wrote two books about Mother Eve called Eve and the Choice Made in Eden and Eve and the Mortal Journey. She is a well-educated and confident woman. She definitely knows her material because she has already written two books on the subject and she has had plenty of research and seen different points of views to help create her own. She begins her essay with a quote from a work of her own. In introducing this, she says, “In the entry on Eve in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which I was privileged to write, the lead paragraph reads,” and then she quotes the segment. Because of how she introduced her work, she owns her article, has complete confidence, and gives off a vibe as if she’s ready to defend anything that comes to her way making no one even have to desire to question her argument.

Another example of ethos used in this article is Campbell’s use and presentation of the sources she provides. She has obviously conducted some research and uses her own background knowledge to state her argument. Her evidence consists of examples and quotes from prophets, scriptures, scholars, writers, and a variety of other reliable sources. And because of how she presents these claims and examples one after another yet still managing to give a clear analytical point of view, one will never want or even think to question her research or point of view because it is so obvious that she knows what she is writing and has shown her work in that way. Her authority and credibility throughout the article is so strong that one respects Campbell immediately and believes all of her views on Eve.

Beverly Campbell is a woman with big ideas. She has a passion for letting the world know that Eve is falsely accused of bringing doom to all man kind and presents it effectively using logos and ethos.

I figured out a way to give you extra credit for voting in the Lit Blitz!

Actually, the Blitz people sort of came up with it in that they made up the rule that you have to vote for FIVE entries, not just one, which means you kinda have to *read* all the entries, so yay for them!

Here's the deal: If you read all 13 entries and submit a vote, I will give you 5 points extra credit. (That is a LOT compared to what I normally give!)

You don't even have to vote for me. But you can if you want.

The rules for voting are here.

If you vote, send me an email saying you did for credit. (you don't have to tell me who you voted for.)

And this is totally unrelated, but I had this nightmare where one of y'all was yelling at me because I never told you what we were doing for class today. I said, "But we don't have class on Thursdays!" And the student said, "And yet you're always putting stuff we have to do on the calendar every Thursday!" (I don't actually know if that's true.) But just to clarify: we don't have class on Thursdays. Like, ever. (Except maybe for the final? But I don't actually know off the top of my head when our final is, so don't write down that it's a Thursday and then yell at me again. I can't take it.)

Also, I think the student was 38 weeks pregnant, had a broken foot, lived in my backyard, and ate bugs.

So, prolly not really one of y'all.

ANYWAYZ

Happy reading!

Want to Read Something Super Creepy I Wrote?

You can find it here:

http://mormonartist.net/2012/02/day-kerry-spencer/

In case you were wondering, this is NOT an example of a personal narrative. It’s a personal essay.

You should read it in the dark when you’re alone, preferably. And then if it scares the crap out of you or otherwise creeps you out, send it to everyone you feel like creeping out!

(This essay is a finalist in a competition and the winner will be determined by number of votes and that is half determined by how many people *see* it. I’m going to stop short of telling you I’ll give you extra credit to vote, or to spam it around, though. Because that seems wrong. Is it wrong? Is it bad that I don’t know? :)(Here’s what I will say: if you help it get read and I happen to win, I’ll bring doughnuts or something. Plus it would just be awesome.)

Emma M's Analysis of "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

Emma Mortensen
Freshmen Writing 150 Honors
2/23/12
The Price of Being Nice

From early childhood, we are taught to be “nice,” but is there such a thing as too much nice? Elouise Bell believes that Nice ain’t so nice at all. In her article When Nice Ain’t So Nice, Professor Bell uses personification, parallelism, and juxtaposition to effectively reveal the insidious character of Niceness.

Throughout Bell’s article, Nice is personified in many ways. Foremost, the word is usually capitalized, making it a proper noun, like a name. Nice becomes a specific entity instead of an abstract quality. The first example of personification happens in the sentence, “The problem with Nice isn’t that it’s sometimes wimpy; the problem is that Nice can be dangerous” (170) From the beginning, “nice” demonstrates human attributes, especially that of being dangerous. This use of personification establishes the tone and instantly identifies the purpose of the essay.

The second example of personification is in the last paragraph of the article:

Nice flies under false colors, wants the reputation of the gentle dove without the wisdom of the wise serpent. It is the Great Imposter, having none of the power of Virtue but seeking the influence thereof. Nice is neither kind, nor compassionate, neither good nor full of good cheer, neither hot nor cold. But, being puffed up in its own vanity, it is considerably more dangerous than luke-warmth. (174)

Here Bell clearly states exactly what is wrong with Nice. Nice becomes something that “is” and “wants.” It becomes an entity of desire. This personification makes the idea of Nice more tangible and threatening to the audience because it is an actual physical presence that can affect them. Nice is called the “Great Imposter” signifying the utter deceitfulness it displays. Nice is portrayed a liar and a fake, which lends weight to the assertion that Nice is a treacherous evil.

In addition to personification, Bell uses parallelism in her article to emphasize the menace that is Niceness. An example of this is:

. . . Courage is the virtue that protects all other virtues. That is, it is courage which enables us to be truthful when speaking the truth might be risky; it is courage that backs up loyalty when loyalty is unpopular; it is certainly courage which makes patriotism meaningful in time of danger… it is niceness which can corrupt all other virtues. Niceness edits truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, short-circuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love. (170-171)

The same qualities that courage supports, specifically truth, loyalty, and patriotism, illustrate what Niceness undermines. This parallelism shows that niceness is the complete opposite of courage; it tears down all that courage upholds. The structure of this quote underscores the destructive power of Nice.

Another important example of parallelism is:

Not wanting to know, not willing to know, not about to know...Not to take one nibble from one piece of fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but to remain, instead, Nice. Not to know about History, except for a few pretty branches used as decoration...Certainly not to know about Poverty...Not to know about Death, but to confine him to curtained cubicles in isolated “units” of hospitals and nursing homes. (174)

Bell is explaining how the word “nice” can be traced to the Latin “nescius,” meaning ignorance. This connection reveals the major peril of niceness: deliberate, lazy not knowing. Each sentence begins with the phrase “not to know,” greatly emphasizing the negative facets of Niceness. This emphasis stimulates the audience to recognize exactly what is so bad about this deliberate ignorance. The parallelism reinforces the significance of the quote.

Parallelism is similarly evident in the other half of each sentence in the above quote. The structure is as follows: not to know ___, but to ____ instead. Not only are those who only want to be Nice unconcerned about learning of good and evil, history, or death, they are also intentionally hiding the negative aspects of these. Instead of partaking of the Tree of Knowledge, they are content to remain Nice. Instead of regarding the whole of history, they only see the frivolous happy parts. Instead of accepting death, they hide it away in the confined spaces of hospitals and nursing homes. People who only want Niceness exhibit the above traits and ignorance. The parallelism is an extremely effective way of highlighting the adverse consequences involved with being Nice.

Similar to parallelism is Bell’s use of juxtaposition. The first instance of juxtaposition is Bell’s description of the tone that many Letters to the Editor of BYU’s Student Newspaper display, “They are hostile and mean-spirited...the letters drip with innuendo, invective, and scripture-laden scourging. All this from neatly dressed, smiling youths who hold doors open for each other and walk clear across campus to turn in stray Number Two pencils to the Lost-and-Found depository” (171). The images of the hateful and derogatory letters and the polite and thoughtful students are completely opposite each other and are usually unrelated. The juxtaposition of the two grabs the audience’s attention and holds it. This in turn brings greater force to the display of how deceitful Nice can be.

Another case of juxtaposition is:

I learned that in my very nice young-executive neighborhood...at least five wives are beaten regularly by their husbands. One of the nicest men in the ward has been convicted of sexual molestation. Absolutely the nicest elder I knew in the mission field afterward had to uproot his wife and family and give up his profession because he had been found guilty of molesting preschoolers. (172)

These are examples of people in Bell’s own neighborhood that have been deceived by Niceness. The common perception the audience has of nice totally contrasts the picture displayed in the quote. Those who are nice would never commit such heinous crimes, yet they tend to be the greatest offenders. The juxtaposition of what nice is supposed to be and those who committed these crimes proves to the audience that their view of Nice is skewed; thereby convincing them that Bell’s point, that Nice is treacherous, to be true.

Elouise Bell’s article, When Nice Ain’t So Nice, reveals the true nature of what Nice is through personification, parallelism, and juxtaposition. This article causes the audience to reevaluate all they had previously thought about the absolute importance of being nice. It scours away the appealing coat of duplicity to expose the core of self-imposed ignorance and insidious poison that Nice implants in human beings; such internal erosion is the ultimate price of being Nice.



Works Cited

Bell, Elouise. "When Nice Ain't So Nice." Print. Rpt. in Readings for Intensive Writers. Comp. Susan Jorgensen. 5th ed. Provo: BYU Academic, 2007. 170-74. Print.

Emily J's Analysis of "When Nice Ain't So Nice"

Emily Johns
Honors Writing 150
A Critical Analysis of When Nice Ain’t So Nice by Elouise Bell

In an essay written by Elouise Bell titled, When Nice Ain’t So Nice, Bell explores reasons behind her theory of why being nice is not always nice. Giving examples of crimes committed by murderers, rapists, and child molesters, Bell claims that most crimes have been committed by seemingly nice people. Bell uses logos and diction to effectively convince the reader that it is not always nice to be nice and that it is okay to show other emotions.

In the first paragraph of Bell’s essay she writes, “The problem is that Nice can be dangerous.” She immediately after informs the reader that more crimes have been committed by people with a “mask of niceness” than all the “ski masks,” meaning crimes that consist of the criminal wearing some type of physical mask to hide their identity. Using logic the reader will agree that people that are more dangerous are those that you do not immediately associate danger with. Bell uses the example of masks to clearly state that people that do not hide their identity are those that are the most dangerous.

Giving examples of many criminals that were and are considered “nice” people excluding the criminal act that they performed, Bell was able to make clear the difference between the “nice” criminals and those that were not so nice. The criminals that Bell included in her essay are known for the brutal crimes they were responsible for. The reader, using logic, is unable to disagree that point. The examples of these “nice” criminals help prove Bells point that crimes are not only committed by people who are obviously angry, violent, or mentally insane. Crimes are committed by your neighbor, teacher, best friend and family member. People that seem to be “nice” and completely put together are the ones that, Bell hints at, should be the most looked out for.

Bell gives the example of college students. While being at Brigham Young University she noticed that majority of the student body believed that if they were nice enough to the professor that in return the professor would be nice enough to give them a good grade. “Niceness in some students’ minds fulfills al obligations that one might otherwise expect to see paid in the coin of effort, intelligence, and results.” This meant to Bell that students in college seem to believe that the way you act towards each other and the professor should make up for any lack of hard work or intelligence that is necessary in receiving a good grade. By using the example of college students in an essay published to be read by college students, Bell was able to reach a personal aspect of the reader. Because the reader expected to be a college student, they will be able to identify with the example of the college student being nice to get a better grade. Whether the student agrees with this argument or not, they are able to relate to it and may be able to see it in other students if not themselves.

The example provided by C.S. Lewis, who says that courage is the virtue that protects every other virtue, Bell is able to use this theory to further explain her own. Bell explains Lewis’ theory of the protected virtues but then gives her own theory. Believing, with the same logic as Lewis, that niceness is what can corrupt every virtue. “Niceness edits the truth, dilutes loyalty, makes a caricature of patriotism. It hobbles Justice, shortcircuits Honor, and counterfeits Mercy, Compassion, and Love.” By capitalizing the first letter of specific words puts an importance on each word used. Bell’s diction is clearly displayed in this example. The reader is able to realize that the words beginning with a capital letter are important to the author and therefore should be important to them as the reader. The way that Bell uses the words in capital starting letter is her way to make their importance clear. Her theory is using the same logic used by Lewis and therefore should make perfect sense if the reader uses logic as well.

Being nice is something that is taught at a young age in the home to children. Bell brings in the psychologist Alice Miller’s thoughts to explain that being nice is part of this century. Children are taught to be docile, subservient, and obedient to the parent. Miller calls this the “poisonous pedagogy.” She explains that is teaches children to simply be nice, no matter what. This teaching sticks with children as they grow to become adults. Bell states that she can see this in the “nice people” all around her in the way that they act when they disagree and wish to not be so nice. She claims that these people are nice when face to face but hostile if they do not know the person to whom they disagree with.

She then goes on to explain that being nice is not solely taught in the home but it is taught as part of our culture. She calls this a “cultural mandate” and that a man’s dark side is sent into hiding and that women are not supposed to have a dark side. Culture has made it seem unacceptable to be anything but nice. It is expected for someone to be nice even when someone is not nice to them. This pressure leads to suppressed anger and other emotions that when they finally surface, it can be in an extreme way, such as with the criminals spoken of earlier. This is just another example of how Bell writes in aim of the readers’ logic.

Pathos is another way that the author expresses her thoughts for the reader to understand. She does this when she speaks of when saying that, “the creed of niceness does damage to the Self, to the soul.” Aiming for the readers emotions using words like self and soul, Bell was able to get to the emotions of the reader. Going further in using pathos she associated “demons” with pride, sloth, envy and avarice. She called the less obvious ones as “pastel despots” which included conformity, busyness and niceness. Associating these negative terms with being nice and that they can have the same effect causes the reader to search themselves and acknowledge what their own “niceness” has done.

Never does Bell argue that being nice is a bad thing. She does not support treating people poorly or doing things that are in any way opposite of being nice. The point of her essay is to acknowledge that being nice is not always being true to one’s self. She explains the journey that we must all take to get to true self authenticity. Suppressing certain emotions or self expression will only hurt that journey to finding ones true self. This is another way that Bell used pathos in her writing. Bell’s knows that the reader will begin to think of themselves when reading this and that is her goal. Making the reader not only aware of the effects of being nice on those around you and society but also what it can do to your own-self really gets to the core of the readers emotions.

Knowing that most of the readers of this essay at Brigham Young University are Christian, Bell includes a “Nice Creed” written for the Christian confession of faith. This state’s very strict rules to what being nice should be. When reading these rules, one would feel as if they are being instructed to have no opinion, feelings or way to express them self. This further explains Bell’s point that being nice ain’t so nice.

Towards the end of her essay, Bell goes back to the beginning of the world. She uses the example of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. She states that a world where everyone was just “nice” Adam should not have taken a bite of fruit but should have instead remained “nice.” To end this way is almost poking fun at the concept of being only nice. Because Adam was not “nice” and partook of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, there is a world today. While being nice is good, it is not the only way to be. Bill’s encourages the reader to be in touch with their feelings and to be able to express them freely. Even if it is not always so nice, it will help in the path to self discovery. In closing, Bill calls being nice the Great Imposter because it is being puffed up in one’s own vanity. There are other emotions to have and to express so being nice ain’t so nice.

The Great Works Adventure! i.e. What You'll Be Doing Tomorrow Instead of a Formal Class

GW Hunting Part two! (If you don't see this until you get to class and I'm not there, have no fear: Your first challenge in the GW Adventure is to get a copy of the GW list from the Honors advisement Center downstairs!)

I hope the MOA hunt was informative for you. But did you know that there are *more* great works categories than just Art? And that you have to write your GW papers on two different genres of Great Works? Yeah. You probably knew that.

Here's the thing. To write a paper about a great work, you not only have to know "tools" pertaining to the great work, you have to, like, *be exposed* to the great work. But there are a lot of great works. How do you pick?

So here's what I want you to do with our class time tomorrow (if you wear a costume while you do this, I will totally give you extra credit):

1) Obtain a copy of the Great Works list. You can get this from the student advisement center in the basement of the MSRB, or you can download it from online. Also, get a copy of the GW log, because that's where you keep track of all the GW stuff you're going to end up doing if you take Honors classes. Also, you have to have it for the Honors Portfolio assignment. (It can be prettymuch empty, it just needs to be there. But enough about that because it's a totally separate assignment!)

2) After you have the GW list, you need to *go* somewhere. Use the GW list to guide you. For example:

If you find that you're drawn to the theater/musical options of the list, go over to the HFAC, find out when stuff is playing; choose something you want to watch; maybe even buy your tickets. (You don't have to see anything *right then,* (unless you want to) but you want to be ready.)

If you want to do something sciency, walk yourself over to one of the science buildings. See if they have any special events planned. Talk to department offices or wander the halls looking for flyers. Find a professor and ask them if you can come observe a class. Make sure it will qualify as an item on the list, and then make arrangements.

If you're interested in film, ask the Honors advisement center which films from the international cinema count this year. Then find a schedule and choose a time you'll go to a movie. Or, you could just pick a film off the list and ask the library if they have a copy you can check out. Later, you can watch it with your peer review group and eat popcorn. Maybe even cuddle a little. And then never speak of it again.

On the other hand, if you are a lover of literature, you could go to the library and find the book you need to read. Also, find books *about* the book you need to read. Check them out and start reading.

There are other options, right? I can't remember right now because I'm spacey like that. Consult the list and figure out an appropriate place to go.

3) I need to know that you actually *did* this assignment and didn't just use the hour to do your math homework, so I'm going to need proof. Take a picture of yourself wherever you end up and send it to me along with half a paragraph about what you did. If you're wearing a costume, explain it to me in your email, too. (I don't always notice things I should. Like people dressed in bunny suits. Absent-minded professor thing.)

You can do this alone or in groups or in pairs or even with your girlfriend or a random stranger.

In fact, if you are wearing a costume AND you can convince a random stranger to do the WHOLE GW adventure with you, I'll give you five times the amount of extra credit I'd give you just for your costume. But they have to be *strangers.* Your roommate can't introduce you, they can't be friends of friends. They need to be random people you have never met in your entire life and you have to go up to them in the hall while you're wearing your costume and convince them to come with you. And you have to take a picture, of course. And also, tell us about it on Monday.

Have fun!

Juliana's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"

A Critical Analysis of C.S. Lewis’ “What Christians Believe”

C.S. Lewis is considered to be one of the greatest Christian writers of all time and upon reading his essay “What Christians believe” it is easy to see why, as Lewis not only presents a compelling argument but also manages to entertain his audience whilst dealing with such a heavy topic. In his essay, “What Christians Believe”, C.S. Lewis artfully uses tone, false dilemmas, and appeals to his reader’s sense of logos to effectively persuade his educated religiously-diverse audience to support his view of Christianity.

One instance of Lewis’ masterful use of tone can be found at the start of the section titled “The Invasion” when Lewis writes “Very well then, atheism is too simple.” This is somewhat of an orienting statement as Lewis has just spent the last few paragraphs arguing against the concepts of atheism. However, this line does not only serve as transitioning sentence as the casual ton of “very well then” seems to imply a personal sense of finality, as if there is no more to be said on the subject. This casual conversational way of stating that one the strongest opponents against Lewis’ argument is simply wrong is very powerful as the personal tone brings it somewhat closer to the heart of the reader and the definiteness of the statement successfully convinces his mature and rational audience to dismiss the views held by atheists as false, which brings them closer to agreeing with his point of view.

Another instance in which Lewis uses his tone to persuade his mature audience to agree with his point of view on christianity can be found when he uses humor to create interest in his point and to make the ideas of his opponents seem laughable. He writes that for what those who believe Jesus to have been only a great moral teacher but not actually a God to be correct, Jesus would have had to have been “a lunatic-on the level of a man who says he is a poached egg” to have made the claims that he did. Through this he points out that for anyone to disagree with his point of view would be ridiculous . The contrast between his example of the man who thinks he is a poached egg with the gravity of his discussion of the truths of belief and religion is very stark, which implies that those who would make such an assertion are clearly misunderstanding reality. Through his clever use of sharp humor within the context of such an important topic Lewis effectively supports his theory that his point of view is correct and that anyone who believes otherwise is clearly mistaken.

Lewis not only uses his tone to persuade his readers of the truth of his perspective of Christianity, but he also employs the emotive fallacy of false dilemma to convince his readers of the truth of his argument. One example of Lewis‘ use of false dilemma can be found at the end of his essay where he writes that “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse”. This challenge to the reader is found just after Lewis reasons that for a man to have said the things that Christ did, especially in his time period, he was either completely insane or he was honestly the Son of God as he claimed, so those who argue that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not the true Son of God must be wrong. This false dilemma, would suggest that Jesus could only have been one of two things: a saviour or a lunatic. By only allowing his readers to pick from these two narrow categories, though there may be other possibilities in reality, Lewis successfully narrows the chance of his audience disagreeing with him. In a normal situation, one could say “I sort of agree, but I think it is more like this...” whereas in the situation that Lewis has created one must either be entirely for Lewis’ argument or entirely against it. This effectively persuades people to side with Lewis concerning the situation that he has created.

Another such instance of Lewis’ clever use of false dilemma can be found in the very first paragraph of the essay when Lewis writes that “Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic there is only one right answer to a sum...” These words come right after Lewis states that becoming a Christian has left him more accepting of other religions in general but that in matters where Christianity and other religious doctrines differ, one must be right and the other, by default, must be wrong. The word “arithmetic” in this sentence is especially poignant as it connotes a very logical formula wherein there can only be one right answer. Not only does this appeal to a reader’s sense of logos, as naturally someone who considers themselves to be a logical thinker must naturally want to find the “correct” answer to a question of arithmetic, but it also creates a false dilemma in which there can only be one right answer. In reality there could potentially be any number of varying answers as no one can prove whether one is more correct than the other, however Lewis purposely creates a scenario in which there are only two options, right and wrong. This false dilemma pushes his readers to make a choice and decide what they believe, in doing this Lewis is effectively pressuring his audience to agree with him through his use of false dilemma.

Finally, Lewis appeals to his readers’ sense of Logos to persuade them to adopt his views of Christianity by never specifically stating exactly what he believes or what he thinks that they should believe, rather Lewis merely reasons out various points of doctrine and allows the reader to come to his own conclusion of what is right or wrong. This feature of Lewis’ writing is most prominent towards the end of his article, especially when he is discussing the issue of theodicy, or the problem that arises when we consider the the fact that despite Christianity’s claim that God is both good and omnipotent, evil still exists in the world. He explains his belief in terms of his reasoning and never outrightly states that he is correct, the reader is only expected to follow his logic and come to the same conclusion that he did. When describing his reasons he uses the words “probably” and “it may be quite sensible” to allow the reader some space to consider the ideas presented for himself and then to ultimately agree with these ideas. Thus the reader does not feel that he is being dragged into agreement with Lewis but rather through his own sense of logic it would seem to him that Lewis is right. Considering that those reading this essay are most likely at least moderately well educated and must show some interest in the validity of religion, it can be assumed that this tactic of relying on the reader to use their own reasoning to follow Lewis’ argument and arrive at the same conclusion would be rather successful.

Lewis’ appeal to his readers’ sense of logos can also bee seen in the way that he develops his arguments, as he typically starts with the illogical and then gradually works his way into resolving the seemingly unreasonableness of the problem through his logic and then at the end of the paragraph he summarizes what can be learned from this. For example on the last page of his essay he begins by putting forward many puzzling questions such as “What should we make of a man...who announced that he forgave you for stealing other men’s money?” then he slowly explains, what one “should make” of such a man until he arrives at the conclusion that “This makes sense only if He really was that God.” Through this, Lewis’ audience is led to feel that they are the ones coming to an understanding of the problem and yet it is really Lewis guiding them through the dilemma with his own logic. Therefore this sort of approach would appeal to a reader’s sense of logic not only because the reasoning itself seems to be solid, but because the reader almost feels as if he has come up with it himself and is therefore more likely to trust in it.

Therefore it can be seen that Lewis develops a very convincing argument for his educated and religiously curious audience regarding his beliefs concerning Christianity, God, and theodicy through the means of tone, false dilemmas, and his frequent appeals to a reader’s sense of logos.

Ty's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"

Ty B.
Writing 150H, Winter 2012
Dr. Kerry Spencer


C. S. Lewis is perhaps best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, which is commonly known as a Christ allegory, but Lewis was actually a converted atheist. He struggled to rationalize his faith in many essays which are highly regarded in the academic and religious communities alike. This essay not only develops ideas central to what Christianity believes, but how Lewis came to believe them through basic logical arguments. In What Christians Believe, C. S. Lewis uses comparisons, such as metaphors and similes to effectively explain his thoughts on Christianity to Christians and non-Christians alike.


Lewis, in recounting his final argument for atheism before he finally accepted Christianity, likens knowing that the universe has no meaning to discovering that the universe was dark if we had no eyes to see. “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning” (177). This simple simile aids in Lewis’ explanation of the simplicity of atheism by showing that life would be meaningless to those who take part in it. Lewis’ mastery of logic was able to lead him to an explanation that not only comforts the minds of non-Christian readers, through avoiding argumentative language, but that appeals to the tenets of Christian theology, that we are here on this Earth for a purpose.


The complexity of Christian theology is exactly why it is so believable; Lewis argues that nothing is naturally simple; everything has a queer attribute, as part of nature. He explains this by comparing the other planets to Earth. “In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either the sizes or the distances [of the planets]; and some of them have one moon, one has four, one has two, some have none, and one has a ring” (177). The comparison of religion to the natural variety of the planets helps Lewis to explain why the utter absurdness of Christianity (at face value) is in fact a testament of the truthfulness of it. Everything that is part of this universe has a natural quirk, and the fact that Christianity is so different means it could not have been thought up, just as the vast differences between the planets could not have been thought up. This is often a train of thought that Christians tend to avoid, as a sort of blind faith technique, and though it could lead to doubts, Lewis uses it to strengthen his knowledge of the truthfulness of Christianity.


Christianity, Lewis explains, does inherently include the basics of the theory of Dualism (the explanation that the universe is a battleground between a Good force and an Evil force. “But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in life people are cruel for one of two reasons – either because they are sadists… or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it – money or power, or safety” (178). Although not a metaphor or simile, the reader can call to mind the cruel among the inhabitants of Earth, and understand that they are not an example of this force of Evil. They may be deceived or guided by this force, but they are inherently Good and even being cruel for money or power or safety is a Good thing, not an Evil thing. Lewis argues that Christians and non-Christians alike can see that the children of God are not placed on this Earth to do Evil, but that some fall away by the real power of Satan.


After explaining the theory of Dualism, and then debunking it, Lewis compares Christianity to a military operation within the Kingdom of Satan, or the Earth that we now occupy. “Enemy-occupied territory – that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage” (179). This allegorical metaphor goes to show that the power of Satan (as the Evil force of Dualism) really is the power that inhabits this Earth, but that as a duty to our Heavenly Father, and rightful king, we need to accept Christ and engage in doing Good. Non-Christians may struggle with this point, but assuming the Christian idea of Sin and applying it to this world, it is not difficult to grasp that ‘Satan’ has real power over the hearts of men. Different denominations of Christianity may have different feelings on this point, but Lewis does an excellent job defending his reason logically.


Lewis uses a defiant child as an example of how this Earth could be in seeming turmoil and yet remain within the Will and Power of the Lord. “It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, ‘ I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own.’ Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar, all lying in the grate. That is against her will” (180). Lewis uses this very relatable example to show, essentially, how there can be opposition against the Lord. This is an important doctrine of Christianity, especially for non-Christians to understand, because Heavenly Father does have real and true power, but it is not him that needs to ‘learn to keep the schoolroom tidy’, rather us, his children. The relevancy of this doctrine is not limited to non-Christians though, and Lewis is not only teaching them, he is using his new found faith and his soapbox to get Christians to understand the why behind Christianity as well.


The essay is effective in laying out what Christianity is step by step, as well as going in depth into why Lewis decided to forsake his atheism in favor of it. Both Christians and non-Christians can read the article and develop a greater understanding of why Christians believe what they believe, not only what it is that they believe. The understanding of the essay itself is dependent on the understanding of the many comparisons that Lewis makes, ultimately not unlike the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Lewis favors examples that people can relate to, and being the great thinker that he was he definitely hit the nail on the head.

Ben E's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"

What Christians Believe
C.S. Lewis
First Year Writing 150H
Professor Spencer

In the world today it can be a difficult venture to help others to understand our religious beliefs. “What Christians Believe”, authored by C.S. Lewis, seeks to do just that by explaining what is accepted as truth to Christians according to him. He effectively does this by an appeal to logos and pathos primarily through the use of analogies.

The first instance where Lewis uses an analogy to convince his audience of his point is when he compares Pantheism and Christianity. He states the belief of Pantheist being that God is the universe and is a part of all of us. He then goes on to state the Christian view of God being that he created the universe and is separate to it, “…like a man making a picture or composing a tune” (176). This analogy is effective logically because it is an easy example that the reader can relate to. He later goes on to explain also that if you believe (as the majority does)in opposites - good and bad - then you believe more in the Christian view of God. So logically this analogy convinces the reader that Lewis is right and that there is a God, independent of creation and that there are good things and bad things in it. It is also an effective analogy because the image of a man making a painting or a tune gives the image of a great artist working a on a piece of artwork or a musician composing a masterpiece. Thus this appeals to those that see good and beauty in the world to more likely believe in what Lewis is portraying.

The next use of an analogy in the article is used to convince atheists by logic that there is a God. He says “A man feels wet when he falls in water, because he is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet” (176). He compares this to his own sense (and by extension other atheists) of justice in an unjust world. He logically explains that when he was an atheist he felt that there could not have been a God because the world was cruel and unjust. As he thought about it, he started to wonder where he got his sense of justice from. He then applies this analogy to show that because he knew there were injustices in the world there was meaning to life. So saying we are fish and don’t know we are wet is like saying we don’t realize there is meaning to life. This analogy is effect because for the reader to say they are like the fish and are ignorant of sense and meaning is almost like admitting they are stupid.

Lewis uses another analogy to help see how religion is complicated and not simple. He compares it to a table. He explains that looking at the table you may say that it is simple. However, he goes on to say that if you were to ask a scientist to tell you what it is made of and how it is made, the answer you would receive would be complicated and perhaps difficult to understand. This he puts in contrast to how people – those in particular he mentioned who would like to destroy Christianity – look at religion and complain that it isn’t simple. He goes on to explain that reality is complex and in his experience, odd. So it would be silly to ask for something more than simple and expect simplicity. His argument combined with his analogy logically helps the audience to be persuaded to his point of view that religion isn’t simple.

Another analogy that is used by Lewis is used to explain that things can happen that are contrary to God’s will. He compares this principle to a mother telling her children “I’m not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You’ve got to learn to keep it tidy on your own”(180). We know that as parents we set rules and guidelines for our children to follow and give them the opportunity act for themselves. We can expect that sometimes children will not be tidy and that is against their mother’s will but it also her will that left them free to be untidy also. This is what Lewis compares God to – a loving parent who asks us as His children to do what he says but leaves it to us choose. So this analogy effectively convinces the reader C.S. Lewis’ of his belief of God as it is logically shows, if God is good, how evil can happen in opposition to God’s will and also is effective as it plays on the emotions of the reader to think of their own mothers and build on the trust that they have for them.

An additional use of an analogy is used when Lewis compares Christianity to Dualism. His analogy shows how these two beliefs share the premise that the universe is at war between good and evil. He goes on to use the analogy that the Christian belief is “… a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of a universe occupied by the enemy. Enemy-occupied territory…”(179). This analogy is effective because it builds on the argument that he had previously argued with the reader, that the evil power or Satan is a corruption of good things and only has power given it by the good power or God. This appeals to pathos of the reader, particularly those who share Lewis’ view of Christianity and works to inspire them that they are in an epic battle serving their King – God – against the rebels.

The final analogy that the author has used to convince the audience of his argument is where he discusses the belief that there is no happiness other than the happiness that comes from following God. To persuade the reader he uses the analogy that human beings are like cars. He builds off of the point that since God created us then it only makes sense that the ‘gasoline’ that makes us work the best comes only from Him. He further goes on to say that it is useless to ask God for any other happiness aside from what he asks us to do because there is none. Therefore this analogy appeals to logos to sway the audience to his point of view.

Overall this is an effective article. As C.S. Lewis brings in new points, his use of analogies not only convinces his audience with logic but also plays on their emotions to make them trust his arguments further. This is all contributes to the paper’s obvious objective to make the reader believe in Christianity and fundamentally accept, ignore or deny the divinity of Jesus Christ.