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.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
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
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
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
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!
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.
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.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, March 12, 2012
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 GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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.
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 GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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 GarcÃa 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.
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.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
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
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
Monday, March 5, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)