Satirical Speech

Dissecting Maus

A few days ago I started to read a graphic novel named Maus, so far I've read 100 pages and I'm liking it a lot. Art Spiegelman is able to incorporate a harsh event such as the holocaust in a very creative way such that the gruesomeness of this event is still there but not as implicit. Through various symbolisms he is able to develop the various characters throughout the story. There are three different characters that we can recognize: the "maus" which are the jews, I believe he deliberately made jews as rats in his book not to offend but to show what they resembled at that particular time.  When you think of a disgusting animal you immediately think of rats among others so in my judgement Art wanted the audience to see how jews were seen as a repulsive race. He then made the Nazis off course as cats to create a juxtaposition between these two characters he wanted to create that sharp distinction between predator and pray. What a better way to do it that by using cats and mice. The non jews or the polish were represented by pigs I am still not certain how to describe this symbolism its harder to interpret. By these subtle elements Art makes the book much more interpretational and symbolical this is what I mean when I said that it's a very creative way to narrate these events through visual images.

 The story is developed between Vladek Spiegelman and Art his son. This is much after the war when Art goes to his father's apartment so that he tells him his story so that he can write his book. It basically shifts from present to past it combines these two aspects when the father tells his story we go back in time but when he finishes we go back to the present. After starting to read all of Vladek's experience through the holocaust I cant stop imaging the cartoon show Tom and Jerry as from what I read Vladek gets saved time after time he never gets caught. In a metaphorical way he is running from death and luckily he manages to defy it as in the show Tom no matter all the schemes he plans he is never able to get Jerry as he is one step ahead.  It's a miracle that Vladek was able to stay alive through this period as from what he says to Art most of his known relatives passed away during this time. What I did notice is that Vladek doesn't seem that afflicted by what he lived through he is somehow able to put a wall between him and his memories very bravely. I guess people deal with grief and traumatic events in different ways probably he just repressed all those awful flashbacks or at least most.

 This image I found interesting as it shows Vladek talking to a non jew guy the clever part is that Vladek is a jew so why isn't he a rat in this image. He is trying to pass himself as a non jew so Art portrays him as a pig this is why I choose this part of the book.

 This image is very emotional as it show's Vladek state after he witnessed a gruesome experience its very visual to the point that you can sense what he must feel like.

We Are Never Alone

Documentary

The Potential Within

After reading chapters 7,8,9 there were various useful tips and strategies of Ethos and Pathos which made me think and make connections with past experiences. One was practical wisdom "the appearance of knowing what to do"(p.67). This is something many politicians use now a day as a mean to try to convince people to follow them, which I find to be really dangerous. What I learned from chapters 7 through 9 is that If you apply ethos and pathos correctly you have the ability to have certain leverage over people to make them do what you want. This was what I found disturbing as its a potential weapon which already has been used by many people one of them is Hitler. He was very clever on his use of rhetoric by knowing how to use it he was able to stir and manipulate peoples emotions on a very big scale, he knew how to use anger, patriotism and emulation correctly.

 After seeing all the tools you can use to make people change their minds I just couldn't keep away the thought that the point of using them is to manipulate people to your own interest. This is what I found unsettling i'm not sure if i am seeing it very radically but Heinrichs is teaching us how to manipulate people. Not only how to do it, but most importantly how to do it well so that there are no flaws. So to be able to manipulate someone we first have to convey practical wisdom which making you seem to share the audience's value "when you seem to share your audience's values, they believe you will apply them to whatever choice you help them make"(p.67). By having practical wisdom you can show yourself as the leader they want. The next step is to show Aristotle's "disinterested goodwill"(p.72). This is the use of selflessness to enhance your likability "make your audience believe in your selflessness-by seeming either wholly objective or nobly self-sacrificing"(p.73). This tools were to perfect your ethos to make people want to follow you, if you have this then you already posses peoples interest and willingness. After this you can use emotions to get them to do what you want either through telling an experience or showing the future, as well as through anger, patriotism and emulation.

By using all this elements you can be able to manipulate people, but I want to make clear that my use of the term "manipulate" is not used in a bad way. After reading I saw the power behind well used rhetoric and how useful it really is. It is able to make people do either good or bad although they may not know like in the Hitler case it made a whole population do heinous crimes and act completely oblivious to what was happening. It took away the moral and ethical as people didn't really know or care if their actions were moral or ethical. Rhetoric is an untamed beast...

Vocab:

delve: research or make painstaking inquiries into something; reach inside a receptacle and search for something.

belittlement: make (someone or something) seem unimportant

bailiwick: one's sphere of operations or particular area of interest

vicarious: experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person; acting or done for another.

The Aspects of Having Decorum

Decorum: Argument by character starts with your audience's love:You earn it through decorum. Under Jay's definition of decorum the hollywood or athlete star the person whom I choose to represent the characteristics of this word is Falcao. I'm not sure if it's the Colombian pride speaking out loud, but of the athletes who i've known he best fits this category.

 In the football world Falcao's decorum is indisputable he fits in the same in Colombia as he does in Europe "Rhetorical decorum is the art of fitting in- not just in polite company but everywhere, from the office to the neighborhood bar. (p.46) This is a player whose image so far throughout the world is very well seen in difference to other soccer players who have been portrayed in the drug and alcohol world. When I think of Falcao I think of a professional soccer player whose skills on the pitch are irrefutable, but as well as a complete athlete in the sense that of the pitch he is known to be a mature and responsible person in his personal life (being a family man enhances this view of him for me). He does his job at his top capacity and potential and in a quiet manner. He is not known for any scandals made inside or out the pitch his manners are the same in both, for the soccer fans you might contrast the image of Falcao to that of Pepe's or Balotelli's "You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his.
(p.47)"

Jay mentioned with an example he used when his friend and himself both gave a flower to different women calling her "doll" on the doing, and how it worked for his friend but not for him "Cicero would nod his head. He taught that you can't assume a character that strays too far from your own. (p.51)" Most soccer players i've had the chance to see change when seen under the spotlight. Coming from very humble backgrounds soccer players at first when young try with their upmost capacity to become recognized (every soccer players dream). The problem is that when they see this happening they tend to change, as the see themselves with much more money their personalities shift drastically in some cases. They get this feeling that they are untouchable and you can see that their ego is over the roof: unfortunately what happens with Cristiano Ronaldo. Although he is an incredible and hugely talented athlete and soccer player his personality lowers his decorum "persuasion requires sympathy. (54)". With Falcao it's different which is what I want to highlight he came from a humble background, and worked very hard to get where he is today. Even though he probably has a lot of money nowadays he still shows humility and no ego at all. He still carries this genuine love for his country and that is why the Colombian people and me admire him so much.

He represent Aristotles three essential qualities of a persuasive ethos value, practical wisdom and selflessness. The audience does believe he shares their values, he appears to know who to manage his personal and professional life, and his audience interests seem to matter to him in a big part. I am very eager to continue to follow Falcao's soccer career as he truly is a complete soccer player as many others who have existed. Hopefully his participation at the world cup will be satisfactory so that the affection for him by the Colombian people will grow bigger than it is.

Vocab:

Ignoble: not honorable in character or purpose; of humble origin or social status.

Bluenoses: a priggish or puritanical person.

Touted: attempt to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner; attempt to persuade people of the merits of (someone or something).

The Effects of Arguing

After starting to read "Thank You For Arguing" by Jay Heinrichs I have to say that it made me think about various things I've could of done differently. At first he talks about how much his book is going to help us in life through social interaction. He wanted to state the importance of knowing how to argue,  and on knowing how to use the power of argument in life. At first I have to say that I was a little skeptical: as most texts who starts by saying how useful they are going to be usually aren't. But astonishingly I found that most of what he had to say has certain logic and truth to it. One example is when he talks about seductive argument and how effective it is when correctly used: as it implies emotions. The purpose is to manipulate "Seduction is manipulation. (p.9)"it is to stir someones emotions to get what you want. Like with advertising when they display very attractive models on clothing this sort of makes you want to look like them: appealing to your inner insecurity making you want to look better. Although seduction is just part of the process of persuading someone it is a very key part as it drags you in. There was one time when this girl at school whose beauty was breathtaking asked me if I could help her with a project she was doing. Being naturally attracted by her I decided to help her, although it was very time consuming it was worth the sacrifice (that's what I thought). Even though when I finished helping her I still hadn't began my own project I felt that we reached the consensus Jay talks about " It means more than just an agreement, much more than a compromise. The consensus represents an audience commonsense thinking. (p.9)."She got the help she needed I got her to like me and acknowledge me more (win-win).

These are not the only parts which I found useful from the reading there was one which got me thinking: it was the avoidance of having a fight just by knowing how to argue. First he wanted the reader to understand the difference between what was to fight and to argue "The basic difference between an argument and a fight: an argument, done skillfully, gets people to want to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement.(p.17)" I reflected upon this and its validity, and its very true once you think about it when you fight you try to make yourself get over somebody else: most of the time through aggression. But really what is the result from this, it only inspires revenge or retreat though fighting we can't achieve what we want no consensus can be made. It's like when he talked about the couples and the results from the experiment in which he saw that the happy ones argued and the unhappy ones fought. This reading on knowing how to differentiate fighting and arguing made me think on recent occasions. No so long ago I fought with my parents because they saw that I was not using my full capacities at school: that I was slacking. Immediately this made me furious as they didn't understand that I was challenging myself to a great extent this year. When I get mad my mind gets a little foggy and I don't process well what someone says to me. If I would of argued from the beginning and calmly acknowledge my parents points as well as asking them for some further advice: I wouldn't of been grounded.

Throughout the reading I have felt very connected to what Jay has to say on how to express yourself and to manage interactions. I have to say I feel that it is very important as well because it can help you manage many discussions you have in life. It's something that has a clear use for further situations this is why i've been appreciating it so much. As much as it is informative it is helpful.

Chiasmus: a rhetorical or literary figure in which words, grammatical constructions, or concepts are repeated in reverse order, in the same or a modified form; e.g. ‘Poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds.

Enthymeme: an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated.

High School Life Skills Rubric Video

Video