Banned Books Conflict

Hey there, fellow bloggers. Here's a random question... have you ever read a banned book? I've read two: Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. I read both of these in my school last year, as it was required, though it's banned in many other schools. I found out today that Lord of the Flies, Night, and strangely Alice's Adventures in Wonderland are banned in some schools too.

The reason for the ban isn't because it has a discouraging meaning. It's because of the extreme profanity within them. It is said that such words shouldn't be used in classroom conditions, as they are way too inappropriate. They are discriminatory words and are too harsh for kids, even if these kids are in high school. Sometimes the reason for the ban isn't just the language, but the content itself. Perhaps the actions of the characters are too... adult-like. The characters might be getting involved in situations and scenes that kids (yes, this includes high school students) shouldn't be reading and discussing about.

Now the real question is... should the books really be banned?

People say that high school students can handle inappropriate content, and the books shouldn't be banned because the main purpose of including the books in the curriculum is because of the lessons they contain altogether. Of Mice and Men and To Kill a Mockingbird had a ton of bad words that made it hard for me to read. Personally, I am completely against the use of profanity. I don't use such words, EVER. Working with these books were really uncomforting for this reason. But overall, the story and lessons were good, minus the bad parts. Lord of the Flies had some bad words, but I never thought of it as something worth being full-on banned. The other two I mentioned just above, though, are reasonable for being challenged. I'm sorry to say this, but I am kind of a supporter of banning the books. If a book has too much inappropriate content, then the kids will get distracted by it and possibly miss out on the main story. Some kids will find it funny, and some will find it unsettling. However, it's hard to say whether novels like the classic To Kill a Mockingbird should be banned. It has really bad language and situations at times, but the overall lesson is meaningful. Kids will miss out on that if it is banned. Is there another book out there that does the same job explaining the moral, maybe even better? Perhaps, but the classics aren't something we should miss out on. Should we then resort to just reading excerpts? It doesn't sound like a bad idea, for now.

It's a really sticky topic, so I'll leave it at that. It's some food for thought.

See you next week!

The Art of Rhetoric

Hello everyone! Here's another interesting topic for you all today. Let's talk about how rhetoric and language can be used as tools for manipulation.

Have you ever heard someone say, "That was a rhetorical question. Don't answer it." Well, what does that even mean? First, let's clear up the definition of the word rhetoric, and all its wonders.

Rhetoric is a style of speech. It's a technique used to bring out your point effectively. There are 3 main components to the art of rhetoric, collectively known as the Rhetorical Triangle, created by Aristotle.

1. Ethos

"Ethos" sounds like "ethic," which is what is refers to. If you're speaking rhetorically, ethos is something you need to include in your dialogue. It is basically describing your character. Are you a trustworthy person? Are you morals and ethics in place? Are you someone worthy of other people's attention and respect? These all fall into the ethos section.

2. Logos

"Logos" sounds like "logic." When you're trying to make a point, you can't simply throw information down on your audience. There has to be evidence, or some sort of way to back up your words. It needs foundation. Logos refers to the logical appeal of a speech. This is where the argument happens.

3. Pathos

This is the fun one. "Pathos" sounds a bit like "pathology." Pathology usually refers to disease or suffering (pathogens, etc.), but pathos is more than just that. It is the emotional appeal of your speech to the audience. If you include pathos into what you're saying, that means your words are able to stir up emotions in the minds of your audience. It could instill pride, sadness, fear, anything.

These 3 components usually make up the best speeches. If a person successfully taps into each one to an audience, that speech will most likely be successful. The Rhetorical Triangle is an excellent tool for manipulation. Let's take a look at an example.

(I'm not referring to anyone specific below. I'm making this up completely.)

Let's say a politician is giving a speech to an American audience. He wants to be elected for a certain position in the government. Maybe to some, he isn't the best choice. There isn't a 100% guarantee that he's got this in the bag, so it's time to spice up his appeal to them. Time for some rhetoric.

In his speech, he'll probably start with something like "My fellow Americans." This is providing a sense of unity among himself and them. He will then go on to talk about how wonderful our country is, sounding like he is a proud American. Then he will talk about everything that is wrong with it, question why it's wrong, and what can we do as U.S. citizens to fix it. If he nails down the right "problems" and addresses them in such a way, each individual listening will feel like he is talking to them personally. Each individual will feel that he knows exactly how everyone feels about those problems, and how badly everyone wants a solution. If he promises to fix them to make everything wonderful again, his audience will be really happy. They'll cheer constantly. This is pathos.

Anyone can make promises, but not everyone can keep them. How are we to know that this man will keep his? He will then go on the discuss his history in dealing with situations like this. He will talk about all of his credentials, the positions he has held in the past, etc. This is ethos.

Some say that every idea is a good idea, but it isn't always the case. What if this man's ideas for improvement are complete nonsense? How is he going to convince them that his plan will work? He will then pull out a bunch of statistics to make him sound like he really knows what he's talking about, and that he's got this. Maybe some people will analyze every statistic/fact he says to see if they're really true, but most people won't delve too deep into it. The common man usually goes with what sounds best, and few go further than that. Either way, the facts are there. This is logos.

By the end of the speech, everyone will be shouting "USA! USA!" and that man will wave, smiling at his new followers. He nailed all three legs of the Rhetorical Triangle, and had a successful speech.

Now, going back to the rhetorical question that you're not supposed to answer... basically, when someone asks a rhetorical question, it's only for dramatic effect. In this case, it doesn't necessarily include ethos, pathos, and logos. Rhetorical questions are just for style. This type of question is just supposed to sink into your mind and make you think about it, but not necessarily answer it like a typical question.

For example, let's say some kid asks "Why do I have to go to school?" Instead of answering "To get an education," you could say "Do you want to work at McDonald's for the rest of your life?" That was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously "no," but he won't say that. He should understand the point by now.

Well, that's all folks. See you next week!

Oh and...
Happy Birthday to me!
It's sometime this week. Bye now!

Dull and Creative Minds

Greetings everyone! Here's an interesting topic for you today...

"If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them." - George Orwell

This quote is basically saying that if people aren't able to record their thoughts properly, they won't be able to think properly, as they'll forget their thoughts. It might seem strange to forget a brilliant idea, but I've actually had this happen to me so many times. In happened to me last night, in fact! My art teacher always says to record your thoughts as soon as you get them, because you'll definitely forget it. Even if the idea isn't good, you can always build upon it later, forging a truly fantastic thought in the long run.

If a person doesn't think well, then that person won't grow into an innovative being. Then the people who actually have become innovative will do something to improve the lives of all people, which includes the dull ones. As a result, it's possible that the person who hasn't done any thinking will benefit off the people who worked hard.

It's quite an interesting quote, and I agree with it. Think about it in terms of a typical high school. For example, oh I don't know... mine! There are so many kids there who can't think about anything properly. I'm going to slightly disagree with the quote a bit on the writing part, because although writing is important, it's not necessarily the key to thinking well. There are lots of smart people who contribute well verbally but not on paper. So, the writing part is kind of optional. But the creativity is a must, which is something a lot of people don't have. They aren't honing their skills, testing their mind, thinking outside the box... they're just chilling. Yes, chilling is a whole lot of fun, but it's important to have a creative mind. The kids who never allow their mind to grow and explore their world will end up with little to no accomplishments in their life. Meanwhile, the kids who have creative minds will grow up to be something great. One will be an inventor, one a doctor, a teacher, soldier, governor, whatever it may be! These people will be the ones working to improve our world. They're basically doing what those dull kids are supposed to be doing. For example, someone will invent a perfect stain-proof shirt one of these days and market it all over the country. That dull kid will get his hands on it eventually and enjoy its benefits, but he didn't make it. The inventor made it for the good of all. That dull kid is having other people do the work for him. The smart people are essentially filling in the gaps of those who can't contribute.

Should things be that way? No, since there are more dull ones than creative ones. Are things that way? Yes, and they always will be. While I believe nothing is impossible, it's really close to impossible to inspire all people of the world to become something great instead of being dependent on others.

This quote is an introduction to a new book we'll start reading soon... and I think I know what it is. I'll discuss all that in future posts, of course. I'll be sure to keep it in mind while reading, since it pretty much applies directly to our world.

That's all for now. See you next week!