Blog-Cabin The world's foremost informative blog... for ILS 200

The sports world, in all its glory, hasn’t exactly garnered worldwide respect for its exemplary command of the English language, and in a world that continues to place a higher premium on knowledge and intelligence, those in the athletic realm have managed to fool a large portion of the population, and feign intelligence with the overuse of sports clichés. These clichés give the appearance of a clearly thought out idea, without truly saying anything. Of the clichés one overwhelming culprit comes to mind, a sneaky one liner that truly means jack squat. What is it? Well, “it is what it is.” The epitome of all sports clichés and the go to response of so many, “it is what it is,” allows athletes, coaches, and any who unwisely chose to employ this phrase a way of answering a question with a mean-nothing answer, or as Douglas McCollum, a writer for slate.com put it, “It helps them avoid speaking about the essence of anything. “ For some the saying is a way of admitting fault or defeat, while others use it to seem humble, when really it accomplishes neither. Still, no one benefits from the use of the vacuous saying. No opinions are expresses, or ideas brought out, no one gains any insight or deeper understanding after hearing that answer. All too often I see sports writers and reporters ask athletes brilliant questions, that I truly want to know the answer to, only to hear those five meaningless words come tumbling out effortlessly, followed by a swift change of topic, leaving me annoyed and cheated of a competent answer. This whole business of never truly answering questions plagues all aspects of the sports arena. “How does this loss affect your team, and will you change your perspective towards coaching this team?” a reporter might ask, “Well it was a tough loss, and we fought hard, but in the end, it is what it is, we just have to move forward.” What was that? Nowhere in that answer lied a coherent thought. Such a meaningless, rushed, go to answer deserves no place in modern society and language, and should be done away with as quickly as it’s used to avoid a question.

This will be my last post. Summer is upon us and finals are almost done. I hope you enjoyed my writing.

Our experiences shape our beliefs and everything about us. Language is our way of passing on our experiences and beliefs. It is our challenge as writers, to convey our experiences as best we can. Common writing advice is "Show don't tell", an idea that you should not just tell your audience something, but set a scene, give examples, and try and let them go through your same experiences through your writing. By showing, the reader can get a much better idea of your experience. But good writing is still not enough to capture the enormity of experience. The best writing can create its own world or an alternate reality. It can let the reader know exactly what is going on and what everyone is thinking, but it cannot put them in the same place in actual reality. It cannot let them go through the experience in the manner or process that they would choose and it cannot make the reader think about the situation with the same time scale as the experience. Language can capture a lot about our experiences, and it is our job as writers to do it the best we can. The truth is though, that nothing beats experience. When going through something first hand, you get to ask the questions and decide how you answer them. Language can capture a lot, but it cannot capture everything.

I had no expectation at all for a Com B class before this class. Intensive writing, as what I thought what this class would be, is never an exciting experience for me. But I was completely wrong. This class has offered me a lot of new perspectives of writing, or more precisely, the thoughts and tacts I could put in my writing. It is interesting to know how widely the rhetorical techniques are used in our daily life and they actually do achieve their effects.

One takeaway that might be very useful for others as well is that the awareness of our delivery and the audience’s reception. It is such a truth that could be applied to many aspects of our life. Often times we complain about friends and family for not understanding or not supporting. It could be the way we express ourselves is not easy to understand or the way they show their support cannot be explicitly captured. After all, it is all about delivering the message in the right way at the right moment and this class has provided an interesting starting point for us to work on.

One of my long-existing perceptions on English speakers that this class has overturned---they actually do know how to appreciate the beauty of long sentences. (After going through many English academic writing, I was effectively brainwashed to believe that simple=good.)

Can language capture the enormity of experience? At first thought, I would have to say no. That is why expressions such as “loss of words” ever exist. Recall the most heart-throbbing moments in our life. What are the best descriptions for the thrill of skydiving, or the joy of sailing on a sunny day? Any language would be too plain to explicate the enormous experience. That is we are to “experience your life” instead of “to read a life” (although reading is not bad either), because they can never be equitable.

However, when I think about it, it is true that language can never fully describe experience, but it still helps to remind our sensations to relate to existing experience. Think about how often we use one experience to describe another-- “the soup tastes like salty water” or “he walks like a duck.” We often use some common experience to describe something that is not readily seen or experienced. And as our own enormous experience is built up and becomes prevalent to everyone (so that they are not “enormous” anymore I guess), new languages are going to be invented to despict this particular experience. To illustrate, how would you describe bungee jump to someone who has never done it before? You would probably tell him “ It is like riding The Abyss in Disney Park without a seat but just cords tied to your feet.” But how does it feel to ride the Abyss? You would try to describe it as “ a car rushing down the steepest hill you have ever experience and ten times faster, without holding the steering wheel of course.” Now how would you describe the feeling of car rushing down the hill to people from hundreds of years ago who had no cars back then? You tell them “it is like sitting in a carriage driven by some hysteric horses.” The point I am trying to make is that driving a carriage is used to describe driving a car and rushing in a car can more or less depict the feeling of riding the Abyss, which in turn is the closest experience to bungee jump. Later on, when bungee jump becomes so common that everyone has such experience, it could become an “adjective” itself such that “Skydiving is like bungee jump with a bag and your do land on the ground.” and the audience could actually imagine how it feels to skydive and that would actually achieve the purpose of converying the experience.

In short, I guess language can never describe the full feeling of enormous experience, but it does somewhat capture the essence of it by relating it to the closet existing experience we have.

When we had our meeting with Shiffra, she asked us about our most memorable writing experiences, good or bad. While I referred back to my high school English class, I just as easily could have referred to my ordeal with the pathos cap essay.

My spring break fever had taken a hold of me, and I found myself without even a start to the pathos essay the day before it was due, so I had no choice but to grind one out at the library. Unfortunately, after spending what seemed like an eternity in the cramped confines of the 5th floor memorial library cages, I had gotten nowhere. So I a furry of panic and emotion, I bolted out and scurried back to my apartment, in a daze of disbelief and disappointment. My topic had led me nowhere, and I found myself yet again at square one.

I arrived at my apartment to find my roommates having a beer, and what seemed like a very entertaining night, such was not the case for me. They asked me if I’d like to join, and against my better judgment, I agreed; as it turns out, this might have been the best idea I’d had all night. I now felt calm and relaxed, but most importantly confident. At 10:30pm I said goodbye to the roommates and headed into my room to begin a completely new paper from scratch.

With the new topic came new energy and interest. The words flew out of me faster than ever before. My opinions and thoughts flowed freely onto the page, a stark contrast to the monotonous word by word writing I had done in the library. And before I knew it I had a whole page written, and then two, and then the essay was completed. I had set a new personal record. Unfortunately this didn’t exactly bode well for my confidence, one does not usually expect to do well with a paper written in under two hours, or at least I don’t. But to my pleasant surprise I did well, better than usual in fact. And reading over the paper, I had realized something, that with that beer and a change of topic, I began to truly understand more about the pathos unit we had been covering, more specifically I saw how to analyze an audience and how different language affects them. This marked a turning point, and the highlight of the class.

Understanding one’s audience, and their needs, will be the most important lesson I take away from this class. That and a few other things like never write a paper in the memorial library, and maybe, sometimes the best cure for writer’s block is relaxing with friends and a beer.

Truly amazing experiences, experiences that come along once in a lifetime, carry with them so much pure emotion, that more often than not, using just words and language to convey the feeling of the moment falls short. For thousands of years writers have struggled to capture the raw emotion of life, its deathly depressing lows, and insurmountable highs, and I’ll be darned if they don’t struggle for thousands more to come. With each different writer comes a unique style, and tone, all creating a different path for which to understand their literature. Unfortunately, the way in which this path is interpreted varies immensely from one reader to the next. So, a piece of literature might have a profound effect on many readers, but it will affect each reader separately, and the exact emotions felt by the author will never be the same as those felt by the reader. I am sure this must frustrate writers the world over, knowing that while someone might deeply appreciate and understand their work, no one will experience the enormity of emotion expressed in their writing, ever. Even so, the beauty of writing lies not in the ability of the writer to convey their exact emotions, but more in their ability to inspire imagination in the reader. I can imagine no better feeling for a writer than knowing their work of art has deeply affected someone, in whatever way. Life spins such a complex web of emotions, causing every experience to be absolutely unique, and in that facet no amount of language can truly pass on the beauty of the human experience.

Obviously I am early to say goodbye, but what can I say, I'm extremely excited for summer! ILS 200, besides fulfilling my communication b requirement, also greatly helped me understand the power of writing and how to appeal to my audience, both of which I did not fully understand or appreciate before. Although I still find it somewhat difficult to write about myself and how I perceive pathos and ethos in writing, I've enjoyed discovering writing styles that are not strictly logical and academic in nature.

I also have decided to join the certificate program for ILS because of the interest in the undergrads that my past and present ILS professors (Elder, Hunt and Sharlin) and TA's have shown. It is refreshing to have professors who genuinely want to spend time with the undergrads and focus on their success as well as their own success as scholars and professors.

Adios chicos, I wish you well in your academic career and your work career for those lucky ducks who are graduating and starting their next stage in life. Erin out.

Writers manipulate words into persuasive arguments, tear-jerking novels, abstract poetry, alluring performances and yet still, true experience trumps all recreations. The enormity of experience cannot be captured by language, at least if it can, I have yet to experience it. I believe more in the cliché that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’, but even a thousand pictures (or a video) lack the ability to capture the excitement, serenity or overwhelming enormity of a moment. I do not possess the creative writing skill or the emotional capacity to transform my experiences from brain to paper, music, speech or any other communicative forms. A re-enactment is the only way for someone else to experience the same experience, yet they do not have the same history so cannot understand the full experience that the writer tried to share. How does the writer know how to capture the reader’s interest and emotions to help their attempt (pathos!) at a recreation of an important meaning to them. Real-life experience, in person, clashes no many sensations together that the writer may not even notice all the factors contributing to the experience, or notice how much each of those factors changes the overall feeling of the moment. I for one would be disappointed if writing was an easy way to share experience because then even less people would go out and have those experiences for themselves. Experience crucially impacts life by its tendency to make people crave more and more places and feelings, contributing to the quality of life for those who seek to experience all that life has to offer. To gain so much experience just by reading about it makes it unnecessary to live in the real world; it would be too similar to virtual reality, false experience, leading to boredom with everyday incidents because extraordinary ones would be available by a click or by opening a book. If that were possible, experiences would mean less, ergo it is essential that experience stays genuine.

To almost everyone, the public discourse is more or less pathetic, at various levels. But how much is “too much”? If we define the “too” as the extent to which it does more harm than good, I certainly do not think the public discourse is too pathetic.

Personally, I think being pathetic is absolutely necessary in today’s mass media, because that is the way to interact with audience. Recall every little detail of our life, commercials, political agitations or public good, the force that motivates us to donate for the victims to vote for a particular candidate is the messages/information delivered that resonate with our emotion, that we can identify with. It might sound ridiculous, but if we think about it, no matter how perfect the logic is or how well the argument is structured, it all has to come down to emotion if you are counting on the audience to interact and respond.

There are certainly a lot of pathetic fallacies that are designed to trap audience’s emotion and people do fall into those emotional pitfalls. I personally do not see any problem in it. It does not mean that being blindly emotional is always a sensible thing to do, but it might often be the most effective way, although some logical understanding will be a plus. In my opinion, emotion usually beats reasoning in many aspects of our life. People buy insurance not because of the propagandas that promote retirement planning but the emotional discourse that says “ give your family the future protection”; we donate to the tornado victims not because the sensible reasoning that we have the civic duty to do so (in fact, we don’t) but we feel sorry about the tragedy and would want to help as if the other people would help us under the same situations. Yes, some of them might be misleading, but in general it does more good than harm on public affairs. Therefore, the public discourse is never too pathetic.

When making a point, using emotion is a temping way to try and persuade the audience. Playing with people's fears, wants, and past experiences is an easy way to convince an audience of things that they may not truly believe or that are really true. In politics or any public discourse, the use, and abuse of pathos, are common. The question for this assignment is to examine if pathos plays to much of a role in public discourse. In my opinion, it is a necessary evil in our discourse. With the rush-rush world we live in, most people do not have the time to stop and think about politics and their opinions on larger decisions. By using emotional appeals, journalist and television personalities get people involved in issues they would normally not. Even though the tactics they use skew and distort their opinions, the audience will eventually come to their own conclusions. In my opinion, the pathos used in public discourse is necessary so that people stay interested in the topics they discuss.

Is our public discourse too pathetic right now? As I sat and began to collect my thoughts regarding this question and form of rhetoric, I realized I needed to first address the nature of the pathetic argument/appeal itself first. Of the three points of the rhetoric triangle I find the pathetic approach to be the one people are most easily influenced by, but at the same time is the most malicious. When an audience’s emotions are played off of they can really be convinced of anything, whether or not it is logical. I say the pathetic argument is the most malicious in that it can be made and convince without being logical—it manipulates. Over time I have developed this very pessimistic outlook on the pathetic argument because I have fallen victim to it so many times, many of those times without even realizing it.
The most common headlines I see plaguing public discourse these days are usually, “IT’S OVER”, “THE OTHER WOMAN’S STORY”, or “FINALLY GETTING THE HELP THEY NEED” in bold letters. I realize that the reason people pick up and buy these magazines, papers, or tune into the T.V. and listen is because understanding them does not require any prior knowledge or a logical understanding, all you need is to be human and have emotions of any kind. We can easily understand the way in which people feel and establish our own feelings towards something. Anyone can understand the basic story without requiring any knowledge or logic, just an emotional understanding. My opinion is that yes, our public discourse is very pathetic but because it needs to be. Newspapers, tabloids, speeches, any form of discourse need to have pathetic appeal to some nature, otherwise the greater audience may feel excluded and not understand. It is the pathetic nature of these headlines that catches the audience’s attention at first, not necessarily the thought provoking or logical statement. We can all relate to this pathetic headline and understand it because we are human. It’s simple; if a magazine wants to sell and have a greater audience, it needs to have pathetic appeal.
What I do see happening though is discourse relying too heavily on this pathetic appeal in order to sell, and in turn loosing its logical and ethical nature. As I said before the pathetic appeal is malicious in that it is so manipulating, and with less and less logic and ethics in discourse, we are loosing sight of what we should be reading, as well as what’s right and balanced. For the most part our public discourse has fallen victim to a reliance on pathetic appeal and begun to lack consideration for the balance needed between all three points of rhetoric.

After reading the article, Easy = True, my only response is duh. Why wouldn't people tend to choice the things that they are familiar with or think is easier? When you have to follow directions and the directions are harder read, the task is going to seem harder to complete. When your presented with something multiple times you are going to prefer it. I am an Engineering Major, if I am shown how to do a problem one time and get confronted with a similar problem, I am going to solve it the same way as the previous problem because I am familiar with it even if there is a much simpler way. Why, because I know it is reliable. The main thing I got out of this article is that if I want to make a point in my writing, I should make it easy to understand and relate it to something people are familiar with. I do not like how this article makes this idea seem so ground breaking a new. People like what is easier and people like what they are familiar with, this isn't rocket science.

No, I do not know what you're "sayin'" when when you ask me questions or use phrases or words that do not make sense.
"Whats good?"
First of all, what would be an answer to this question, "everything", "nothing", am I supposed to explain each factor that is good or bad in my life? My answer would most likely be "huh?". I now know that "Whats good?" means "Whats up?" from the one who asked the question, which also does not make sense. If someone wants to know how I am, they could ask "How are you?" or "What are you doing?" instead of asking nonsensical questions.
"Where you at?"
"Where are you?" would be an easier question to understand and answer, but Boost mobile ads promoted this phrase and now it is too commonly heard among phone conversations and in text messages.
"supposed" v. "suppose" and "used" v. "use"
I know that many people drop the 'd' at the end of used and supposed because of the following 't' sound, but I cannot help how much this bothers me
"lol", "nm", "omg", and other instant/text message shorthand
Messaging phrases are useful when actually messaging, but when they are used in face-to-face conversations it crosses the line.

And although nonsensical phrases and words bother me, I cannot disagree that when used correctly, they can add to the musicality or coloration of the words. So although, I may know "what you're sayin'", it still annoys me.

To begin with, I have to give credits to the title of the article. As far as the content concerns, the title does demonstrate how a simple and catchy phrase like itself tends to convince the readers. I do agree with what Drake Bennett suggested in the research to a certain extent, but I think we do need to consider the context to approve the theory.

I feel that the article fell into the fallacy of equivocation when it went back and forth between “easy” and “familiar” among different research. It is true that we tend to believe in the things that we are familiar with. It is not uncommon to buy things that we have heard of when we choose products. We behave so not for the sake of our appreciation to familiarity, but in the situations that require information to make decision, familiarity implies information to a certain extent. However, easiness might be part of the correlation, or might not. In certain context, short and catchy phrases are easy for us to remember and grow familiarity; in other occasions, a little complexity would be appreciated to make an impression. The most straightforward example is the fashion trend. There are times when fanciful colored dress that would catch attention and there are days when simple white shirts appear to be cool, depending on what the rest of the people wear on the street wear. So instead of saying easiness leads to memory retention and leads us to do things, it seems to me more accurate to conclude that people tend to remember things that are different from the rest, no matter it is easier or more complicated.

The point of “disfluency” is an interesting one. If you think about it, those simple terms that are easy to remember are also easy to forget. Just think about our names. Often times, we are concerned about complicated names that would give people a hard time to remember, but once people get it, it is hard to forget. Use the example of one of our classmates, Adan (hope you don’t mind), it is an easy-pronounce-name, so it is easy to remember; at the same time, it also requires a little processing to notice the “n” instead of “m” as the usual “ Adam” is, and that is what makes it hard to forget. If the advertisers are really looking to make a quick impression and also interest the audience, I think that is the strategy it should approach—easy but different, a combination of fluency and disfluency.

Screaming fanatics surrounding me, lights flashing and horns blaring in triumph of the latest play, so excruciatingly exciting but auditoraly severe to those in 113 as if they ever needed to hear, see or think again after seeing the wonderous act of Blake Geoffrion score the winning goal for the unbeatable, indescribable, rabid Badger fans.

Whilst scouring the dark depths before him, nothing so vital had ever lain before him, so life-changingly brilliant as the small black item, that when mastered could entrust the user with powers untold; indeed, no finer sight had grazed his vision than the remote stuffed between the couch cushions.

"Buzz, buzz", the seven forty-five alarm screams for the sleeping student to get up and out of bed until his hand crashes down on the silver snooze button and his head falls back on his drool soaked pillow signaling that he is going to be late for lab today.

Vince Lombardi coined the phrase in the 1950's when he began coaching the Green Bay Packers. As coach, he won many national championships, two super bowls, and even had the super bowl trophy named after him. "Winning isn't everything" is common advice given to athletes with the idea that sportsmanship, lessons learned, and having fun can be more important than winning. Lombardi did not see sports this way. Instead, he made a play on words by making an ironic twist by agreeing that winning isn't everything, but rather so important that nothing else is even considered. This substitution changes a phrase that down plays the importance of winning, to something that puts winning as the absolute most important thing. Many professional athletes have embraced this idea, ignoring their health and reputation to gain a competitive edge. Bankers and politicians have taken this approach as well. Winning is important, but it is not everything.

Confucius plays with the words in a clever way so it could appeal to any trade or any person. Literally, he explains that in order to succeed (at perfection), you must be fully prepared to achieve perfection, such as the possession of the proper tools in the proper condition. Confucius uses inductive reasoning, pulling a broad conclusion from familiarity or observed details, to show that all capacities can be increased from the polishing of their components. His idea is presented as general advice from a trustworthy source, as though he is very comfortable with his hypothesis. The structure is simple, to achieve one goal, you must accomplish the other first. Diction in this phrase isn’t high, but easy and still extensive in its possibilities. His use of the word “perfect” is to show the goal of the workingman or scholar, and “work” represents a range of any task a person, noble or servant, could do. But when speaking of “tools”, he may be referring to the physical tools, such as hammers, pencils, spears, but also mental tools, such as logic and reason. Tools in this context could also mean skills of hunting, blacksmithing, persuasion or debating. To “sharpen” these tools could also mean a variety of trainings, education, instruction or literally sharpening or preparing their physical tools.

“If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right.” – Henry Ford
Quotes come and go like trends, long-winded quotes talking about love and the wonders of friendship, or short pithy sayings such as “Just do it,” which can literally mean anything. But on those rarest of occasions, a few words jump out at you and hold you still, igniting your mind and triggering your imagination. They are important words, worthy of consideration. Such is the case with the words spoken by the U.S. automotive industrialist Henry Ford. One of most influential businessmen in history, his reflections about business and life could fill a book, many of them dealing with success and its influence on our lives. This quote is no exception.
Clearly, this quote reflects Ford’s inductive reasoning. The line makes no assumptions, and makes a broad statement that one can apply to any number of situations. Mr. Ford, no doubt, crafted this quote after a lifetime of observing the strengths and weaknesses among individuals, and understanding the benefit of confidence. He took these observations and created his own rule about accomplishment, in the form of this maxim.
The statement is presented without reservation, equivocation, or room for misunderstanding, and relies on its conciseness to spark the imagination of the reader, a simple grain that catalyzes an entire cascade of self-reflection. It induces the idea, so tried and true, that a person is in control of their own destiny, and that belief in oneself is paramount to success. In this way, the phrase subtly invites the reader to examine his or her feelings of empowerment, and, if empowerment is lacking, to realize some guilt. With an inner sense of confidence and self-reliance, half the battle is over, and so much can be accomplished. Without belief in oneself, however, very little is possible. Insecurity and self-doubt often give way to guilt around squandered opportunities. Ultimately, this quote is meant to inspire those lacking confidence, and enhance the confidence of those already on their way to success.
The power of Mr. Ford’s quote lies in its structure. The repetition of the first two phrases -- differing only by an apostrophe and a “t” -- echoes that the difference between accomplishing a goal and failure, often boils down to something as simple as confidence. Additionally, by giving two possible positions -- thinking you can do a thing, and thinking you can’t do a thing -- and one answer -- you’re right -- Henry Ford implies that the answer doesn’t depend on either position, a powerful point in the structure of the sentence. So often, people are led to believe that their thinking is right or wrong, black or white. Rarely do you find an instance where, no matter what you think, you’re right. Additionally, this structure also adds a bit of ironic humor, as its single answer surprises the reader.
Often, the most meaningful advice is given in plain language. Such is the case with this quote, as it employs an unsophisticated level of colloquial words, allowing for a straightforward message. Yet, the depth of advice that can be extracted from this simple quote is loaded with meaning. When clichéd phrases about personal empowerment and inner drive are so common they have little meaning (“Shoot for the stars” comes to mind), Ford’s maxim manages to avoid these murky depths, generating a clear, forceful, and credible message.
A quote that manages this much insight, conveying an important idea with the simplest turn of language and phrase, deserves a great deal of respect, particularly when it hails from someone as distinguished as Henry Ford. Rarely does advice come along and speak to us so personally. Using witty structure and dry humor, Ford managed to pack as much, and perhaps more, into these few words as he did into his Model T’s.

I love this quote because it is simply brilliant! It is among one of the many witty thoughts that could subtly bring a knowing smile on your face --we all have had the moments with a forced shrug saying, “ Well, it was at least good experience.”

The logic seems to be more of a deductive form to me. It starts with a general conclusion that sounds rational and as we put more thoughts on it, it is indeed applicable to many tiny details of our life. You become a great salesman after thousands of job interviews; you learn the knots even though you cannot to set up the sails right; you end up with batter after failing to make a doe. The quote is trying to say that in most parts of life, we cannot get what we intend exactly, but we usually land with something else, or at very least some experience.

The diction level is not necessarily high but the choice of words achieves its effect of revealing a small yet complex truth. The sentence only adopts a few simple words to explicate a light irony that we seldom think about. One might question the quote at first look since both success and failure are considered experience, and I agree. I interpreted the “experience” here as “lesson” rather than simple impression one could get by doing anything. (In fact, I would say “lesson” might be a better choice of word.) Otherwise, it would be pointless since we will get “experience” anyway in everything we do. In a sense, the statement is not entirely true, but the engagement with the deeper meaning of the sentence is delightful that it deems superfluous to criticize the accuracy of it.

The opposition of “get” and “don’t get” works really well to create a sense of humorous irony--- life does not always grant us what we want; on the other hand, it offers a sarcastic feeling of comfort—we are not completely fruitless although things do not go as desired. Moreover, the repetition of words makes the short sentence read like a tiny interesting twister that is easily remembered.

Little we know about this American businessman, Dan Stanford, neither do we know about the context under which he produced this piece of wisdom, but I could imagine it being a deep reflection after his life-long journey of striving for success with millions of attempts, failures and learning. Eventually, the most precious treasure is probably the experience along the way, if nothing else.