In both Perfume and The Crucible the main theme that revolves around both these pieces of literature is the theme of good versus evil. Although these novels do not have a conventional approach to the theme of good and evil. There are no solely good characters in both Perfume and The Crucible because all characters exemplify evil tendencies one way or another thus making the approach to “Good Versus Evil” unconventional.
In typical good versus evil themes, there is always a good set of characters and an evil set of characters, and either the good characters are introduced first or the evil characters. In the end the evil characters or character is usually stopped by the “good” characters at any cost. In both The Crucible and Perfume there are no good characters that put a stop to the evil characters. For example in Perfume Grenouille was the evil protagonist who had gotten exactly what he wanted and nobody was able to stop him. Grenouille had made the “ultimate perfume” and there was not a single person who could put a stop to him. Once Grenouille had accomplished this perfect scent, he killed himself, and not by the means of some “good” characters like what happens in most conventional approach, but he died on his own terms and nobody else’s. In The Crucible just like Perfume, nobody was able to stop Abigail and all her lies. Abigail got exactly what she wanted.
In most conventional pieces of literature that deal with the theme of “Good Versus Evil,” there is always an evil antagonist that is introduced in a clear way. In Perfume the protagonist happened to be the evilest of characters in the entire novel, and the same goes for The Crucible. It was clear even at the beginning of the novel that Grenouille, the main character in Perfume was going to slowly develop into a cold hearted, relentless and evil character. Through many evil actions it was clear that Grenouille was going down a dark path. In the beginning of the novel Grenouille encountered a special scent from a girl and he just had to kill her. Grenouille had murdered her like it was no big deal at all and had done it for no good reason. This killing was a “spark to his flame,” because eventually Grenouille killed 25 other girls in a similar way in order to make the “ultimate scent.” Similarly in The Crucible, Abigail, the antagonist was clearly an evil character, she got her ways through lies and deceit. Abigail was fully lying about what was going on in the woods. Abigail is always yelling, and she seems to always be in the middle of all the problems. Abigail also framed Elizabeth for stabbing her. Abigail seemed to be pretty happy that the three individuals were hanged to death, which is very “evil-like,” especially considering she knows she’s lying and she knows those people did not deserve to die. Both authors did a good job in clearly portraying the main evil characters.
Just like most conventional approaches have an evil antagonist, most conventional approaches have a solely “good” protagonist that does everything in his or her power to put a stop to the evil character(s). That is entirely not the case with Perfume and The Crucible. In Perfume there are no solely good characters, only seemingly good characters that have evil thoughts and do evil-like actions which in fact make them “lesser-evil” Baldini one of the character in Perfume who at first seems “Good” is a perfect example of this. Baldini was a great perfumer who was about to quit perfuming. Baldini gave Grenouille a chance to prove himself even though there were so many negative factors against Grenouille. Up until this point it is clear that Baldini was a good character who had a heart. Although once Grenouille fell fatally ill, the only thing on Baldini’s mind was his precious business and how if he lost Grenouille his business would plummet. Baldini had taken care of Grenouille well, and never left his side. “Baldini would have loved to throttle him, to club him to death, to beat those precious secrets out of that moribund body.” (Suskind, 107) That exact quote gives the reader a clear indication that Baldini may appear to be “good” but he is in fact “evil.” There is a similar case in The Crucible. John Proctor was portrayed as a good character with no evil tendencies once so ever. Although in some of the scenes John Proctor handled Abigail with such ruthless aggression and anger. He would always throttle her, yell her and almost had absolutely no sympathy for her at all. In the movie in one of the scenes it was pitch black; and the camera was angled in such a way that showed that John Proctor was about to do something so entirely lethal and evil. This was also after Elizabeth was taken away because of Abigail. This clearly shows that even characters that may seem to be 100 percent evil can in fact have evil tendencies that can in fact make them no where near good.
Overall it is clear that there are not really any solely good characters in both Perfume and The Crucible, and the author’s of both novels had an unconventional approach to the theme of “Good Versus Evil.” Justice had not prevailed in either of these two pieces of literature.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
How does film deal with these questions?
Film deals with these questions similarly to literature; the only difference is that you’re not reading about all these issues, you are watching all these issues, although people usually see things differently after they watch a movie over reading. As everyone always says, “seeing is believing.” For example in the novel “Perfume” there was a movie made for it. The likely story is the book was a lot better than the movie, and the movie may be slightest different, but none the less the ideas on “good” and “evil” were exactly the same and probably didn’t change in the movie. It would be portrayed similarly if not the same.
In movies just like literature; what constitutes a “good” person and an “evil” person is portrayed as completely universal. The movie directors probably try their best to not make it subjective, they want to clearly make their “evil” characters “evil” and they want to clearly make their “good” characters “good.” Although movie writers and directors cannot change the opinion of the movie watchers, they do try their best to influence their thoughts and persuade them to see these characters the way that they intend for them to be seen. In a superhero movie it is clear who the “good” characters are and clear who the “Evil” ones are. The good characters are usually the ones that are trying to put a stop to the “evil” characters and the “evil” characters are trying to wreak havoc and terror in the world, city or where ever it may be.
In most movies there are clearly defined roles, but in some it isn’t so easy to differentiate between the “good” characters and the “evil” ones. In the movie “Hancock” the protagonist who is hancock is portrayed as somebody who may do “good” but his intentions are not always pure and just, and he doesn’t have the city and the people’s interest at heart. Hancock may do “good” things but he is a homeless bum who is always drunk, swears non stop, does unethical things, and creates such a mess when “trying” to save the day. For example in one of the scenes there was this car that was stuck in traffic in the train tracks, and a train was coming. Of course here comes hancock out of nowhere and the smartest thing to do was to just take the car and fly up, but no Hancock has to smash the train and throw the car on top of another one. Of course later on in the film he learns to be a true hero and is portrayed as a full “good” character and doesn’t have a hint of “evil.”
Overall no matter how you look at it, film is quite similar to literature and how they deal with these questions is in fact similar.
In movies just like literature; what constitutes a “good” person and an “evil” person is portrayed as completely universal. The movie directors probably try their best to not make it subjective, they want to clearly make their “evil” characters “evil” and they want to clearly make their “good” characters “good.” Although movie writers and directors cannot change the opinion of the movie watchers, they do try their best to influence their thoughts and persuade them to see these characters the way that they intend for them to be seen. In a superhero movie it is clear who the “good” characters are and clear who the “Evil” ones are. The good characters are usually the ones that are trying to put a stop to the “evil” characters and the “evil” characters are trying to wreak havoc and terror in the world, city or where ever it may be.
In most movies there are clearly defined roles, but in some it isn’t so easy to differentiate between the “good” characters and the “evil” ones. In the movie “Hancock” the protagonist who is hancock is portrayed as somebody who may do “good” but his intentions are not always pure and just, and he doesn’t have the city and the people’s interest at heart. Hancock may do “good” things but he is a homeless bum who is always drunk, swears non stop, does unethical things, and creates such a mess when “trying” to save the day. For example in one of the scenes there was this car that was stuck in traffic in the train tracks, and a train was coming. Of course here comes hancock out of nowhere and the smartest thing to do was to just take the car and fly up, but no Hancock has to smash the train and throw the car on top of another one. Of course later on in the film he learns to be a true hero and is portrayed as a full “good” character and doesn’t have a hint of “evil.”
Overall no matter how you look at it, film is quite similar to literature and how they deal with these questions is in fact similar.
How does Literature deal with these questions?
Literature deals with these questions in a very simple manner. The good characters are always the main characters, and the impression that the author of the book wants the audience to see these characters as “good”. Therefore the author may portray them as a super hero, somebody that does “good” in the world, somebody that puts others before themselves, etc. Also the good characters are usually the ones that try and stop the evil characters from doing evil things. In literature the evil characters are usually heartless, the villain of the story, and usually just cause a lot of unnecessary problems. The evil characters only care about themselves and don’t care about anyone else.
Literature doesn’t usually want the audience or reader to determine whether or not the character is evil or not, so in other words they don’t want it to be subjective, they want it to be a universal truth. Therefore what ever the author wants the characters to be is what the characters are going to be; so they basically make it a universal truth on what the “good” characters are and what the “evil” characters are, even though you may have your own opinion on them and may see them differently. In literature their usually are clearly defined roles; which means there really aren’t any discrepancies to whether or not the character is “good” or “evil.”
As to whether or not evil characters can engender sympathy or not is really up to the author of the story. Most pieces of literature do in fact have evil characters that can in fact engender sympathy, and in others they are pure evil, and don’t engender sympathy even the slightest bit. The same goes for “good” characters; they can in fact engender judgment for being seen as “evil,” but the likely story is that most “good” characters are usually “good” throughout the entire story, and they don’t really show great amounts of evilness.
In the novel “Perfume” at the beginning of the book for the first few chapters this character named Grenouille was seen as neutral, so you couldn’t really tell if he was “Evil” or “good” it was pretty uncertain, although you were given some clues to what was to eventually come. Although in this one scene he kills this poor innocent girl just to inherit her scent, and when he gets back to his closet where he lived, he said that he had never felt happier in his life, he couldn’t even recall what the innocent girl he killed had looked like all he could think about was her scent. It was as if killing this girl was not even an issue, this character literally felt nothing at all. Therefore this “evil” character didn’t engender sympathy at all, which makes him pure evil.
Literature doesn’t usually want the audience or reader to determine whether or not the character is evil or not, so in other words they don’t want it to be subjective, they want it to be a universal truth. Therefore what ever the author wants the characters to be is what the characters are going to be; so they basically make it a universal truth on what the “good” characters are and what the “evil” characters are, even though you may have your own opinion on them and may see them differently. In literature their usually are clearly defined roles; which means there really aren’t any discrepancies to whether or not the character is “good” or “evil.”
As to whether or not evil characters can engender sympathy or not is really up to the author of the story. Most pieces of literature do in fact have evil characters that can in fact engender sympathy, and in others they are pure evil, and don’t engender sympathy even the slightest bit. The same goes for “good” characters; they can in fact engender judgment for being seen as “evil,” but the likely story is that most “good” characters are usually “good” throughout the entire story, and they don’t really show great amounts of evilness.
In the novel “Perfume” at the beginning of the book for the first few chapters this character named Grenouille was seen as neutral, so you couldn’t really tell if he was “Evil” or “good” it was pretty uncertain, although you were given some clues to what was to eventually come. Although in this one scene he kills this poor innocent girl just to inherit her scent, and when he gets back to his closet where he lived, he said that he had never felt happier in his life, he couldn’t even recall what the innocent girl he killed had looked like all he could think about was her scent. It was as if killing this girl was not even an issue, this character literally felt nothing at all. Therefore this “evil” character didn’t engender sympathy at all, which makes him pure evil.
Monday, March 9, 2009
How do various religions/philosophies deal with these questions?
Religions and Philosophies have their very own way of dealing with these various questions. Some philosophers say that we were all born “good,” but somehow along the way while we grew up, we were influenced by things we saw, things we heard and what we experienced as we grew up. On the other hand some philosophers have said the exact opposite. Some say that we were born evil, but somehow along the way while we grew up, we were influenced by things w sat, things we heard, etc which then turned us “good.” Of course with some of us, we were never influenced by these things which are why we either stayed “good” or stayed “evil” depending on which side you are on.
A man named B.F. Skinner said we humans don’t have free will, but in fact we are determined beings. In other words we don’t choose the actions we perform but in fact they are chosen for us due to behaviorism. What B.F. Skinner is basically saying is that we humans do not choose to be “good” and/or “evil.” Our actions are determined by positive and negative reinforcement. For example if you’ve been having a horrible day and absolutely nothing goes your way, like your coffee spills all over you, you lost your wallet, your mom and dad dies in a car accident, your house it caught on fire. The next person that even accidentally bumps into you may just loose their life, but it’s not your fault at all, negative reinforcement compels you too act this way towards this innocent man. The same goes for when you are growing up, if you grow up in an unstable environment with shootings, and crime occurring everyday then there is a chance you may grow to be an evil person, but it isn’t at all your fault it is just where you grew up.
Religion has a great deal to say about good and evil. Religious leaders and sacred texts all encourage believers to live “good” lives. The problem of evil and suffering is one of the commonest reasons people give for not believing in God. There are two types of evil: natural evil and moral (or human) evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by events that have nothing to do with humans like natural disasters. Moral evil is suffering caused by humans acting in a way that is considered morally wrong like bullying, murder, rape, etc. In Christianity some people no longer see evil as a ‘person’ or ‘being’ but they simply see evil as the absence of “good.” Therefore if enough people do good then evil would be removed. Some people also think that evil is a psychological or emotional problem, that no one is inherently evil, but circumstances or as B.F. Skinner would say “negative reinforcement” can lead them to become so. Some people also believe that as a result of Adam and Eve’s first sins, each human is born with a tendency towards evil which is called ‘Original Sin’
As you can see Religion and Philosophies are somewhat related when it comes to dealing with and explaining “good” and “evil”
A man named B.F. Skinner said we humans don’t have free will, but in fact we are determined beings. In other words we don’t choose the actions we perform but in fact they are chosen for us due to behaviorism. What B.F. Skinner is basically saying is that we humans do not choose to be “good” and/or “evil.” Our actions are determined by positive and negative reinforcement. For example if you’ve been having a horrible day and absolutely nothing goes your way, like your coffee spills all over you, you lost your wallet, your mom and dad dies in a car accident, your house it caught on fire. The next person that even accidentally bumps into you may just loose their life, but it’s not your fault at all, negative reinforcement compels you too act this way towards this innocent man. The same goes for when you are growing up, if you grow up in an unstable environment with shootings, and crime occurring everyday then there is a chance you may grow to be an evil person, but it isn’t at all your fault it is just where you grew up.
Religion has a great deal to say about good and evil. Religious leaders and sacred texts all encourage believers to live “good” lives. The problem of evil and suffering is one of the commonest reasons people give for not believing in God. There are two types of evil: natural evil and moral (or human) evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by events that have nothing to do with humans like natural disasters. Moral evil is suffering caused by humans acting in a way that is considered morally wrong like bullying, murder, rape, etc. In Christianity some people no longer see evil as a ‘person’ or ‘being’ but they simply see evil as the absence of “good.” Therefore if enough people do good then evil would be removed. Some people also think that evil is a psychological or emotional problem, that no one is inherently evil, but circumstances or as B.F. Skinner would say “negative reinforcement” can lead them to become so. Some people also believe that as a result of Adam and Eve’s first sins, each human is born with a tendency towards evil which is called ‘Original Sin’
As you can see Religion and Philosophies are somewhat related when it comes to dealing with and explaining “good” and “evil”
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Can good characters engender judgment?
Good characters can in fact engender judgment just like evil characters can engender sympathy; good characters can engender evil behavior. Not everybody is perfect; therefore it isn’t likely that an individual will be all “good” at all times. At least once in your life if not hundreds of times you will have to lie, cheat, or do something “Evil” for whatever reason you have to do it for. Keeping in mind, what one person sees as evil, another person may see it as “good.” What that means is everybody has their reasons for their actions; whether it is “evil” or “good.”
For example as horrible as this sounds; if a young women is faced with an obvious choice to either kill the man that has her new born baby, or too not kill him and too loose her child forever, then it is quite obvious what she is going to choose. Therefore after she shoots him, there really wouldn’t be any witnesses or hard evidence against the “baby snatcher,” therefore this poor women would be seen as a heartless killer who killed a man for no apparent reason, even though she knows what she has done, and why she has done it and so does the baby, if he/she could talk of course. This is one example on how good characters can engender judgment for being evil, even though deep down they are far from it.
“Kill one, save thousands,” that is a common issue/problem/decision that good characters are often forced to choose. Doing something evil like killing a person to save millions of others lives. Whether or not this is considered “evil” is completely subjective, meaning that some would see it as a good thing just to save there sorry tails, and others would see it as pure evil, just because there lives were not on the line. Of course killing an innocent person no matter what the reason is of course evil, and just because you would be saving another oh say thousand lives does not make it justifiable. If this individual knows for a fact that he is saving all these lives and that he knows what he is doing is completely evil and unethical then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. On the other hand if he is only doing it to save himself and doesn’t care about the person that he is killing or the other people that are dying then his actions are pure “Evil,” because his motive is selfish, and unjust.
Just like every other question regarding “Good” and “evil,” whether or not good people can be seen as evil or not is completely subjective, and only if their reasons are justifiable will their actions be considered “Good” or not.
For example as horrible as this sounds; if a young women is faced with an obvious choice to either kill the man that has her new born baby, or too not kill him and too loose her child forever, then it is quite obvious what she is going to choose. Therefore after she shoots him, there really wouldn’t be any witnesses or hard evidence against the “baby snatcher,” therefore this poor women would be seen as a heartless killer who killed a man for no apparent reason, even though she knows what she has done, and why she has done it and so does the baby, if he/she could talk of course. This is one example on how good characters can engender judgment for being evil, even though deep down they are far from it.
“Kill one, save thousands,” that is a common issue/problem/decision that good characters are often forced to choose. Doing something evil like killing a person to save millions of others lives. Whether or not this is considered “evil” is completely subjective, meaning that some would see it as a good thing just to save there sorry tails, and others would see it as pure evil, just because there lives were not on the line. Of course killing an innocent person no matter what the reason is of course evil, and just because you would be saving another oh say thousand lives does not make it justifiable. If this individual knows for a fact that he is saving all these lives and that he knows what he is doing is completely evil and unethical then maybe it isn’t such a bad thing. On the other hand if he is only doing it to save himself and doesn’t care about the person that he is killing or the other people that are dying then his actions are pure “Evil,” because his motive is selfish, and unjust.
Just like every other question regarding “Good” and “evil,” whether or not good people can be seen as evil or not is completely subjective, and only if their reasons are justifiable will their actions be considered “Good” or not.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Can evil characters engender sympathy?
Evil characters can engender sympathy to a certain extent, because of course not everyone can be pure evil. Everybody has a little good and evil inside them. Engendering sympathy is just in human nature, and it really can’t be avoided. Only somebody like the devil himself could possibly be pure evil, but other than him, even the evilest of characters can engender a certain amount of sympathy depending on how evil they are. Some characters may just perform evil actions but may have evil thoughts, and some characters may just have evil thoughts but may not even be able to perform these sick and evil thoughts.
For example, the same exact character in Heroes who is supposed to be seen as pure evil does in fact show some sympathy towards some of the other characters in the television show. Usually he kills everybody in sight that has powers, but as the show progresses he slows down on his killings, and only kills if necessary, because he finally realizes he is a killer and doesn’t like it. He feels sorry for the innocent people that he has killed therefore eases up on the murdering.
Even though some characters if not all evil characters engender sympathy sometimes that just doesn’t stop them from killing, or hurting who ever or what ever they have to hurt/kill. Usually you hear this evil individual say, “it’s such a shame I have to kill you,” or something like “It is so sad it must end this way.” Some characters just say that too really show how evil they are, and others really do In fact feel for who ever they are killing/hurting. But they have to do what they have to do. Sympathy is a natural human emotion, and you really can’t get rid of it, because some philosophers have said that we are all born “good” therefore we’re all born with sympathetic emotions, happiness, good thoughts, freedom. Although when we take advantage of this freedom and power we have, we begin to turn evil, although an emotion like sympathy will always stay with us which is why some evil characters are in fact capable of engendering sympathy. In the book "Perfume," the book is about a killer who just kills people for their scent, as crazy as that sounds he doesn't just kill them for the sake of killing, he has a purpose. Therefore he must feel sympathetic that these innocent people must die for his supposed "greater good," as sad as that sounds.
In conclusion, even if a character doesn't show how sympathetic towards others they are, most of them truly do feel sympathetic deep down inside. Characters who have a reason to do "evil," are really the ones that feel sympathetic where the ones that just find joy in killing and hurting people would probably not engender that much sympathy. One would have to be literally heartless to not engender sympathy.
For example, the same exact character in Heroes who is supposed to be seen as pure evil does in fact show some sympathy towards some of the other characters in the television show. Usually he kills everybody in sight that has powers, but as the show progresses he slows down on his killings, and only kills if necessary, because he finally realizes he is a killer and doesn’t like it. He feels sorry for the innocent people that he has killed therefore eases up on the murdering.
Even though some characters if not all evil characters engender sympathy sometimes that just doesn’t stop them from killing, or hurting who ever or what ever they have to hurt/kill. Usually you hear this evil individual say, “it’s such a shame I have to kill you,” or something like “It is so sad it must end this way.” Some characters just say that too really show how evil they are, and others really do In fact feel for who ever they are killing/hurting. But they have to do what they have to do. Sympathy is a natural human emotion, and you really can’t get rid of it, because some philosophers have said that we are all born “good” therefore we’re all born with sympathetic emotions, happiness, good thoughts, freedom. Although when we take advantage of this freedom and power we have, we begin to turn evil, although an emotion like sympathy will always stay with us which is why some evil characters are in fact capable of engendering sympathy. In the book "Perfume," the book is about a killer who just kills people for their scent, as crazy as that sounds he doesn't just kill them for the sake of killing, he has a purpose. Therefore he must feel sympathetic that these innocent people must die for his supposed "greater good," as sad as that sounds.
In conclusion, even if a character doesn't show how sympathetic towards others they are, most of them truly do feel sympathetic deep down inside. Characters who have a reason to do "evil," are really the ones that feel sympathetic where the ones that just find joy in killing and hurting people would probably not engender that much sympathy. One would have to be literally heartless to not engender sympathy.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Are there clearly defined roles?
There are never clearly defined roles; which pretty much means that good people can sometimes do evil things, and evil people can in fact do good things. What differentiates between what makes a person good or evil is their intent. Even if an evil person does something good, we may not know if their intentions are pure or not. The same thing goes for somebody “good,” even though they may do something which would be considered “evil,” they may have a good reason and their intent may be pure, as evil as their actions may be. For example if we found out that this lady kills a man we would automatically think, “oh my god she’s EVIL!” but then later on if we found she killed this man because he had a knife to her babies neck, then the story would change completely.
It is in fact pretty difficult to see somebody that is pure “evil” and somebody that is pure “good,” it is almost impossible. Evil people can have their good moments and good people can show their “Dark” side every once in a while because nobody is perfect. Also considering “good” and “evil” is strictly subjective; not everybody would see somebody as evil, and not everybody would see the same person as good. One person may see him/her as evil while another may see him/her as good. Some people may even just want to put on an act; meaning they may just want everyone to see them as evil or they may just want everyone to see them as good. Most people obviously want to be seen as good rather than evil. Somebody may say or do bad things but deep down they may not even mean to do everything that they do, which probably wouldn’t make them entirely evil. The same goes for somebody trying to be good; just because they act “good” doesn’t make them good, because they may have impure motives and intents. For example in the show heroes; there was this character that from the start was introduced as pure evil because he always killed everyone in sight for their “powers,” and this character was portrayed as evil. Although later on in the series, we found that this character wasn’t evil at all, he did in fact have at least half a heart because he had gone good for quite sometime. This just proves that roles aren’t clearly defined, or else this character would be evil throughout the entire show.
Overall, being seen as evil doesn’t make you evil, and being seen as good doesn’t make you “good.” No characters are exclusively good and/or evil.
It is in fact pretty difficult to see somebody that is pure “evil” and somebody that is pure “good,” it is almost impossible. Evil people can have their good moments and good people can show their “Dark” side every once in a while because nobody is perfect. Also considering “good” and “evil” is strictly subjective; not everybody would see somebody as evil, and not everybody would see the same person as good. One person may see him/her as evil while another may see him/her as good. Some people may even just want to put on an act; meaning they may just want everyone to see them as evil or they may just want everyone to see them as good. Most people obviously want to be seen as good rather than evil. Somebody may say or do bad things but deep down they may not even mean to do everything that they do, which probably wouldn’t make them entirely evil. The same goes for somebody trying to be good; just because they act “good” doesn’t make them good, because they may have impure motives and intents. For example in the show heroes; there was this character that from the start was introduced as pure evil because he always killed everyone in sight for their “powers,” and this character was portrayed as evil. Although later on in the series, we found that this character wasn’t evil at all, he did in fact have at least half a heart because he had gone good for quite sometime. This just proves that roles aren’t clearly defined, or else this character would be evil throughout the entire show.
Overall, being seen as evil doesn’t make you evil, and being seen as good doesn’t make you “good.” No characters are exclusively good and/or evil.
What is the nature of evil?
Evil, like good, is often measured in relation to how it impacts us personally and physically. Judging evil solely by its consequence is inappropriate and very much invalid. Evilness is strictly subjective, which means the extent to which something is considered “evil” really depends on the individual; and that person’s moral values, religion, etc. Evil is basically the opposite of good and most people are aware what the nature of “good” is all about.
Evil can take a variety of different shapes and forms; evil can be an emotional thing, or it can be a physical thing. An evil person is not an ignorant person but is somebody who is knowledgeable and who knows exactly what he/she is doing. Hitler for example would be considered an evil individual because he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish in Germany, Hitler had every intent to manipulate the Germans to be his “people”, and he had every intent to exterminate all the Jewish people in Germany. In psychological terms, evil is an aberration of the ego. An evil ego has a strong desire to dominate other egos which is exactly what Hitler did. An evil person knows that terror is the most effective way to dominate people because terror induces a great amount of fear, and people who are induced with fear cannot take effective action to defend them. It is basically like putting an innocent baby in a dark room and turning of the lights, the baby would be terrified for his/her life.
Basically, evil people are the smartest people and are fully aware of their actions. Somebody who takes joy in watching people suffer, reeking havoc on innocent people, and just causing a million and one problems would be considered evil. Aristotle, a philosopher said that we humans have free will, and our actions are either voluntary or involuntary. This basically means if our actions are voluntary then we know exactly what we are doing, and this is what “evil” people do. A person who’s actions are involuntary don’t know the consequences of their actions and not because they choose not to inform themselves but because they really do not know. Somebody who is mentally disabled, who decides to kill somebody probably wouldn’t know right from wrong, thus making this person not “evil.”
Evil can take a variety of different shapes and forms; evil can be an emotional thing, or it can be a physical thing. An evil person is not an ignorant person but is somebody who is knowledgeable and who knows exactly what he/she is doing. Hitler for example would be considered an evil individual because he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish in Germany, Hitler had every intent to manipulate the Germans to be his “people”, and he had every intent to exterminate all the Jewish people in Germany. In psychological terms, evil is an aberration of the ego. An evil ego has a strong desire to dominate other egos which is exactly what Hitler did. An evil person knows that terror is the most effective way to dominate people because terror induces a great amount of fear, and people who are induced with fear cannot take effective action to defend them. It is basically like putting an innocent baby in a dark room and turning of the lights, the baby would be terrified for his/her life.
Basically, evil people are the smartest people and are fully aware of their actions. Somebody who takes joy in watching people suffer, reeking havoc on innocent people, and just causing a million and one problems would be considered evil. Aristotle, a philosopher said that we humans have free will, and our actions are either voluntary or involuntary. This basically means if our actions are voluntary then we know exactly what we are doing, and this is what “evil” people do. A person who’s actions are involuntary don’t know the consequences of their actions and not because they choose not to inform themselves but because they really do not know. Somebody who is mentally disabled, who decides to kill somebody probably wouldn’t know right from wrong, thus making this person not “evil.”
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
What is the nature of good?
Many people probably have their own definition on the nature of good; but most people would most likely agree that the nature of good is acting selflessly and not doing good just to receive something in return. Also not just doing “good” because you think it’s your duty or because you have to, but because you want to out of your own free will.
The nature of good is not doing good just to receive something in return because that is just being greedy and selfish which is pretty much the nature of evil in most cases. For example if you see an add in the newspaper that some big time billionaires dog has been missing for weeks, you don’t just go spending 5 days straight to locate this dog just to return it to ask the billionaire what reward you would be getting. The odds are you usually just get thanks and that owner will be greatly appreciated and that should be a good enough reward. Another example is not just doing the right thing because you feel you have to or else you will get in trouble, you should want to do the right thing because it is ethical, justified and fair, and it should make you feel good inside. People that put others before they even in the most serious of situations would be considered “good” Those are the best people in the world; the people that put others before themselves always, no matter what. For example if you had to make a decision in an airplane where there was one parachute and there are two people left in the plane. A good person would offer it to the other person over themselves. That may be a little extreme, but that would define a “good” person.
Overall the nature of good is solely subjective, and people have different opinions on what they believe is the nature of good. For example one may say that as long as “good” is done even if one doesn’t have pure intentions behind their actions then that person is still considered “good.” On the other hand another person may say that if their intentions aren’t pure then no matter how much good they do even if they find the cure for cancer that person’s nature is still “evil.”
The nature of good is not doing good just to receive something in return because that is just being greedy and selfish which is pretty much the nature of evil in most cases. For example if you see an add in the newspaper that some big time billionaires dog has been missing for weeks, you don’t just go spending 5 days straight to locate this dog just to return it to ask the billionaire what reward you would be getting. The odds are you usually just get thanks and that owner will be greatly appreciated and that should be a good enough reward. Another example is not just doing the right thing because you feel you have to or else you will get in trouble, you should want to do the right thing because it is ethical, justified and fair, and it should make you feel good inside. People that put others before they even in the most serious of situations would be considered “good” Those are the best people in the world; the people that put others before themselves always, no matter what. For example if you had to make a decision in an airplane where there was one parachute and there are two people left in the plane. A good person would offer it to the other person over themselves. That may be a little extreme, but that would define a “good” person.
Overall the nature of good is solely subjective, and people have different opinions on what they believe is the nature of good. For example one may say that as long as “good” is done even if one doesn’t have pure intentions behind their actions then that person is still considered “good.” On the other hand another person may say that if their intentions aren’t pure then no matter how much good they do even if they find the cure for cancer that person’s nature is still “evil.”
Is it subjective or a universal truth about what constitutes “good” and “evil”?
The issue on “good” and “evil can in fact be both a subjective and a universal truth, but is usually seen as a subjective thought. These days evil and good can take so many different forms, and how we see evil and good these days depend on a number of different positive and negative factors. For example somebody can see computers as evil becasue of what it's doing to our youth, and another person can see computers as a good thing becasue of all the positive things it has done for youths.
The only universal “good” and “evil” that one can really think of that includes all religions, people, etc is a Heaven and Hell. No matter how you look at it everybody in this world see Hell as an evil place and Heaven as a good place. You would never see somebody talking about Hell being some mystical, magical, magnificent place filled with flowers, fairies and angels. People usually talk about Hell as a dark red and disgusting place filled with fire and excruciating temperatures where only evil people go to be punished for their evil “sins”. Whereas Heaven is seen as a place of prosperity, a big blue sky, angels flying everywhere, basically a place where all “good” people go. It is not even a universal truth to say that “God” is necessarily a good being. Some people see good as evil, because “god” is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good, but if he was all this stuff then why would there be so much “evil” in the world, and why hasn’t this “god” character done anything to stop all this evil in the world especially considering Earth was his creation. On the other hand most people see God as good and their soul savior.
A more practical example of why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example when it comes to Teenaged Pregnancy and the issue on abortion. Some people see abortion as evil because you’re basically ending a poor innocent baby’s life. Humans don’t have the right to decide whether somebody should live or die that should be left to some higher being such as “God”. Some people say the universe will unfold as it should in time; so if the baby needs to die it will die some time in the near future. On the other hand some people see abortion as a good thing, because if the teenager doesn’t live in a stable environment or family then why bring a new life into such an environment? Another example to why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example this is an obvious one; here in Canada smoking weed is illegal and is 100% a bad thing or an “Evil” thing to do, but in Amsterdam for example it is perfectly legal and isn’t bad to do at all.
Although there are a few discrepancies and exceptions to whether or not “good” and “evil” is universal or subjective for the most part “good” and “evil” is seen as subjective and depending on the person, environment, religion what is “good” and what is “Evil” can change.
The only universal “good” and “evil” that one can really think of that includes all religions, people, etc is a Heaven and Hell. No matter how you look at it everybody in this world see Hell as an evil place and Heaven as a good place. You would never see somebody talking about Hell being some mystical, magical, magnificent place filled with flowers, fairies and angels. People usually talk about Hell as a dark red and disgusting place filled with fire and excruciating temperatures where only evil people go to be punished for their evil “sins”. Whereas Heaven is seen as a place of prosperity, a big blue sky, angels flying everywhere, basically a place where all “good” people go. It is not even a universal truth to say that “God” is necessarily a good being. Some people see good as evil, because “god” is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good, but if he was all this stuff then why would there be so much “evil” in the world, and why hasn’t this “god” character done anything to stop all this evil in the world especially considering Earth was his creation. On the other hand most people see God as good and their soul savior.
A more practical example of why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example when it comes to Teenaged Pregnancy and the issue on abortion. Some people see abortion as evil because you’re basically ending a poor innocent baby’s life. Humans don’t have the right to decide whether somebody should live or die that should be left to some higher being such as “God”. Some people say the universe will unfold as it should in time; so if the baby needs to die it will die some time in the near future. On the other hand some people see abortion as a good thing, because if the teenager doesn’t live in a stable environment or family then why bring a new life into such an environment? Another example to why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example this is an obvious one; here in Canada smoking weed is illegal and is 100% a bad thing or an “Evil” thing to do, but in Amsterdam for example it is perfectly legal and isn’t bad to do at all.
Although there are a few discrepancies and exceptions to whether or not “good” and “evil” is universal or subjective for the most part “good” and “evil” is seen as subjective and depending on the person, environment, religion what is “good” and what is “Evil” can change.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Adolescents and the Media – Informal tone & structure
I found that this “piece” of writing I am not even sure what to call it was definitely a lot different than the other 3 essays and editorials. It was definitely informal tone and had informal structure. It’s not enough to say this was bad it was just “different”. I must say that it was nice how the author had the sub headings, at least if the author wasn’t clear on the point he was trying to make in his/her paragraphs the subheadings would at least some what clarify things. This also made this piece of writing very organized and was fun to read, because with the subheadings you knew what you were about to read. For example the author had a main heading called “What we know” and then subheadings such as media violence, teen suicide, sec, drugs obesity and eating disorders and learning problems.
As far as content goes, the content was pretty good, not only did the author talk about how the media affected children and teenagers with violence, but the author talked about how it affected them negatively with drugs, sex, alcohol, school, etc. I found that was very good because it does have a somewhat bad effect on them. I also found it good how the author had an effective introduction to state what he was talking about and then had to major headings called what we know, and then the 6 or so subheadings and the “we don’t know” subheading.
It is clear that this piece of writing has no formality once so ever in tone and structure therefore talking about it would just be stating the clear obvious. I do agree on what the author says on how young children are watching way too much television, and on top of that the majority of children and teenagers have their own televisions in their room. This means they can watch what ever program they want without being hassled by their parents. I find young children are very curious so if they find something on television that they know they shouldn’t be watching they seem to just watch it anyways, even if they say it’s just for a second, which second will turn in to one hour. And pretty soon they’ll be watching this inappropriate program on a regular basis. I myself had a television in my room when I was small, so I am speaking from experience here.
As far as content goes, the content was pretty good, not only did the author talk about how the media affected children and teenagers with violence, but the author talked about how it affected them negatively with drugs, sex, alcohol, school, etc. I found that was very good because it does have a somewhat bad effect on them. I also found it good how the author had an effective introduction to state what he was talking about and then had to major headings called what we know, and then the 6 or so subheadings and the “we don’t know” subheading.
It is clear that this piece of writing has no formality once so ever in tone and structure therefore talking about it would just be stating the clear obvious. I do agree on what the author says on how young children are watching way too much television, and on top of that the majority of children and teenagers have their own televisions in their room. This means they can watch what ever program they want without being hassled by their parents. I find young children are very curious so if they find something on television that they know they shouldn’t be watching they seem to just watch it anyways, even if they say it’s just for a second, which second will turn in to one hour. And pretty soon they’ll be watching this inappropriate program on a regular basis. I myself had a television in my room when I was small, so I am speaking from experience here.
Debunking Media Violence - Formal
I found that this editorial was a bit shorter than the first essay but was longer than the second. I also found this editorial to be a lot more interesting than the other two essays. When I was reading the other two I was always wondering how much more I had to read, how much longer I had to read, etc. Another words I wanted the essays to be over as soon as possible, but wit this editorial I wasn’t too worried about the length or how long it would take me to finish reading it. This article was very interesting.
I also liked how the author of this article was very organized and new exactly what he or she was talking about. For the first half of the editorial the author talked about how some experts and researches said that the violence in young children was directly related to the violence that they see in the media. Even though I don’t agree with this the author had some good points and some good points, to back up this opinion, and was very persuasive. For example he/she says “Research has proven that media violence has the following effects: increased aggressiveness and appetite for more violence; increased fearfulness and a lack of trust; and increased desensitization to violence and the victims of violence.” The author also has a lot of hard evidence and facts from big time people and organizations which is really good. The author also has a lot of comparisons between around 20-30 years ago to now, and how everything has changed. In the second part of this essay he talks about how the media has no affect on the violence from children or teens. He/she transitions between the two arguments very well, and makes it very clear he/she is switching from one argument to another. I think that was very effective, and pulling off a good transition can sometimes be very difficult. The majority of this editorial had to do with how violence in the media has a very trivial effect on the violence of teens. So I believe this is the side that the author supported. I thought it was effective how the author started out some of his paragraphs with rhetorical questions because it really gets the reader thinking.
This editorial I found was a lot more formal than the Media Violence Formal Essay, simply because it just seemed a lot more serious and well constructed than the other one. The author wrote in third person throughout the entire essay and really stated his points strongly with strong facts and statistics. I noticed that the author used passive voice throughout this editorial. The author surprisingly avoided using colloquial words and expressions like (kids, guy, awesome, a lot, etc.). For example instead of using kids he used children, and instead of using the word “awesome” like an informal editorial would he used wonderful which sounds a lot more sophisticated. And like all formal editorials/essays the author avoided contractions.
I also liked how the author of this article was very organized and new exactly what he or she was talking about. For the first half of the editorial the author talked about how some experts and researches said that the violence in young children was directly related to the violence that they see in the media. Even though I don’t agree with this the author had some good points and some good points, to back up this opinion, and was very persuasive. For example he/she says “Research has proven that media violence has the following effects: increased aggressiveness and appetite for more violence; increased fearfulness and a lack of trust; and increased desensitization to violence and the victims of violence.” The author also has a lot of hard evidence and facts from big time people and organizations which is really good. The author also has a lot of comparisons between around 20-30 years ago to now, and how everything has changed. In the second part of this essay he talks about how the media has no affect on the violence from children or teens. He/she transitions between the two arguments very well, and makes it very clear he/she is switching from one argument to another. I think that was very effective, and pulling off a good transition can sometimes be very difficult. The majority of this editorial had to do with how violence in the media has a very trivial effect on the violence of teens. So I believe this is the side that the author supported. I thought it was effective how the author started out some of his paragraphs with rhetorical questions because it really gets the reader thinking.
This editorial I found was a lot more formal than the Media Violence Formal Essay, simply because it just seemed a lot more serious and well constructed than the other one. The author wrote in third person throughout the entire essay and really stated his points strongly with strong facts and statistics. I noticed that the author used passive voice throughout this editorial. The author surprisingly avoided using colloquial words and expressions like (kids, guy, awesome, a lot, etc.). For example instead of using kids he used children, and instead of using the word “awesome” like an informal editorial would he used wonderful which sounds a lot more sophisticated. And like all formal editorials/essays the author avoided contractions.
Media Violence - Formal Tone
Unlike the other essay on media violence this article was very short, and just because an essay is short doesn’t mean I am going to think it is better than a 20 page essay, because this essay could have had no content and could have been absolute garbage, but in this case the essay was short and straight to the point. Right away I knew exactly what the author was trying to say and there were no discrepancies.
The article talked about how long ago violence was from the newspapers, and from then on it has gone from being in the newspapers to being on television. The author had a lot of facts and statistics that made his argument a lot more persuasive and believable. For example he talks about how researchers have found that most of the television content was extremely violent. In almost half of the television hours monitored, the main focus on most of them was violence. Another very persuasive fact that the author uses is, “Robert Liebert and Robert baron concluded, in a laboratory situation, that watching a violent program or scene made children more willing to be aggressors.” Therefore overall from all this authors’ stats and facts his content is very well organized, thought out and believable.
The tone of the essay was definitely a formal tone especially after comparing it to the other informal tone argument. This essay definitely seemed a lot more organized and serious than the other informal essay. Some of the reasons why the tone of this essay was formal was because first of all I didn’t notice any contractions, and the author avoided addressing the audience using second person pronouns such as (you, your, etc). The author also avoided using imperative voice which is key in an informal tone but not in this case where the essay is formal. One of the bad things is that formal tone essays usually have longer and more complex sentences, whereas this essay didn’t seem to have well constructed sentences. Overall the author stated his/her points confidently and his opinion was well supported.
The author of the article in the end talks about how even though television violence may contribute to violence, television programs are not to blame completely. There are also a number of other factors that influence the way television affects people; such as their knowledge, interests, positive attitudes, and allowing them to distinguish between right and wrong through actually watching violence. Therefore television is not to blame and we have a responsibility to watch out for our children. The author does make a very good point. Television will always be around, and will definitely not be changing anytime soon so we just need to deal with it.
The article talked about how long ago violence was from the newspapers, and from then on it has gone from being in the newspapers to being on television. The author had a lot of facts and statistics that made his argument a lot more persuasive and believable. For example he talks about how researchers have found that most of the television content was extremely violent. In almost half of the television hours monitored, the main focus on most of them was violence. Another very persuasive fact that the author uses is, “Robert Liebert and Robert baron concluded, in a laboratory situation, that watching a violent program or scene made children more willing to be aggressors.” Therefore overall from all this authors’ stats and facts his content is very well organized, thought out and believable.
The tone of the essay was definitely a formal tone especially after comparing it to the other informal tone argument. This essay definitely seemed a lot more organized and serious than the other informal essay. Some of the reasons why the tone of this essay was formal was because first of all I didn’t notice any contractions, and the author avoided addressing the audience using second person pronouns such as (you, your, etc). The author also avoided using imperative voice which is key in an informal tone but not in this case where the essay is formal. One of the bad things is that formal tone essays usually have longer and more complex sentences, whereas this essay didn’t seem to have well constructed sentences. Overall the author stated his/her points confidently and his opinion was well supported.
The author of the article in the end talks about how even though television violence may contribute to violence, television programs are not to blame completely. There are also a number of other factors that influence the way television affects people; such as their knowledge, interests, positive attitudes, and allowing them to distinguish between right and wrong through actually watching violence. Therefore television is not to blame and we have a responsibility to watch out for our children. The author does make a very good point. Television will always be around, and will definitely not be changing anytime soon so we just need to deal with it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Media Violence - Informal Tone
This editorial was incredibly long, thus making it really hard to be persuaded. I felt around half way through I finally understood what the author was trying to say and then in the next two or three paragraphs he/she had just completely lost me. Although towards the end of the editorial the author really seemed to get his point across, I fully understood what he was trying to say. This editorial was boring and didn’t keep me interested. Overall In the end though the author saved himself and thankfully got his/her point across to me, and somewhat persuaded me. The author did though have a few rhetorical questions, and did engage the reader a couple times because he/she used words like “we, us, etc)
At first the author talked about Media Violence was a cause of all the violence in this world and he used the example of the Virginia Tech Killer. He said how he probably got most of his sick plans and ideas from some Korean or Asian films. His point was most people get their bad ideas from Media Violence. After that he started talking about how media violence is not the soul cause of violence in society. The author says how media violence only amplifies the violent thoughts already in peoples head. In other words you don’t wake up one day and watch somebody get shot on television then decide to go on a crazy massacre. For example the Virginia tech Killer already had a sick mind and had a whole lot of problems, so he probably all ready had all these thoughts in his mind.
I would say that this is definitely an informal tone editorial because throughout the editorial, the author uses an active voice a couple times, for example he says “If we take most of the exciting research…” The author uses a passive voice, and also the authors point were not shown clearly where in a formal tone the points would have to be clear and stated confidently. The author also refers to the reader in second person pronouns (you, your, etc). The author talks in second person a couple times which makes it pretty informal. Using a lot of contractions would make an editorial informal and that is exactly what the author of this editorial has done. Therefore overall this editorial is completely informal.
At first the author talked about Media Violence was a cause of all the violence in this world and he used the example of the Virginia Tech Killer. He said how he probably got most of his sick plans and ideas from some Korean or Asian films. His point was most people get their bad ideas from Media Violence. After that he started talking about how media violence is not the soul cause of violence in society. The author says how media violence only amplifies the violent thoughts already in peoples head. In other words you don’t wake up one day and watch somebody get shot on television then decide to go on a crazy massacre. For example the Virginia tech Killer already had a sick mind and had a whole lot of problems, so he probably all ready had all these thoughts in his mind.
I would say that this is definitely an informal tone editorial because throughout the editorial, the author uses an active voice a couple times, for example he says “If we take most of the exciting research…” The author uses a passive voice, and also the authors point were not shown clearly where in a formal tone the points would have to be clear and stated confidently. The author also refers to the reader in second person pronouns (you, your, etc). The author talks in second person a couple times which makes it pretty informal. Using a lot of contractions would make an editorial informal and that is exactly what the author of this editorial has done. Therefore overall this editorial is completely informal.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Reflection
Some of the reasons why writing a persuasive piece is so difficult is because even though you may think you know your topic well, chances are you only have a limited understanding of your topic. Those that think they fully know everything there is to know about their topic usually end up writing there persuasive piece through their own opinion thus creating a fallacious persuasive piece. Also if you don't fully support your argument then it would be a lot harder to write a persuasive piece. You may also find only a limited amount of facts for your argument, thus creating a not so persuasive piece. Usually when a writer is unable to support their argument with any more facts they tend to compensate for a limited amount of facts with their own opinion, and they believe that is alright. Supporting an argument with your own opinion is complete crap, if you don't have proof, evidence, statistics, etc to back up your opinion then your argument will not be very persuasive no matter how persuasive you think you're being.
The ways in which this can be improved is quite simple actually. If you just simply take the time to fully understand the depths of your argument and you fully understand every aspect of it then you will be set. Also instead of bull-crapping your way through everything by using your own opinion in place of raw facts you should take the time to research your argument and acquire logical facts that will strengthen your argument. Even though you shouldn't use your own opinion in place of fact that doesn't mean you can't use your own opinion to support your facts and not the other way around. Not only should you fully understand your side of the argument, but you should fully understand the opposing argument because that will give you a better understanding of the topic as a whole. This will also help you in writing your persuasive piece. Another reason why your persuasive piece may not be good is not because you don't have a good understanding of your topic, or you don't have enough facts, or too many logical fallacies, but maybe you just don't know how to properly structure your persuasive piece. Therefore reading more persuasive pieces or even researching how to properly structure your piece will definitely make your persuasive piece a lot better.
Not much would be needed to realistically improve these skills, because it's not that we are idiots and can't do the work, it's just that we are not fully applying ourselves, and only once we see a big fat 50 on our mid term when we will smarten up. If we just take the time to read over all this essay, editorial and persuasive stuff we will be good to go. If we truly take the time to read all the million and one comments you make on your writing pieces and learn from our mistakes then most of us will be fine.
The ways in which this can be improved is quite simple actually. If you just simply take the time to fully understand the depths of your argument and you fully understand every aspect of it then you will be set. Also instead of bull-crapping your way through everything by using your own opinion in place of raw facts you should take the time to research your argument and acquire logical facts that will strengthen your argument. Even though you shouldn't use your own opinion in place of fact that doesn't mean you can't use your own opinion to support your facts and not the other way around. Not only should you fully understand your side of the argument, but you should fully understand the opposing argument because that will give you a better understanding of the topic as a whole. This will also help you in writing your persuasive piece. Another reason why your persuasive piece may not be good is not because you don't have a good understanding of your topic, or you don't have enough facts, or too many logical fallacies, but maybe you just don't know how to properly structure your persuasive piece. Therefore reading more persuasive pieces or even researching how to properly structure your piece will definitely make your persuasive piece a lot better.
Not much would be needed to realistically improve these skills, because it's not that we are idiots and can't do the work, it's just that we are not fully applying ourselves, and only once we see a big fat 50 on our mid term when we will smarten up. If we just take the time to read over all this essay, editorial and persuasive stuff we will be good to go. If we truly take the time to read all the million and one comments you make on your writing pieces and learn from our mistakes then most of us will be fine.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Obama's Inauguration Speech Analysis
This speech seemed a little different than the other two speeches that he delivered it was similar in length to the second one, but I guess since it was an inauguration speech the crowd was a little less cheery and had a lot less applaud, because in his first speech they applauded and cheered after every second, in the second one they clapped at almost every paragraph, but in this one there was like 10 applauds and cheers for Obama.
Although just because there wasn’t as much excitement in this speech nonetheless the speech was just as great as the other two speeches Obama had delivered. Obama delivered all three speeches effectively which I’ve probably said about his previous two speeches. In all three speeches his delivery was just outstanding; his pauses were great because it allowed the audience to have a chance to absorb what he was actually talking. His tone of voice and annunciation made understanding and listening to his speech incredibly easy, and there was no discrepancies in anything he had to say. And even if there were, Obama had plenty of repetition to clarify major topics. Even something as simple as his hand gestures really made the speech a whole lot better. Just like in the previous two speeches his use of Rhetorical questions, like when he says, “Who suggests that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.” Obama uses reader inclusion a lot in this speech because he uses words like, “we”, “us” “the people” a lot which of course is referring to the audience and America. Not even for a second did Obama exclude the audience in his speech, and that is what makes his speeches so profound.
The only difference I found in this speech than the other two speeches was obviously that this speech was a lot more serious than the previous two speeches. Also in this speech Obama got a little more serious and started talking a lot about the current issues in the United States and what his plans were to resolve these issues. Although in terms of Delivery there wasn’t much difference at all, the same goes for rhetorical devices. It was just the different issues and the more controlled audience that made this speech any different than his other two speeches.
Overall I enjoyed all three of his speeches and there weren’t any noticeable flaws that I could point out in all three of them. I will now definitely take an interest in his speeches, because now I know what to look for in his speeches, and I know his speeches will never bore me because he delivers amazing speeches.
Although just because there wasn’t as much excitement in this speech nonetheless the speech was just as great as the other two speeches Obama had delivered. Obama delivered all three speeches effectively which I’ve probably said about his previous two speeches. In all three speeches his delivery was just outstanding; his pauses were great because it allowed the audience to have a chance to absorb what he was actually talking. His tone of voice and annunciation made understanding and listening to his speech incredibly easy, and there was no discrepancies in anything he had to say. And even if there were, Obama had plenty of repetition to clarify major topics. Even something as simple as his hand gestures really made the speech a whole lot better. Just like in the previous two speeches his use of Rhetorical questions, like when he says, “Who suggests that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.” Obama uses reader inclusion a lot in this speech because he uses words like, “we”, “us” “the people” a lot which of course is referring to the audience and America. Not even for a second did Obama exclude the audience in his speech, and that is what makes his speeches so profound.
The only difference I found in this speech than the other two speeches was obviously that this speech was a lot more serious than the previous two speeches. Also in this speech Obama got a little more serious and started talking a lot about the current issues in the United States and what his plans were to resolve these issues. Although in terms of Delivery there wasn’t much difference at all, the same goes for rhetorical devices. It was just the different issues and the more controlled audience that made this speech any different than his other two speeches.
Overall I enjoyed all three of his speeches and there weren’t any noticeable flaws that I could point out in all three of them. I will now definitely take an interest in his speeches, because now I know what to look for in his speeches, and I know his speeches will never bore me because he delivers amazing speeches.
Obama's Victory Speech Analysis
Obama’s speech was a lot shorter than his acceptance speech, but none the less it was just as great and not just because it was around half an hour shorter. Obama’s speeches could be 2 minutes or 1 hour and they would both be just as strong, just as powerful, and just as inspirational, because Obama is a great speaker and gets his message through in such a great way.
Obama’s speeches are quite similar in fact both of his speeches has similar ideas and concepts. Not only that but he uses a lot of rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questions which he uses very effectively, reader inclusion like when he talks about how this victory is all about “you the people” He doesn’t even say how winning the election is his victory to him and how he’s all happy, but he says how the victory is all the Americans victory. He also includes the audience when he says, “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep, we may not get there in one year or even in one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.” This clearly means that Obama is all for the people and nothing is about him. Obama also has a lot of repetition, like when he starts talking about schools and churches, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight, disabled and not disabled. He was clearly using repetition to get his message out. Obama not only includes who ever voted for him in his speech, but he talks about how even though you may not have voted for me he still needs all of their help on his mission. Obama overall used a lot of anecdotes, rhetorical questions, and repetition to really get to the audience/reader. These have really enhanced his speech in both of them.
These particular devices are used because it really gets the message across to the audience, especially reader inclusion, because by using reader inclusion he really let the audience know that he is all for the people, and he also wants to get the audience/reader interested in what he has to say, because if you had a speech that was all about you, I am sure the reader would have your full undivided attention. The story is the same with Obama and his reader inclusions. Obama uses rhetorical questions because it really get’s the audience thinking, especially if his rhetorical questions have to do with something really important. After Obama would use a rhetorical question he would pause a bit and then say “yes we can” Obama repeatedly did this throughout his speech which really made the audience applaud and scream for him.
Overall In both Obama’s speeches he delivered them both with passion, power, persuasion, and honor. I have not been to much of a speech listener because I always thought they were boring and a big waste of time, but after hearing Obama his speeches really get me interested and don’t bore me even the slightest bit, and no doubt his future speeches will all be the same.
Obama’s speeches are quite similar in fact both of his speeches has similar ideas and concepts. Not only that but he uses a lot of rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questions which he uses very effectively, reader inclusion like when he talks about how this victory is all about “you the people” He doesn’t even say how winning the election is his victory to him and how he’s all happy, but he says how the victory is all the Americans victory. He also includes the audience when he says, “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep, we may not get there in one year or even in one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.” This clearly means that Obama is all for the people and nothing is about him. Obama also has a lot of repetition, like when he starts talking about schools and churches, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight, disabled and not disabled. He was clearly using repetition to get his message out. Obama not only includes who ever voted for him in his speech, but he talks about how even though you may not have voted for me he still needs all of their help on his mission. Obama overall used a lot of anecdotes, rhetorical questions, and repetition to really get to the audience/reader. These have really enhanced his speech in both of them.
These particular devices are used because it really gets the message across to the audience, especially reader inclusion, because by using reader inclusion he really let the audience know that he is all for the people, and he also wants to get the audience/reader interested in what he has to say, because if you had a speech that was all about you, I am sure the reader would have your full undivided attention. The story is the same with Obama and his reader inclusions. Obama uses rhetorical questions because it really get’s the audience thinking, especially if his rhetorical questions have to do with something really important. After Obama would use a rhetorical question he would pause a bit and then say “yes we can” Obama repeatedly did this throughout his speech which really made the audience applaud and scream for him.
Overall In both Obama’s speeches he delivered them both with passion, power, persuasion, and honor. I have not been to much of a speech listener because I always thought they were boring and a big waste of time, but after hearing Obama his speeches really get me interested and don’t bore me even the slightest bit, and no doubt his future speeches will all be the same.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Obama's Acceptance Speech Analysis
First I read the speech, and then I watched the speech and both had a different affect on me. Before I read the speech I thought it was going to be incredibly boring and time consuming but as I read the speech I found that it wasn’t long and boring at all, I surprisingly enjoyed reading it, and it made a lot of sense. After I read the speech I watched the video and even though it was 50 minutes long, there wasn’t a second where I was uninterested or bored.
Obama has great character and style and really knows how to get a message across to people just by the way he talks, his jesters, pauses etc. Obama is exceptionally confident and this really get’s the audience interested in what he has to say. Obama indirectly tells America that America has done nothing to do with how bad America right now, it’s all Bush’s fault and America itself is not to blame. The government was corrupted and was not for the people at all. Obama is clearly a motivational speaker and has a way with words. They’re so inspirational and clearly can give America and even Canada hope.
At some points in his speech Obama actually incorporated the audience which is reader inclusion. And nothing makes an audience more interested and aware then including them in a presentation or in this case a speech. For example he says, “It's time for us to change America” or “if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education” By incorporating the audience this really shows that Obama is all for the people and his only interested in what is best for the people and America. From this speech Obama has really deeply connected with the audience in so many ways. At one part of his speech he had a whole list on rhetorical questions that really “wowed” the audience. Obama mentioned how he will end the war in Iraq responsibly, (key word responsibly) so he definitely will not be doing anything stupid like Bush. He also said he would finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
There is a big difference between reading his speech and actually listening to him and watching him. When you read the speech, it doesn’t sound as convincing, and persuasive, and it sounds just like any old boring speech. When you read the speech you don’t know how the writer of the speech would read it you don’t know when to pause, and there just isn’t any emotion created when reading it. On the other hand when you are listening to it or even watching it this is so much more powerful especially from a man like Barack Obama. You really have a better understanding of what he’s talking about, and you can really understand those little details that you thought meant nothing when reading it where it can mean a whole lot more when you are actually listening to it.
Finally, I found that watching this speech really gave me an understanding of what kind of person Obama is and how much he is going to change America for the better. Obama was in no hurry to finish his speech, even though it was a pretty long speech; he just took his time, paced himself and said what he had to say at a moderate speed. At the beginning of his speech and through his speech even though he was interrupted abruptly by the audience due to over excitement and applause he handled the situation well, he let them applause because he knows everyone is so happy for him and after a couple seconds he got right back to his speech smoothly and effectively. Obama made sure he got through to the audience the best way he could. With a speech as long as Obama's it's difficult to keep an audience interested but Obama seemed to pull it off.
Obama has great character and style and really knows how to get a message across to people just by the way he talks, his jesters, pauses etc. Obama is exceptionally confident and this really get’s the audience interested in what he has to say. Obama indirectly tells America that America has done nothing to do with how bad America right now, it’s all Bush’s fault and America itself is not to blame. The government was corrupted and was not for the people at all. Obama is clearly a motivational speaker and has a way with words. They’re so inspirational and clearly can give America and even Canada hope.
At some points in his speech Obama actually incorporated the audience which is reader inclusion. And nothing makes an audience more interested and aware then including them in a presentation or in this case a speech. For example he says, “It's time for us to change America” or “if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education” By incorporating the audience this really shows that Obama is all for the people and his only interested in what is best for the people and America. From this speech Obama has really deeply connected with the audience in so many ways. At one part of his speech he had a whole list on rhetorical questions that really “wowed” the audience. Obama mentioned how he will end the war in Iraq responsibly, (key word responsibly) so he definitely will not be doing anything stupid like Bush. He also said he would finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
There is a big difference between reading his speech and actually listening to him and watching him. When you read the speech, it doesn’t sound as convincing, and persuasive, and it sounds just like any old boring speech. When you read the speech you don’t know how the writer of the speech would read it you don’t know when to pause, and there just isn’t any emotion created when reading it. On the other hand when you are listening to it or even watching it this is so much more powerful especially from a man like Barack Obama. You really have a better understanding of what he’s talking about, and you can really understand those little details that you thought meant nothing when reading it where it can mean a whole lot more when you are actually listening to it.
Finally, I found that watching this speech really gave me an understanding of what kind of person Obama is and how much he is going to change America for the better. Obama was in no hurry to finish his speech, even though it was a pretty long speech; he just took his time, paced himself and said what he had to say at a moderate speed. At the beginning of his speech and through his speech even though he was interrupted abruptly by the audience due to over excitement and applause he handled the situation well, he let them applause because he knows everyone is so happy for him and after a couple seconds he got right back to his speech smoothly and effectively. Obama made sure he got through to the audience the best way he could. With a speech as long as Obama's it's difficult to keep an audience interested but Obama seemed to pull it off.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Review
Rhetorical Devices
- A rhetorical device is a technique of using language that will increase the persuasiveness of a piece of writing.
- Some examples of rhetorical devices are: Rhetorical question, Emotive language, Contrast, Hyperbole, etc.
- An example of a Hyperbole (using exaggeration for effect) would be: "while we await your decision, the whole school holds its breath"
- Opening - The introduction, some openings include a quotation, question, or anecdote
- Provide Background Information - provide information about your argument
- Define the terms and explain the issues - tell the audience what you mean; for example, "what is drinking?"
- Present the thesis - what is the arguments claim, what should be done, etc.
- Give Proof - this includes statistics, examples, quotes, or any other evidence to persuade the reader.
- Answer opposing arguments - specific arguments must be provided and then refuted.
- Conclusion - Sum up the points of the argument to show how the evidence proves the thesis.
- MLA stands for Modern Language Association
- it's most commonly used to write papers.
- Authors of nonfiction, fiction, poetry and drama use a variety of tools to create emotional mood, an attitude, a setting, and characterization .
- Literary Devices are one of the most effective implements that an author possesses to draw a mood more artfully.
- Some examples of literary devices are: Allusions, Alliterations, Flashbacks, Irony, Metaphors, etc.
- dramatic devices are elements of the play, which allow the writer to build tension or other intended effects.
- These effects influence the action of the play and the response of the characters and audience.
- An example of a dramatic device is a soliloquy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
