New Interpretations

On my last blog I was wondering on why Capote gave the family such a big importance. And then BANG and answer popped into my head. We all know that six people are going to die. So far we have the Clutter´s family that sum up to six doesn’t it? Right there we have a connection: the Clutter family is going to die. What Capote probably wants is for us to connect and to relate to the family. This way we will get attached to them and sympathy for them. At the same time, I believe, he wants us to realize on the little things that pass right through us on a daily basis. I look back to my life and I realize that I don’t appreciate the things that I have, I’m not always grateful for all I have. Capote made me realize this when he states, “Now, on this final day of her life, Mrs. Clutter hung in the closet the calico housedress she had been wearing, and put on one of her trailing nightgowns and a fresh set of white socks” (30). Right there he wants us to feel pity for her and at the same time have us reflect about life. How do we know we are going to wake up tomorrow morning? How do we know we are not going to get in a car accident? We don’t. We can’t predict the future and that’s probably what Capote wants to tell us so far. If Mrs. Clutter would have known she was going to die next morning, would she had lived her day differently? I’m pretty sure she would have.

As I was reading this book I couldn’t keep thinking about Amish Grace, a novel by Donald B. Kraybill, Steven M. Nolt, and David L. Weaver-Zercher that I read during the summer. It´s the story of a man that comes into a small school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania and kills five innocent young girls. Not only did he kill the girls, but later took away his own life. What’s interesting about this novel is that it starts right away with the shooting. The authors don’t want us to sympathy with the families, yet more important they want to tell us the role this incidents play in our society.
We can see that they both have a similar topic, just a different way of approaching to them. Can’t wait to finish In Cold Blood to be able to determine which tactic I prefer.

New vocabulary:

Reticent: not revealing one's thoughts or feelings readily.

Summon: authoritatively or urgently call on.

Ludicrous: so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.

Pheasant: a large long-tailed game bird native to Asia, the male of which typically has very showy plumage.

Sheaf: a bundle of grain stalks laid lengthwise and tied together after reaping.

Protégé: person who is guided and supported by an older and more experienced or influential person.

Gewgaw: a showy thing, esp. one that is useless or worthless.

Despondency: a state of low spirits caused by loss of hope or courage.

Why Family Unity?

So far I’m interested in the Truman Capote´s In Cold Blood book. I do have to admit that he is very descriptive and I want for him to get faster to the points. He uses narration and exposition to present the all of the members that make up the Clutter family. The author takes all of the first fifteen pages of the book to describe his family, I don’t know about you but I think that the family unity is going to have a huge impact through out the book. Why else will he spend so much time describing every trait of every member of the family? I’m really curious on what role is going to play Bonnie, Kansas, and the rest of the characters described.

What I found interesting was that as he described each member he was able show us that they all lived as a one and that they were self-sufficient. He states, “Other than a housekeeper who came in on weekdays, the Clutters employed no household help…” (9). On the other hand we can see how Mrs. Cluster was a psychiatric patient but the rest of her family members were taking physical care of her, as well as helping her maintaining a clean reputation. Capote states, “She was nervous, she suffered little spells-- such were the sheltering expressions used by those close to her” (7).  It seems to me that they have all the characteristics for having the base of a strong family. But, I ask myself again, why so much importance on family unity? 

Fallacies All Over the Place

 WOW! Winston Churchill, another man who has a talent at hiding fallacies. I do have to admit that I’m a bit jealous of their ability of doing so. If it wasn’t because I have been doing a close reading to the speeches I would have been convince by him, as well as by Orwell and Gandhi.

Tautology is used a lot! Some examples that I found was when he states, “...they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blind fold into a trap,” and “Unhappily all that influence, and it is an enormous influence, has been cast the other way.” One might not realize it at first sight, but Churchill is repeating himself by using different words.

A clear common fallacy that I found was when he states the following question, “Why should these unpracticed, unproved, unrepresentative, self-chosen groups of Indian politicians disdain the immense possibilities offered within the limits of the Statutory Commission´s report, and demand an immediate setting up of a United States of India, with themselves in control, and the British army at their orders?”
Phewwww that was a long question! How many issues were merged into one? Obviously more than two. Such a long question makes us wonder on what Churchill is going to talk about. Which issues are more important? Sneaky Churchill, he just wants to make sure that he is confusing and tricking us.

Another one that I found was the fallacy of the false dilemma when he states, “But win or lose, we must do our duty.” Right here Churchill is only giving us two choices: either to win or lose. But isn’t there an in between? I don’t know about you, but I have heard of the term agreement, in which neither side wins or loses. 

George Orwell is Tricking the Audience

So far I believed that fallacies were only used when you wanted to win an argument. After reading Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell I realized that he uses fallacies while telling us a story. Most of the times, when we are telling a story, we want our audience to side with us. We want to make them feel what we felt. So why not use fallacies? A great example is we when two of your friends are fighting. They both tell you their side of the story, hoping that you will sympathy with either of them and chose a side. The best way to achieve this is by using pathos, just as George Orwell did.

Just as Gandhi, George Orwell has the skill of hidden the fallacies within the text. It´s not that easy to find his fallacies. He is pretty skillful on using pathos, so that the audiences will sympathy with him. Some examples are when he states, “… I was hated by large numbers of people,” and “…in reality I was only absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind me.” In both cases he wants the audience to feel pity for him and take his side of the story. Don’t we all do the same? How many friends have really messed things up at a party and blame in it on the alcohol? Or in class how many of us have used the excuse that we were sick last Friday and weren't able to post the homework? We are constantly trying to manipulate our audience by making them feel pity for us.

Now lets leave pathos behind and start talking about false choices. A good example that I found was when he states, “I had to shoot the elephant.” Did he really? Was anyone else putting a gun to his head threaten to use his life over the elephant? No, so why declare that he had to use it. And this is what false choices are all about. He is making us believe that he had no other choice when in reality he had a ton. Would everyone be able to spot such fallacy? No, only those who are dedicated enough to re-read his speech several time and spot his fallacies.

Ok so lets move on to my last point: hasty generalization. If you have taken AP Language and Composition with Tangen you better know what it means, but for those who don’t here is a brief explanation. According to Heinrich is a “vast conclusion with scanty data” (144). When Orwell states, “I was young and ill-educated and I had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishmen in the East.” Do we have enough evidence that EVERY Englishmen had the same problems? No. So that’s why I would consider this a hasty generalization just as Gabriela Aldana stated on her blog.

Congratulations George Orwell on doing a great job on hiding your fallacies! Since I’m sure that there are a few persons that bought completely your story and actually sympathy with you.

Playing Hide & Seek

After reading and listening to Gandhi´s famous speech at Kingsley Hall several times, I was able to recognize a few fallacies. I have to be honest that this task wasn’t as easy as I expected. Through out my life I have seen that most of the famous speeches contain fallacies. Why? The answer it´s simple: it helps persuade the audience. Even though it is considered as a rhetoric foul, it´s the easiest and most effective way to get your audience to agree with you. It might sound easy to accomplish, yet the tricky part is being able to insert fallacies into your speech without your audience noticing. In my opinion, Gandhi, does a really good job. I found his speech very inspiring, but it was probably because his good use of fallacies. The reason his fallacies were so hard to spot was because they were all hidden between his logic. The first fallacy I found was the so-called many questions. When Gandhi states, “Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules” we can see how he is squishing more than two issues into one, so that he would only need one conclusion to cover them all up. In this case the proof actually meets the criteria of the choice, still Gandhi is making the sin of given the wrong number of choices. At first sight one wouldn’t be able to notice this sin, it´s just after you analyze it that you realize that Gandhi has tricked you. Another example of false choices that I found was when he states, “And is this power benevolent or malevolent?” He is actually making us choose between benevolent or malevolent. But are these really the only two choices we have? No, it´s up to use what words we want to use in order to describe the power. Still, by the way he says it, it makes use believe that we have to choose either of.

As I continued to read I found the fallacy of tautology (yet I´m not sure if I´m correct). This fallacy constitutes of repeating the same thing, just with different words. Gandhi states, “If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God - the King of Kings.” At first it might sound confusing, but the truth is that he is just repeating himself. In this long-run sentence he is restating that the “poor people” has no knowledge about their ruler, never less about the “presence of God” that is “the King of Kings.” 

We also find the use of the fallacy of antecedent when he says that, “It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being.” This statement seems to be completely true, but by paying close attention we can see how we have been tricked again. He concludes that there has never been such thing as the “blind law” therefore meaning that it will never exist.

Last but not least Gandhi uses what I believe is the fallacy of ignorance as proof when he states the following: “He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love.” In a way he is claiming that his believes have never been disproved, therefore meaning that his conclusions are right.

Sneaky Gandhi! He effectively was able to play hide and seek with his fallacies, since I almost wasn't able to spot them. Good job Gandhi.