Someone recently started a discussion thread on a message board, asking for each user’s favorite word, remarking that as writers, we should have some insight. People posted many interesting choices, but my initial thought is also my final response: the.
What word could prove more useful? Want to mark any word of your choice as a noun? The. Sure, other words can do this, but most are limited in their capabilities. Demonstrative adjectives (that, this, those, these, and other such words) can do this, as can count words (numbers and relative quantity indicators), but these are subject to external circumstances. A and an can mark nouns too, of course, but they’re constantly jockeying for position, always looking over their shoulders for what vowels or consonants might be following—let alone possible exceptions. Even then, their indications are indefinite. Adjectives, with or without additional modification from adverbs, just steer information obliquely. The, however, knows its own mind. This is definitely that. It’s THE noun, not a suggestion or a possibility. The is the anchor in an uncertain world.
That uncertainty is the root of my least favorite word, usually applied in the phrase “in conclusion.” I forbid using this marker in my classes, arguing that such a flagged conclusion can’t be leading up to much. Mindful of this rule, one of my poetry students. a college senior, submitted his final paper with his final paragraph beginning “to conclude.”
Yeah, that’s better. Why not just write, “So where’s my paper leading? To what final point? Final argument? Well, no point, really, so let me just repeat the stuff I already said.” Twenty-five words instead of two! That’s gotta help meet the minimum length. It would at least be more honest and more entertaining, if still pathetically weak in content.
So “conclude” becomes a sorry attempt to “occlude,” merely to include what the student should preclude, clearly choosing to exclude more effective approaches, preferring to seclude any real thinking process, clearly not at all clude in.
This decision mirrors the one to baulk against concision, circumventing precision by changing expletive openers like “it is” and “there are” to “it’s” and “there’re” rather than exercising incision in favor of much more definite subjects and verbs. Such an inclination to decline more effective approaches in order to recline will ultimately leave the student facing quite an incline, but this seems systemic in his native Incline Nation.
I do try to intercede, as I want students to succeed, but when they proceed to embrace approaches that precede college level writing, they prevent any hope to exceed grade school competence, and I can only concede.
The student’s stated goal, incidentally, was “to just earn a C.” Mission accomplished.
Writer
Showing posts with label argument. Show all posts
Showing posts with label argument. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
When Patriots are Blind
Remember when George W. Bush invaded Iraq? How people lined up to insist Americans must line up behind the president? Now, thousands of deaths later, and with no end in sight, we still debate the issue, long after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” bravado—bravado his administration still embraces while pointing to the flag and couching any debate in terms of winning or losing the war.
When will we decide that ego isn’t the way to conduct policy? That opponents to those polices serve an important function? Here’s what I wrote shortly after the second U.S. invasion of Iraq:
Imagine the U.S. and Iraq had made a deal: each country kills X number of their citizens, and in return, Iraq’s leaders step down.
Certainly no one would agree to such a horrific plan. Yet how is war essentially different? What comes from armed conflict that’s missing from a simple exchange of sacrificed lives?
The Bush administration wanted this badly--so much that to challenge Baghdad was worth killing Iraqis and losing American lives. And many Americans approve. Why?
The decision was hardly altruistic. America, self proclaimed defender of liberty, isn’t interested in helping the people of Burma, for example, despite their severely repressive regime. Rather, Americans seem motivated by a combination of poorly focused anger and a lack of foresight. Nobody defies America! Time to kick butt. Damn the logic.
The counter argument? “You unpatriotic bastard! This is the time to support our troops!” But this is a red herring. Everyone supports the troops--that was never in question. They’re doing a remarkable job in extremely trying circumstances. Back home, Americans aren’t doing so well. Apparently, it’s OK to protest a war as long as there isn’t a war. Right.
So blind patriotism rules the day, unblinking in the face of senseless rhetoric and obvious fallacies. “You’re either with us or against us.” False dilemma. “Iraq has to prove they don’t have these weapons.” Inappropriate burden of proof (can’t prove a negative). “Changing the regime in Baghdad will bring peace to Palestine.” Now THERE’S a non sequitur.
Consequently, instead of examining French and German reasons for their opposition to this war, Americans rename their deep fried potatoes. Instead of improving the search capacity of weapons inspectors, America takes on the job, with no better success. Can peace in Palestine be far behind?
The cost will be high. The Bush administration has made it clear that negotiating with the United States is useless--agree or move aside--and honors agreements only when convenient. America has invaded a country, ignoring United Nations objections, and is now viewed, quite understandably, as a threat to security. Since neither treaties nor refraining from aggressive actions will help against such an arrogant nation, the only solution is to acquire nuclear arms, the only thing that seems to get American attention.
Not much occasion for pride here.
Writer
When will we decide that ego isn’t the way to conduct policy? That opponents to those polices serve an important function? Here’s what I wrote shortly after the second U.S. invasion of Iraq:
Imagine the U.S. and Iraq had made a deal: each country kills X number of their citizens, and in return, Iraq’s leaders step down.
Certainly no one would agree to such a horrific plan. Yet how is war essentially different? What comes from armed conflict that’s missing from a simple exchange of sacrificed lives?
The Bush administration wanted this badly--so much that to challenge Baghdad was worth killing Iraqis and losing American lives. And many Americans approve. Why?
The decision was hardly altruistic. America, self proclaimed defender of liberty, isn’t interested in helping the people of Burma, for example, despite their severely repressive regime. Rather, Americans seem motivated by a combination of poorly focused anger and a lack of foresight. Nobody defies America! Time to kick butt. Damn the logic.
The counter argument? “You unpatriotic bastard! This is the time to support our troops!” But this is a red herring. Everyone supports the troops--that was never in question. They’re doing a remarkable job in extremely trying circumstances. Back home, Americans aren’t doing so well. Apparently, it’s OK to protest a war as long as there isn’t a war. Right.
So blind patriotism rules the day, unblinking in the face of senseless rhetoric and obvious fallacies. “You’re either with us or against us.” False dilemma. “Iraq has to prove they don’t have these weapons.” Inappropriate burden of proof (can’t prove a negative). “Changing the regime in Baghdad will bring peace to Palestine.” Now THERE’S a non sequitur.
Consequently, instead of examining French and German reasons for their opposition to this war, Americans rename their deep fried potatoes. Instead of improving the search capacity of weapons inspectors, America takes on the job, with no better success. Can peace in Palestine be far behind?
The cost will be high. The Bush administration has made it clear that negotiating with the United States is useless--agree or move aside--and honors agreements only when convenient. America has invaded a country, ignoring United Nations objections, and is now viewed, quite understandably, as a threat to security. Since neither treaties nor refraining from aggressive actions will help against such an arrogant nation, the only solution is to acquire nuclear arms, the only thing that seems to get American attention.
Not much occasion for pride here.
Writer
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Blaming the Media
Everything, seemingly, is the fault of the media. Every issue, some radio caller or talk show guest will exclaim “but the media this” and “well the media that.” The poplar conception is that the media shape our thoughts and opinions, practically dictating them, and controlling our behavior almost absolutely. The trouble, however, is the lack of an argument, even circumstantial. Instead, blaming the media replaces argument.
Consider, for example, the many students who claim the media force women to meet unrealistic standards, causing anorexia and bulimia—despite the noticeable lack of such women on the campus. If anything, claim the media cause obesity, since regular physical activity seems as rare as regular mental exercise. Nor do these students seem particularly oppressed by the mandate to be beautiful, attending class in their sweat pants, uncombed hair bundled atop their heads, not a trace of makeup.
Even the media buy into this nonsense, presenting such shows as “On the Media,” hiring ombudsmen, and taking pains to present “balanced” coverage in the face of continual accusations that “the media has a liberal bias.” Hmmm. Where to start?
First, as Don Hewitt accurately observes in “Mea Culpa? Not Mea!” – people complain about media bias not to right injustice, but rather because the reporting isn’t biased their way. This alone is troubling, since it potentially reduces all news to propaganda.
What is a liberal bias? The liberal arts, from their inception centuries ago, served to free the mind from blind, preconceived constraints, allowing open and thoughtful analysis—perhaps to re-embrace old ideas, perhaps to move to new ones, but always to carefully consider them first. To fight a liberal approach is to fight free thinking. Instead, the right wing has misconstrued “liberal” as “radical.”
And what of conservative bias? A conservative strives to keep conditions as they are, without change—fundamentally an unrealistic proposition, as change is inevitable. The Fox news network, Conservapedia—these serve not to present “fair and balanced coverage,” but to “balance” perceived bias by promoting right wing views. This is the antithesis of “news” and “balance,” and not even conservative—it’s reactionary.
Political factions will always want to control the media to promote their message and to shape the news, but they aren’t the major influence. The media follow public opinion, not vice versa. The audience rules. Why doesn’t the media report good news? First, they do, and second, people consume the bad news much more readily.
But finally, how can people who pay little attention to the media, to world affairs, to all that messy business of reality turn around and then claim they’re controlled by that media?
It’s a scapegoat, a replacement for thinking.
Writer
Consider, for example, the many students who claim the media force women to meet unrealistic standards, causing anorexia and bulimia—despite the noticeable lack of such women on the campus. If anything, claim the media cause obesity, since regular physical activity seems as rare as regular mental exercise. Nor do these students seem particularly oppressed by the mandate to be beautiful, attending class in their sweat pants, uncombed hair bundled atop their heads, not a trace of makeup.
Even the media buy into this nonsense, presenting such shows as “On the Media,” hiring ombudsmen, and taking pains to present “balanced” coverage in the face of continual accusations that “the media has a liberal bias.” Hmmm. Where to start?
First, as Don Hewitt accurately observes in “Mea Culpa? Not Mea!” – people complain about media bias not to right injustice, but rather because the reporting isn’t biased their way. This alone is troubling, since it potentially reduces all news to propaganda.
What is a liberal bias? The liberal arts, from their inception centuries ago, served to free the mind from blind, preconceived constraints, allowing open and thoughtful analysis—perhaps to re-embrace old ideas, perhaps to move to new ones, but always to carefully consider them first. To fight a liberal approach is to fight free thinking. Instead, the right wing has misconstrued “liberal” as “radical.”
And what of conservative bias? A conservative strives to keep conditions as they are, without change—fundamentally an unrealistic proposition, as change is inevitable. The Fox news network, Conservapedia—these serve not to present “fair and balanced coverage,” but to “balance” perceived bias by promoting right wing views. This is the antithesis of “news” and “balance,” and not even conservative—it’s reactionary.
Political factions will always want to control the media to promote their message and to shape the news, but they aren’t the major influence. The media follow public opinion, not vice versa. The audience rules. Why doesn’t the media report good news? First, they do, and second, people consume the bad news much more readily.
But finally, how can people who pay little attention to the media, to world affairs, to all that messy business of reality turn around and then claim they’re controlled by that media?
It’s a scapegoat, a replacement for thinking.
Writer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
