Fallacious Commercial

https://docs.google.com/a/cng.edu/file/d/0B0liDXUjLAa8NGtuc3E5Q1k2aWc/edit

Bring it On

As I begin reading what is probably the most bizarre book yet (and trust me when I say I've read some pretty weird things), I find myself fascinated by nothing more and nothing less than its title.  Despite the fact that I'm barely beginning to grasp the idea explained by Bayard in the first chapters of How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, I find myself thinking about the title and how I can relate to it. And here it is, the word that perfectly fits my necessities: Improvisation.

Improvisation is key to life. Or at least I've found it to be.

What do I do when a stranger comes up to me and sends their love and greetings to my mother?

I improvise. I smile and nod, reassuring them that I will and that I'm sure my mom will call them. But while that's my exterior, my interior is something more like this: 

Why is this stranger smiling at me? 

Oh no, he's approaching me now. 

He's waving. 

Am I about to be kidnapped?

Just go with the flow and smile back Barb. 

He probably knows your -- 

"Oh my God! How's Elisa doing? I haven't seen her in so long! You are so grown up! Are you the eldest? No, the middle one! Of course, of course. Well say hi to Diego as well, won't you? Right. Good to see you! Send them both my love!"

Notice how he doesn't mention his name? Normally they're so wrapped up in remembering, that they forget to remind me who they are. But I have no choice. For my parent's sake I have to improvise, otherwise my mother's fall from society will be on me, and God knows she will never let it go. 

If you ask me it's all about keeping up with appearances.

What do I do when everyone in the room read about the Philippines Typhon, while I was busy being an ignorant sloth?

I improvise. I nod when asked if I saw the pictures from El Tiempo. 

How about when I've been talking the whole time in Film Critique while supposed to be thinking about what I'll do for the next proyect and Cata puts me on the spot by asking me about it in front of everyone? 

I improvise. I blurt out and start talking about techniques and ideas that I think will impress her. Things that sound like they've been thought through meticoulously. I dig for the cinematic vocabulary I know, and I talk as if I've been waiting for this question since my birth.

Now the big question: why? Why go through all the trouble? Personally, because I don't want to immediately admit that I have no idea who you are, that I didn't even glance at El Tiempo on Sunday and that I didn't follow one simple instruction. I don't necessarily feel ashamed, but nevertheless obligated to do so out of pride. I'd rather improvise and attempt at making you think I have a great memory for faces, I read the news religiously and that I did you as you instructed.

If I have found improvisation to be a technique for the art of keeping up with appearances, will I find Bayard to think so as well? Will I find within How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, that improvisation is key? Can this book become my manual of life? Because frankly, I won't deny that I enjoy improvising a teeny weeny bit. It's a test I'm willing to kick ass in, and what's more, rhetoric even plays its part. 

Strangers that aren't strangers: ethos. Act like you recognize them and reassure them of your good manners and excellent memory.

Pathetic ignorance: pathos. Just nod, frown and empathize you lazy pansy.

Suspicious vengeful Cata: logos. What's that angle Mr. Tangen said is the opposite of the wide angles' effects? Ah yes! Telephoto. 

Oh, Heart of Darkness? Of course Mr. Ferrebee, the irony is undeniably obvious. There's so many examples of it, I don't think it's fair to choose just one!
That's how I talk about books I haven't read. Pierre Bayard: bring it on and show me what you got.

Big Big Balloon

As cleverly mentioned by Heinrichs, the world of today is glutting in cliche's, despite the fact that its definition has evolved. When a common thought encompasses a throng of people, it's a cliche, or at least that's what I understood. I happen to come across this all the time among family and specially friends.

I have a friend who is great at discussing or in other words arguing. There are things we disagree on and they're normally subjects where knowledge is best when coming from experience. It is because of this that we have different views, because unless we were attached from the hip since being born, then our experiences vary in shape, size, color and luminosity, among other characteristics. Regardless of where our ideas and opinions on the certain topic come from, when it comes to trying to make each other see the other's point it gets a little tricky. Fortunately, this year we both have the help of Jay Heinrichs in Thank You for Arguing.

Different backgrounds and experiences build us up when it comes to harboring and conceiving opinions. Our views of the world are shaped by our upbringing which in part lies on parenting combined with other factors. Incidentally Heinrichs teaches us that in order to reach our goal of convincing someone else of something other than what they already know or think they understand, we are not to worry about or linger on the fact of why they think like that, but rather in knowing how to phrase and word our attack. We must understand that in rhetoric it is about manipulation of the audience, and a shape of said manipulation comes in the form of voice. Not voice as in "his voice is so high pitched!", but voice as in writing process Voice. By doing this, I employ term changing, redefinition, jujitsu and judo.

Recently I have discovered that most of my arguments are based on people's prejudiced over me. Due to their insistence on my behavior and what I think and do, I find it to be a cliche. They loom and make me in their eyes someone they despise. I have learned to control my arrogance and swallow my pride, a task that became very similar to swallowing a full blown balloon to a ping pong ball. The results have been quite favorable however and it has helped me when it comes to arguing with those who know me. By making them think I am no longer the arrogant, condescending being they pinned me to be, out of pure exaggeration from their part, I must add.

Cough Cough

I wonder if mastering rhetoric will really result in the individuals immunity to advertising. I wonder if Heinrichs is using rhetoric in these first chapters of introduction to sell us his book. I wonder if by reading it I am, like his seventeen year old son George, losing. Am I being played by accepting the challenge of learning and attempting to master the art of peruasion, through and beacuse of the art of persuasion itself?

That's something to think about, isn't it?

On the other hand, I am absolutely, irrevocably, fatuously and engrossingly fascinated. Having an opinonated and highly critical prone personality, I find this book brilliant. In it I sense the key to my rise to power and irrefutable respect, atleast in my house. World domination comes later.

I spend most of my time trying to persuade those closest to me. I have learned to work them according to their specific personality and character, their mood and temper.

For example: If I am sitting at the kitchen isle, in need of a spoon for my bowl of cereal, across from my younger, tantrum prone, acceptance seeking sister, and behind me lies the drawer where the spoons are kept, my lazy ass will go about like this to get a spoon without using anything other than my vocal cords and lips.

I will continue looking intently at my book or computer screen and do as follows.

Me: "Jose, can you get me a spoon?"
A few years ago, Jose would have just smiled and fetched the spoon. Today, she's onto me.
Jose: "They're right behind you."
Me: "I know but you're just sitting and eating, and Senior year is so hard and I have all these blogs to do and --"
Jose: Okay, okay, whatever, just stop talking."

I for a fact know that nothing bothers Josefina more than when I talk too much. At times it is so irritating because it makes any kind of discussion impossible, because she will simply shut down and agree in order to get me to shut up. Other times (cough cough, most of them since it's normally me and her in the kitchen isle), it's the absolute best.

When facing Heinrichs I may be george fetching tubes of toothpaste, but against Josefina I am definitely the Boss. In our confrontation (or conversation, whichever you prefer), I am using the three forms of rhetoric.
I'm implying a choice: if you get me the spoon I'll shut up about it.
I'm placing blame: It's your fault you feel annoyed by me because you decided not to get me a spoon immediately.
I'm using values: I'm busy doing important stuff (blogs), you aren't. Why won't you help me?

Did you see what I did there? I'm literally writing my blogs in Heinrichs style. I'm guessing that's a form of rhetoric, using a style I know you recognize and like, in order to convince you of my understanding of these first two chapters of Thank You for Arguing, and that I deserve a four, of course.