Chris Kurz
ENG 121
Paper 3 Final Draft

Down the Tubes
Lately in America, people are performing ridiculous acts just to get their shot at fame. Whether it is the endless parade of reality television shows or holding up a sign at a ballgame, the fame seeking has gone too far. We have become a culture that is obsessed with fame. One needs only to look at the packs of paparazzi that follow the every move of potentially newsworthy celebrities for an example of out of control fame worshipping.  The Internet site YouTube helps contribute to this pursuit of fame by allowing people to post videos for the whole world to see. Most of what appears on YouTube are events that make our society look bad. Instead of focusing on video arts, YouTube is all about the individual quest for fame and laziness. YouTube is, and will continue to be, a contributing factor to our fame mongering culture until the website makes some changes.
In the last month, a group of teenagers decided that they were going to make a video to post on YouTube. This alone is not an abnormal occurrence; however, everything that followed was highly abnormal. A group of girls that felt they had been disrespected by another girl decided that they would set up an ambush of the girl and record it all on video. The girls cornered their victim while two boys stood guard outside. The girl was beaten badly enough to sustain hearing damage. All of this transpired in order to exact revenge on a girl by posting her beating on YouTube. For a while these girls felt famous. What is worse is that the television show Dr. Phil bailed one of the girls out just to get a chance to interview her.
Dr. Phil obviously made this gesture strictly as a move for a ratings bonanza. Any hot topic in pop culture becomes fodder for the daytime televisions circuit to cash in on. Dr. Phil and his staff took a huge bite of the bait that these girls presented them. They wanted everyone to know that they had beat this girl up and when Dr. Phil decided keep the story going by bailing out, and then interviewing one of the attackers he just gave these girls more of what they wanted; recognition of their attack. In this instance YouTube acted as the initial platform for fame and Dr. Phil’s television show provided the piggyback to keep the unwarranted fame spiral spinning out of control.
YouTube is becoming a venue for rhetoric for American teenagers. Unfortunately, the form of persuasion that teenagers are practicing involves videos that attempt to prove their point regardless of who gets hurt. These videos are the language of the teenage generation that uses their commonplace videophones instead of face-to-face communication. As Chinua Achebe stated, “It has long been known that language, like any other human invention, can be abused, can be turned from its original purpose into to something useless or even deadly” (597). Achebe’s words summarize exactly what this video form of language has become. Not only is it useless, it is only a matter of time until someone’s death is posted and watched on YouTube.
This is not to say that all that YouTube has to offer is useless. Recently the University of California at Berkley decided to start posting lectures on YouTube. Closer to Bozeman, The Gallatin National Forest Avalanche Center has posted instructional videos about properly assessing avalanche danger in the backcountry. There are also many filmmakers who post their work on YouTube as a means of possibly getting discovered by Hollywood. If everything on YouTube was as constructive as these two examples, then there would be far less controversy about the site. Alas, this is not the case. YouTube has become the forum of videos about nothing. The website has opened the door for anyone to walk through and post a video that does not have to mean anything to anyone except the videographer. YouTube is trolling for sensationalism in the Dead Sea of videos. No doubt the era of paparazzi and home videos has contributed to this wide-open forum.
Ever since mass media decided to start reporting on the lives of Hollywood stars, America’s obsession with fame has snowballed. Now there are mountains of magazines, television shows, radio programs that deal solely with the rich and famous. People want to know where their favorite star eats for dinner and what they are wearing. The average American sees these people as examples of the American dream. That is why so many people watch reality television shows. There are millions of Americans that dream of a better life that includes fame and fortune. The problem is that it is not easy to become famous. And even if one does become famous, very few famous people contribute anything to society other than entertainment.
The obsession with fame leads to an entire generation of people who know that a taste of fame is only a couple of mouse clicks away. These days almost everyone has a cell phone regardless of their social class. Most of the phones available today also offer a video camera. Now everyone can film their own videos and post them on YouTube. If the video is popular enough, fame and fortune await. Your best friend’s video of his friend wiping out on his skateboard could be right next to a short film on YouTube that stars Will Ferrell. In this scenario the difference between being rich and famous and someone with a video on YouTube is minimal: however, in three months no one will be watching the skateboard video, while Will Ferrell will be releasing another feature film.
The fame that most YouTube users are seeking is the type of fame that does not last. YouTube showcases the differences between famous, infamous, and fleeting familiarity. Some Hollywood actors and actresses use YouTube to showcase short films that take them back to their roots in film. This is where YouTube has the right idea in letting entertainers do their entertaining in area where the viewer doesn’t have to pay as if they were seeing a movie. Other people like to post their pratfalls, wrecks, and other shortcomings. These videos either end up as infamous or just a passing fancy. To become truly infamous one must create something dubious that sticks in the mind of all society. John Hinckley Jr. is infamous for trying to kill Ronald Reagan. The majority of the videos on YouTube do not qualify as being infamous. They just end as a tidbit in the back of most people’s minds.
YouTube has become an outlet for so many people. These people are searching for a place to express themselves in a way that they cannot in a normal setting. Unfortunately, some people take this freedom of expression too far. They use YouTube as a place to release all that is pent up inside of them. Octavio Paz wrote about the Mexican fiestas that each small town had once a year. These fiestas are place where Paz wrote, “…the silent Mexican whistles, shouts, sings, shoots off fireworks, discharges his pistol into the air. He discharges his soul” (348). Events like those that Paz wrote about took place once a year in each Mexican town. People could release tensions and act out for a day. Their goal was not to hurt anyone, it was to realize that life is hard and everyone needs to vent some steam every once in a while. YouTube is becoming a Mexican fiesta that is available every day of the week.
If you go to the website youtube.com you can view millions of videos from people all over the world. The majority of these videos are mindless snippets that range from a monkey peeing on another monkey, to someone using a video phone to record the latest episode of a television show they think is entertaining. In Mo Tzu’s writing he said, “It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world, to eliminate the harmful and to provide a model for the world’ (284). YouTube does not contribute in any way like the benevolent man that Mo Tzu wrote about. Instead YouTube promotes a world frivolous escapes and lack of responsibility.
The lack of responsibility starts with the content that YouTube allows on their site. There are numerous pending lawsuits against YouTube for copyright infringement. This affects many artists who are trying to earn money by productively using their talent to make a living. Additionally, YouTube has fought to have footage of hostages being tortured reinstated to their website. While YouTube is entitled to free speech, they straddle a fine line between sensationalism and freedom of expression. There is no need for people to see someone being tortured or a puppy-throwing contest. Videos such as these contribute nothing towards society.
In conclusion, YouTube is not going to contribute much to society if it remains in its present form. The company should look seriously at making changes to the content it allows.  The site could exist as a place for filmmakers and lecturers without all of the useless videos that involve violence and injury. Thankfully, the girls who orchestrated the beating are being tried as adults for their crimes. Perhaps this will discourage any possible copycats from creating a similar video. Our society cannot have a web site where anyone is allowed to exact revenge on another human for the whole world to see. It is time for YouTube to make some changes before someone’s life goes down the tubes.

Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “Language and the Destiny of Man.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 592-99.
Mo Tzu. “Against Music.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 283-87.
Paz, Octavio. From “The Day of the Dead.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 346-51.

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis       

English 121

Essay 3, Final Draft

5^th of May 2008

© 2008

The Beauty of Spin Control

            Being able to put an unsuspecting spin on an issue is a great skill and a beautiful thing at that.  The lead character of the movie Thank You For Smoking embodies the art of spin control; he never seems to be at a loss for words and always has an intelligent rebuttal on hand, even when it seems that he is finished for good. Somebody well-versed in the tools of rhetoric can argue any point of an issue, even when it conflicts with what is accepted to be true by the general consensus of society. The ability to do just this represents spin control. Having this innate ability to a put a spin on any issue and come out on top, through the use of this skillful use of rhetoric, represents power.

            Spin control could be defined as the attempt to evoke a specific desired public response through the presentation of biased or select information, but there is more behind the idea of spin control. Spin control does not mainly involve using manipulative techniques to distort reality. Rather, it involves how or from what angle a certain point is argued. Spin control allows its user to put an issue into a new light, possibly redrawing the lines of conflict. Using spin control properly can turn the initial argument around on the person it originated from, since spin control embodies the use of inventive and surprising counter-arguments. The movie Thank You For Smoking shows a few wonderful examples of the proper use of spin control.

            In the movie Thank You For Smoking the main character, Nick Naylor, is a lobbyist in charge of defending big tobacco from the legislation and litigation brought forth by the opposition. Nick Naylor possesses all the skills that are required to be great orator; he is a great public speaker and is able to argue almost any point with ease. His confidence in his own skills as a lobbyist are quite extensive as well. But a little bit of arrogance actually helps in his line of work because it exhibits his confidence in himself, and, more importantly, in his own ideas or arguments. He truly believes in the powers of rhetoric, as this quote directed towards his son, shows: “If you argue well then you are never wrong.” According to his statement, the truth is unimportant, since it can be manipulated through rhetoric to ensure triumph. Being aware of this notion, Nick Naylor, uses this power during the movie.

            The leading character essentially finds big tobacco an enticing challenge, allowing him to hone his argumentative skills by taking a position that few could plausibly defend, but for which he seems to be born for. It is spin itself that Nick Naylor worships. Spin is the ability or the art of making a seductive and convincing point, no matter how monstrous or irresponsible that task would seem at first. Nick Naylor has found something that few people are able to: he has found a job that he loves; he loves the challenges it represents and how he can use his argumentative skills to overcome them. In the end, Nick Naylor is battling with his opposition according to the rules of the system established here in the United States, which encourages these tactics to be used. There are numerous parts of legislation that are introduced or essentially controlled through lobbyists; many people often do not recognize the enormous sphere of influence that they have on today’s government. Lobbyists are battling a system, the government, which encourages their tactics.

            Rhetoric may be used to do good or evil, pursue the truth or twist it, but that by itself just proves its power and versatility. This paper will not be exploring the moral implications of using rhetoric, but rather the power, and the ability of persuasion it conveys upon a great orator. Achebe, who talks about the power and importance of language, mentions the ability to misuse it: “It has long been known that language, like any other human invention, can be abused, can be turned from its original purpose into something useless or even deadly” (Achebe 597). In the case of this movie the orator was forced to argue for cigarettes and against the general beliefs society has in their effects on health. This makes for a very challenging argument, since many people are not even willing to listen to any arguments, having made up their mind on the issue a long time ago. Therefore in order to be able to defend big tobacco a lot of persuasive skill is required.

            The extent of one’s ability to use language in order to express oneself directly reflects one’s level of education. Being able to communicate well is part of a well-rounded education. Rhetoric represents the art or technique of using language effectively in order to persuade. Socrates believed it to be more important to “win a debate…than discover the truth” (Plato 539). Nick Naylor seems to live by this philosophy. Nick Naylor is ready and willing to dispute any scientific evidence that shows smoking causing cancer. He works for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, which on behalf of big tobacco produces research on the effects of smoking cigarettes. The Academy’s research was considered dubious at best by their opponents. But, Nick Naylor does never during the movie claim outright that smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer, since that would prove to be an argument almost impossible to win. He rather abstains from discussing that part about cigarettes and uses other areas of discussion to win his arguments.

            Without language, society would not be able to function. Society represents a group of people characterized by a set of common interests and similar cultural backgrounds. Communication between the people is what allows a society to function, because a group as large as society needs to be oriented into a common direction to achieve its interests. “Unquestionably, language was crucial to the creation of society. There is no way in which human society could exist without speech” (Achebe 593). It follows that, without language skills, a person will not be able to function well as part of society. It may also be argued that the greater someone’s language skills are the easier they will find being part of society and being successful in that position. Language skills are not only composed of written language, but spoken language and the critical thinking needed behind forming arguments in that form. Communication skills, written and oral, are an important part of everyone’s education. Without language, we would lack a medium in which to interact, which would prove detrimental to the workings of society. When people are unable to communicate even at the simplest level can easily lead to misunderstandings, which without language to reconcile them would often escalate.

            Proper use of rhetoric allows an orator to persuade people in the way that they see fit. Rhetoric is used in everyday life, and has an effect on all the members of society. For example, the media uses rhetoric in advertising everyday, in order to persuade people to buy the advertised product. Any form of advertising incorporates rhetoric. Advertisements often subliminally suggest certain things happening as a result of purchasing their product. A cigarette commercial might depict a very successful, handsome and energetic person smoking, suggesting that by buying that car, the new owner would become more like the person in the commercial. Spin control was used to switch the attention away from the negative connotations of smoking, the health effects involved, towards more positive aspects.

            The true beauty of spin control is its ability to provide unexpected twists to an argument. By wielding spin control effectively, the roles of the parties arguing can be switched, but this only works if there are distinct roles that have been established. In a lot of arguments there seems to be an aggressor of sorts, like Senator Finistirre; someone who is confident about their argument, maybe a little too confident because it coincides with the common consensus. By using spin control the initial aggressor can be put into a figurative defensive retreat, being completely surprised by the counterattack since they were so confident in their argument. There are numerous instances in the movie where this form of spin control is used effectively.

            The movie starts out with Nick Naylor being present at a talk show discussing the effects of tobacco on children; in order to underscore this point, the talk show invited a young teenage boy in a wheel-chair suffering from cancer, attributed to his former smoking habit. At the beginning of the talk show, Nick Naylor is universally hated by the audience. At the time, there seems to be no hope for him. The audience is booing him and in general only showing hatred towards him. Instead of giving up, he fights back. During his rebuttal, he states that it is in the cigarette companies’ best interests to keep the child healthy since they will make more money that way. Nobody had expected this type of response out of him, and his opponents are stunned and unable to come up with a coherent counter attack. The rebuttal drew not only on logic, but also on emotion. It triggered the emotions of the audience, because it showed that it had never been big tobacco’s intention to cause the boy any harm and that they felt for his hardship. In terms of logic his argument was very simple and straightforward, which ensured that everyone was able to understand it. The counter-argument is completely void of morals, but this works in Nick Naylor’s favor, since he and the companies he represents had continually been accused of acting amorally. These preconceived notions held by the people about the tobacco companies actually help the audience accept the counter argument, since it coincided with their original beliefs. Nick Naylor was able to turn a possible liability, the negative stigma of tobacco companies, into a positive, a tool of rhetoric to support his arguments.

            Great persuasive speakers adapt their arguments to their audience. They will consider the morals and interests of their target audience when appealing to them. According to Cicero, this needs to be done in the introduction or exordium: “An exordium is an address bringing the mind of the hearer into a suitable state to receive the rest of the speech, and that will be effected if it had rendered him well disposed towards the speaker, attentive, and willing to receive information” (Cicero 571). It is hard for a speech to be successful if it is not set up properly. During the movie there are a few instances when Nick Naylor softens up the crowd before making his argument. For example at the beginning of the movie when Nick Naylor is appearing on a television talk show, he begins with a statement expressing his condolences about the child’s condition before he initiates his counter argument.

            Another instance in the movie where Nick Naylor harnessed the full powers of spin control was in the senate committee hearing on the tobacco warning label towards the end of the movie. Senator Finistirre is trying to introduce a bill that would label all cigarette packages sold as poison, in writing and with a symbol.[1] In the beginning, Nick Naylor is attacked for supporting big tobacco; Senator Finistirrre makes a conscious attempt at labeling him a mass murderer. Nick counters this, first, by highlighting how many other things cause death every day. Later on, he points out that heart disease, or the cholesterol that causes it, is the leading cause of death in the United States today, ahead of cancer. He attacks Senator Finistirre, a senator from Vermont, for clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont cheddar cheese. The saying that the best defense is a great offense holds true in the case of rhetoric too. Nick Naylor was able to turn the tide on Senator Finistirre. The senator was stunned by his counter argument. The only thing the Senator could think of to respond with was to label the idea insane, but he was unable to bring forth a logical and concise argument to back up this reasoning. The senator was unable to deal with the element of surprise. An important part of spin control is the psychological effect of surprise, because if someone is surprised by a specific response or counterargument it means that they are unprepared to state a rebuttal.

            Throughout the movie, the power of spin control is depicted and used to great success. Nick Naylor is a true master of rhetoric and, more specifically, spin control. He made his ability to talk and argue into a job that he loves and succeeds at. This movie allows us to see that the ability to use rhetoric in an artistic manner can be beneficial to an orator. Rhetoric may be used for good or evil, either way it is adept at influencing everything around it. The same holds true for spin control. Lobbyists are not the only ones who use spin control. Some politicians and advertising agents thrive on it. In anything to do with public communication rhetoric and spin control can be used to influence the opinions of people. Spin control embodies one of the most useful tools of rhetoric and one that we should all be aware of.

Appendix Materials:

Plot Summary:

            The chief spokesperson and lobbyist Nick Naylor is the Vice-President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. He uses his talents in public speaking and debate to defend the tobacco industry in the most difficult situations. His task, of promoting the tobacco industry in a time when the health hazards of the activity have become too great to ignore, seems nearly impossible. He is friends with two fellow lobbyists, they are Polly Bailey, who works in the Moderation Council defending the alcohol industry, and Bobby Jay Bliss, who represents the gun manufacturers’ own advisory group S.A.F.E.T.Y. Together they make up the M.O.D. Squad a.k.a. Merchants of Death. They frequently meet and discuss the current issues affecting their line of work. Vermont’s Senator Finistirre represents Nick’s greatest opposition, he is proposing a law that would feature an image of a skull and cross bone and the inscription “Poison” on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. Nick’s son, Joey Naylor, lives with his mother and her boyfriend doctor. It is important to Nick for his son to understand the intricacies of his job. In order to do this Nick takes his son along on several of his business trips. The reporter Heather Holloway ends up betraying Nick by disclosing certain information about him in an article, which she had coerced out of him during sex. The article she writes exposes a lot of background information about Nick Naylor; the existence of the M.O.D. squad and a lot of Nick Naylor’s personal beliefs are relieved in the article. At first his world seems to be in danger of collapsing and he becomes depressed. But then his son comes and visits. This is an excerpt of their conversation, which ends up inspiring Nick to quit feeling sorry for himself and start fighting back again:

            Joey Naylor: Why are you hiding from everyone?

            Nick Naylor: It has something to do with being generally hated right now.

            Joey Naylor: But it’s your job to be generally hated.

            Nick Naylor: It’s more complicated than that, Joey.

            Joey Naylor: You’re just making it more complicated so that you can feel sorry for yourself.                                             Like you always said, “If you want an easy job, go work for the Red Cross.”

At this point in the movie Nick returns to his “A” game. He goes ahead and meets the Vermont senator in the congressional meeting on the law that would relabel cigarette packages as poison. As usual Nick is able to hold his ground well with his immense skills of spin control. He even is labeled as the Sultan of Spin during the movie. The movie ends with him working for a new industry and introducing the present executives to the beauty of spin control. After Nick gives them a statement that they can respond with to their aggressors the three executives sigh in relief. This marks the end of the movie, his final quote is quite memorable:

            Nick Naylor: Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a                                             talent.

Another one of Nick’s favorite sayings, mentioned throughout the movie, is that ninety percent of what is done in this world is done in order to pay for a mortgage of some kind.

Nick Naylor Testifies Before A Congressional Committee

On The Possible Warning Label For Cigarettes

Senator Finistirre: Please state your name, address, and current occupation.

Nick Naylor: My name is Nick Naylor. I live at 6000 Massachusetts Avenue. I am currently unemployed but until recently I was the Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies.

Senator Finistirre: Mr. Naylor, as Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies, what was required of you? What did you do?

 Nick Naylor: I informed the public of all the research performed in the investigation on the effects of tobacco.

Senator Finistirre: And what, so far, has the Academy concluded in their investigation into the effects of tobacco?

Nick Naylor: Well, many things actually. Why just the other day they uncovered evidence that smoking can offset Parkinson’s disease.

 Senator Finistirre: I’m sure the health community is thrilled. Mr. Naylor, who provides the financial background for the Academy of Tobacco Studies?

Nick Naylor: Conglomerated Tobacco.

Senator Finistirre: That’s the cigarette companies.

Nick Naylor: For the most part, yes.

Senator Finistirre: Do you think that might affect their priorities?

 Nick Naylor: No. Just as, I’m sure, campaign contributions don’t affect yours.

 Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor is not here to testify on the goings on of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. We’re here to examine the possibility of a warning label on cigarettes. Now, Mr. Naylor, I have to ask you out of formality, do you believe that smoking cigarettes, over time, can lead to lung cancer and lead to other respiratory conditions such as emphysema.

Nick Naylor: Yes. In fact, I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who really believes that cigarettes are not potentially harmful. I mean — show of hands — Who out here thinks that cigarettes aren’t dangerous?

 Senator Dupree: Mr. Naylor, there’s no need for theatrics.

Nick Naylor: I’m sorry. I just don’t see the point in a warning label for something people already know.

Nick Naylor: Well, if we want to remind people of danger why don’t we slap a skull and crossbones on all Boeing airplanes, Senator Lothridge [Rep. Washington]. And all Fords, Senator Dupree [Rep. Michigan].

Senator Finistirre: That is ridiculous. The death toll from airline and automobile accidents doesn’t even skim the surface cigarettes. They don’t even compare.

Senator Finistirre: Oh, this from a Senator who calls Vermont home.

Senator Lothridge: I don’t follow you, Mr. Naylor.

Senator Finistirre: That is lu –. The great state of Vermont will not apologize for                                                                          its cheese!

Senator Lothridge: Mr. Naylor, we are here to discuss cigarettes — not planes, not cars — cigarettes. Now as we discussed earlier these warning labels are not for those who know but rather for those who don’t know. What about the children?

Nick Naylor: Gentlemen, it’s called education. It doesn’t come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers, and more importantly our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world, including cigarettes, so that one day when they get older they can choose for themselves. I look at my son who was kind enough to come with me today, and I can’t help but think that I am responsible for his growth and his development. And I’m proud of that.

Senator Finistirre: Well, having said that, would you condone him smoking?

Nick Naylor: Well, of course not. He’s not 18. That would be illegal. Senator Finistirre: Yes, I’ve heard you deliver that line on 20/20, but enough dancing. What are you going to do when he turns 18? C’mon, Mr. Naylor. On his 18th birthday will you share a cigarette with him? Will you spend a lovely afternoon — like one of your ludicrous cigarette advertisements? You seem to have to have a lot to say about how we should raise our children. What of your own?

What are you going to do when he turns 18?

Work Cited:

            Achebe. “Language and the Destiny of Man.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed.                                    Michael Austin. New York: Norton,   2006. 592-600.

            American Rhetoric. Movie Speech: Thank You For Smoking. 18 April 2008.                                               <http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthankyouforsmoking2.html>

            Cicero. “On Rhetorical Invention” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed.                                                       Michael Austin. New York: Norton,   2006. 570-575.

            IMDb: The Internet Movie Database. Memorable Quotes for Thank You For Smoking.

                        13 April 2008. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/quotes>.

            Movie: Thank You For Smoking. (2005) FOX Studios.

Plato. “Gorgias.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin. New York:                                        Norton, 2006. 539-548.

Mary Alice Dewees

Writing 121/Paliobagis

May 5, 2008

Expression and Video Games

Growing up, every person must learn how to handle their emotions and feelings in a proper way. While dealing with joy and happiness seem to come naturally, the same is not true when it comes to feelings like rage and aggression. To cope, some people may exercise, garden, or take up a hobby, or worse they may deal with their emotions by overeating, beating their spouse, or abusing drugs. Even still, some find that escaping to an imaginary and often vicious world offered by video games is the best way to find relief. It is important to understand that these violence filled games serve not only as a form of entertainment, but, they provide the player with a harmless avenue to deal with emotions like stress and anger.

America’s fascination with technology and computers took on the form of entertainment beginning in the early 1980s. The invention of games like Pong and Pac-Man enabled the average American a chance to play in a new interactive way. As technology advanced so did the games, and by the time the new century arrived games had become considerably more realistic. Video game companies realized that they no longer had to make products accommodating only the child’s taste; their age base had expanded to now include adult players. Many children of the late 70s and 80s grew up playing video games and as should be expected continued to play as adults. Video game companies tapped into the needs of these adult game players by making more games centered on mature themes like extreme violence. Adults were not just limited to playing the virtuous heroes; players could now take on roles like, criminal, drug dealer, or gangster. As a result, this genre of violent video games was met with high demand, often resulting in newer or additional versions made year to year.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a prime example of the type of game adults are choosing to play. The player of this game takes on the persona of Tommy Vercetti. Tommy is a shady character who has no problem robbing, killing, or destroying any person or thing who might try to jeopardize his chance of becoming the top crime boss of Vice City. Among other scandalous activities, Tommy must car-jack innocent people, fornicate with prostitutes, blow-up buildings, and kill off opposing gang members all while building his own crime-ridden empire.

Since their development, these types of video games have been subject to close scrutiny for the role they play in the behavior of the individual. People want to correlate the violence and blood shed in these games with the reactions the player may eventually exhibit, as if to say that the exposure to violence within these games may somehow influence people to act out in the same manner. It would be unreasonable to think that someone would commit crime simply because they acted the behavior out through a game. Only an irrational, mentally unstable person would confuse the violent fantasy found in games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City with reality. Any right minded individual is fully aware that these violent video games are not true to life.

It is also essential for people to realize that every game, video or not, is created solely for entertainment purposes; however, this does not mean every person should have access to play every video game. For instance, because of the graphic nature of the game, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is labeled “for mature audiences only”. By using proper labeling video game companies not only safeguard themselves, but they also help to ensure that each consumer knows what they are purchasing. Video game producers are aware that children are very impressionable and may have a harder time distinguishing fantasy from reality; and therefore should not have access to play violent video games. Adults on the other hand, function on a higher level of reasoning than children and should be allowed to choose to play these types of mature games. As with any controversial form of art like hardcore rap or X-rated movies, adults should also have the right to engage in violent video game play.

Besides being a form of entertainment, another key element to understanding why one would chose to engage in playing violent video games, is to be aware of the connection between the release of emotion and playing. While feelings of rage and anger may not be considered desired emotions they are inescapable and must be dealt with. People know the dangers involved when someone continuously bottles emotion up, these people have a tendency to lose their temper and become enraged even over the most trivial of events. Like a tea kettle whistling because it has become too hot, people also have limits as to how much rage and anger can build up inside. Willingly or not one will emotionally blow their top if they do not release the boiling pressure within.

Octavio Paz, one of Mexico’s greatest writers, addresses this very idea in his essay “The Day of the Dead”. Paz discusses how even in times of great joy and celebration the occasional outburst of violence may occur. Paz reasons that these occurrences happen because feelings like anger have not been thoroughly dealt with or perhaps never even acknowledged. He uses the example of the Mexican fiesta to describe his ideas. Once or twice a year during times of fiesta, the secluded Mexican has the chance to express himself; his good characteristics as well as his bad. Paz writes, “…he seeks to escape from himself, to leap over the wall of solitude that confines him during the rest of the year. All are possessed by violence and frenzy”(348). Because society has certain ideas about when and where one should express their feelings, a person must take advantage of the times when one can rid themselves of harbored rage and anger. The Mexican at fiesta could be compared to a person who is attempting to enjoy what is left after a long, tiring, and frustrating day at work. Either by partying at fiesta or playing the role of heartless criminal a person has a chance to liberate their built up feelings and therefore move forward.

While some oppose the excessive violent content found in video games like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, others simply see the playing of video games to be a waste of time. They question what someone has to show after spending time playing video games. Mo Tzu author of “Against Music” would certainly agree that playing video games is fruitless. Mo Tzu uses music as a reference to explain why such activities “are not useful to society”(283). Mo Tzu continues to explain his point by questioning “Does this do anything to provide food and clothing for the people?”(284). According to Mo Tzu, a perfect world would be one which eliminated these seemingly futile endeavors like music, arts, and video games.

What Mo Tzu failed to realize is that the activities involved with entertaining provide people with ways to deal with stress, anger, sadness or other emotions, all of which are vital to every person’s mental well-being. One is less productive in life if they do not have a way to express themselves especially when dealing with emotions that are not so pleasant like anger and rage. So it makes sense that one might choose to handle their feelings by taking on imaginary roles like Tommy Vercetti where they can kill, steal, and act out violent crimes without any fear of punishment.

Kenneth Burke, author of The Rhetoric of Motives, also makes some valid points concerning the importance of releasing emotion. Burke was convinced “that the ability to mediate conflicts through language, rather than through violence, provided the best hope for the human race to avoid destroying itself”(538). Language is considered a form of communication, likewise, video games could be thought of as communication. Via an imaginary character a player is able to express or communicate their inner conflicts without causing true physical harm.

Along with communication, the link between identity and video games is another important connection to make in understanding why people choose to use violent video games as a means to emotional liberation. To Burke, identification was achieved when “… perceptions, needs, and values one person or a group (has) are shared by another”(386). Following these concepts, video game companies in turn developed characters that the players could relate with; characters which the player could vicariously live through. For instance, when someone takes on the role of common criminal they are able to gain bits of insight into lives outside of themselves. This relatable insight is the perfect combination of realism and fantasy, which keep the player interested and coming back for more.

Video games could also be thought of as a means of deliberate activity which keep man from submitting to their evil desires. Hsün Tzu wrote in Man’s Nature is Evil, that “He is born with feelings of envy and hate, and if he indulges these, they will lead him into violence and crime, and all that sense of loyalty and good faith will disappear”(25). Hsün Tzu’s views may have been a bit radical, but it can be agreed upon that all people will at some time experience feelings of hate and jealousy. By playing violent video games the player can expresses both feelings of rage and anger without losing their honorable personality traits. Playing the role of characters like Tommy Vercetti in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City create an avenue for one to commit heinous acts like murder and theft, but never resulting in a permanent change of who a person is at the core.

Video games have come a long way since their start back in the early 80s. What was once considered child’s play is now a part of many adult’s lives. Even in the face of opposition, video games continue to be a popular source of entertainment and emotional release. Video games can help one escape to an imaginary world where it is okay to act out even the most gruesome behavior. In all, these games create a benefit not only for the companies who make these games but the adults who play them as well.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth “From A Rhetoric of Motives.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter.

Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 538, 585-90.

Paz, Octavio. “The Day of the Dead.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed.

Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 346-51.

Tzu, Hsün. “Man’s Nature is Evil.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael

Austin. New York: Norton, 2006. 24-32.

Tzu, Mo. “Against Music.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. Ed. Michael Austin.

New York: Norton, 2006. 283-87.

Appendix

Video games have been around since the eighties, and are now almost as prevalent in the average house as the television. In recent years, games have become so realistic that one can play out roles of being a solider, race car driver, warrior and even a criminal. This paper is going to be centered on the games in which one plays the villainous/ criminal role; specifically focusing on the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a game based city that would remind one of Miami the weather is warm, sunny and located right on the beach. Vice City has a population of 1.8 million people made up of rednecks, retirees, and drug dealers with a large portion of Cubans, and Haitians. The economy of Vice City relies heavily on tourism, and the black market.

In the video game one plays the part of Tommy Vercetti. Tommy becomes involved with shady criminals involved in drug rings around the town of Vice City. In order to make money Tommy must commit various illegal acts such as robbing or killing people. Each task that has been carried out successfully is rewarded with large sums of money, which in turn is used for Tommy to build his own drug ring. While Tommy starts out one the lowest end of the totem pole, eventually it is he who becomes the most powerful ‘drug lord’.

Hey….i really didn’t get a chance to explain my paper in class because some people got the wrong idea of what i was trying to say. So, here it is, i’ll accept ANY comments (good or bad) (the more the better!)

Chelsey Colbert

April 23, 2006

The Art of Dieting

            The society in which Americans live today is one that is overwhelmed in the obsession of beauty. One can see this by the sky-rocketing number of plastic surgeries per year, the multi-billion dollar beauty industry, and the ever changing new weight-loss miracle pill. Americans are obsessed to the point where advertisements for beauty have invaded billboards, televisions, and radios. One popular company that contributes to these advertisements is the Weight-Watchers program. These advertisements may lead one to think that they are beneficial because of the current health state the nation is in. In the reality, these Weight-Watchers commercials have a negative impact through their message and are a negative influence through the use of their persuasion techniques.

            Behind every large company, there is a marketing team coming up with new ways to persuade customers to buy their products or sign up for their services. One popular phrase that Weight-Watchers uses is “Diets don’t work, Weight-Watchers does.” Even though the program that the company supports is a diet, the marketing strategists try to make their plan more appealing by categorizing it in a different light. They are currently using this strategy because the company marketers have figured out what consumers want. The new commercials that Weight-Watchers is producing are genius. They are trying to win over consumers by suggesting that people do not actually need what they are trying to sell. But if they would like to have better weight loss results, they could use their services to achieve their goal. They have figured out the great mystery behind excellent marketing: shoppers are susceptible to flattery.

            By knowing their audience, the marketing team at Weight-Watchers has been able to modify its campaign and therefore make their services more appealing to consumers. The marketing team knows, as Han Fei Tzu stated, that “the difficult thing about persuasion is to know the mind of the person one is trying to persuade and to be able to fit one’s words to it” (558). That is why they have changed their marketing strategy to the suggestion that diets do not actually work, and they know this, that is why they are offering people a program that is not called a diet, when in actuality that is what it is. Americans are tired of hearing about diets and wants to find one that will actually work; after all, beauty is an obsession.

            Even though Weight-Watchers commercials do not seem to be harmful, they have a very negative impact on the audience who views them. As stated by the Weight-Watchers Incorporated Company, there target demographics for the commercials and for their services are overweight women between the ages of 25 to 64 (A). If they have such a specific targeted group, why are these commercials on all the time, like after school? Are grown women, who presumably work a full time job, going to be home watching television after work? Students, particularly girls, are being exposed to these types of commercials that promote “fitting into the latest clothes by summertime.” It is no wonder why the nation’s youth is facing terrible eating disorders; it is because of the “constant bombardment of overly-thin women in the media and advertisements for weight-loss methods [that] puts an unhealthy mindset in a person, especially in the minds of women” (B).

            These commercials are produced solely for the company’s profit; they are making money by pressuring Americans to be thin. Thin, not healthy. As stated before, Weight-Watchers demographics include overweight women between the ages of 25 to 64. Only women, does our society only have overweight women? What about the overweight men? It is interesting that only women are targeted by this company; it is because women feel more pressure every day to be thin, as opposed to their male counterparts. They feel the pressure to be thin, not healthy, but thin. One commercial states:

            “Wanna lose weight and keep eating the foods you love? Go for it. Wanna fit into          the latest clothes by summer? You can do it. Wanna watch your waist line shrink      while enjoying the same foods as everyone else? Be our guest. Discover why      people attending Weight-Watchers meetings lose three times more weight than   those who go it alone.”

No where in this commercial did it say anything like “Wanna be able to run five miles by next summer?” The program is only promoting beauty by your measurements, not health. Meanwhile, as Weight-Watchers is encouraging America to be a size 0, they are making millions of dollars per year from their services. As reported by the company, in “2005, consumers spent over 3 billion on Weight-Watchers products and services” (A).

            Instead of pouring millions of dollars into this program each year, Americans can take charge of their lives and their responsibilities. Instead of wasting money and fruitless items such as weight loss pills and programs, Americans can spend extra money to ensure their food is healthy or they could buy a gym membership. Weight-Watchers commercials are sending the message to viewers, who should not be exposed to them, that thin is beautiful; and the only way to be thin is to spend an obscene amount of money on products such as theirs. These commercials are a negative influence on America’s children and check books.

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

4/16/08

Response 6

All of the texts, Achebe, Han Fei Tzu, and Cicero all deal with and discuss how powerful language is and how it can be used in everyday life. It also discussed the use of rhetoric language and how using rhetoric in our speech shows intelligence as people.

In Achebe’s text he writes, “language is the primary agent to social cohesion” (592). He also states that “its corruption and abuse carry the potential for devastating consequences” (592). These two quotes are extremely important because they are referring to how society would be without the use of language. The ability to communicate with one another is the reason that mankind is such a dominant race (that and opposable thumbs), and the use of rhetoric comes standard with communication. Achebe is arguing that we need to use language to unite the human race and promote the factious, so consequently rhetoric is needed to do these things. If rhetoric in language is used primarily to promote the fictitious, there will be no social cohesion and it will have devastating consequences.

Examples of using language in a non positive way is cursing and promoting the fictitious. Dropping the F bomb, flipping the middle finger, or any lie is all using language in a way that it shouldn’t be used. As time goes on, more and more forms of language come up. Such as text messaging, verbal language, sign language, and even facial expressions. The use of any type of language, whether it be verbal or non verbal, leads ever so slightly to what Achebe was talking about in his texts. The lack of social cohesion and devastation to the human race.

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

Response 6

16^th of April 2008

The texts of Achebe, Han Fei Tzu and Cicero all talk about the power of language and how it can be used. The use of rhetoric and language in general coincidentally shows our intelligence as humans in general.

Language plays a pivotal role in society, without which our society would be unable to function. Achebe illustrated this point very well in his piece Language and the Destiny of Man. In order for two people to be able to interact properly with each other there needs to be communication present. Not all, but most communication between humans is based on language, may it be written or spoken. Body language and other factors come into play as well, but language makes up the single most important part of communication.

Both Cicero and Han Fei Tzu describe how an argument should be constructed. They describe the principles and rules of composition of arguments in general. I see rhetoric being more of an art form than a science in general. Even though there are many general systems of organizing arguments, there are some people that just have the innate ability to be persuasive. In order to be able to bring forth a well rounded argument it is important to connect with the audience. Making an appeal to the audience’s ethos allows for them to relate to the arguments of the speaker. Naturally politicians need to be very adapt at using rhetoric to persuade people. Cicero shows his skills of persuasion in the Rhetorical Invention. When experiencing a speaker, for example a professor, it often is obvious from the start whether the person is an accomplished public speaker. An accomplished public speaker must be able to bring across their ideas in a concise manner. Politicians need to be well versed in the tools of persuasion in addition to being a good public speaker. In general, how well a person uses language shows from the start. Being able to use rhetoric to bring across your ideas in a coherent and structured manner proves how educated you are in the use of language. Communication skills, writing and oral, are an important part of everybody’s education, they make up one of the most important sections. Without language we would lack a medium to interact with, which would prove detrimental to the workings of society.

Response 6

Persuasion

 The art of persuasion has been around for thousands of years and there is not much to change this. The use of words to convince something upon someone might seem a bit unfair but that is what language is for. To use it in multiple different ways. Although some people may benefit and others will lose something that is just how life goes.

By reading the works of these three authors I have realized that persuasion or rhetoric isn’t set in stone. All those forms are open for opinion. Some might say it is unfair or misleading but personally I think it is great. That someone can be on one side of an argument then just by saying some words in a certain manner the person can have changed their opinion. In the text by Achebe I like how he doesn’t use one example or talk about one aspect of rhetoric but he talks more of how language is able to do this.

            One other aspect of saw in the texts is about how language can be abused. I agree with this statement I think it is easy for people to abuse language but people should have the responsibility to keep it under control. Achebe talks about how more and more people are using language in the incorrect way. I hadn’t though about that until I read it. But the more and more I think about it, I think its true. People don’t speak the way they used to and they almost make language bad. Language should still be a formal means of talking to people or persuading their ideas.

Michael Chopp

ENG 121

4/16/08

Response #6

                According to Achebe, “language is the primary agent to social cohesion” (592). Also, he argues that “its corruption and abuse carry the potential for devastating consequences.” (592). I believe these two quotes are quite powerful in how our being able to communicate to each other is what can bring unity to a group of people. Without language and some basic form of communication between people, the world would be corrupt.

                Today there are so many different forms of communication. Talking in person, text messaging, sign language, non-verbal gestures, email, letters and so on are all different forms of communication which have evolved how we speak to each other. Being able to communicate has become such a distinguished part of our lives and for the world today. Trading between countries would be nearly non-existent. Learning would be extremely difficult, as one learns to read after they have learned to speak.

                Corruption and abuse to language can lead to consequences. Even as minor as getting grounded for arguing with your parents, any form of word abuse can lead to punishment. Gestures such as using the middle finger can also be used as word abuse and can lead to harassment. Harassment is basically one of the consequences of word abuse. I believe we can avoid word abuse if people realized what they said sometimes to others was hurtful and uncalled for. Our country is smart, and we can limit word abuse if we really tried to.

                                                                                                            Emily Zerbel

                                                                                                            April 16, 2008

                                                                                                            English – 121

                                                                                                            Response 6

Persuasion

We are reading again parts from Han Fei Tzu, “The Difficulties of Persuasion”.  I think this piece is definitely right on with all the examples Tzu gives on when you are trying to persuade someone and they have to be willing to be persuaded before you even have a chance. Its kind of like when you are teaching someone to learn to ride a bike, they have to want to learn before they can do it for the first time, and then either they can or they cant. It’s just a matter of knowing that there is a possibility for change. Everyone has to keep an open mind and not think the worst of people if they do try and tell you something other than how you truly feel.

At the end of this reading Tzu gives a good example on how people should have an open mind about things to be able to be persuaded. “The beast called a dragon can be tamed and trained to the point where you may ride on its back. But on the underside of its throat it has scales a foot in diameter that curl back from the body, and anyone who chances to brush against them is sure to die.” This I believe is saying that you can talk to someone and share the same ideas and be able to go with the same ideas that they have, yet there are others that may not share those same thoughts and they will never have that option.

There are people out there that have very closed minds and don’t ever want to change their opinion for anyone, or even listen to others ideas. They are pretty much stuck in their own ways because they believe their way is the best and only way to go. Those kind of people are very hard to have a discussion with, and even harder to debate with. Debating meaning the act of persuasion. Tzu puts it very nicely that there are going to be those people that get hurt, not literally hurt, but the ones that can never persuade the beast. But there will still be the ones that can ride on the back of the beast, those being the ones that share the same thoughts as the beast itself. I also believe this is how Tzu sees all rulers and emperors, people that do not have open minds and are only for what they have always thought. They don’t want to hear what others think because they will do it their own way. 

Guys…I saved my appendix on my other flash drive that I cannot find…I will retype and post asap!