Of Eggers' tone and lexicon

What is to be said of a man born in Syria, that marries a lady from Baton Rouge (who already has a child) and owns a painting company in New Orleans.  To say that this man is cosmopolitan would encapsulate a tiny bit of the feeling that Zeitoun exudes.  Dave Eggers, the author of the book, has no voice in the storyline.  Now, I guess this is the way it should be— after all he is just retelling the story of another family, but I expected more of a sassy and witty tone from Eggers.  Zeitoun has provided me with a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding the mindset surrounding the (not really) average New Oleander.  Eggers has provided me with great words.  Some of these words I know, and are included because they’re used in an astute way.  Others are included because they are new to me.

New to me

Technophile: “Ahmad was a technophile. At home and in his spare time he paid close attention to the weather, to developing storms.” (20)

            (noun) a person who is enthusiastic about new technology.

Foyer: “ High ceilings, a grand winding staircase descending into the foyer, hand-carved everything, each room themed and with a distinct character.” (21)

(noun) an entrance hall or other open area in a building used by the public, esp. a hotel or theater.

Swarthy: “’They’re swarthy,’ she said. ‘I only want white people working on my house.’” (36)

(adjective) dark-skinned: she looked frail standing next to her strong and swarthy brother.

Interesting usage

Staunch: “Be one who is staunch in equity, witness for God even against yourselves…” (38)*

            adjective

1 loyal and committed in attitude: a staunch supporter of the antinuclear lobby

2 (of a wall) of strong or firm construction.

Myriad: “She wanted everything— all seven rooms and their myriad tasks— done in five days.” (39)

            (noun) a countless or extremely great number: networks connecting a myriad of computers.

*Quote from the Qur’an

Just Another Scrimmage

Bill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart argue every time they see each other.  Now, they’re not only paid to do this, they actually have extremely different points of view on pretty much every topic and differ in the way that they sell their opinion.  In May, O’Reilly was on The Daily Show and he stated that Stewart should bring in a Muslim comedian to replace him for the time that he is going to be out directing a movie.  First of all, thank you for arguing, gentlemen (pun intended).  Now, lets proceed to fish out the fallacies and inconsistencies that plague your opinions and to a certain extent, news in general.

O’Reilly says that if Stewart “really cared about the Muslim community [he] would bring in a substitute Muslim host.”  Bill tries to attack Jon’s ethos, at least that is what it seems like at first sight.  However, these two highly celebrated and educated entertainers seem to jump rope with the line that separates an actual argument from an intentional reductio ad absurdum intended to make the audience laugh.  Mr. O’Reilly knows that bringing in a Muslim just for the sake of promoting Muslims would actually be reverse affirmative action, something that he has repeatedly cast aspersions on. The logic that says that hiring a Muslim just because you want Muslims to have jobs and blend into the American community is failing to appreciate that John Oliver is probably the person most suited for the job.  Because of this little play on humor/ attack on Stewart’s point of view, O’Reilly makes Stewart do the right thing: stay silent.  Heinrichs says, in bold print in the middle of the page, “never argue the inarguable,” Stewart followed this guideline.

While it is extremely fun and enjoyable to watch a well-spirited and many times well backed flurry of insults between these two characters, they aren’t the ones we should observe when trying to learn how to argue.  Because they want to entertain, and they need to make the news so simple that the average New Yorker in his bed at 11 pm can understand the jokes, they resort to fallacies repeatedly. 

MVP: revision needed

LeBron James is the best player in the world.  He is the two time reigning world champion, two time Finals MVP, and four time regular season MVP.  Today, no one would argue anyone’s case but LeBron’s in terms of the best all around player.  However, many say that he won’t be this year’s MVP.

The reasoning behind this is that the award must be given to the player that is most valuable for his team.  A great player on a team that would be great without him isn’t as valuable as a great player on a team that wouldn’t amount to anything without him.  LeBron is on a team whose roster includes six top five overall picks.  For those of you who don’t know what this means, suffice it to say that this is an NBA record for the amount of players that were considered in the top five of their rookie class in the NBA.  So, they are a team full of superstars and max contracts.  Because of this, LeBron may not be considered as valuable as others— namely Kevin Durant.

Kevin Durant plays for the Oklahoma City Thunder, a team that recently moved from Seattle to Oklahoma and whose ownership is one of the least rich in the entire league.  Durant normally plays alongside another All-Star, however, his teammate will be absent due to injury for at least the first month of the season.  It depends almost entirely on him to set his team on a winning streak at the beginning of the season.  Due to his state of, lets say lone stardom, he has been chosen by many to be the likely MVP for this coming season.

The stark differences in the appearance of the two superstar’s teams make for a big influence on the voting for MVP.  This shouldn’t be so.  While it is important that Durant be considered for the MVP award, this should depend solely on him, not his teammates.  A counterargument for this would be to say that basketball is a team sport, so the MVP must award the person that is the best for their team.  I disagree.  The MVP must award the best player.  The one that would be the best player on the floor regardless of whether he is playing alongside my grandmother, or Michael Jordan.  What if Durant were placed on the Heat team and James on the Thunder team? Would that make either of them different players? Better or worse? No.  They would have to adapt to alternate styles and roles, but would be the same player all in all.

The MVP criteria are flawed.  Correction, there should not really be an MVP voting criteria. The best player, the one that is voted the best player, should be chosen based on how good he is as a player, not a teammate.  This would not only make the MVP voting more interesting, but  it would also make for a more heated competition between the players— making them have to decide between the team win and the individual accolade.  The beauty of basketball lies in the necessary teamwork for a successful championship run. Because of this, the players would always choose the team over the accolade. This makes it so that whoever ends up winning the award managed to be a great player, while striving for team glory.  You’re up, NBA, make this right.

Persuade and Conquer-- with an accent

There is a famous line, originally from the book 7 Habits for Highly Effective People, that says that one must “seek first to understand than to be understood.”  While that may be true on a general level, Thank you for Arguing shows the real motives behind this technique.  According to Heinrichs, it is important to “polish your virtue” (64) in order to be successful in getting people to like you.  The best example of how this technique works is Sofia Vergara.

The Colombian actress has been living in the US for over fifteen years, yet her accent is more latino than ever.  Why is this? Does she lack the necessary ability to speak proper English? No.  Not only that, she has been learning English since she was in high school in Barranquilla.  The reason why she makes herself seem like an outsider— not a Columbian but a Colombian— is her image.  She is selling herself as the curvaceous actress that isn’t very smart but is quite charming.  Her character, Glorrrria (as she pronounces it) in the sit-com “Modern Family,” is exactly the same way that Vergara is in real life.  The character that made her rich has come to define what the audience expects her to be like. Instead of selling her acting skills, she sells her ethos.  Her “rhetorical virtue” (65) comes by knowing to dress and act “the way the audience will want” (51).  Heinrichs says that one of the most important things in order for you to be persuasive is being able to get the audience to like you.  This doesn’t really depend on your personality, it depends on what personality you show. When the audience is convinced that you “share their values” they are willing to listen. Vergara doesn’t necessarily share the audience’s values, but she shares their interests and has become an icon for humor: a key element in comedic values.

What the 7 Habits for Highly Effective People successfully ingrained in my mind, Thank you for Arguing expanded on.  The secret behind becoming a true persuader is knowing how to behave in front of a certain group of people.  Although this doesn’t exactly demonstrate “purity of soul and universal goodness,” (57) it does make people predisposed toward agreeing with what you say.  Isn’t that right Glorrrria? 

Reflecting on the lack of Childhood Chiasmus'

In the first chapter of Thank you for Arguing the author attempts to make the reader aware of what the book is about, and the importance of its content.  The second chapter offers a correction to a common fallacy and provides the reader with a distinction between a fight and an argument.  This last point really made me reflect.  Although I have never consciously, fought when trying to argue, I have acted in ways that attempt to “score points” rather than win the argument.

When my brother and I were little, I would constantly try to get him to pay attention to me instead of his toys or the Play Station.  I really liked playing outdoor sports, and I needed him to do that.  He liked playing GTA, and of course didn’t need me to do that.  Instead of attempting, to persuade him (obviously I didn’t break it down into three steps like Cicero) I would punch him or turn off the TV so that he couldn’t play.  Now, this always produced the same to effects. First, he would hit me back harder and tell me that I was a terrible person.  Second, he would stop trying to play GTA, go to his room, and promise me that he would never ever play soccer in the yard.  Heinrichs, the author, would probably suggest a chiasmus in this scenario.  A “crisscross” figure like the famous JFK one would have made my brother want to “enlist” instead of “protest.”

Ideal Dialogue:

Me: Hey Bro, want to go play soccer?

Him: No, I’m playing GTA.

Me: Play not what you want to play now, but what you know will make you more likeable.

Him: Great point! Grab the ball and we’ll go play…

Please forgive my limited screenplay writing abilities and my extremely weird chiasmus— I’m new at this.  Despite my shortcomings in attempting to get him to play soccer with me, I struggled in getting to find a way to be nice when he said no.  Obviously, unplugging the TV in the middle of a five-star police chase wasn’t going to get him to be nice.  I realize now that I should’ve been more open to the idea of stimulating his emotions, rather than getting him to act. 

My Candid Remarks about Life Skills