Blog #4

The similarity in language between both authors Asimov and Sedaris is prominent in understanding. In both short stories of both authors we see that they are both knowledgeable men who although educated understand different logics of language. The quote by Asimov “Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?" Indulgently, I lifted my Right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers” is very similar to the quote from Sedaris when he states “Understanding doesn’t mean that you can suddenly speak the language. Far from it” because Asimov understands the joke that his mechanic was pointing out but in his response he didn’t speak the language that was meant for the joke. That even if you can understand what you are being told does not mean you will respond in the fashion that is desired. That your response is based on the level of your social knowledge and not what is to be always expected. I can relate because it works out in most classes in school, the teacher will ask me a question where I may know the answer to but when I try to answer, mostly anxious the words I choose to display are sometimes not the ones my teachers look for even though they fit. In my attempt to understand what is to be told, I clearly choose the indifferent language.

“Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?" Indulgently, I lifted my Right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers” (Asimov 2)

“Understanding doesn’t mean that you can suddenly speak the language. Far from it” (Sedaris 3)

Blog #3

“In social interaction between the sexes, biological dimorphism underlies the probability that the male’s usual superiority of status over the female will be expressible in his greater girth and height” (Goffman 28).

This quote is significant to me because I watch and live through this experience daily. In my society, or at least how I look at society, the male in most to all cases is more dominate then the female. Our build is to be taller, stronger and more reliable in any case but not always. Through a relationship perspective, I see a man being taller than the female because of his dominance. He was made to protect and provide for his mate, and therefore must have the proper body to do so. Not the perfect body, but the stronger one. I was brought up and taught in this kind of theory. “Men are supposed to provide and take care of female always” (Mom). Now my mind is set to believe in what my mother says of course, since she is my mother, but why can’t it be the other way around? Is it male purpose to be the supporting role for females? Or can females look and take care of themselves just the same? My belief is that women have that dominant role in their genes far stronger than men. My mother as an example for not only giving birth to me but having to raise me and take care of herself with no one else’s support.

“Perfect. When did “perfection” become applicable to the human body? The word suggests a Platonic form of timeless beauty—appropriate for marble, perhaps, but not for living flesh” (Bordo 151).

The perfect body to me does not exist which relates directly to what Bordo is getting at in her quote. It may exist in a painting, or the texture of marble and stone but never the human body. Something that is perfect has to stop changing. The human body is always going through a constant change, whether it is the process of growing up or just the necessary order our body has to follow. If the human body were to ever be perfect it have to stop its growth which is neigh impossible. When women feel, and in my experience with family members and my significant other, the guilt of how deformed their body is, their self-esteem tends to go down. They want this body part to grown or this one to decrease, the list expands. It is not the fact that they want the change it is the product of perfection they use to compare themselves to. Models in a magazine advertisement or the actresses in movies all have the “perfect” figure. The figure generated by computers which will never change and continue to look perfectly beautiful.

Is Bordo’s and Goffman’s quotes and analysis relevant to today’s society? Definitely. In our society it is not for the man to dominant and for the female to be submissive that is important. It’s the idea behind dominance and submissiveness that exists today. We see it all over advertisements and television where the male is the supporting role in to image or the women plays the submissive victim in those horror films. Humans also use those analogies in their everyday lives, where the man works while the women cook and take care of the kids. Also the advertisements of how the “American Woman or Man” should look are unavoidable. It holds an irrevocable distinction on how we should look, sort of brainwashes us to think that we all have to have that perfect image to follow and if we don’t we’re doing it wrong. Individuality ceases to exist on top of the media that makes us pursue its image.

Blog # 2

“Another is the universality of cartoon imagery. The more cartoony a face is, for instance, the more people it could be said to describe” (McCloud 8).
This quote sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of them, it caught me by surprise. What McCloud is trying to say is that the more stripped down a face can be, the more options it has behind it. We can involve ourselves in the thought of that one character. Looking into an empty shell of a stripped down face places us in that character’s shoes to experience the magic behind it. It can also be looked as a way to connect with others in similarities, our identities may not be the same but our background is. Is McCloud trying to say we all have the same face if we took of the detail? I personally think we do because we all come from the same roots. We add on the detail but underneath lies the web of similarity that we all connect to. That empty shell we step into and fill the void. An example can be seen in cartoons themselves. When everyone was younger they have all seen cartoons I’m sure. I had this one cartoon where I would look at the character and picture myself as him. It was the stripped down context of that character that allowed me to compare myself. The point is that his empty context could allow anyone to connect in similar contrast to him.

If cars can accelerate with the use of gasoline, humans should be able to as well.
This is a logical fallacy because it because it is a false analogy. The two are unconnected ideas that cannot be analyzed together. Cars can accelerate using gasoline because of how they are manufactured; humans do not have that need.

If ever there was an idea custom-made for a Jay Leno monologue, this was it: marriage counseling. Isn’t that like the worst experience two people can have? Whatever happened to just smacking each other up?
I happen to sympathize with this atrocity, though, perhaps because my wife tends to beat me a little too much.

Blog #1

The author Sonia J. Foss describes rhetoric in many ways through the use of symbols. Bringing up ways that symbols are a way we use to communicate with others. We live our lives surrounded by symbols and we react to them accordingly. The author says, “How we perceive, what we know, what we experience, and how we act are the results of the symbols and we create and the symbols we encounter in the world” (Foss 3). The way we interact with these symbols is called rhetoric criticism. The rhetoric criticism we react to can be simple things like watching television or looking at a billboard advertisement. Through symbols humans create rhetoric as a form of communication. If rhetoric is the way to speak through communication then why not just call it communication or speech? Because of the symbols we use to counter someone’s opinion or just to symbolize a way of life, we use rhetoric in a different tone then communication. Foss describes “Every symbolic choice we make results in seeing the world in one way rather than in another, in contrast to animals, humans experience is different because of the symbol we use to frame it” (Foss 4).
Rhetoric strictly coexists with symbols rather than signs, being that a symbol is something that stands for something or can be used to represent something else. Like wind hitting you is a sign that the temperature is cooler or that a storm is inevitably near. One way Foss puts the distinction of sign and symbol is through a tennis match between people who have not experienced it in years against someone who has played the game for years. She discusses that the unfit person suggest he will not do as good therefore, symbolizing why his performance was very tragic. Humans may use objects that are not symbolic and form then into something symbolic. An example Foss uses “The tree could become a symbol, however, if it is used by someone to communicate an idea” (Foss 5).
In my own life this has become an effective method of communicating. Many symbols I used to describe the way I feel, or how I react in some ways that can be explained as rhetoric. Something like arguing with someone in a harsh method, I’ve used symbols that connect to the situation to prove my points. Rhetoric is a way for me to discuss with others through symbolizing my meaning.


Rhetoric -
1: The art of speaking or writing effectively: as the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion.
2: Skill in the effective use of speech.