Enargia:
Definition: A general term referring to the “energy” or vigor of an expression, or a clear, lucid, vivid description.
Explanation
A lot of poets use this rhetorical device; it is when the author describes someone or something in great detail. When they describe the object, they describe it so well that the reader can almost see what they are describing; they get a vivid and clear picture of what the author is describing. The poet Edgar Allan Poe used Enargia a lot in his poems, some would say even too much because he would describe everything to clear detail, everything he described you could picture.
Examples
1- A kickball, a round red rubber ball of joy. About the size of a small dog, it is checkered and covered in dirt. Rugged in feel, it is launched across the field toward an oncoming foot. Elastic and rubber like in feel, it bounces with ease across the field avoiding the oncoming players as the gather around it.
2- At a first glance it looked gloomy and dark. With red rugged bricks, and vivid green window panes, it wasn’t a new house but the owners were trying. The door was large and green, cracked down the side as if it was struck repeatedly. It wasn’t a very large house, but big enough for a family to live comfortable. It hade an almost cone shaped roof with torn shingles, and vines creeping all along the sides, twisting and weaving till they touched and covered the ground.
Example from the public
Author and editor Charles Frederick Briggs describes Poe in even greater detail and in a vein of animosity:
Mr. Poe is about 39.... In height he is about 5 feet 1 or two inches, perhaps 2 inches and a half [actually 5 ft. 8 in.]. His face is pale and rather thin; eyes gray, watery, and always dull; nose rather prominent, pointed and sharp; nostrils wide; hair thin and cropped short; mouth not very well chiselled, nor very sweet; his tongue shows itself unpleasantly when he speaks earnestly, and seems too large for his mouth; teeth indifferent; forehead rather broad, and in the region of ideality [above the temples where Poe had a large protuberance on each side of his head] decidedly large, but low, and in that part where phrenology places conscientiousness and the group of moral sentiments [the top of the head] it is quite flat; chin narrow and pointed, which gives his head, upon the whole, a balloonish appearance....
(Thomas 643; see also 693)
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Bandwagon
Fallacy: Bandwagon
Latin name: Argumentum ad Populum
Other names: Appeal to Popularity, Argument by Consensus, Authority of the Many
Description:
“(logic) A fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that" If many believe so, it is so."
If something were to be popular, even if it was wrong others would believe it, or go with it because other people are.
Format:
Idea I is popular.
Therefore, I is correct.
Example 1
Jake hates soup, it tastes bad to him. Everyone around him likes soup, they are all eating it. Jake begins to eat soup because everyone else is.
Example 2
Karl knows that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. His group of friends all say that the capital of Canada is Toronto. Karl now says that the capital of Canada is Toronto, even though it isn’t right.
Example 3
In the media:
Online dating: Everyone’s doing it
A dot-com business that actually makes a profit
By Bob Sullivan
Technology correspondent
MSNBC
Sept. 19, 2002 - Selling love over the Internet seems like the perfect business model. Virtually all your content is donated for free. Your customers are motivated by the strongest urges mother nature can conjure up. And they think $20 a month is cheap compared to the price of a drink at a singles’ bar. Until recently, there had been a catch — the weird factor. But that’s a distant memory now, since it seems everyone’s doing it. Virtual matchmaking has become the Internet’s third killer app, behind e-mail and the Web. Can the “mad growth,” and genuine profits, continue?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078729/
Sources:
1- Wiktionary, "argumentum ad populum." argumentum ad populum. 26 August 2006. Wiktionary. 2 Nov 2008 en.wiktionary.org/wiki/argumentum_ad_populum
Latin name: Argumentum ad Populum
Other names: Appeal to Popularity, Argument by Consensus, Authority of the Many
Description:
“(logic) A fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that" If many believe so, it is so."
If something were to be popular, even if it was wrong others would believe it, or go with it because other people are.
Format:
Idea I is popular.
Therefore, I is correct.
Example 1
Jake hates soup, it tastes bad to him. Everyone around him likes soup, they are all eating it. Jake begins to eat soup because everyone else is.
Example 2
Karl knows that the capital of Canada is Ottawa. His group of friends all say that the capital of Canada is Toronto. Karl now says that the capital of Canada is Toronto, even though it isn’t right.
Example 3
In the media:
Online dating: Everyone’s doing it
A dot-com business that actually makes a profit
By Bob Sullivan
Technology correspondent
MSNBC
Sept. 19, 2002 - Selling love over the Internet seems like the perfect business model. Virtually all your content is donated for free. Your customers are motivated by the strongest urges mother nature can conjure up. And they think $20 a month is cheap compared to the price of a drink at a singles’ bar. Until recently, there had been a catch — the weird factor. But that’s a distant memory now, since it seems everyone’s doing it. Virtual matchmaking has become the Internet’s third killer app, behind e-mail and the Web. Can the “mad growth,” and genuine profits, continue?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078729/
Sources:
1- Wiktionary, "argumentum ad populum." argumentum ad populum. 26 August 2006. Wiktionary. 2 Nov 2008 en.wiktionary.org/wiki/argumentum_ad_populum
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Test Essay
David thought he was normal just like everyone else, he thought he would live an ordinary life just like everyone else, but he was wrong. What he didn’t know was that he hade abnormal abilities, abilities that no one else hade. Elijah discovered these abilities, he exploited them and made David believe he was a hero. Elijah wasn’t all good though, he did bad things to find David. He created disasters to find him, disasters that killed many. In the movie Unbreakable, many mythopoeic archetypes are present. The main ones that I saw were Elijah and David, or the hero and villain. In this movie David is the hero archetype, and Elijah is the villain archetype. They both fit the descriptions of these archetypes by their actions throughout the film. David has the abnormal abilities of a hero, and saves people. Elijah seems good, but in reality he is a criminal, he is selfish.
David isn’t a normal man like everyone else. In the beginning he believes he is though, he believes he is just like everyone else. He first starts to wonder about his abnormal abilities while on a train ride. The train encounters a technical malfunction and derails, 132 dead, 1 survivor who is unharmed, unscratched. David was the only survivor of the incredible crash. This is when Elijah first realizes the special abilities of David after seeing it on the news. David hade “super powers” like in comic books.He was born to be a hero, a man with incredible strength and the power to see the future of some people. When he brushes into someone, if the person is going to do something bad in the future, he sees it, he has superhuman abilities. With these abilities he has the power to save and protect people, and he does just like the archetype of a hero.
“A man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. an immortal being; demigod.” The definition of a hero, one of which David fits. To be a hero one must complete these tasks, and David does so in the film. He protects and saves people in the film; it is his job as a hero. An example of his heroic abilities is when he brushes into a janitor, using his powers he sees the janitor committing a crime. He sees the janitor at his house with a captured family, torturing them. He follows the janitor to his house and finds the family. He then kills the janitor and sets the family free, he has protected someone from the community, and he committed a heroic act. He is the hero of the film; he fits the description of a hero perfectly.
For every hero, there must be the archetypal villain. In the film Unbreakable, Elijah is the villain. In the beginning, he doesn’t seem to be, he just seems like someone with a rare disease that wants to find his counter-part. We later find out, at the end of the movie that he is actually the villain of the film. At first, he is interested in David because of his abnormal abilities, because he survived the train wreck. Elijah was trying to find someone that resembled the people in his comic books, someone with superhuman abilities, someone like David.
He seemed like an innocent man at first, just interested in his powers, but then at the end of the movie we learn of his criminal doings. At the end, David shakes Elijah’s hand, using his powers he sees the bad things Elijah did. He learns how it was Elijah who actually causes all the disasters; it was him who created them so he could find his comic book hero. This is the act of a villain, doing deeds that kill or injure others for their own benefit. A selfish human who only wants to hurt and benefit themselves. Elijah fits the archetypal villain perfectly in this movie.
“A cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.” The definition of a villain, one of which Elijah fits perfectly. In the film, Elijah commits various crimes, at first it doesn’t seem like he does, but in the end we learn that it was actually him who did. He causes three disasters to benefit himself. The first two disasters everyone died, no survivors. But then the third one, he found what he was looking for, a survivor. A survivor meant someone of abnormal ability, someone who is stronger, and can withstand the wreck. He found David, his comic book hero. In doing these acts, Elijah becomes the villain of the film. He commits crimes for his own benefit. He is a selfish character who only wants to benefit himself, he doesn’t care about others, he doesn’t care if he killed others, he just wanted to find David. He is the perfect example of the archetypal villain, he fits the description, and he is the villain of the film Unbreakable.
The film Unbreakable is the story of a hero, a hero with abnormal abilities, but with every hero their must be a villain. Elijah even says it himself, he knows he is the villain but he wants to find David so badly, he is so selfish that he doesn’t care; he doesn’t care about the people who die, he just wants to find his comic book hero. “Elijah then explains that his purpose in life is to be the villain to David’s hero.” Elijah explains it himself, he is the villain and David is the hero. They are both mythopoeic archetypes, they are the hero and the villain. David saves lives, he protects people, Elijah kills for his own selfish needs, they fit the description perfectly. In the film Unbreakable, mythopoeia is present, the hero David, and the villain Elijah
References:
1- Dictionary, "Hero." Hero Definition. 2006. Random house. 30 Oct 2008
2- Wikipedia, "Unbreakable (film)." Unbreakable (film). 13 October 2008. Wikipedia. 30 Oct 2008
3- Dictionary, "Villain." Villain Definition. 2006. Random house. 30 Oct 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
FINALLY!!!
Ok...i finally got my blog site to work and i posted all my work from this year...so far, sorry for the lateness but i couldn't get it working!! :D
Heart of Darkness Essay
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is a portrayal of the evil and darkness of the African jungle. In his novel, Conrad makes the Europeans out to be civil and humane people, but when they enter the jungle, Conrad portrays the African people in the jungle as savage inhumane people. He demonstrates racism in his book by describing the Europeans as civil normal people, but then when he describes the African people he shows them as diseased savages who are bent to kill. He first tells how the Africans kidnapped Kurtz and corrupted him into becoming one of them. Then Kurtz slowly dies because of disease from the Africans, Conrad’s racism is shown throughout the book.
Marlow and Kurtz, both sailors venture the African jungle on a steamship. They first see the darkness portrayed by Conrad when they are traveling down the river and see the native camps and hear the drums roaring. They first start to see the savageness of the Africans. Then, they encounter a pile of wood left for them, when they gather it they are ruthlessly attacked, it was a trap. The natives attack the steamship ferociously and Kurtz goes missing. When he is later found, he has been corrupted. Kurtz thinks he is the god of the natives; he has become one of them. Conrad shows how the natives of the jungle can take over and corrupts the “civil” European sailors, how they can corrupt them into becoming one of them, a savage. He depicts how the natives as inhuman “beasts” that are bent on killing and ruling the jungle.
“They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, and they were nothing earthly now— nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation….” (Conrad, p.48) This quote represents how the European people see the natives; it tells how they think of the African people as diseased animals. They are not civil, not clean, and not humane; they are beasts of the jungle. Conrad displays racism in this point by treating the Africans of the jungle not as people, but animals. He compares the Europeans to the Africans, he shows how the Europeans are civil people who live a normal life, but then he describes how the Africans are beasts or “evil” of the jungle. He makes them out as savages, when in actuality Africans are just like Europeans, they are people like everyone else, it is a racist act to depict them as savage animals who attack and corrupt people.
"When one has got to make correct entries, one comes to hate those savages--hate them to the death." (Conrad, p.54) In this quote, Conrad tells his idea of the natives. He tells what the Europeans think of the natives. It describes how they all have come to hate the Africans. How they kidnapped their friend, and corrupted his mind. How they attacked their ship and tried to kill them, how they made their friend and shipmate plan and escape away from them so he could stay with them. Conrad makes the natives out to be diseased savages. Conrad makes the Europeans think that the natives are corrupt and starved animals, not people. He makes them out to be the “beings” of the jungle that live to kill and hunt in the jungle, not civilized people like the Europeans who live by rules, order, and cleanliness.
The natives were primarily portrayed as savages that hunted and killed in the jungle, but they also hade a metaphorical representation in the novel. They were metaphorically shown as the “dark” or “evil” of the jungle. If they were not there, the jungle would be a nice place to stay, no harm or worry, but since they are there, the sailors must be cautious of what they do. Conrad wants the reader to think that the natives are the ones that corrupted, almost possessed the jungle, they are the ones that made it a bad dangerous place to be and if they were not there it would be civilized. He wants the reader to think that since they are natives of the jungle that they are savage and evil, and that they are corrupting the jungle and the people that enter it. He wants people to see that the “civilized” Europeans are the “good guys” of the novel and that the natives are the “bad guys” who are causing all the havoc. This is racist because not all Africans or natives are this way. They are the same as us, or even the Europeans, they are civilized and well mannered like everyone else and that they do not corrupt and cause chaos.
"And this also... has been one of the dark places of the earth." (Conrad, p.112) This phrase demonstrates what the Europeans think of the natives and the jungle that they live in. It says how they think that the jungle is one of the darkest or most evil places that they have been to and how they thought the natives were the darkness that corrupted it. This shows how Conrad made the natives out to be the “bad guys” or savages of the jungle. This tells the reader to think that the Europeans were the civilized people going into the jungle, and encountering the dark savage natives. It shows Conrad’s opinion on the natives, and how he thought that they were the evil of the jungle, how they corrupted it and made it the way it was. If they were not there, it would have been a civilized place to be, but since they inhabited it, it was a dark diseased place that only the natives could live in.
"The horror! The horror!" (Conrad, p.124) Kurtz last words, a summary of life in the jungle. Kurtz dies because of an illness, an illness he would not have gotten if he had not ventured in the jungle and met the diseased natives. Conrad portrays them as the diseased, dirty darkness of the jungle, the reason why Kurtz died. Kurtz got corrupted by them, and then got killed by them, they are the darkness and evil of the book. Conrad depicts this in a racist way because he targets the natives as the diseased dark ones, and not the Europeans. He could have made some Europeans dark or evil like the natives but he choose to only make the natives evil, all the Europeans were civil, well mannered. The only way a European became “evil” was because the corruption of the natives. He shows how they corrupt everything and make it dark and savage like themselves. Many readers, like myself would find this racist and offensive because he is targeting a certain race in a bad way. He shows a certain race of people being evil and dirty, and then another race being clean and civil, this is a form of racism in the novel.
Racism was a big part of this novel. In showed up throughout the book, from beginning to end it targeted one race, the Africans, or “natives” of the jungle. Conrad showed how the Europeans were civilized, well mannered people. How they ate normally, were clean, and didn’t kill. He then showed the reader the Africans. He showed how they were diseased, dirty, savage, and inhumane to the Europeans. He gave the reader the idea that the Africans corrupted the jungle and Kurtz, one of the venturing Europeans. He gave the idea that the Africans were the “bad guys” of the book, how they diseased and corrupted the “civilized” Europeans. He displayed racism through the way that he described them, how they were never civil, they were always chanting or hunting or corrupting the jungle, they were never civilized like the Europeans. To me this is a form of racism, he targeted a race and shot them down, he portrayed them as dirty savages, but then when it came to another race, they were civilized “normal” people. He showed racism throughout the book, he made the reader think that the Africans were the darkness that corrupts the jungle and that it was one of the darkest places the Europeans have ever visited. He made the reader think that they weren’t even civilized humans; they were beasts of the jungle that acted like animals. This form of racism was constant throughout the book; it almost showed Conrad’s opinion of races. It showed what he thought of the natives of the jungle, and the civilized Europeans.
Marlow and Kurtz, both sailors venture the African jungle on a steamship. They first see the darkness portrayed by Conrad when they are traveling down the river and see the native camps and hear the drums roaring. They first start to see the savageness of the Africans. Then, they encounter a pile of wood left for them, when they gather it they are ruthlessly attacked, it was a trap. The natives attack the steamship ferociously and Kurtz goes missing. When he is later found, he has been corrupted. Kurtz thinks he is the god of the natives; he has become one of them. Conrad shows how the natives of the jungle can take over and corrupts the “civil” European sailors, how they can corrupt them into becoming one of them, a savage. He depicts how the natives as inhuman “beasts” that are bent on killing and ruling the jungle.
“They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, and they were nothing earthly now— nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation….” (Conrad, p.48) This quote represents how the European people see the natives; it tells how they think of the African people as diseased animals. They are not civil, not clean, and not humane; they are beasts of the jungle. Conrad displays racism in this point by treating the Africans of the jungle not as people, but animals. He compares the Europeans to the Africans, he shows how the Europeans are civil people who live a normal life, but then he describes how the Africans are beasts or “evil” of the jungle. He makes them out as savages, when in actuality Africans are just like Europeans, they are people like everyone else, it is a racist act to depict them as savage animals who attack and corrupt people.
"When one has got to make correct entries, one comes to hate those savages--hate them to the death." (Conrad, p.54) In this quote, Conrad tells his idea of the natives. He tells what the Europeans think of the natives. It describes how they all have come to hate the Africans. How they kidnapped their friend, and corrupted his mind. How they attacked their ship and tried to kill them, how they made their friend and shipmate plan and escape away from them so he could stay with them. Conrad makes the natives out to be diseased savages. Conrad makes the Europeans think that the natives are corrupt and starved animals, not people. He makes them out to be the “beings” of the jungle that live to kill and hunt in the jungle, not civilized people like the Europeans who live by rules, order, and cleanliness.
The natives were primarily portrayed as savages that hunted and killed in the jungle, but they also hade a metaphorical representation in the novel. They were metaphorically shown as the “dark” or “evil” of the jungle. If they were not there, the jungle would be a nice place to stay, no harm or worry, but since they are there, the sailors must be cautious of what they do. Conrad wants the reader to think that the natives are the ones that corrupted, almost possessed the jungle, they are the ones that made it a bad dangerous place to be and if they were not there it would be civilized. He wants the reader to think that since they are natives of the jungle that they are savage and evil, and that they are corrupting the jungle and the people that enter it. He wants people to see that the “civilized” Europeans are the “good guys” of the novel and that the natives are the “bad guys” who are causing all the havoc. This is racist because not all Africans or natives are this way. They are the same as us, or even the Europeans, they are civilized and well mannered like everyone else and that they do not corrupt and cause chaos.
"And this also... has been one of the dark places of the earth." (Conrad, p.112) This phrase demonstrates what the Europeans think of the natives and the jungle that they live in. It says how they think that the jungle is one of the darkest or most evil places that they have been to and how they thought the natives were the darkness that corrupted it. This shows how Conrad made the natives out to be the “bad guys” or savages of the jungle. This tells the reader to think that the Europeans were the civilized people going into the jungle, and encountering the dark savage natives. It shows Conrad’s opinion on the natives, and how he thought that they were the evil of the jungle, how they corrupted it and made it the way it was. If they were not there, it would have been a civilized place to be, but since they inhabited it, it was a dark diseased place that only the natives could live in.
"The horror! The horror!" (Conrad, p.124) Kurtz last words, a summary of life in the jungle. Kurtz dies because of an illness, an illness he would not have gotten if he had not ventured in the jungle and met the diseased natives. Conrad portrays them as the diseased, dirty darkness of the jungle, the reason why Kurtz died. Kurtz got corrupted by them, and then got killed by them, they are the darkness and evil of the book. Conrad depicts this in a racist way because he targets the natives as the diseased dark ones, and not the Europeans. He could have made some Europeans dark or evil like the natives but he choose to only make the natives evil, all the Europeans were civil, well mannered. The only way a European became “evil” was because the corruption of the natives. He shows how they corrupt everything and make it dark and savage like themselves. Many readers, like myself would find this racist and offensive because he is targeting a certain race in a bad way. He shows a certain race of people being evil and dirty, and then another race being clean and civil, this is a form of racism in the novel.
Racism was a big part of this novel. In showed up throughout the book, from beginning to end it targeted one race, the Africans, or “natives” of the jungle. Conrad showed how the Europeans were civilized, well mannered people. How they ate normally, were clean, and didn’t kill. He then showed the reader the Africans. He showed how they were diseased, dirty, savage, and inhumane to the Europeans. He gave the reader the idea that the Africans corrupted the jungle and Kurtz, one of the venturing Europeans. He gave the idea that the Africans were the “bad guys” of the book, how they diseased and corrupted the “civilized” Europeans. He displayed racism through the way that he described them, how they were never civil, they were always chanting or hunting or corrupting the jungle, they were never civilized like the Europeans. To me this is a form of racism, he targeted a race and shot them down, he portrayed them as dirty savages, but then when it came to another race, they were civilized “normal” people. He showed racism throughout the book, he made the reader think that the Africans were the darkness that corrupts the jungle and that it was one of the darkest places the Europeans have ever visited. He made the reader think that they weren’t even civilized humans; they were beasts of the jungle that acted like animals. This form of racism was constant throughout the book; it almost showed Conrad’s opinion of races. It showed what he thought of the natives of the jungle, and the civilized Europeans.
Heart of Darkness Outline
Outline
Thesis: Racism is present in Heart of Darkness when comparing the European people to the African people.
Reason: When entering the jungle, Marlow sees how savage and inhuman the African people can be compared to the Europeans.
Example: When Marlow goes to the jungle, he sees how the Africans live, how the kill and corrupted Kurtz, tells how they are evil. He sees them kill and attack, the evil that they spread around the jungle.
Example: "When one has got to make correct entries, one comes to hate those savages--hate them to the death."- Tells how everyone hates the savages, how they ruin the jungle.
“They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, and they were nothing earthly now— nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation….”- Tells how they think of the Africans, how they are diseased and evil.
Reason: In the novel, Conrad de-humanized the African natives and portrayed them metaphorically as the dark, dangerous jungle.
Example: Conrad makes the Africans out to be uncivil savages. He shows the comparison between his version of a civilized European and the African savage who’s bent on killing.
Example: "The horror! The horror!"- When he dies shows his opinion on the life in the jungle and the people their, how the world is corrupt.
"And this also... has been one of the dark places of the earth."- Tells how the jungle is thought out to be the darkest place on earth, were the Africans live.
Thesis: Racism is present in Heart of Darkness when comparing the European people to the African people.
Reason: When entering the jungle, Marlow sees how savage and inhuman the African people can be compared to the Europeans.
Example: When Marlow goes to the jungle, he sees how the Africans live, how the kill and corrupted Kurtz, tells how they are evil. He sees them kill and attack, the evil that they spread around the jungle.
Example: "When one has got to make correct entries, one comes to hate those savages--hate them to the death."- Tells how everyone hates the savages, how they ruin the jungle.
“They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, and they were nothing earthly now— nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation….”- Tells how they think of the Africans, how they are diseased and evil.
Reason: In the novel, Conrad de-humanized the African natives and portrayed them metaphorically as the dark, dangerous jungle.
Example: Conrad makes the Africans out to be uncivil savages. He shows the comparison between his version of a civilized European and the African savage who’s bent on killing.
Example: "The horror! The horror!"- When he dies shows his opinion on the life in the jungle and the people their, how the world is corrupt.
"And this also... has been one of the dark places of the earth."- Tells how the jungle is thought out to be the darkest place on earth, were the Africans live.
Heart of Darkness Thesis
Racism is present in Heart of Darkness when comparing the European people to the African people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
