Reading Between the Lines

           I’m sure you’ve all experienced it. That awkward moment when a person just does not seem to understand what you are saying regardless of how clearly you articulate it. It can be frustrating and annoying. Are we to blame rhetoric for not being clear enough, or are we to blame society for having the idea of “reading between the lines”. I think it would be a pretty even split between the two; some misinterpretation comes from poor rhetoric, but a good deal also come from the notion that rhetoric can deliver hidden or subtle messages. (I’m pretty sure there is also a third category, that being the person is stupid/oblivious. That, however, has very little to do with rhetoric, and is a discussion for another time.)

http://www.someecards.com/

            Reading between the lines, or the art of subtlety is a great rhetorical tool. It is powerful. You can hint at things that are taboo or disrespectful in nature, without coming off as rude and ruining your credibility. It has a shock factor that makes the audience pay attention. The obvious example that comes to my mind is Phil Knight’s speech at Joe Pa’s Memorial Service. The speech had rebellious and accusatory portions that were nicely wrapped in a blanket subtlety making it more acceptable to say. The audience had the, fairly easy, task of reading between the lines of his speech. In between his words was a powerful message of wrongdoing and blame directed towards the hierarchy of Penn State University. The subtlety of his speech made it extraordinary. It engaged the audience because it continually made them think about what he was saying to get the real message.

            So, while subtlety is common in our society, and occasionally causes problems, it is a great rhetorical tool. It is powerful in that is not obvious, yet there for anyone to find. 

This I Believe

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/04/cumberland_valleys_artificial.html

Fun Fact: This is the actual field in the story! Who knew our turf field was one of the first hits on Google. Enjoy!

I'm Fluent in English and Sarcasm

             Personally, I think I’m a riot. That may be a little conceded, but I truly think I’m funny. Not the stupid slapstick humor of Borat, but more like “you have to have a few brain cells to appreciate” kind of humor.  I derive most of my humor from a combination of bluntness (thank my mother), quick in the moment deliveries, and, of course, sarcasm. I find great joy in sarcasm, especially when people think I’m being serious. For example the other day I was discussing the beverage of red bull with a few of my friends. I was saying how I though it tasted like pee. Being smart, one of my friends replied “how do you know what pee tastes like”. Without missing a beat I replied, “hazing”. Now let me get a few things straight, I have never tasted pee before and my sorority does not haze. Regardless, my friend stared at me in disbelief and shock, while the other busted out laughing. Personally I thought I was being clever, apparently my humor does not translate to everyone. This got me thinking about the rhetoric of humor.

http://www.someecards.com/

           The rhetoric and words used to make something funny are average words and sentences, at least my type of humor. There is nothing special about the words used or the order in which they are presented. Then what makes it funny? It has to do with three things: timing, delivery, and context. My comment was timed perfectly. If I had said the same thing two minutes later it would have been received with quizzical looks followed by slightly worried gazes at my slowness. Things are much funnier and more impressive when people make it up on the spot. It has something to do with the spontaneity. In addition, the delivery was key. I said it with a straight face and did not crack a smile till I thought my friend was genuinely worried about my life as a pledge. Sarcastic comments are best said as though they are serious fact. It adds shock value because it was not expected in the conversation. The listener’s brain takes a second to comprehend that the facial expression and tone does not match up to the comment said, and then laughter ensues, hopefully. Of course, context is crucial. I talked about context in my last post, but it is just incredibly important in rhetoric. The comment was especially funny because of two things: 1. I was a pledge at the time and 2. hazing is a stereotype of fraternity and sorority pledges. By playing along with a stereotype, particularly one my friends knew I would not be a part of, I made a funny play on the notion of a pledge.

          Reading this you may think stand up comedy is not in my future, and I couldn’t agree with you more. Do I think I’m funny? Yes. Do I think I'm funny enough to make a career out of it? Absolutely not. Whether I'm funny or not is really a debate for another time; harder to argue with is the fact that timing, delivery, and context of rhetoric can change a normal word or a phrase into a laugh-inducing joke. 

Its Okay to Kick Someone When They're Standing

        I ask for your forgiveness before you start reading this. This is a blog post about Joe Pa. I know everywhere you look he is there, but I just can’t help it. The man is a legend and in all honesty he deserves that attention because he did great things.

            

http://www.someecards.com

        Even though Joe Pa is at peace, there are many people down on earth who are still upset at the things that were done to him. In all honesty, I see where they are coming from, and it makes me mad too. When the scandal broke across the nation the media was ruthless. Not only to the actual wrong doers, but to others as well, of course I’m talking about Joe Pa. He was ripped, shattered and torn by the media to a point where people actual thought that he had committed these crimes. I’m not going to get into whether he made mistakes are not, there is a lot of gray area surrounding that. What is clear though is that the media’s attack on him was disproportionate to his actions. To say the media killed Joe Pa is not a huge exaggeration in my books. In addition the board of trustee’s choose to dismiss Paterno in the most cowardly and disrespectable way possible; a phone call telling him “his services were no longer needed”.

            Where the rhetoric gets interesting in this situation is when he, unfortunately passed away. When Joe Pa died he once again became the beloved father figure of millions in the eyes of the media. In an instant the attitude towards him changed. Why the sudden change? Well it has to do with that fact that our society frowns on rhetoric used to kick someone when they are already down. So while it is okay for the media to slander Joe Pa while he is alive, when he is on his deathbed it becomes immoral. Rhetoric, and the response to it, is very dependent on its context. While millions of papers sold during the scandal with Joe Pa’s fall from grace on the front page; I highly doubt that one would sell today if that same picture were on the front page. Context means a lot, and it’s not really fair. Quite frankly it makes me mad that one day you can slander someone and its acceptable, but if they are ill it suddenly becomes disrespectful. It was always disrespectful. I respect the Paterno family for asking the board of trustee’s not to attend the memorial service. And as millions say bye to a one of this century’s greatest men, I hope that the people who threw him under the bus feel bad about their words and actions. Though social norms may say it is okay to use rhetoric to tear someone apart, it really is not right in any situation. Mr. Paterno, you will live eternally in the gates of Penn State and in the hearts of all who proudly bleed blue and white. I am honored to have been a part of Penn State under the golden age of Joe Pa. Rest in Peace.      

Texting: the dialect of Tweens

     I’ll admit it. I HATE talking on the phone, especially if I only have a few a simple questions to ask. When you call someone there is the customary hi, how are you to get through followed with discussion of fluff. At the same time I’m slightly concerned about the English language in general, and its preservation. It has happened to me one or twice in my history class where I am copying notes and write down an acronym and think of it’s texting meaning rather than the historical abbreviation. Just for a general clarification TMI in a history class will always mean Three Mile Island, and NOT too much information, historians don’t really believe in that. 

    Personally I don’t really like texting acronyms. I’ll use a few, but I prefer typing out full sentence text messages with periods and sometimes even some commas. Quite frankly I don’t even know them all. A quick scan of the top 50 list of texting acronym’s told me I was probably at the same place as my mom, and that’s just sad. However is texting, and the shortened vernacular that goes with it, a bad thing? Most people tend to say it is bad because it is destroying the language. There is no need to know how to spell; no need to use proper grammar or punctuation. There is virtually no need to expand your vocabulary. Then why is it done? There has to be something beneficial about shortening sentences into letters. The answer, in my opinion, lies with rhetoric.

    The goal of rhetoric is to get a point across as effectively as possible. Isn’t that what texting lingo is doing? Instead of having a five-minute phone call teens can get across a sentence of information in a few letters. And though not everyone can understand it, for those who can it is more effective. Shortening of words is noting new to us. We no longer speak in the fluffy dialect of Shakespeare. What took pages to say back then can be put into a paragraph today and with text lingo maybe even a few lines. I don’t think the English language needs to fear being condensed to abbreviations and acronyms anytime soon, however that does not take away from the fact that it is effective.

            Rgardlss of f ura fan of txt tlk or nt it follows d basic 4rms of rhetoric, it gets ax a msg dats sussed, @ lEst 2 doze hu undRst& it. Translation: If you are a fan of text talk or not it follows the basic forms of rhetoric, it gets across a message that is understood, at least to those who understand it.