Sheikh al-Junaydi: Symbolic Character

In searching for an answer to the question of the Sheikh's symbolism, I looked through his appearances in the plot to gain a superficial understanding of his character. While doing so, one finds out that the Sheikh's house provides Said with a place of refuge (the only other place besides Nur's apartment) and that the Sheikh offers Said alternatives to seeking revenge. He is characterized as the wise character, who speaks "in a voice like Time" and who constantly equivocates in his replies to Said. So far, so Dumbledore. The Sheikh's closest relative in Jung's twelve archetypes would be The Sage. This reveals ideas he is likely to represent, including intelligence, wisdom, or thought. 

Given the context of this novel, I believe that the Sheikh represents the possibility arising from positive knowledge. Consider the sphere of the novel: Rauf represents the bad intellectual who falls prey to his desires, while Said represents one of the working class that has more recently learnt to love knowledge. It follows that the Sheikh lies at the opposite end of the spectrum, as the good intellectual who uses his knowledge for the benefit of others (by leading religious ceremonies, protecting Said etc.). This dichotomy of good versus bad intellectual is even more significant given the context of the 1952 Revolution. In the words of Alaa Amr Saad, there was an 'Intellectual Crisis' during the time of General Nasser's rule, which led to the "socio-political struggle between working class versus the segment of opportunist so called 'intellectuals'". This occurred around the same time that The Thief and the Dogs was written. 

Another aspect of what the Sheikh represents is 'possibility'. He repeatedly offers Said other options asides from seeking revenge and this is especially evident in Chapter 2, the first time we see the pair interact. For example, when Said details his life problems to the Sheikh, the latter simply says "Wash and read". In this way, the Sheikh guides Said away from his present. Furthermore, the Sheikh also shows no sign of having recognized Said's descriptions of his father, which firmly cements him as a non time-specific character (unlike Nabawiyya, for example, who's mostly spoken about in the past). This variety of choices presented to Said characterizes him and reveals to the reader the intensity with which Said needs his revenge. The fact that chances are provided for him to steer clear also draws attention to the free will (or lack thereof?) of Said. By characterizing him via the actions of the Sheikh, Said is seen as a stubborn but misguided character. 

Finally, an interesting concept to consider is the role of religion in the novel. We learn that Said's dad was a religious, loving man, and that speaking to the Sheikh often conjured up images of Amm Mahran in Said's head. This undeniable link between religion and Said's innocence could perhaps be alluding to the time of unity before the Revolution, when the intellectuals and working classes were working together for a common goal. Then, knowledge was being used positively, unlike during Said's time. At the center of this religious theme is the Sheikh, who facilitates the exploration of many of these questions. In including these themes, Mahfouz engages the reader by hinting at various 'answers' to Said's problems: Should he simply let go? Should he follow the path of religion? Is it even possible for Said to let go of these issues? 

As we have studied in class, this novel is one that leaves many blank spaces for the readers to fill. We've had heated discussions on the goodness of Said's character, the existence of fate within the novel, etc. The symbolism of Sheikh al-Junaydi is no exception. Personally, Mahfouz's ability to subtly raise questions about our society is one of the main factors that engaged me in the novel, especially as it often presented evidence for both positive and negative answers to these questions. 

Choose Your Own Adventure!

Write a detailed explanation of why someone should never allow what they perceive as fate to dominate their decision making.

The question of fate and free will has been a highly contested one for thousands of years. Indeed, the thought of finding an answer is very enticing, as it will tell us once and for all if things will be what they are and there’s no point trying or if you are the only thing controlling your destiny. This essay will focus on the latter, arguing a number of examples to depict how humans are better off when using free will to guide their decision making.

It is obvious that there has been change in our society over the years of human existence. We have evolved a more equal, peaceful, and healthy community as opposed to that of our ancient counterparts. The major driving factor behind this positive change is the choices made by people to change their situations. By expressing their discontent, fighting for a better future, and taking control of their lives, positive things have been achieved. One historical example is the African American civil rights movement (1954-1968), which amongst other things achieved equal rights legislation in the American constitution.

Another example can be drawn from Naguib Mahfouz’s The Thief and the Dogs. In the novel, the protagonist Said makes many decisions under the erroneous impression that fate is guiding him. He fails to notice (until too late) the array of opportunities presented to him to change his goals, for example by Nur and the Sheikh. Early on in the novel when Said first goes to visit the Sheikh (Chapter 2), he employs a self pitying tone by detailing all the problems with his life and ignoring the Sheikh’s suggestions to “Wash and read (the Quran)”. Said repeatedly focuses on the people who have wronged him, and considers it his fate to exact justice on them. By allowing what he perceives as his fate to guide his decision making, Said takes a self-destructive that eventually leads to his death.

These examples are but two of many that prove how much better our lives would be if we were to view our futures as malleable instead of set in stone. Despite this, I’m not making any claims about whether life operates around fate or free will. I just personally believe that our lives are better when we take agency over them. Indeed, Article 1 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “all human beings are born free”.  If there is fate, then perhaps some people are fated to improve their situations, while others aren’t. 

Justice & Morality in The Thief and the Dogs

What questions regarding morality and justice does Mahfouz raise in his novel through his characterization of Said?

The main motivations of the plot in The Thief and the Dogs revolve around ideas of justice and of doing what is right. The story opens with Said being released from prison, immediately exposing his character's morality to questioning. In the same breath, Mahfouz uses indirect interior monologue to inform the audience of the betrayal in Said's past, as we see in "when those who had betrayed him would despair unto death, when treachery would pay for what it had done." This opening characterization of Said establishes a fluid moral tone for the rest of the novel. The basis of this changing morality is the difficult decision imposed on the reader of isolating Said as a 'hero' or 'villain'. 

The questions of morality are mainly challenging the righteousness of Said. By delivering the novel through his eyes, Mahfouz presents us with an account of world view tainted by a thirst for revenge. This is especially evident through the heavy use of stream of consciousness narration, which gives us only one pair of eyes with which to see the world. The reader falls into Said's 'trap', believing that his killings are necessary after sympathizing with him through his characterization (e.g. the meeting with Sana in chapter 1). In doing so the reader is challenged to use their own moral compass in navigating the novel. 

This is supported within the text through Sheikh Ali Al Junaydi. He is Said's main source of wisdom, and from the outset encourages him to "wash yourself now and read (the Quran)". The inclusion of this character pushes the reader toward a view of Said as immoral, since he has all the answers to his problems (acceptance, letting go etc.) in front of him but chose the violent route instead.    

Another significant point to consider is the context of the novel - 4 years after the 1952 Egyptian Revolution. Like most historical events in real life, there is no clear 'hero' or 'villain' in that story. Nasser's reign, like Said's morality, is highly contested. While the president may have improved the rights of the working class and established a strong connection with them, there was also rampant censorship and favoritism in achieving positions of power (corruption?). These cases echo each other, since the subjects are making their ends justify their means. We see a number of questions raised here: Can Said kill Ilish, Rauf, and Nabawiyya with a clear conscience since it is to fulfill the goals of justice? Can an immoral action be justified if it supports a moral goal?  In all, it is the ability of these questions to be extrapolated into bigger ethical issues that engages and provokes the reader. 

The Thief and The Dogs: Passage Analysis (Chapter 2!)

Chosen Passage (from Chapter 2)

From inside the room he could hear a man concluding his prayers. Said smiled, slipped in carrying his books, and saw the Sheikh sitting cross-legged on the prayer carpet, absorbed in quiet recitation. The old room had hardly changed. The rush mats had been replaced by new ones, thanks to his disciples, but the Sheikh's sleeping mattress still lay close to the western wall, pierced by a window through which the rays of the declining sun were pouring down at Said's feet. The other walls of the room were half-covered with rows of books on shelves. The odor of incense lingered as if it were the same he remembered, never dissipated, from years ago. Putting down his load of books, he approached the Sheikh.
"Peace be upon you, my lord and master."
Having completed his recitation the Sheikh raised his head, disclosing a face that was emaciated but radiant with overflowing vitality; framed by a white beard like a halo, and surmounted by a white skull cap that nestled in thick locks of hair showing silvery at his temples. The Sheikh scrutinized him with eyes that had been viewing this world for eighty years and indeed had glimpsed the next, eyes that had not lost their appeal, acuteness, or charm. Said found himself bending over his hand to kiss it, suppressing tears of nostalgia for his father, his boyish hopes, the innocent purity of the distant past.
"Peace and God's compassion be upon you," said the Sheikh in a voice like Time. What had his father's voice been like? He could see his father's face and his lips moving, and tried to make his eyes do the service of ears, but the voice had gone. And the disciples, the men chanting the mystical dhikr, "O master, the Prophet is at your gate!"--where were they now?

Passage Analysis

This passage depicts the first time Said encounters the Sheikh, further characterizing Said as a good person at heart and introducing the Sheikh, who is to become a prominent figure in Said's refuge. The extract includes a number of interesting elements, such as the distinctly intellectual description of the Sheikh's residence, the characterization of the Sheikh, and Said's flashbacks to his father's presence.

Mahfouz's novel is set in 1956, four years after the 1952 Revolution. One of the most prominent characteristics of that era was the class struggle between the intellectuals and the working class. In The Thief and the Dogs, Said essentially represents the working class, while Rauf represents the intellectual (this is, of course, an oversimplification). This passage reflects Said's desire to be a part of that 'intellectual class' (or perhaps the desire of the working class to be heard?) in a number of ways. He slips in "carrying his books", into a room where the walls "were half-covered with rows of books on shelves". This paragraph also illustrates the "rays of the declining sun were pouring down at Said's feet". Light is often associated with knowledge, furthering the establishment of Said's thirst for knowledge, or change.

One can also consider the significance of the Sheikh's residence as a religious area. Religion is the ultimate form of knowledge, going beyond the 'intellectual' class to a place of enlightenment. Later in the chapter, the Sheikh makes multiple attempts at offering Said this knowledge, but he repeatedly refuses - choosing instead to focus on revenge and on those who have wronged him. By doing so, Said indirectly reveals the result of one of his internal conflicts: Self vs. Revenge.

The significance of the Sheikh's description lies in how different he is in spirit compared to Said. The Sheikh is described as "radiant with overflowing vitality", having "eyes that had not lost their appeal, acuteness or charm", and with a beard "like a halo". He fits the archetypal old and sage character, and indeed delivers on this archetype through the (sometimes convoluted) wisdom he provides to Said. The Sheikh could be seen as a representation of the virtues of religion, as he remains enthusiastic and hasn't become world weary. He is a sharp contrast to Said, who is young but jaded with the world. The inclusion of Sheikh adds interest and irony to the novel, as the reader sees the answers to Said's questions in plain sight.

As Said embraces the Sheikh, he "suppresses tears of nostalgia". Through this, we see that some part of his subconscious recognizes the goodness of the Sheikh's path and allows the readers to empathize with him. There is longing within Said for the past, which is significant through the setting of the old room, which "had hardly changed". This is also emphasized through Said's nostalgia for his father, and perhaps for a good teacher who would not betray him.

Narrative Structure: Analytical Response

Before beginning the post, I had to go back and define the literary terms I was working with. As 'stream of consciousness', ' direct/indirect interior monologue', and 'soliloquy' are all very similar terms, I created a flowchart to help me deal with the differences. It starts with the assumption that the narrative is a direct expression of the character's thoughts, feelings, and impressions. 

It's not perfect but it helped distinguish these concepts. :)

In our class discussions of these narrative techniques, a common sentiment was that Mahfouz used all these techniques is his writing. This constant shift can be seen in the first chapter alone. The first sentence up to 'treachery would pay for what it had done' is an example of indirect interior monologue, where Said views the world and his intentions as a third party while adding his own bias to it. The italicized lines following this create a soliloquy, as Said has Nabawiyya and Ilish in mind when speaking it. With the passage 'She had been out of his thoughts...but almost forgotten?', Mahfouz reverts back to an indirect interior monologue. Said presents his bias by characterizing himself as the 'winner'. As we progress, the protagonist addresses himself, Ilish, and Sana in turn - forming another soliloquy. Finally, the lines: 

'Confused cries seem to seep from the curbside garbage. (I swear I hate you all). Houses of temptation, their windows beckoning even when eyeless, walls scowling where plaster has fallen. And that strange lane, al-Sayrafi Lane, which brings back dark memories. Where the thief stole, then vanished, whisked away. (Woe to the traitors.) Where police who'd staked out the area had slithered in to surround you' 

are one of the first instances of stream of consciousness technique. This pattern continues throughout the novel, with Mahfouz oscillating between different narrative styles at unpredictable intervals. In the first chapter alone, we have already witnessed the complexity of the novel with its spontaneous variations of writing styles. The reader is kept on their feet as the work requires their critical consideration of who Said is speaking to, when the events he's describing take place, and his feelings about them (amongst other things). Aside from engaging the reader, this complexity also presents a more holistic impression of Said's motivations. This is achieved through his gradual revelation of his circumstances. His hatred for Ilish and Nabawiyya is revealed first, and only later in the chapter do we understand the reasons for it. This allows the reader to indirectly characterize Said as an emotional character, motivated more by his feelings than by logic (i.e. it's not a case of 'they did something to me, therefore I must seek revenge', it's more about the actual feeling of exacting revenge). 

One of the reasons for Mahfouz's success with this novel is the balance he strikes between Said's thoughts and realism. This combination makes Said's narrative more inviting and comprehensible, unlike other examples of stream of consciousness technique (e.g. Samuel Backett's in Molloy, where he ignores many grammar and tense rules). This is a stylistic choice largely guided by Mahfouz's purpose, which was essentially to criticize Nasser's post-Revolution regime without making it seem like he was doing so. Thus, he creates a counter narrative detailing the struggle of Egypt's working class against the intellectuals. The telling of a story that is easy to follow is crucial in allowing more laymen to identify with the novel and find their voice in it - thus fulfilling Mahfouz's purpose. 

Bonus: I thought the similarities between Things Fall Apart and The Thief and The Dogs as counter-narratives were very interesting. This was especially in how they used elements of the culture they were writing against - for example, Achebe writes in English instead of Igbo. Their narrative structure is also similar in its chronological structure, as elements of we Said and Okonkwo's lives are revealed to us gradually and through the occurrence of other plot events. Despite this, a major difference lies in their respective writing techniques. Achebe focuses very little on Okonkwo's thoughts and narrates in a mostly unbiased third person style. By doing so, he can explore the thoughts and feeling of multiple characters - including Obierika, Ekwefi, and the Reverend James Smith - albeit briefly. Mahfouz, on the other hand, reserves this narrative style almost solely for Said. 

The Value of Texts in Translation

Personally, I believe that the value of translated texts stems from their exploration of a different type of story. In the article Why Won't English Speakers Read Books in Translation, author Hephzibah Anderson states that "Literature...offers a crucial window into the lives of others, promoting empathy and understanding". This sentiment is echoed multiple times, including in our group's Found in Translation reading. Thus, it is not the language of the novel but rather its content and structure that enables literature to achieve its purpose. It should also be noted, however, that the original language of a text has the ability to reveal the writer’s intentions. For example, Things Fall Apart is a response to the colonial narrative, and to establish this Chinua Achebe uses the medium of the English novel. In The Thief and The Dogs, however, Naguib Mahfouz writes in Arabic for the Egyptian people.  

When discussing language, many often say they think differently in different tongues. This is unsurprising, since language and culture are intricately linked. Writing in an author's native language may give them access to their context's "attitudes and values" (taken from the learning outcomes), which they may not be able to express as easily or accurately in a foreign language. It is these sentiments and the structure which a work was written in (for example, Mahfouz's 'stream of consciousness' technique in The Thief and The Dogs) that are the only truly translatable elements of a novel. The actual diction and word choice of the translated work is, I believe, secondary. 

In our group discussions, the fact that many metaphors, puns, or even literary devices could not be accurately translated kept cropping up. A good example is from the article Lost in Translation, where we learn of the backlash that translator Feng Tang experienced when giving the translated poems of Rabindranath Tagore a more overtly sexual meaning. We thus see that one of the greatest parts of literature - its openness to interpretation - may also be its downfall. Abstract language and poetry may result in problematic and contested translations. The emphasis on meaning is much easier to convey when the meaning is direct, and centered more on story and content.

Our discussion of the challenges of translation has led to its benefits as well. Just like we studied in the unit of Things Fall Apart, translated works offer a better balance of stories, providing a better understanding of the world around us. Translations prevent language from being a barrier to harmony, and allow us to broaden our terrain – just like Amara Lakhous’ comparison of himself as a smuggler bringing ideas to new shores. The intrepid translator braves the perilous waters of language to transport stories to a people, stories which could not have been written in English. I’ll close with an implication of Lakhous’ metaphor: the waters of language may be segregated into different oceans, but in the end all humans need language to survive.

Sample Paper 1: Australianism

This Paper 1 practice was written using the outline created in the carousel activity last week. Our group’s text was ‘Australianism’. The outline for the Perfect Paper can be found on Managebac (‘12_A_SL_Australianism’).

The given extract is an introduction to a dictionary of Australian slang, or Australianisms. This text type can be inferred from the heading in bold and the first sentence of the passage.

The language of the text informs us that it was written for an English speaking audience, thus revealing a cultural context. The explanations of what Australianisms are in lines 1-2, however, imply that the context of the dictionary is not necessarily Australia. Thus, the text is unique in that it may have been a Global Edition of the dictionary. This is also supported by references throughout the text cementing Australianism within a wider international context, for e.g. in referencing “other British colonies” (line 18).

The function of an introduction is usually to engage the reader and begin their journey through a topic. With the dictionary’s usual function of recording words and conserving a language in mind, we see that this introduction specifically does this by allowing the reader to reach a better informed understanding of the themes behind the conservation of a language. Throughout this analysis, we will see that this extract uses diction and style to present its readers with a background on Australianism, focusing on how it differs from English spoken elsewhere, how Australian English came to be this way, and the potential issues in dealing with its origins – in order to justify the conservation of ‘Australianism’.  

Having understood the general function and cultural context of the text, we can proceed to its audience and purpose. The given text appeals to the target audience using their main purpose of explaining the origins and historical events associated with Australian English. The central audience is comprised of people interested in linguistics. This can be gleaned from the wordy nature of its diction, and the choice of long and complex sentences over more easily understandable alternatives (e.g. the first sentence in four lines long).

Building off of this, the central purpose of the text is to introduce the audience to Australianism, focusing on how it differs from English spoken elsewhere, the reason for its origins, and the potential issues with identifying said origins. These main points outline the ‘how’, ‘why’, and ‘so what’ of Australian English. Doing this adds dimension to the dialect, and allows its conservation to be better justified.

The purpose of the text is strongly linked to its content and theme. Throughout the extract, the text provides the reader with historical and background information regarding the dictionary; explaining the concept of Australianism and reasons for the creation of the dictionary. The content of the extract can be split into three main parts, which tackle the topics in the following order: how Australian English differs from other English and why; the historical events that led to the creation of it; and the potential issues with identifying the origins of Australian English.

Clearly expressed in this text is the theme of conservation. From the earlier summary of the content alone, we can see that the author is mainly explaining and justifying Australian English. This links well with the general function of a dictionary. This theme would have been useful in engaging readers, since it presents the readers with reasons why they should read the dictionary, by making Australian English seem multi-faceted and interesting. Justification in this manner thus serves the introduction’s function of making people read the dictionary.

To support the given extract’s objectives of garnering more readers and reinforcing the theme of conservation, it uses a pedagogical tone to develop a formal and scholarly mood. The pedagogical tone is expressed in the many sentences of high modality which are presented as facts. For example, “Australian English reflects also the composition of the immigrant population…” (line 16). Phrases like “Most obviously…” (line 9) also imply to the reader that it is not in order to refute the statements of the dictionary. Finally, the scholarly mood is also created through the academic language and use of jargon (e.g. “regional dialect” in line 18), and the referencing of establish dictionaries like the “Oxford English Dictionary”.

The tone and mood of the text validate it and make it more creditable, contributing to its central purpose of justifying and encouraging the conservation of Australian English. This is also done using stylistic devices. For example, the earlier mentioned complex sentences give the author credibility, since they are well-written and perfectly crafted in terms of grammar. The audience may reason that someone who can write like that is qualified to make statements about language. This is thus an appeal to ethos.

The literary device of distinctio is also used in line 36, with “puncher (as in bullock puncher)”. This explanation of the original term furthers our argument that this text was intended for non-Australians, to encourage them to be interested in Australianisms. Alliteration and repetition is also achieved with the term “special significance”, which was used twice in the text. This reiterates the uniqueness of Australian English and the author’s attempts to promote it.

The absence of literary devices and the focus on style over literature also functions as an appeal to logos, since their argument seems more objective and less disputable. The strong structure of the content also makes the introduction seem more ‘essay-like’ and academic. The only stylization of the text is the heading, ‘Introduction’ (line 1), in bold at the top of the page. With this simplicity the text fits in better with the scholarly community, by indirectly stating that the content is what matters, not the outward fanciness or appearance of the text. The style and structure could thus be concluded to show the thought process behind the ideals of Australianism.

In conclusion, we have shown how this extract used diction and style to present its readers with a background on Australianism ­- specifically focusing on how it differs from English spoken elsewhere, how Australian English came to be this way, and the potential issues in dealing with this -­ in order to justify the conservation of Australian English. In all, the text generally achieves its purpose, since it conveys the theme of conservation by adding richness and depth to Australian English. With this, readers will see the value of preserving this language, and hopefully do their best to do so by reading the dictionary. 

I.B. Learner Profile Propaganda: Communicator

The main technique I used in my propaganda poster was appeal to fear. 'Alienation' has negative connotations, and I played on peoples' fears of being isolated and ostracized. To give the poster a dark, ominous tone, I used black and red as my dominant colours. The sense of finality in the words "Without Communication, there's only Alienation" also imply that being a Communicator should be prioritized above all else if we want to be included. Adding to this is the slogan at the bottom: "How can you succeed if you can't speak?", which is meant to reinforce the importance of communicating. 

The people jeering at the solitary figure are yelling variations of 'freak', 'outcast' and 'loser' in different languages (German, Chinese, English, French, Greek). This is significant as part of being a Communicator is expressing ideas in "more than one language", adding irony to the poster. The line "#IBCommunicator" also leads people to a place where they can take action and find out more about this cause.

    

Media Bias: Reflection Prompt

It is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through information campaigns. 

Position: Agree.

I agree with this statement, as long as the information in the “information campaigns” is labeled as being from the government. If the public is aware of the information’s source, they can make their own decisions about whether to follow it or not.

Every government will have a ‘side’, or a certain bias that they tend towards. Governments are comprised of people, and people cannot exist without their beliefs of what is right and wrong. With this in mind, I propose that not only is it acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion, it is sometimes also inevitable.

Assuming a democracy, the ruling party in question would’ve been selected to power for a reason – because the majority of people in the country agree with them and their ideas. Beyond this, we also elect individuals to power for the positive plans they have for a country. This implies action – we are willing to let them make changes and control the country because we believe in their ideals. It follows that the ideas in their information campaigns will probably agree with us, and public opinion will be further shaped in the direction it chose in the first place.

One example where this phenomenon has been better for a country as a whole is in Singapore’s Keep Singapore Clean campaign (1968-1990). Public opinion was shaped, encouraging people to change their views and habits to focus on an aspect they had previously ignored: keeping their country clean. As a result, Singapore is now one of the cleanest countries in the world*

In the case of the Iraq War, none of the examples we looked at could be considered information campaigns. The cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were individual stories that the government chose to focus on, not a systematic sequence of actions – which is what a campaign would be. With regards to the documentary, government bias is often less dangerous than media news bias. This is because while both sides portray their information as the truth, the public is aware that the government has a specific side (their own). The media, on the other hand, is often pulled by invisible strings that the public doesn’t see or understand.

Continuing with the example of a democracy, if a government were to release information campaigns that went against a country’s values, it is the duty of the people to revolt, and to demand a different government.

* http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1202168 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/beavers.pdf

http://remembersingapore.org/2013/01/18/singapore-campaigns-of-the-past/

Media Bias Pastiche: Rewritten Article

Unruly Anti-Choice Protesters Face Potential Arrest After Illegal Demonstration

 STATE      NOV 2, 2015   |   8:05PM    DAYTON, OH

Anti-abortionists attempted to interrupt a celebratory pro-choice rally in Dayton, Ohio this Sunday. Offenders were politely asked to leave by the police, and as matters escalated authorities had to resort to threatening their arrests.

Bryan Kemper, leader of conservative group ‘Stand True’, was amongst the group of rebels protesting against abortion at the scene. He was joined by a small group of dissidents, who aimed to impede the pro-abortion rally. The rally, at Courthouse Square, was lauding the successes of the non-profit ‘Planned Parenthood’ health organization, as well as those of other abortion providers in Dayton. Supporters had applied for a permit to gather in advance.

Around an hour into the event, Kemper put down his sign and was seen taking photos of the pro-choice supporters to use in promoting the ideology on his website. Kemper also crashed the event wearing an insensitive T-shirt with anti-abortion propaganda on it.

As Kemper and his group closed in on the peaceful gathering, members of the pro-choice rally began to feel uncomfortable, and called the Dayton police in for assistance. According to the law, since rally organizers had a permit to gather and hold a rally, the anti-abortionists’ invasions were illegal. They were then politely asked by the police to leave to the sidewalk area outside of Courthouse Square.

Protesters ignored these repeated warnings of the police, and Kemper even accosted one police officer personally, claiming that they were “denying him access to public property”. He stubbornly insisted on this allegation, even after officials explained that Kemper and his group were providing a menace to the peaceful rally with their aggressive signs and uniforms.

Kemper continued harassing the police, asserting that “he had no sign” even though it was visibly on the floor next to him. He also showed no respect for authority, and demanded to see the permit of the pro-choice group to have a rally. Eventually, the Dayton police had to threaten to arrest him lest he become violent. At that point, Kemper and his group began to panic and vacated the scene.

Also present at the illegal anti-abortionist protests were members of Kemper’s family. His 10 year old son was forced to hold “pro-life” signs and protest alongside his father. On the signs of the anti-choice rebels were propaganda-like slogans and images.

Protesters also exploited “victims” of abortion by showing images of them at the rally. This victimization of women who have made strong choices about their bodies is used to claim that abortion is worse for women, although this starkly contrasts reality: less than 1% of women will experience a major complication from the procedure, and the risk of death from childbirth is ten times the risk of death from abortion.

Given the ubiquity of choice these days, naysayers like these seem almost medieval. They are, however, still a frequent occurrence, especially in majority conservative states like Ohio, which also scores lower than average on the Diversity Index.

Nevertheless, incidents like these remind the public to make sure the basic human rights of choice and freedom do not get taken from us.

Sources:

http://smartblogs.com/leadership/2012/10/08/examining-ohios-political-leanings/
http://web.mit.edu/pro-choice/www/facts.html
http://healthresearchfunding.org/20-remarkable-pro-choice-abortion-facts-statistics/
http://www.comparativepoliticseconomics.com/conservative.html

Media Bias Pastiche: Original Article and Rationale

Rationale/Disclaimer

The issue I chose for this media bias pastiche was abortion. I thought it was interesting how central textual bias is to the fight, as anti-abortionists call themselves "pro-life" while pro-abortionists call themselves "pro-choice". Below is the original article, which I found on the 'Life News' website, which details "pro-life" successes and stories. I rewrote it in the opposite pro-abortion ideology. 

One of the first techniques I used in my re-writing of it was bias by headline, where bias through use of names and titles was also employed. "Pro-life advocate" became "unruly anti-choice protesters".  The "potential arrest" was also focused on more than the "just for wearing a pro-life t-shirt", giving the article a heightened sense of importance. I also ignored some details in the re-writing, like the fact that some pro-abortionists "mocked Bryan Kemper's son".  The re-writing also generally goes against conservative views, and (vaguely related) statistics are used in the article to paint Ohio in a more negative light. 

This rewriting wasn't meant to make fun of anyone or any group, it was solely for educational purposes. 

Police Threaten to Arrest Pro-Life Advocate Just for Wearing a Pro-Life T-Shirt

 STATE   MICAIAH BILGER   NOV 2, 2015   |   8:05PM    DAYTON, OH

A pro-life advocate says police threatened to arrest him for wearing a pro-life T-shirt and an abortion advocate mocked his 10-year-old son during a pro-abortion rally Sunday in Dayton, Ohio.

Bryan Kemper, president of Stand True, reports that he and two of his children joined about 20 other pro-lifers to peacefully protest during the rally to celebrate Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in Dayton.

The Stand True blog reports more about the situation:

"After about an hour at the rally, Bryan put down his sign to walk around the Courthouse Square, a public area in Dayton, to take photos of the rally. The Dayton police were called to remove all pro-lifers from this public area. While the rally organizers had a permit to gather and hold a rally, they did not have ownership of this public square but the police demanded all pro-lifers leave and go to the sidewalk area outside the Courthouse Square.

Because the officers were claiming that he couldn’t be there even though he was not protesting at the time, Bryan approached them to ask why they were denying him access to public property. One of the pro-abortion protesters claimed that his pro-life shirt constituted a protest sign and disqualified him from being in the public area.

The officer mocked the pro-lifers and said, “It’s Sunday. Normal people are out enjoying the day, not causing problems.”

When Bryan tried to explain that he had no sign and was not protesting, the officer said, “I don’t care. You go over there.”

The officer also admitted that there was no copy of the (pro-abortion protest) permit on hand, and that he could not show it to us as he did not have it, yet he still kicked us off public property."

Someone at the rally caught on video part of the exchange between Kemper and the city police. Watch it here.

At one point, Kemper’s 10-year-old son also was targeted for harassment. A pro-abortion protester approached and mocked Kemper’s son as he was holding a pro-life sign, but the boy did not waver as he stood for the lives of unborn babies, according to the blog.

According to Stand True, the pro-life advocates did not interrupt the rally, and they were peaceful and respectful to the abortion supporters. Pro-lifers said they held images of the victims of abortion to show abortion advocates “what it was exactly that they were promoting and celebrating.”

“They wanted to give these victims the dignity of being recognized as the human persons they are,” according to the blog.

Kemper posted a photo from the protest on his Facebook page and called his exchange with the police an “outrage.”

“The Dayton Ohio Police Department just threatened to arrest me for simply standing on public property with a pro-life t-shirt,” Kemper wrote. “Apparently if someone is holding a public rally on public property they have the right no deny citizens from simply walking on that public property. This is our courthouse square and I should be free to walk around as long as I’m not disrupting their rally.”

Link to article: http://www.lifenews.com/2015/11/02/police-threaten-to-arrest-pro-life-advocate-just-for-wearing-a-pro-life-t-shirt/

(Tentative) Written Task 1 Proposal

The following is a potential proposal for a Written Task. I say 'potential', because it doesn't fit the exact structure of the Written Tasks we have done in terms of using primary and secondary sources (I don't have any main ones). I'm open to suggestions about how to approach this idea differently. :)

This Written Task is centered on Part 2, Adverinfotainment, of the course. It is a pair of blog entries titled 'Why Rihanna Has Destroyed Feminism' and 'Why Rihanna Is My Feminist Icon'. It aims to fulfill the third learning outcome, and explore how mass media (in this case, the blogs) have used language to persuade people of their startlingly different conclusions. 

This idea is still in its infant stages - the format itself is something that I have not fully decided on, as it would also work as a magazine article. I chose this topic because we studied the objectification of women in media in this unit, and our current work on Alice Munro also gave some background on Feminism that can be used (especially for the negative article). I selected Rihanna as the subject due to her widespread fame - many who don't even listen to popular music know about her (such as my mom) - and her influence has expanded far beyond just being a singer. 

To support my claims on either side, I will be looking at the way she portrays herself (quotes etc.), her music videos, personal events, and publicity stunts. While there will be different examples used to support each side, I will include 1-2 examples that are the same for both Rihanna being anti-Feminist and Feminist to allow the audience to better recognize the bias and manipulation present in the media. One such example would be her Pour It Up video, which received both criticism and praise. Her newer B*tch Better Have My Money video was also deemed both feminist and un-feminist by critics. 

In all, I hope that with these two parallel blogs/articles, the audience will be able to see through the way the media manipulates us using language and literary devices. Usage of the same literary devices in the opposite way would further strengthen the contrast.

Note: This isn't the best timing for a Written Task, given that the IOC is only 13 days away. However, I posted about it now so that I wouldn't forget about it, and to encourage more development of the idea.  

Tempest IOC

Link to IOC:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B13rR1KO5wYqb25wdjhycC1Id0ltcjVYZmlUbGJSSVNDWEM4/view?usp=sharing

Passage:

TRINCULO 

O king Stephano! O peer! O worthy Stephano! look what a wardrobe here is for thee! 

CALIBAN 

Let it alone, thou fool; it is but trash. 

TRINCULO 

O, ho, monster! we know what belongs to a frippery. O king Stephano! 

STEPHANO 

Put off that gown, Trinculo; by this hand, I'll have that gown. 

TRINCULO 

Thy grace shall have it.

CALIBAN 

The dropsy drown this fool I what do you mean 

To dote thus on such luggage? Let's alone 

And do the murder first: if he awake, 

From toe to crown he'll fill our skins with pinches, 

Make us strange stuff.

STEPHANO 

Be you quiet, monster. Mistress line, is not this my jerkin? 

Now is the jerkin under the line: now, jerkin, 

you are like to lose your hair and prove a bald jerkin. 

TRINCULO 

Do, do: we steal by line and level, an't like your grace. 

STEPHANO 

I thank thee for that jest; here's a garment for't: 

wit shall not go unrewarded while I am king of this country. 

'Steal by line and level' is an excellent pass of pate; there's another garment for't. 

TRINCULO 

Monster, come, put some lime upon your fingers, and away with the rest.

CALIBAN 

I will have none on't: we shall lose our time, 

And all be turn'd to barnacles, or to apes 

With foreheads villanous low.

STEPHANO 

Monster, lay-to your fingers: help to bear this away where my hogshead of wine is, 

or I'll turn you out of my kingdom: go to, carry this. 

TRINCULO 

And this. 

STEPHANO 

Ay, and this.

This is Water

Let me begin my providing my own version of David Foster Wallace's thesis in 'This is Water': he suggests that true freedom acquired through education is the ability to choose to be adjusted, conscious, and sympathetic. People without education don't lack this ability, but without having been taught how to think they may not know they have this choice.  

The most obvious device Wallace uses to develop his thesis is meiosis and litotes. He deliberately undermines his own wisdom and that of what he's saying, for example in 'I am not the wise old fish' and 'please don't think that I'm giving you moral advice'. By reducing the importance that he attaches to his words on the surface, the audience believes they attached the importance themselves, making the speech more personal. 

Wallace uses one main example throughout the essay, which details the life of an average adult after leaving work and having to go to the supermarket for groceries. This is a well chosen example, as many can identify with the boredom and thoughts about these 'stupid god-damn people' in the checkout line. Even if many students may not have experienced these feelings in a supermarket, many in first-world countries have gone through sub sections of his example - be it waiting in line, being stuck in a traffic jam, or having to deal with inconsiderate driving. This manner in which he links his central idea of freedom of thought to the real world makes it more applicable and relevant. 

Later on, Wallace also employs pathos by talking about 'worship' and making sweeping statements like 'everybody worships'. This elicits an emotional reaction, as Wallace has already primed the audience to accept him (see earlier devices) and his ideas. Now, this idea is accepted more readily by the audience, and they respond to the personal question of 'worship' (which asks what supports us?) by looking inside themselves for an answer. 

This is just a selection of ways in which he develops his thesis. This theory contributes to the inquiry question because literature is a form of education, and it makes us aware of other people's emotions, just like Wallace claims education does. The inquiry question is thus an example of his thesis. For instance, as Alice Munro's stories reveal to us more about what average women go through, we are becoming more sympathetic (seeing and identifying with their feelings), adjusted (we see how fortunate we are and where we stand in this world), and conscious (I am now aware of other people's feelings and thoughts). 

David Foster Wallace's essay was truly thought-provoking, and I felt that he put into words an abstract idea that many people may have already been aware of on some level. By doing this, he made the concept of thought choice more concrete, and put more responsibility on us for our own happiness. Personally, I agree with his ideas, especially that it is not knowing these things that is important, but rather applying them in daily life. 

Word Count: 499

Practice IOC2: Alice Munro's Passion

Link to the Recording:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B13rR1KO5wYqeGUyTGNxaXhFMjJRUEVEQU1Id3hfSnhlTmpj/view?usp=sharing

Passage Analysed is...

He did take her to the movies. They saw “Father of the Bride.” Grace hated it. She hated girls like Elizabeth Taylor’s character—spoiled rich girls of whom nothing was ever asked but that they wheedle and demand. Maury said that it was just a comedy, but she told him that that was not the point. She could not quite make clear what her point was.

Anybody would have assumed that it was because she worked as a waitress and was too poor to go to college, and because, if she wanted that kind of wedding, she would have to save up for years to pay for it herself. (Maury did think this, and was stricken with respect for her, almost with reverence.)

She could not explain or even quite understand that it wasn’t jealousy she felt; it was rage. And not because she couldn’t shop like that or dress like that but because that was what girls were supposed to be like. That was what men—people, everybody—thought they should be like: beautiful, treasured, spoiled, selfish, pea-brained. That was what a girl had to be, to be fallen in love with. Then she’d become a mother and be all mushily devoted to her babies. Not selfish anymore, but just as pea-brained. Forever.

Grace was fuming about this while sitting beside a boy who had fallen in love with her because he had believed—instantly—in the integrity and uniqueness of her mind and soul, had seen her poverty as a romantic gloss on that. (He would have known she was poor not just because of her job but because of her strong Ottawa Valley accent.)

He honored her feelings about the movie. Indeed, now that he had listened to her angry struggles to explain, he struggled to tell her something in turn. He said he saw now that it was not anything so simple, so feminine, as jealousy. He saw that. It was that she would not stand for frivolity, was not content to be like most girls. She was special.

Grace was wearing a dark-blue ballerina skirt, a white blouse, through whose eyelet frills the upper curve of her breasts was visible, and a wide rose-colored elasticized belt. There was a discrepancy, no doubt, between the way she presented herself and the way she wanted to be judged. But nothing about her was dainty or pert or polished, in the style of the time. A bit ragged around the edges, in fact. Giving herself Gypsy airs, with the very cheapest silver-painted bangles, and the long, wild-looking, curly dark hair that she had to put into a snood when she waited on tables.

Special.

He told his mother about her, and his mother said, “You must bring this Grace of yours to dinner.”