Reflection 2.1

Writing this paper was much harder than the last. I not only had to analyze the editorial, but I had to then make my own arguments against its claims while incorporating research as support. I found it difficult to decide whether or not a source was useful and if it would add validity to my rebuttal or just confusion. For my second draft, I plan on making my paper more organized with clearer points and references to the author of the editorial. Also, I think I should look for more credible evidence including statistics and factual data rather. I mostly incorporated valid points of views eloquently spoken that added to my overall claim, however I doubt that really added any sense of authority to my credibility. I think this first draft is more rough than the other essay's first draft, but hopefully that will give me more room to add a lot more evidence to back up my argument. I tried to follow the format of the author of the editorial in addressing his points with my own refutation and/or counterargument, however once I got into the actual process of writing the paper, I found a lot of my rebutting to his points were intertwined, so I found it difficult to keep certain points separate. I'm glad I know what I need to do next, but these things are only the beginning of my process of revision.

Rebuttal 1st Draft

       http://lufkindailynews.com/opinion/editorials/article_db4061d4-193f-11e0-9991-001cc4c002e0.html

*UCK Finn Censorship

   Since the development of language, censorship has taken a front seat in the process of communication. Many believe that censorship acts as a shield to fortify the fundamental right to be protected by dangerous words, thoughts and ideas. However, it is important to recognize that censorship is essentially the suppression of our first amendment. In time, it has become much more than that. In the issue of censoring literature, one’s freedom of speech is not only tampered with, but so is their individuality. In an editorial in The Lufkin Daily News, the author of “Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted” supports the decision to produce copies of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that replace the N-word with the word “slave.” In sum, the author believes that censoring the works of Twain is acceptable using a word which is associated with violence and hate will have negative results. In the editorial, this claim is not backed up with any sufficient evidence and refers to false assumptions throughout the text. After reading the editorial and taking into consideration the author’s point of view it is still clear that censorship is without a doubt unnecessary in this situation.

            One reason why the author supports the publishing of a censored “Huckleberry Finn” is because it is now being banned or not assigned at schools because of its incorporation of the N-word. The author acknowledges the fact that Twain did not use the word to promote its use, but he reiterates that it still evokes a sense of that hatred. His assumption is that this sense of hatred will either offend the readers or perhaps for some, prompt them to adopt this hateful outlook or think that using the word is acceptable. However this is a false assumption based on what the author believes is the response of certain readers in reaction to the exposure of the word. There is no mention of cases where this book was read in school and students soon after adopted the new word into everyday use. The author also uses no evidence to show that the banning of these books are warranted in the first place. Instead of accepting the fact that these books are being banned requiring the alteration of the text to accommodate to school boards’ and parents’ desires, we should be fighting the practice of banning books. According to Claire Mullally, J.D, books are usually challenged by schools or parents because they contain “profanity or violence, sex or sex education, homosexuality, witchcraft and the occult…portrayals of rebellious children, or ‘politically incorrect,’ racist or sexist language” (Banned, par 10). Banning books in general is a troubling concept on its own, but censorship of those books is just as bad. Either way, the students are being deprived of the raw work of a subject that they perhaps have not yet been introduced to. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn would fall into this category of frequently banned books with its “profanity,” “politically incorrect, racist or sexist language,” and even “portrayals of rebellious children.” If the true meaning of these novels were understood however, one would see that the context of the N-word was in fact used to show the “dirty culture of the South at the time of the story,” as the author of this editorial refers to it (Huck, par. 2). Twain used the N-word for a reason. It is a strong word, and Twain was aware of that; he did not want to sugarcoat the story because that would defeat its purpose and its effect on its readers.

 One reason used for banning books goes along with the author’s claim that that kids will start to use the word comfortably, even if warned that it is taboo to say. “The surest way to make kids use the word inappropriately is to tell them not to use it inappropriately” (Huck, par. 3).  The author does not use valid evidence to back up this claim that kids in the past have begun to incorporate the word into their vocabulary after reading uncensored versions of the books. Exposing the word’s hateful origin will not make kids want to use it all if the context is truly understood. In his article, “What the Huck?” author Matt Blum questions “how can we expect children to learn real history if we sanitize it for them? Should we pretend the n-word never existed? Why stop there – why not pretend the KKK is and always has been fictional?” (What, par. 5). Showing kids the true nature of this word in context from the vile culture of the setting will make kids less likely to use it versus kids who are uneducated about it. Simply telling your kids not to use a word and not giving them any more information or background will just make them more curious about it and more likely to experiment in using it around friends. It is more likely that they will understand not to use a word if they are aware of the reasons it is wrong to use, especially if that reason is attached to a story which they can connect with, such as Adventures of Huck Finn. Laura Korobkin, a CAS associate professor of English says that the novel is “an extraordinary, subtle, and sophisticated attack on American racism” (Removing, par. 5). She says that it should “never be taught in a version that alters its text. Instead, teachers should use the occasion of reading Huck Finn to discuss with students the power of racist language as a dehumanizing force” (Removing, par. 5). This point is extremely valid. Instead of fearing the word and the hateful context it is associated with in the novel, teachers should embrace this effective power to influence students to avoid using this type of language.

Another claim the author of the editorial makes supporting censoring Twain is that movies are an example where censorship works. The author’s main point is that you can see the uncensored movie if you want, but if you prefer the cleaner version, you should be able to have the option to refer to that instead. "Many of us prefer the version of those movies that are edited for television. If you want all those F-bombs in you r home, you can buy the DVD” (Huck, par. 4). Sure, many movies that use F-bombs still manage to sustain their main “message” even when its profanity is censored. However, there are many movies where the incorporation of profanity and other deemed inappropriate language in fact helps convey its message. For example, in The Laramie Project, a movie that was adapted from a play, many derogatory words were used in reference to homosexuals. However, in order to comprehend the movie’s message, one needs to understand where this word is coming from. It was said in referring to the hateful language of the intolerable people against homosexuals. It is important to recognize that if a subject matter is relevant and pressing, exposing all different kinds of points of view is extremely necessary to teach the theme and lessons in their entirety. In relation to this, the author claims, "If you prefer the unpolitically correct version of 'Huckleberry Finn,' for the historical value or another reason, the original will always be there" (Huck, par. 4). Here, the author is making the assumption that the uncensored version of Twain’s books is not politically correct. The next question one should ask in this case is, “What classifies something as politically incorrect?” It is really a matter of taste, so this answer is different for everyone. What the author of the editorial considers politically incorrect may be deemed perfectly acceptable by someone else, as in this case.

Another claim the author makes in supporting censorship is that it will still keep its meaning. He refers to the fact that new releases of the Bible are published to keep up with the change in language, but the message still stays the same. Part of the allure of Twain’s books is in the language. His language style is part of the literature and if that is altered then it compromises the books’ literary merit. Blum mentions in his article, “Huck Finn is a first-person narrative told by Huck himself. Huck is a boy living in Missouri in the late 1830s or early 1840s, with barely any education at all. Twain was very, very careful to evoke Huck’s dialect in his writing, which is why the “n-word” is used. It’s not only appropriate for Huck to use the word; it’s completely inappropriate for him to use any other word in its place” (What, par. 2). Part of what makes this novel so appealing and riveting is that Twain is not afraid to expose the language of the South during that time to ensure the setting’s authenticity. If he avoided using the word, he would have been cheating the readers out of completely stepping into the world of the book.

Effectively mentioned in Rich Barlow’s editorial in BU Today, if Mark Twain were alive today, he most likely would not be happy about people messing around with his literature. He flawlessly captured the voice of Huck in his novel and censoring certain words would defeat the whole purpose of the first-person narrative which helps the reader to truly experience the story for himself. Mark Twain consciously used the N-word, along with many other language techniques to convey the terminology of the South in the mid 1800’s. Allowing such an effective literary work to be tampered with and altered would not only completely compromise its worth, but also instill a sense of demoralization among writers who dare to take risks.

Works Cited

Barlow, Rich. "Removing the N-Word from Mark Twain’s Work." BU.edu. BU Today, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. 

Blum, Matt. "What the Huck?" Wired.com. 5 Jan. 2011. Web. 1 Mar. 2011. 

"Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, It Is, but Changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ Are Warranted."TheLufkinDailyNews.com. The Lufkin Daily News, 6 Jan. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.

Mullally, Claire. "Banned Books." FirstAmendmentCenter.org. 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2011. 

Documentation Quiz

1) MLA Documentation
2)Works Cited Page
3) author(s), date of publication, article name, date of access, title of site...

Prewriting Essay 2

My Claim- Censoring the language of the novel causes the context to lose its original intentions


AUTHOR'S POINTS:
1) --Huck Finn is now being banned or not assigned at schools because of it's incorporation of the N-word "(Schools)...are simply not assigning it to students anymore. And that's a shame."
par. 2
2) --Kids will start to use the word comfortably
"The surest way to make kids use the word inappropriately is to tell them not to use it inappropriately"
par. 3
3) --Movies are an example where censorship works. You can see the real thing if you want, but if you want a cleaner version, you should be able to have the option to refer to that instead.
"Many of us prefer the version of those movies that are edited for television. If you want all those F-bombs in you r home, you can buy the DVD."
*"If you prefer the unpolitically correct version of 'Huckleberry Finn,' for the historical value or another reason, the original will always be there" (ASSUMPTION that the uncensored version is not politically correct)
par. 4
4) --New releases of the Bible are published to keep up with the change in language, but the message still remains the same.
""Publishers routinely release new versions of the scriptures to reflect the language of today, but the message remains the same"
par. 5

REBUTTAL POINTS: (backing up my claim)
--The language is part of the literature's appeal because it captures the conflict of the time so brilliantly
[1] and [2] Exposing the word's hateful origin will not make kids want to use it at all (if the context is truly understood)
[4] The language is part of the literature and if that is altered, then it compromises Twain's intention
-- The author doesn't use valid evidence to back up certain claims (no examples of kids using the N-word freely after reading an uncensored version of Huckleberry Finn)
[3] Author makes the assumption that the uncensored version is not politically correct
[3] Twain used the N-word for a reason. It is a strong word, and Twain was aware of that- he did not want to sugarcoat the story because that would defeat its purpose and its effect on its readers

Reflection 1.2

The process of writing my second draft was much easier than my normal process of writing a paper. My first draft allowed me to get out all of my ideas and the majority of the criteria of the assignment. Normally, I write my papers all in one draft, making edits and changes along the way. This time, however, I found it much easier to create a strong final draft. The writing process I practiced this time made a huge difference in the stress levels of writing a paper. Normally I get very stressed out with writing a paper because I have to do so many things in one shot (pre-writing, outlining, drafting, editing, etc.) By breaking up the tasks in a timely manner, writing this paper was not as daunting as previous papers I have written. I definitely think that following the writing process helps a final product of a paper in many ways. I am confident that this paper would not be as good if I chose to follow my original technique of writing an essay.

Essay 1.1: Reloading vs. Reevaluating: A Rhetorical Analysis of "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws"

The article by student Megan Weintraut titled, “Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws” expresses the idea that the gun laws presently in place are not sufficient for the good of the American public. Weintraut addresses readers of the Ithacan in this editorial with the purpose to stress the importance to support stricter gun laws. Written in early January, this topic is currently an issue in the U.S. affecting all American citizens, now more than ever. The right to bear arms has been supported by the Second Amendment, but as times have changed, more disillusions with the concept have spread. Through a variety of rhetorical techniques, the author addresses the concept of the failure of lenient gun laws throughout the article. This text was successful because Weintraut reinforces her argument with the use of rhetorical strategies. These rhetorical strategies break down her ideas to persuade the reader to see the issue a desired way.

            The establishment of this issue dates back to the creation of the Second Amendment in the American Constitution which gives the people the right “to keep and bear arms.” Currently, this is a very pressing issue with views varying from a far right perspective that the government should not interfere with the second amendment, to the far left perspective that the government needs to take more action to decrease the accessibility of firearms. The historical context of the argument supports the main claim that times have changed and it is time to rethink the laws supporting the availability of guns to the American people and to take action to create stricter gun laws. This idea is reflected through the vast use of rhetorical techniques by the author to create significant reasons supporting the argument’s claims.

            Weintraut uses the rhetorical appeal of logos to craft the many points of her argument. Logos, which involves using a logical way of thinking to influence someone else, is prevalent in the main theme of the article. She states that “Today, the majority of American citizens can live their daily lives easily and securely without the use of arms” (par. 2). She calls on thinking rationally; times have changed and a change in the lenient gun control laws needs to take place. This logical way of thinking is also supported by the use of acknowledgement and response. This practice involves the recognition of opposing views by acknowledging a fact that may support the contrasting opinion, but then backing up the main argument with a rebuttal to that fact. She recognizes the idea that the Second Amendment was established to protect U.S. citizens, but the circumstances are much different today. She points out that at the time of the development of the Second Amendment major threats were imposed among the American families (par. 1). Not only were they facing oppression from Britain’s army, but they faced the essential need to provide for themselves by hunting and killing animals for food (par. 1). Weintraut argues that although guns were essential in protecting and providing for families over two-hundred years ago, they no longer serve the same purpose and are not used for the same reasons today. Now, the author effectively mentions, we have “organized military services as well as law enforcement agencies at all levels of government” (par. 2). As for sustenance, she refers to the fact that there is an endless supply of food companies that constantly provide mass food production (par. 2). This proves the concept the issues calling the necessity of owning guns are no longer present. Her use of logos and acknowledgement and response successfully support this idea and defend the overall argument of the article.

            Another strategy the author uses to prove her point is with the use of another rhetorical appeal ethos, which involves the influence of credibility. Throughout the article Weintraut uses many facts and statistics backed up by legitimate organizations which prove a disturbing vision of the negative consequences of lenient gun control laws. Credibility is extremely important because without this appeal, the reader cannot trust what he or she is reading or hearing. This incorporation of the facts from a source other than the author herself solidifies the reliability of the argument. The organizations she references provide the reader with a sense of authority to trust. Without this strategic use of authoritative references, Weintraut may not have conveyed the same sense of credibility in her argument. Her claim that America needs to make a change is supported by reasons which only hold their ground due to the reliable evidence. For example, she states, “The National Institute of Justice reported that in 2006 alone, firearms were involved in 68 percent of murders, and more than 90 percent of today's gang-related homicides involve guns” (par. 3). This clearly outlines the repercussions of the availability of firearms by using concrete statistics. Another fact that Weintraut strategically reveals with authoritative reference involves the influence of media: “The American Academy of Family Physicians reported that 66 percent of television programs contain violence" (par. 4). This statistic shows that the presence of violence and firearms, even if virtually, still have a major effect on the audience of the majority of television programs. Another reference is made to the nation and how it is viewed from an outside point of view. “The American Journal of Public Health determined that in comparison to all other developed nations, Americans own significantly more firearms” (par. 3). The fact that gun use is so overtly common in our society, so much that is it in fact one of the most gun-friendly developed nations, affects the reader to reject this status, therefore supporting the idea to create stricter gun laws. This successful use of ethos helps create the strategic use of evidence which provides the reader with a sense trust.

            The rhetorical appeal pathos which involves using emotion to influence someone else is also successfully used by the author. Weintraut strategically recognizes her relationship with the audience. Since this is a somewhat formal editorial, she effectively deters from its formality and establishes a sense of emotion that every reader can relate to. This is apparent in the mentioning of the emotional events of the Columbine High School shooting, the Virginia Tech shooting and the most recent shooting in Tuscon, Arizona. This reference evokes emotion to address the dangerous consequences of gun availability. The reference to the shooting in Tuscon also acts as the occasion to this editorial. With the shooting taking place the same month as the article’s publication, the event’s timeliness supports Weintraut’s use of pathos to appeal to the audience’s emotional stance on this current shooting. The claim that we need to support stricter gun laws is fed by the reasons that with such availability of firearms, violent acts will inevitably occur. The shootings mentioned defend this claim as its cogent evidence. With emotion on the author’s side, persuasion is easier to accomplish by connecting a personal feeling with an argument. Another use of pathos involves the effective use of humor. In the last paragraph, the author quotes comedian Chris Rock on the topic of gun control, addressing the fact that this issue affects everyone. “Everybody is talking about gun control … I think we need some bullet control!” (par. 6) By drawing attention away from facts and logical thinking, accessing the appeal of emotion is extremely successful in the act of persuasion.

            Throughout the article, Weintraut uses rhetorical technique strategies to persuade her readers. She references her thesis and claims powerfully using all three appeals. Through rhetorical analysis, one can reveal how these techniques aid the overall argument. In acknowledging the presence of these rhetorical concepts, a reader can see why an audience is persuaded to believe a desired opinion. Additionally, this type of thorough analysis helps one to find deeper meaning in the argument.

Works Cited

Weintraut, Megan. "Government Should Create Stricter Gun Laws." The Ithacan. 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 04 Feb. 2011.

College Freewrite

After reading both articles, I think that the rebuttal, "Why College Matters" holds more weight. The author, Travis Weigner does a great job at making a refutation of the main point of "What's the Matter With College?" He says the Rick Perlstein's article was mostly "an extended version fo the bitching that every generation hears from the one taht preceded it: 'Back when I went to school...'" (par 2). I actually didn't realize that was the main theme of Perlstein's article until Weigner brought it up. As a current college student, I can say that I didn't agree with much of what Rick Perlstein said. Much of his evidence and reasons were ones that I could not really relate to. I don't think that I was a good audience for Perlstein's article, but I can say that I agree with much of what Travis Weigner rebuts in his article.