So What?

Yesterday I asked each of my Business Communication students to stand up in front of the class and say four specific things about the term papers they are going to turn in on Tuesday:

* State your thesis/findings/proposal.
* Briefly describe the evidence you used to support your assertions.
* Explain why your evidence supports your assertions.
* Tell us why your assertions are important.

Students saw the first three requests coming, but when I asked them to explain the importance of their work, several of them looked confused - enough of them that I decided to explain I meant by 'important.'

To do so, I borrowed a lesson from my one-time fiction writing professor, Lynn Freed. Back when I was walking the halls of Voorhies at UC Davis, Lynn's name evoked anxiety in many of the fiction writers. We liked hearing what she had to say, but what she said often hurt. She's not one to pull punches during workshop. If she thinks your being a lazy writer, she'll call you out on it. If she thinks you've lost control of the story, she'll tell you just that. But the reason she was feared - the reason people were nervous about enrolling in her workshop was not what she said in the classroom; it was what she wrote on the final page of so many people's submissions that scared us. She scratched two words across the whole page: "So what?"

A young man might be drawing on deeply personal experiences to write about how a girlfriend humiliated his fictional self in front of family and friends, and at the end of the story all Lynn wanted to know was, "So what?"

She explained that this is the most important question a writer can ever ask about his or her work. If a writer is going to take up a reader's time and energy, then there sure as hell better be a pay off. And Lynn carries herself in such a way that you know she probably has better things to do than read your short story. That really drives the point home.

And so, in my classroom I asked my students to explain why their term paper was important. "Why should I spend my time reading it? How will my life be affected if I accept or reject your assertion? In short, so what?" The class laughed. Then the presentations began.

Then just before the first break, I had to push one presenter a bit on the "so what" issue. I asked her, "Why should I read your paper?"

Before she could answer, one of the other students exclaimed, "I hate that question." He was adamant. I asked him why, and he told us that whenever there is a message, there is always a 'sender' and a 'reciever,' and that relationship is defined by pre-established positions of power. He suggested that you shouldn't compose a message if you are not in a position to make someone read that message. The relationship must be in place before the reader's eyes fall upon the first word: Boss & subordinate, journalist & news customer, politician & citizen, parent & child, and the list goes on.

It was a fascinating misconception of the reader-writer relationship, and I think it's one many students have. After all, many students only read because they are told to read. Reluctant readers get to school where they are told what to read, and if they fail to read the book, an authority punishes them. This 'teaches' reluctant readers that "We read because we have to."

Now, I don't want to do away with that system. I think teachers should force reluctant readers to read. The Great Gasby may feel like 'eating your vegetables' to a 15-year-old, but it's good for you AND eventually we all learn how delicious asparagus is (it's in season here, and soooo good).

But we also need to teach about the reader-writer relationship. The reader is giving time and thought to a writer's work. That writer better bring something to the table - something worth the time and energy - something that offers a satisfying answer to the question, "So what?"

Troubles Teaching Argument

It's been an interesting week. I'm reading a lot of Composition Studies literature for my research project, and that's got my head in an odd place. I keep thinking in jargon, which is uncomfortable.

Anyway, I was on the receiving end of a couple of interesting ideas this week, and it got me to thinking about the challenges of teaching effective arguments. I know from my reading and experience why it's a challenge:

* Many students often struggle in their attempts to understand the opposition's point of view.
* Many students have been taught to argue using vague or unsubstantiated evidence, a lesson imparted by various media and often by the family/community.
* Many students believe generalizations and emotional appeals are more effective tools of persuasion because they are easy to create.
* Many students don't hang out with people who disagree with them very often.

But what struck me this week is this:
* Many people often struggle in their attempts to understand the opposition's point of view.
* Many people have been taught to argue using vague or unsubstantiated evidence, a lesson imparted by various media and often by the family/community.
* Many people believe generalizations and emotional appeals are more effective tools of persuasion because they are easy to create.
* Many people don't hang out with people who disagree with them very often.

Let me offer this article from CBS News as an example. The article tells of the Hawaii State Senate's recent passage of a bill that established "Islam Day." My friend Dan sent me the article, and pointed out that someone in Hawaii had clearly forgotten about the separation of Church and State. And I'm with him on that, but to me the article is interesting for a different reason. There was partisan debate on the issue, and the way arguments were framed put both parties in a bad light.

Two quotes struck me:
"...objections of [Republican] lawmakers who said they didn't want to honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001."

Okay, there are a ton of arguments against "Islam Day." Dan's Church/State point is the strongest, but there are others. The 'holiday' should've been shot down before before leaving the lips of whatever ass-head thought of it.

But, if you're a Republican forced to argue against Islam Day by a power-drunk member of the far left, the best way to expose the left's folly is to retaliate from the center. Even if you don't want to bring the Church/State debate to the table (Don't upset the base!), I think a toned down version of "Islam Day is a stupid idea, and we are wasting time and oxygen talking about it," ought to settle the issue.

But that is not the tactic the Hawaii Republicans chose. Instead they went with the one argument that makes them look either obtuse or mildly racist: "Some members of Islam are evil (those who carried out the 9/11 attacks), so we shouldn't celebrate Islam." That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Aside from being poor inductive reasoning, the only people who would rally behind that argument are already loyal to the position of 'No Islam Day.'
If you want change people's minds, then you argue from a position they can identify with. That's Rhetoric 101, people.

And at the end of the article, there's this gem:

"The lone Democrat voting against the bill opposed it on church-state separation fears."

Really? Just one Democrat remembered that the separation of Church and State is important? One? Come on, guys. The First Amendment is a pretty good amendment. I actually think it's one of the best (although 23's granting of presidential electors to DC is a close second). Defending the 1st is a principled position that helps support other Democratic views. Most Democrats, Independents, and many Republicans would like to keep law makers out of our bedrooms and religion out of the science classroom; the 1st Amendment is the best protection against the many clamoring at those gates. Focus, people. Focus.

This article illustrates with disturbing clarity how poorly people reason. These senators have a job that is largely concerned with having, holding and defending positions in an argument.

So my question to readers this week is this: Where can we find examples of people constructing and delivering well composed arguments?

Two of my answers:
Intelligence Squared US
George Orwell

A More Interesting World

Playing For Change | Song Around The World "Stand By Me" from Concord Music Group on Vimeo.

davidbraun93 threw this onto Twitter. It touches on the ideas behind the post I put up Monday.

I think I'm going to enjoy seeing the global culture that emerges from the cultural, economic, and environmental crises we're enduring right now.

If my classroom is any kind of indicator, it won't always be as pleasant as this video makes it seem, but it has this kind of potential. And that's exciting.

A Futile Attempt to Hold onto 'Politically Correct'

My friend Dan and I spent the last week arguing over email about the term 'politically correct.' I was foolish enough to step in and defend the often reviled term. I knew I was getting myself into trouble. There are few phrases more loaded than, "That's not PC."

Dan was unhappy about what happened at the Miss America Pageant (That sentence, taken out of context, puts Dan in an odd light, but it is true.). Dan suggested that Miss California had lost because her stance on gay marriage is not politically correct. That's where our debate began, but to be clear, we did not get into a debate over gay marriage.

I took issue with Dan's assertion that it is politically incorrect to oppose gay marriage. He was suggesting that the ideas behind PC are motivated by a political agenda - an agenda that favors gay marriage. He had both history and examples of 'PC-gone-wild' to back him up.

Despite that, I argued that a more useful definition of political correctness suggests this:
If an issue is still open for debate in the public discourse, then the various sides of that debate are all valid - none of the views are politically correct or incorrect.
The distinction between correct and incorrect is actually as follows: If your language pushes a stakeholder out of an active debate by marginalizing him/her based on sex, race, creed, religion, sexuality, or socioeconomic status, then you are being politically incorrect.
I went on to say that anyone arguing in a debate can cross the line of political correctness. As a hypothetical example, I said if Miss California had been in favor of giving gays the right to marry, and she had phrased her answer using words like 'homo' or 'Jesus-freak', then she would have crossed the line. She would have been politically incorrect.

Which means the pageant "judge" responsible for the question that started this debate crossed a line at the end of his recent interview.


You see what he did there? He used two gender-specific slurs to marginalize a woman's view on same-sex marriage. It's offensive, and it is politically incorrect. Not to mention, he just helped the same-sex marriage movement take several monumental steps backward.

It's frustrating because that video really helps Dan's side of the debate on how we understand political correctness. And that drives me nuts because my understanding of political correctness is very helpful in the classroom. In fact, that is why I engaged in the debate in the first place.

In my composition course we discuss and write about cultural diversity. In that classroom I have students from over 15 different countries, at least 6 different religious views, a wide array of political ideologies, and many different temperaments (often changing from one day to the next). In order for such a class to function, I need to both abide by AND enforce the brand of PC I argued for. I've had students sit out of discussions because of the offensive way a peer has expressed an opinion. I actually need political correctness as a teaching tool.

Of course, I don't use the term in class because it has become a parody of itself - especially here, where Europeans see PC ideology as a pointless debate about "manholes versus people-holes." Nevertheless, I need to keep in mind that I am an American teaching non-Americans via an American system of education. The ideas behind political correctness help to remind me of the lack of balance in that power structure.

So my question for readers today is this: Can we invent a term that avoids the baggage of PC while describing the act of avoiding "expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against?"

Dreams and Dreaming of Fiction

I'm working hard to make up for some lost time at work. I got sick last week. It's still lingering, but I'm back in the office, which is good. On top of that, the week's fitful sleep has resulted in some exquisite imagery from my dreams, some of which I hope to incorporate into my creative work.

I don't keep a dream journal in a strict sense, but I do keep a pen at my bedside. It was 3am last night when I woke up coughing. The image I held onto from the dream was of a nude, hairless, sexless, gray humanoid with bulging black eyes. It was shivering beside an iron bed frame covered in a pile of bloodied bandages stacked so high it was impossible to tell if there was a mattress underneath. The room was padded, lined with a mildewed polyurethane fabric. There was a porcelain sink in the corner, with rust stains and a leaky faucet.

The trouble with dream images is the difficulty of transcribing the mood from a dream. What I wrote above fails to deliver the simultaneous feeling of dread and excitement that was in that room during my dream. There was also a sense of altered states woven into the whole thing. And those bloodied bandages were unpleasant to look at, but there was a kind of relief in that they were no longer in use.

There's a character in my project that gets guidance from spirits while hallucinating, and I think this dream might contribute something to her story. But trying to get all the elements on the page will undoubtedly change the original moment several times before the elements are all just right.

And there's the part of fiction that's hard to describe, the aspect of fiction writing that I can't explain to some people. These people suggest, "You ought to write some journalism stuff. Like some 'life in Hungary' bits." These people mean well. They feel I'd be better off if I cast a wider net in search of publishers. But if I just wanted my words in print I'd go into journalism (or I'd keep a blog). It's not the act of writing that's got its hooks so deep in me. I enjoy composing a killer paragraph sure, but that is not what brings me back to this work. It is the fiction that I get a kick out of. It is the attempt to capture a moment taking on a life of its own.

My work on Miffland was exciting as long as it felt like the manuscript was more in control than I was, and the same is true of this fantasy story I'm working on. I guess it's kind of like dreaming that way.

So my question this week is this: What have you read or seen that creates a dreamlike state for the audience?

Unpleasant Violence

I still enjoy a good kung-fu movie from time to time, and I know the cartoon violence of big-budget action flicks can be fun. For me, however, the portrayal of violence is much more interesting when the violence is an unpleasant experience for the audience. Violence is horrible in real life. So, when art portrays violence as horrible, I find that engaging. I find this rings even more true when the audience is expecting the more cartoonish variety of violence.

Don't get me wrong, I like the over-the-top stuff. When I mentioned kung-fu movies as a source of exaggerated and exciting violence, I was thinking of classics like this:

No doubt, that's a great scene. Many would argue it's one of the highlights of Chan's career. But there's something 'Three Stooges' about it. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when the audience gets excited because a guy is on fire, then the audience has cut yet another connection between themselves and the fictional world on the screen (I hope). And I think those connections - the uncut connections - help us experience fiction in a more interesting and more engaging way.

Staying within the kung-fu genre, here's one of the best fight scenes of all time:

While it maintains the excitement of an old Jackie Chan film, that scene is infused with the pain and dread of both inflicting receiving bodily harm. And I think the fight has more of an impact on the audience as a result.

This is the issue I'm currently exploring in my fantasy story. I'm dealing with a lot of violence: ranged attacks, massive flooding, soldier-eating beasts, and other forms of violence that are common in fantasy fiction. My aim is to bring those fictional moments as close as possible to a reader's experience with real violence - I want cringe-inducing violence, like the end of that Bruce Lee fight when he kills Bob Wall's character.

I think I'm going to re-read "The Iliad." I remember a lot of battle sequences that seemed awful in that.

My question for today is this: What else should I see or read to get a sense of how to portray violence in a less-than-romantic way?

Congrats to Dave, Anna, & Joni!

In a departure from the usual content, I want to send out my congratulatory wishes to my old roommate and longtime friend Dave Burck, his wife Anna, and their newborn baby girl Joni.

Well Said

I guess this thing is all over the cyber-place. It lays out a lot of the basic concepts I try to instill when I teach persuasive writing. Good stuff.