The Rhetoric of Harry Potter

Sexy Spelling Song

Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:14:47 -0500

Ok, your final grades are calculated (but not up).

Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:00:00 -0500

They’re sitting here, percolating, hoping for some people to turn in missing assignments at the final hour. (People who are missing assignments have been contacted.)

EDIT @ RR: I gotta think about ‘em.

EDIT Part Deux @ IG: I submitted the grades at 8 am. Not sure how long it will take for them to appear if they haven’t already. *shrug*

Final grades are calculated...

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:06:33 -0500

…with math.

It should also be noted, RR, which I did in class, that Hitler...

Sat, 11 Dec 2010 04:36:04 -0500

It should also be noted, RR, which I did in class, that Hitler didn’t write jack, which means he was neither fantastic nor genius at anything but performance.

Hitler was an evil, lying, manipulating little twerp that was fabulous at getting what he wanted. The rhetoric he used to do so was awesomely effective, which was my only point when I said it was “awesome.” Effective rhetoric does not necessarily relate to “good” in this world, and the point of our exercise in reading Hitler was to ensure that, at the end of the semester, students unfamiliar with that concept could have it ham-fistedly driven into their heads by my Hitler spiel. Rhetoric is suspect. And rhetoric that seems to make sense and to play to your needs is not necessarily sending you down a good path. Remember that WMD shit in Iraq?

Trish is a genius. And deliberative rhetoric is a wonderful idea, which is why 306 has a controversies model, and why I, in the simplified nature of this course, ask students to write to hostile audiences. My hope is that doing so will help students understand the multitudes of opinions out there and generate better arguments in a deliberative setting. And, of course, I hope that they’ll be more open-minded.

The problem is, as some of you might have noticed, that getting students to write to hostile audiences is like pulling teeth. Like pulling a lot of teeth. Because it can be very hard to make the transition from writing opinion papers to actually considering that there are other ideas out there. Other opinions out there. Other solutions to problems out there. High school curricula encourage, in my experience, solipsism and the privileging of individual opinion as a right (FREEDOM OF SPEECH!). Which means that open minds, in the vast majority of the population, are few and far between, if not nonexistent. Because solipsism is so ingrained at the individual level, and because solipsism plays out at the national level in the form of blind nationalism (See, for instance, Hitler!), deliberative rhetoric is next to impossible for a large percentage of the population.

Try deliberating abortion. What. Try convincing someone who believes that all Muslims are evil that all Muslims are not, in fact, evil. Whew. I just broke a sweat.

But we’re talking at cross-purposes, I think, which is why I think you were so frustrated in class. There’s a difference between being good at rhetoric and being good at world domination. I can figure out this rhetoric stuff most days, but I can’t win at Axis and Allies.

There’s also difference between being good at performance and being “good.”

I also think that not recognizing Hitler’s speech-making/performing/whatever effectiveness is dangerous. Calling it effective rhetoric (it’s really just pandering, but it’s effective) is not meant to offend people of any race or faith that were harmed by the Nazis. It’s meant to call to your attention that rhetoric that is effective is not necessarily good, so that you evaluate rhetoric that encourages you to do things that may be morally wrong. The purpose is to bring to your attention that lots of people suffered and died at the hands of “good rhetoric,” and that you should be wary so that you don’t become the next Hitler.

My political point, if it’s not yet obvious, is that our government sucks. Parenting that doesn’t teach open-minded analysis of political opinions sucks, because then we get people falling in lock-step, goose-step, behind Halliburton.

And if that doesn’t make it clear: End American wars that kill people for 1) political gain, 2) economic gain, 3) assurance of white supremacy. Stop this bullshit Arizona illegal immigration crap. Stop locking up minorites because they smoked a dimebag of pot when white folks with boatloads of cocaine get off with a slap on the wrist.

This country has real problems, RR, because we don’t engage in deliberative rhetoric. You’re right. How do we begin to change that except by talking about how evil rhetoric can be?

Nice post, btw. The kids still say props? Props.

Holy crap, it’s 3:30 a.m. and I haven’t finished my paper yet. Later.

rreilly:

Okay so I’ve been meaning to talk about this for a while and since I’ve been mentioned by name in at least two posts, I guess I should get on it.

I will concede that Hitler knew exactly what he was doing. He said all the right things that would make the German people feel justified in exterminating those not of the “chosen race”. Kenneth Burke, who wrote about Hitler’s Mein Kampf (trans. My Battle), named the specific strategies Hitler employed in persuading the masses. A good summary can be found here. I know it’s from Wikipedia and I know you’re probably not going to take the time to read it, but it’s worth it and it will give you a better idea of why Hitler was so successful.

On the other hand, I refuse to agree that Hitler was a genius, rhetorical or otherwise. Anyone who was smart enough to figure out how the audience (the Germans) was feeling could have done exactly what Hitler did. The fact that no one else did makes it seem like Hitler was awesome at rhetoric. I’m not saying anything about his character because that is a completely separate thing from his rhetoric. What I want people to realize is that Hitler was shameless. His goal from the beginning was world domination and he was going to stop at nothing to achieve it. He just didn’t let everyone know all at once. He wanted to keep the crazy in until he had Germany under his thumb. That’s why Mein Kampf was such a huge deal—it revealed his hunger for power. Unfortunately no one except Churchill actually read it, so no one except Churchill knew what Hitler was actually after.

Prof. Roberts-Miller said in my class that a lot of people see rhetoric as having an idea and getting that idea into others’ heads. It’s one speaker with lots of listeners and all the listeners eventually agree with the speaker. (This type of rhetoric is called asymmetric/instrumentalist discourse. The goal is to gain the audience’s compliance.) Hitler was fantastic at this type of rhetoric. However, he was horrible at deliberation, which is discourse where the better argument is supposed to win. Deliberation is far more effective than instrumentalist discourse because your audience is not always going to agree with what you think and someone might have a better idea. If we would engage in deliberation, which requires an open mind, we could make more beneficial decisions and constantly be discovering better ways to do things. The reason why Hitler was so terrible at deliberation is because he never believed he was wrong and he was never willing to admit he made a mistake.

Hitler believed in the triumph of the will, even against concrete materials and resources and information. He believed that because he wanted world domination so badly, it would just happen, even though his armies were running out of food, clothing, and warm weather, and even though his generals kept telling him that his tactics were failing. I think Hitler knew how to get people to agree with him, but once people tried to suggest better ideas, he shut them down because he didn’t believe in deliberation. That he wouldn’t deliberate became his downfall. Hitler knew how to use rhetoric to a point, I will grant you that. Yet I can’t help but think that if he were so great at rhetoric, why did he fail so miserably?

Rhetoric requires an open mind and the ability to change our minds. The world is constantly changing around us and if we don’t keep up, we are bound to fail like Hitler did. I know not everyone in this class would consider themselves a writer, but with the capacity to have an open mind and the power to change it, you are well on your way to becoming a better writer and a more informed member of society.

I realize the way I reacted in class was pretty intense. I’m like that, especially when I can’t say what I mean. That’s why I like writing so much. I can edit and edit and edit and get super precise with my words and meanings. The point is I felt like I couldn’t say what I meant and everyone else was convinced of Hitler’s genius (or so it seemed to me), so I just shut up. Not the greatest plan, but that’s how I usually react. Anyway, this video I posted is a comedian, Eddie Izzard, doing a bit about Hitler. Izzard’s language is a little harsh, but it’s enjoyable. You really only need to watch the first three minutes or so, but this guy is hilarious. Also, he’s a cross dresser.

If you think your finals period is tough...

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:40:35 -0500

I’m writing a 25-page paper, due tomorrow, that links Habermasian post-metaphysical thinking to Derridean obfuscation through a comparative study of the Dec. 8 Colbert Report and Jacques Derrida’s Limited Inc., with a focus on the politics of language.

I have no idea what those words even mean, but I typed them.

RESEARCH TIME!

Don't worry so much!

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 04:18:09 -0500

It’s late. I’m tired. So are you. Too much work this time of year, huh?

Stop worrying! Sometimes things go wrong. That’s why we revise: so that when things go wrong we have a chance to fix them.

As Sara says, don’t worry! Everyone gets a good grade if they show up and turn in assignments on time!

For the record: C’s are not bad grades. They’re “average.” If you get C’s on the original and A’s on revision, then hey, that’s a B. Ain’t nothing wrong with that.

The top thing on Reddit for your viewing pleasure: http://i.imgur.com/lpp2n.jpg

Tumblr is back!

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:55:14 -0500

Huzzah!

Ok, so the biggest thing I noticed in your papers is that you guys started writing summary introductions again. Stop it! Newspapers don’t use summary introductions. Very little real-world writing will use a summary introduction. Look at a newspaper and see what they do—thry don’t do summaries.

Also, all of you should learn how to do text wrapping in Microsoft Word.

Also, a lot of you went back to writing boring English papers. Some were lit crit, some were vague and generalized ramblings about love in HP. Relate your arguments to the real world. This is an opportunity for you to be creative and funny.

Here are some good paragraphs from your assignments. Keep in mind that opinions in newspapers often do a lot to entertain:

Of course, there are many people who are stunned at the idea of Harry Potter being taught in schools, much less in universities of higher learning. When confronted with the thought that college students are paying money to study Harry Potter, there was a wide-range of responses. Saul Mendoza, a third year dual history and government major at the University of Texas at Austin, responded to the news of a Rhetoric of Harry Potter course with enthusiasm. “Oh my gosh, Harry Potter!” he exclaims. “I’m so disappointed because I want to take the class but it filled up on the first day of registration!” Facebook statuses were posted by the excited Texas students who were eager to take a course in one of their all-time favorite obsessions. “HARRY POTTER!!! I want in!!” and “omg I want to take Harry Potter!!” were the types of statuses that cropped up on my newsfeed in May of 2010.

Whenever I think Harry Potter, I think Motown singing group. No, it’s not the Temptations or the Supremes, but it’s Harry Potter & the Ubiquitous Three. And I say this not because Harry Potter takes me back to the good ‘ol oldies of crooning on the mic, smooth and slick dance moves, or permed coifs. I say this because J.K. Rowling is iconic, much like Motown, Harry Potter is legendary, much like the artists on the label, and Harry Potter would not feel complete without his backup singers who provide the powerful harmonies to an already brilliant lead.

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter opened its doors to thousands of waiting fans on June 18^th, 2010 at Universal Studios Parks and Resorts’ Islands of Adventure theme park in Orlando, Florida. The signature attraction at the newly minted theme park is Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey, which takes place in Hogwarts Castle and feature scenes from several Harry Potter books that even the most avid of Harry Potter fans will be able to enjoy. Despite the hype that has been given to the ride before the park even opened, many fans were left in disbelief after they were turned away after being deemed too large to fit into the seats of the ride cars.

State Department says not to talk about WikiLeaks on FB.

Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:23:00 -0500

State Department says not to talk about WikiLeaks on FB.

Also, if you need to write some blogs...

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 01:05:59 -0500

…feel free to do so through Dec. 15.

I miss you guys.

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 01:05:17 -0500

I know, right? Who knew Foley had feelings? Best of luck, again, on finals.

So, I got asked for another HP interview...

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:26:46 -0500

…by a high school student in Houston today.

One of the questions was this: Do you think Rowling made the “dark magic” so easily distinguishable from the rest of the magic to emphasize the theme of good versus evil? And if so, was she successful in conveying this theme?

I feel very much compelled to answer this question (she asked me more questions than time allows to answer), but I suggested this one would be the best one for me to answer. While I’m thinking about it, I’m just going to answer it here.

In HP and the SS, Voldemort says “There is no good and evil; there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.” I think this statement is a good place to start when thinking about this “theme of good vs. evil.” Let’s disregard the speaker for a moment. Who in HP is good? Who is evil? The answer might seem obvious, but let’s back up for a minute.

There are three “sides,” or groups of people, fighting for power in HP. There’s Voldy and the Death Eaters, there’s the Ministry of Magic, and there’s the Order of the Phoenix. We might be tempted to say that the entire thing is Death Eaters vs. Order of the Phoenix, but what about the MoM? What about those witches and wizards who don’t act? What about Cornelius Fudge? Is he evil? Or does he just not want to worry about all the terrible things happening in the world?

We could take Dolores Umbridge as a good example, too, of someone who’s not quite good and not quite evil. She gives me shivers just to think about her, but she’s just following the orders of the Minister of Magic, who is misguided, but not evil. She’s trying to prevent rebellion in her school. She’s trying to prevent kids from making out in school. That doesn’t sound evil. That sounds like what happens in any public school. And yet she’s still super super creepy. Just something to think on. Are your school administrators evil because they refuse to allow you to openly rebel against administration? That’s not what evil means, and yet many people think she IS evil because of this strange notion that there are only two ways to be in this world—“good” or “evil.” And, secondarily, people have that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” attitude, which causes them to have a simplified view of not just good and evil in HP, but good and evil in the world. Not agreeing with the O of the P does not make people “evil,” just as not agreeing with American foreign policy doesn’t make a person or foreign government “evil.” [Oh, I’ll come back to the much more evil things that Umbridge does in a little bit.]

Think of all the people who just want Harry to turn himself over to Voldemort so that there will be “peace.” Think of the people who neither join the Order or the Death Eaters. I think that’s another rhetorical purpose of HP—to highlight what happens when “good” people do nothing, when they don’t think critically about what their superiors want and what is happening in the world, so long as they go through their lives without harm. This last refers to what Voldemort says about “those too weak to seek” power. Now, I don’t think Harry seeks power, and I think a lot of Dumbledore’s history suggests that seeking power can lead people who are predisposed to evil farther along that evil path, BUT there are also those people in the world who are too “weak” to do anything at all. They’re too weak to stand up against evil.

But, to finally get to the real question: the difference between “dark” and “good” magic? I don’t think there really is a difference between good and evil in terms of magic in HP. So, Avada Kedavra is pretty much the evilest magic that can be done. Aurors, however, are permitted to use AK against Death Eaters. And, though the text doesn’t specifically say so, I’m pretty sure Molly Weasley uses AK to kill Bellatrix Lestrange in HP and the DH. Avada Kedavra is ok if it’s used for “good,” but not for “evil.” Basically, there’s no clear delineation between good and bad magic here.

Let’s talk a bit about dementors and the Patronus charm for a bit.

First: dementors. They’re good when they’re at Azkaban (except that whole Sirius-Black-false-imprisonment thing…yeah…like Guantanamo Bay), but bad when they’re out in the world. No clear delineation between good and bad.

Secondly: Patronus. Good when HP uses it against dementors, but evil when Umbridge uses it to keep herself happy when questioning suspected Muggle-borns. Right? While it’s a good charm in some cases, it is used for evil in another. No clear delineation.

Do you get the picture? Nothing in this world can be good or evil in and of itself. Only in context can we even have an idea of good and evil, but usually it’s oversimplified as I talk about at the very beginning of this piece of writing.

So, again back to the original question: Do I think Rowling was successful in conveying the good-v.-evil thing? No, because I don’t think that theme exists. I thnk Rowling intentionally complicated the idea of good vs. evil because good and evil aren’t a binary. But there is power. There’s power that is used to stand up for human rights, and there’s power that destroys human rights, but oftentimes we get confused about who is good and who is evil. Usually we think that our side is good and the other side is evil. I’m pretty sure the other side thinks the same way. Which is why both opposing football teams pray to the same God on Sunday.

Au revoir, witches and wizards.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:59:24 -0500

Thanks for being a great class this semester! I hope this class has been of some help to you, or at least (if you’re Spencer) of entertainment value. While I got to know some of you better than others (quiet ladies on the other side of the table :-] ), I’m glad that all of you were there and always contributing through talk, writing, laughter, and funny faces.

Don’t sweat the small stuff. Good luck on your finals!

Harry Potter and the Incredibly Conservative Aristocratic Children's Club

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:46:25 -0500

Harry Potter and the Incredibly Conservative Aristocratic Children's Club

Here, RR.

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:38:12 -0500

Tomorrow at 10:30 there’s a walkout to protest major budget cuts to ethnic, women’s, and gender studies. I think it’s mostly Latin American and African Diaspora studies, but it doesn’t matter—The text of the plea for the walkout is below. Most liberal arts professors will be amenable to you walking out and protesting—if it were during my class, I’d walk out with you. I’ll be walking out of nothing, but I’ll still be there. The funding cuts are HUGE (in the neighborhood of 40%).

The Academic Planning and Advisory Committee (APAC) recently recommended devastatingly large budget cuts to ethnic, women’s, and gender academic programs within the college of Liberal Arts. It is time to demand an end to these budget cuts. Many voices and histories will be silenced with the reduction of centers and institutions in Liberal Arts. We cannot allow that. Students have the power to make change and be part of change,… and there’s no better time to organize and act!

These proposed budget cuts defy the priorities of diversity the university has mandated and harm those who come from marginalized ethnicities, cultures, socio-economic backgrounds and viewpoints.

Short Term Demands:
The students, staff and community demand the university release all records regarding the formation of the Academic Planning and Advisory Committee (APAC) of the University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts (COLA) , APAC’s review of COLA centers, institutes and departments since 2009, and APAC’s budget
recommendations.

Longterm Demands:
The students, staff and community demand democratic control of budget cuts in our colleges, with direct input from students, staff and the community, to ensure that future sacrifices don’t violate the universities priorities of making a high standard for diversity in higher education.

JOIN US for a DAY OF ACTION, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1st:

—> Walk out of class at 10:30 am and meet at the West Mall.
How does that work?: Get up and leave, but don’t be silent about it. Prepare ahead of time: spread the word via email or in person; organize beforehand to get other students or TAs in your classes to join you; let your professors know soon that you’ll be leaving and see if they’ll endorse the walk-out and rally; announce the action as you leave class to let other students know what’s going on and ask them to join you

—> Rally and picket at the West Mall 11:00 am to demonstrate our rejection of the proposed budget cuts and to demand recognition of the vital importance of cultural studies to the university. Bring a friend, bring a sign, bring thoughts to share, bring your energy.

See you there,
The Students SpeakSee More

Go protest some stuff, like college students do.

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:00:59 -0500

Go protest some stuff, like college students do.

Reply: Complaining...

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:19:41 -0500

Reply: Complaining...:

Ok, I hate tumblr reply functions. Writing this just to be sure that you see it.

Sara is right—if you’re talking about how standardized testing or any other government interference in education is bad, then aiming it at politicians is a good idea. But you could also aim it at any group who thinks that government control of education is good—and there are plenty of people who think so.

If you’re talking about how Harry Potter should be used to educate, then your hostile audience is simply people who think it’s not educational—and again, there are plenty of people out there like that.

You’re limited to a hostile audience because this is a class on *rhetoric*, meaning persuasion. Rhetoric is all about argument. In argument, there’s a hostile audience. Otherwise, it’s just navel-gazing.

Now, if you choose to continue taking rhetoric courses, you’ll learn that “rhetoric” is way more complicated than that. But, for the purposes of this course, I make you choose a hostile audience so that you will actually think about who your audience is, rather than assuming that they have the same values and goals that you do. When beginning rhetoric students don’t address a hostile audience, they usually don’t do much convincing. Oftentimes, they just alienate their audience by suggesting that the audience has the wrong values—e.g. when we talked about how you don’t convince a bigot to stop being a bigot simply by telling him that tolerance is a good thing, because he doesn’t believe that tolerance is a good thing.

In order to change someone’s mind about something, you have to learn what their values are and convince them based on their beliefs, not your own. You convince bigots to stop being bigots because they’ll lose their jobs, get taken to court, or go to jail. You don’t tell them that everyone is equal, because you won’t be able to convince them of that. Doing so would be like arguing to yourself that a bigot is a bad person—it’s not going to do much for the bigot.

Another example is trying to convince Conservative Christians that HP is a good thing because the Bible’s stance on witchcraft is absurd, or because HP is fictional. They don’t care that it’s fictional, and they don’t think the Bible is absurd. What you do is go to their beliefs (perhaps other Christian values) and use things that they trust (the Bible) to convince them that HP is more Christian than not.

Without considering a hostile audience, you risk solipsism. You risk thinking that everyone who doesn’t believe the same things as you is stupid or ridiculous. AND the point of a liberal education is to counter those very risks.

So write to a hostile audience. Yes, it’s harder than writing to an audience that’s not hostile. That’s the point.

ramos-andrea:

My only question is: Why to a hostile audience? Yes, I know its important to address a hostile audience because they don’t already agree with you… But do we usually read magazine and newspaper articles that are written to a hostile audience? Ok yea maybe sometimes… I feel like i’m being limited to…

Redditors talking about HP

Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:03:02 -0500

Redditors talking about HP:

Just some random stuff from the internet.

Reflections on Academic Article Assignment

Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:13:29 -0500

It’s Saturday night. I live in one of the coolest cities in the United States. And, instead of going out, I’m reflecting on your most recent short paper.

The purpose of this entire unit is to have you write in different styles, which is sorta like trying on different clothes, seeing what you find comfortable, seeing what looks good. It’s also a little bit like trying on clothes and being like “whoa, dude, I seriously gained 10 lbs in the last two months. I need to work on this a little bit for this style to look good on me.” That’s ok.

So that was the original intention. But there are secondary things that I’m finding out as I grade these (with a lighter hand than usual, I admit, and that’s for a reason—I don’t think you should be graded harshly for not being able to write in a style that you have zero experience with).

The first thing to note is that I basically asked you to write in a style that I told you not to write in at the beginning of the semester—and I told you guys not to write this way because of problems with unclear prose, misused words, etc. What ended up happening is you guys ended up writing much better (MUCH BETTER) assignments, either because you learned something from clarity lessons or you began to write in a style that you found to be more comfortable. Not sure which, but it doesn’t matter.

The point is that you are all wonderful, wonderful writers. All of you have done well on at least one assignment. Some of you write best in low styles, some in middle, and some in high. Your blogs prove this, at least. Never, in any of your blogs, would I have ever written that you have clarity issues, or you’re not making any sense, or that you don’t back up your ideas.

But also, and not to get on your cases too much, you don’t do nearly as well on assignments that you’re not comfortable with, like this past one. Words get messed up, your sentences stop making sense, and you have some flow issues. Basically, what to learn from this is that whenever you write, your confidence level has a direct effect on how your paper will turn out. Being familiar with the style of writing will make everything much easier on you.

So, two things:

Read stuff that you find difficult and you will be able to write stuff that’s more “intellectual.” Familiarity will make you more confident. Familiarity also breeds contempt, because sometimes you realize that people are using much higher language than is necessary to get a point across. Sometimes word choice is for rhetorical effect, sometimes it’s not. But being familiar with what’s going on will help you write better papers.

You’re much better, even at assignments that you don’t do well on. Even the most unclear approximations of academic articles that I’ve read, where the word choice isn’t quite right, and the sentence structure is all wrong—even those are much, much better!

Seriously.

So, go out into the world, little duckies, and never say that you’re bad writers. Say “I’m unfamiliar with this type of writing” or something like that, but never ever say you’re bad writers. You’re awesome.

Thanks for a great semester so far, and good luck on your papers!

I AM Harry Potter: DanRad & Apatow

Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:54:17 -0500

I AM Harry Potter: DanRad & Apatow

Sassy Gay Friend Meme

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:46:00 -0500

Sassy Gay Friend Meme