Literature

I take a more traditional definition of literature in that I believe that it refers to written works alone. These works could be poems, epics, stories, etc. The term “literature” implies a respect for the book as a great work that is appreciated in most literary circles. It also implies that the work has somehow shaped or reflected our culture through either style or meaning, such as a social critique. I do not consider movies to be literature because of the very definition. “Literature” comes into English from the Latin word “littera,” which means books. (Finally, three years of study paid off somehow). So while I feel that movies are certainly a great form of art that shape and critique our culture, the word literature directly refers to books or other written works, and I believe that it should be left that way.

                One of the greatest works of literature that I have come across is The Count of Monte Cristo by French author Alexandre Dumas. I consider this literature, as well as many others do, because of both the meaning and scale of the book. For one, it is every bit as long as War and Peace, making it already an impressive read. Secondly, the intricate plot details render this book a fascinating read that can only be totally understood by the educated. Not being elitist here or anything, that’s just how it is. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, the ultimate message of the book provides critiques on many levels.  It discusses the limits of human justice and the role of the individual when it seems human justice has failed. It also constantly examines the definition of happiness to the individual and simultaneously the effects of jealous dissatisfaction. It calls into question what actions should be taken by the individual when the larger society seems to have failed the individual. But what qualifies The Count of Monte Cristo most as literature, I believe, is its resilience to the test of time and its acclaim as a classic novel. It was written in 1844 and is still popular today, an astonishing feat. For I believe that when books are written, they are not then literature. Literature is developed over time as a society begins to accept the work as such. Literature carries an underlying respect for the work and is paralleled in our definition of some books as “classics,” while others are dismissed. So  overall, I think that literature should be restricted to the traditional definition of written works that help shape or reflect the culture that they portray.

The Student Debt Situation

                In “The Rhetorical Situation,” Lloyd Bitzer says, “rhetorical discourse comes into existence as a response to a situation” (Bitzer 6). Today, more than seven in ten college seniors will graduate with an average of $30,000 in student loan debt, which will only earn interest and grow larger. Many students cannot catch up with their loans right out of college and after the brief grace period, so they are forced to either completely restructure their finances or face bankruptcy, neither of which are appealing options. Even after that, the bad credit will stick with them for decades to come. According to debt.org, a debt help service, more than seven million Americans have already defaulted on these loans. This is the situation that calls for rhetoric that promulgates both the benefits and dangers of student loans, and why they may be right for some people, but deadly for others.

                The question that we are faced with today, then, is: are student loans for college worth the stress, the financial insecurity, and the possibility of utter ruin? Some would argue that they are. Student loans do, after all, pay for your college education, which is nearly essential for landing a decent job during the present economic climate. But beyond that, many people cannot find another good reason to take out student loan debt. For instance, US News claims that one of the advantages of student loans is “the government provides free insurance, so your loans are canceled if you are killed.” Unless it’s life insurance, nothing should have a selling point that includes “if you are killed.” Although fewer people recognize it, the dangers of student loans far outweigh the benefits. Forbes recognizes student loans as some of the statistically hardest to pay off, saying, “student loan debt has the highest amount of delinquent debt (debt that has not made a payment in 90+ days) compared to all other forms of household debt.” Unpaid student loan debt, according to financial expert Suze Orman, is one of the biggest factors in America’s economic slowdown. So due to the widespread nature of this problem, as well as the dangers to both the individual and society, student loans provide an appropriate rhetorical situation.

                The audience, as well, reaches far and wide. It certainly concerns those already deep in student loan debt, and those about to graduate with debt, but it also concerns an almost unsuspecting audience: us. As students about to enter college, we also face the challenge of paying for said college. For some, this is not a problem, but for others considering a student loan, a rhetorical discourse on the subject is sorely needed. I have chosen the topic of student loans because of the mass appeal and because of the imminent consequences of leaving such a subject unattended.

                

Will We Entertain Ourselves into Stupidity?

                In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman masterfully demonstrates the effect of the shift from printed word to the images on television. He claims that since our opinions are now being formed by what we see on television instead of what we read in books, images have become more important to us than words. One of his strongest examples is that of presidential candidacy; in today’s culture, overweight men have no decent shot at the presidency. Postman points out: “the grossness of a three-hundred-pound image, even a talking one, would easily overwhelm any logical or spiritual subtleties conveyed by speech” (Postman 7).  Even though the image onscreen may be speaking sensibly and may have great ideas, we cannot overcome dislike of the image, and therefore discount the man as a valid candidate. His underlying thesis in the chapter, I believe, is that the shift from print to television has robbed us of some of our thinking capacities. Print has traditionally been the basis for higher thinking and learning, forcing us to visualize and understand what is meant by the words on the page. Postman claims that the acceptance of the television has made that irrelevant. The television requires no digestion; it merely feeds us information through our vision, which we then use as “metaphors” that redefine many parts of our culture.  Even in today’s culture, I think this argument holds a lot of water, except it could be applied to the transition between books and the Internet, or television and the Internet. The “mediums” of television and books have been combined into one ever-available hybrid. If given the chance to observe modern society, I believe that Postman would still hold firm to his “amusing ourselves to death” theory. I believe this cryptic phrase means that we are losing the skills of thought by just taking what the television or the Internet gives us and failing to take the time to comprehend the implications before we let it shape our thoughts. We are so obsessed with amusing ourselves through visual images on the television, or today, the Internet, that we don’t grasp how the medium affects our formation of metaphors, which in turn shape our conception of the world around us.  Since all of our metaphors are formed by and through mediums, we have to be exceedingly careful about the mediums we choose to influence ourselves with. While the Internet and television are great amusement and entertainment devices, I agree with Postman as to the fact that the printed word has and should be our primary medium of thought formation.

The First Amendment Polarization

                In today’s America, everything offends somebody. The government is faced with the tough task of protecting the peace while at the same time upholding the First Amendment as written by our founding fathers. But the public had started to cling to the idea that the individual has a right to not be offended, and if they are offended, the accused “offender” is clearly in the wrong. Thus the idea of censorship was born. However, we must make sure not to go to either extreme on the polarized First Amendment debate; we cannot and should not censor everything and we cannot and should not protect every form of free speech. In terms of what we should not protect under the First Amendment, I agree with Lawrence in “On Racist Speech.” Racist speech and other direct verbal attacks should be regulated because they pose an imminent threat to the peace. Simply because the history of racial tension in America, it should not be protected under the First Amendment as harmful speech. We can accurately distinguish between harmful and offensive by looking at the effects of the speech. Harmful words carry a danger of imminently disturbing the peace. Offensive speech merely contradicts someone’s personal beliefs. Like “fighting words” or words that indicate “clear and present danger,” racist speech has a history of inciting violence, and is therefore harmful rather than just offensive. As Lawrence says, “Everyone concerned with these issues must find ways to engage actively in actions that resist and counter the racist ideas that we would have the First Amendment protect” (Lawrence 65). But offensive speech is another matter entirely. As previously mentioned, modern society operates to some extent under the delusion that some speech should not be tolerated because it offends people. The proponents of this argument miss part of the point of free speech; we have the right to disagree with others. Humans are always going to disagree with one another. That is why I disagree with the ideas of “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised.” We shouldn’t take the time, trouble, and extensive effort and uproar merely to satisfy the offended. For these reasons, and because of the mere definition of offensive, I do not believe we should censor speech deemed offensive. I found the position of Bok in “Protecting the Freedom of Speech on the Campus” to be very persuasive: “it is extremely difficult to decide whether a particular communication is offensive enough to warrant prohibition” (Bok 67).  So while harmful speech should not be protected by freedom of expression, the censorship of offensive speech would violate the basic principles of the First Amendment and would be extremely difficult to distinguish.