“If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.” To be honest, I heard this quoted in a Ted Talk. My sister didn’t seem ecstatic when I chose to mention it in my valedictorian speech, as I didn’t know much about Nelson Mandela. But, the words meant something to me. So I used them anyway.

Words were always a central part of my life. My mother tells me that she was afraid to name my Gabriella, as she was inclined to, since others may dub me the less than favorable name, “Gabby.” However, she now states that it would have been an accurate name for one such as myself.

There are so many moments, long and short, that contributed to my love of language. One of the most prominent is my exposure to and understanding of other languages and their translation.

I was exposed to the concept of translation early on, not in the form of learning another language per say, but in learning about one. I attended a K12 Protestant school for all years of schooling, and went to church regularly. In both places, the original languages of the Bible were stressed. One of the best examples is the word “love,” used in the New Testament. The New Testament was written in Greek, and where English has one word, “love,” Greek had many. Love for family, love for friends, romantic love, sacrificial love. Without knowing the original word, one didn’t have the entire meaning.

As of late, I have been taking Japanese and linguistics courses. These have also taught me that not only is original language important, but also the way it is used. In linguistics, one of the first things you are taught is what a contact language is. A contact language is one that is formed by necessity, such as in trade situations. Contact languages are developed from their superstrate and substrate languages. For example, in a contact situation in which French is used by the more powerful, affluent side of the situation, it will be the superstrate language, playing a much larger role in the development of the new language. The substrate languages would be the language of those involved in the contact with less power and less affluence. Language is capable of showing, and employing, power.

Finally, another quote from my valedictorian address comes to mind, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit.”

I believe this. As I study language, day by day, I learn more about this tool, which can be used as a poison or a potion.

• The change in the meaning of the word Otaku as used in Japan
  • Intro
    • Japan is known for its “otaku culture”
    • not necessarily the same as how we imagine it
    • Otaku is defined differently in Japan than in Americ
  • Paragraph 1
    • Origin of word
      • Kanji
      • Example sentences
  • Paragraph 2
    • History
      • Called each other Otaku
      • Tsutomu Miyazaki
      • Porn
  • Paragraph 3
    • Today

• The change in the meaning of Otaku since its birth in Japan.
  • Intro
    • Picture of “Typical Otaku”
    • Otaku is different in Japan than America
      • Difference
    • Thesis
  • Point 1
    • Origin of the word-linguistics
  • Point 2
    • History
  • Point 3
    • Today
  • Final Point
    • What this means for the world.

The end of the book, The Circle, was possibly the best part of the book. Unfortunately, I was easily able to predict almost the entire book before it happened. Kalden was the brains behind the Circle? Called it. Evil man in charge who was tricking people into thinking this was good for his own purposes? Called it. The Circle essentially taking over the world? Called it. I have read similar books before, at least in terms of plot, since fear of the takeover of technology is not a new fear as presented in contemporary literature. In fact, this fear has been presented throughout American media for almost as long as modern technology has begun its early development.

In fact, as early as 1839, Edgar Allan Poe wrote and published a short story titled, “The Man that was All Used Up.” The story details the discovery by the protagonist of his idol’s status as a man essentially now made of mechanical parts, due to his loss of natural body parts through the battles in which he participated. Admittedly, this story is more for humor than horror, but it still holds the slight horror element that Poe is famous for.

Some more modern works of fiction that have covered such a fear include: I, Robot; The Matrix; Feed; Tron; The Terminator, and more. Many of these include technology being wrenched from the control of humanity. So, what makes this book so popular among the millennial generation?

Well, it’s most distinguishing feature is the focus on social media, rather than technology in general. The Circle is primarily a social media conglomerate. This is established early in the book, “…grew the company into the force that subsumed Facebook, Twitter, Google, and finally Alacrity, Zoopa, Jefe and Quan” (23). Social media is the technology most widely used by the younger generations today. So that, paired with the young adult targeted writing style of the book, causes it to be relatively popular with the specific audience which Eggers is pursuing.

Not to mention, the unconventional ending certainly makes the novel more…novel. In the past few years there has been “dystopian” novels produced at least yearly, all with similar plots: the protagonist believes in the established system, then they somehow find out that the system is horribly flawed, then they work to fight the system. Often with a few love interests along the way. The interesting aspect of The Circle is that it circumvents the last step. Mae is given many opportunities to realize the flaws inherent in the Circle, and she elects to ignore them. Her parents’ grief over invasion of privacy, Mercer’s warnings and eventual suicide, Annie’s doubt and later coma, and finally Kalden, or Ty, urging Mae to push back before it is too late. More than simply ignoring these signs, she becomes a near-leader of the new society being perpetuated under the Circle.

Admittedly, The Circle is not my favorite book. I much prefer a classic, or some of the older dystopian-esque novels. But I am able to see the reason that it has attracted so many readers.

Mae seems to have a penchant for unhealthy relationships. She doesn’t pick up on red flags, or if she does, she pretends not to. This is characteristic of a person who does not value herself enough to date a man who will be loving toward her. Consistently throughout the book her self-deprecating thoughts are revealed to the reader, and she is quite defensive to criticism. Once again, these are all signs of a person with low self-esteem, causing them to seek out relationships that they believe values them as much as they do themselves. One of my favorite quotes of all time is found in the movie Perks of Being a Wallflower, “We accept the love we think we deserve.” I think this principle is clearly shown through Mae’s choice of romantic and sexual partners.

First, Mae is primarily interested in a mysterious stranger who offers her a drink that he hid, if she follows him into a dark, secluded area. Sounds legit, right? So she goes with him and she almost kisses him, but her good friend Annie interrupts them. Unfortunately, this is not to be the end of their “romantic,” interactions.

After half-dating Francis for a while, he brings her to a panel in which the speaker is presenting his new dating technology. As has apparently been arranged ahead of this meeting, Francis goes to the stage to act as an example for the demonstration. And, to Mae’s horror, he uses her name for his love interest, revealing information both about herself in general and about their relationship to all those watching. Horrified, she flees from the room.

For a period of time, she is unwilling to speak with Francis due to his behavior. Yet, she later visits his room and gives him a hand-job, mostly out of sympathy and a desire for power, only to find that he had recorded the event without her knowledge and the video now rested on the database, available to all Circlers.

Francis is entirely unrepentant about the action itself; he only appears sorry when seeing that she is no longer interested in him. Essentially, he is entirely inconsiderate of his sexual partner. Despite all of the unhealthy experiences she has with him, she later says in the book that she wishes to “bring him back to her room,” again for power purposes. This shows her equally unhealthy sexual behaviors.

Her other “boyfriend,” is Kalden. His pickup line is, “You always hurt the ones you love…That’s what my parents said. And they loved me very much” (168). He is even more dark and mysterious, not showing up on the ridiculously extensive databases of the Circle, never giving any personal information about himself, but always asking Mae for her’s, and having sex with her in bathrooms. So basically, a real catch. His suspicious behavior attracts Mae to him more and more.

These two men exemplify Mae’s actions as a result of her low-self esteem and resulting desire to be better than others or to have power over them.

As with any book, there are many themes that can be found within the first book of the novel, The Circle. The theme of privacy, crime, fear, the horrible boyfriends Mae has…Ahem. But the theme that I think is the most prevalent throughout the first book is none of these. It is the theme of indoctrination, or, one may even use the term, brainwashing. Google defines the latter term as, “make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.” The reason I first used the term “indoctrination,” is because Mae already buys into this company’s mantra. It’s not as if she has been kidnapped and is now being forced to repeat the phrase, “SECRETS ARE LIES, SHARING IS CARING, PRIVACY IS THEFt.” Rather, the situation at hand makes the “brainwashing,” much easier than that.

Not only is Mae being coerced into the ideals of this company, but also the entire world is being shifted by the effects of this far-reaching conglomerate. Before the investigation into the possible monopolies that the Circle holds was announced in the book, I had already voiced my skepticism regarding this clear violation of American law several times. However, this instance provides some sort of plausible explanation as to why this company would be allowed to persist in the same monopolizing way they have. It shows that they have people all over the world who believe in its goals and are willing to do illicit acts in order to further said goals. It is not only a cult; a cult is a small group that affects its members only, and rarely outsiders. The Circle is a community that stretches throughout the world, changing the entire culture and its values.

Jessalin Urbano

Teresa Hamilton

Rhetoric and Civic Life

10/5/16

Thanks, Hitler

Social Media did not exist during World War 2. So, instead of spamming the internet with PSA’s, pictures of respective world leaders kissing babies, and video interviews with important political figures, the world had other ways of convincing their own countries as well as others of their ideas. Sometimes these ways were controversial, at best.

In 1938, on March 12, Hitler commenced the Anschluss, or the annexation, of Austria. Before the annexation was carried out, the leaders of Austria had proposed a vote among the people to determine whether or not they desired this annexation. Hitler was well aware that any fair vote would end in a strong rejection, so he forcibly went through with the annexation. However, a vote was then conducted post-annexation. The ballot is pictured to the right.

This ballot was put out not only for the purposes of appearances to other nations, but also to convey a message to the Austrian people. The ballot translates, “Do you approve of the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that was enacted on 13 March 1938, and do you vote for the party of our leader, Adolf Hitler? Yes. No.” The writers of this ballot harnassed the use of logos and pathos in order to convince the people of Austria it was in their best in every way to vote yes. Due the duality of the question, it sets up a strong premise, “If you do not support the annexation, then you do not support Hitler’s actions, therefore you do not support the country’s leader.” By this point, people knew that open criticism of the leadership in Germany was not an option. And if this weren’t reasons enough, the writing noticeably says “reunification” not “annexation.”  Reunifaction is a much more positive word; it implies that what was lost or taken from Germany will now be restored, brought home, etc. Moreover, the pathos interacts naturally with the logos in this case. The idea of what would happen if one spoke against Hitler was horrifying, and the word reunification soothes the ache from the takeover while still reminding the reader of the fact that they are Germany now-not their own sovereign nation. Finally, the circles for “Yes” and “No” respectively are altered so that “yes” is considerably larger, centered, and immediately under the bolded name of Adolf Hitler, while “no” is hidden in the corner. This tactic once again evokes fear of checking “no,” as it is clearly not a safe option.

In contrast, a video posted on Buzzfeed that features President Obama has a much more subtle, positive approach to accomplishing it’s goals. As many Americans know, one of the main reforms that Obama pushed through was healthcare reform, so that much of the healthcare system now relies on the government. It has not been the most popular reform and it has caused large discontent with the President. He attempts to combat that discontent through this video. The post is titled, “Things Everybody Does But Doesn’t Talk About, Featuring President Obama.” The video features Obama doing silly things one would expect from someone finally given alone time: making silly faces in the mirror, takes selfies, practices a speech in front of a mirror, draws a picture of his crush (read: wife), and even uses the recently coined phrase, “thanks, Obama.” Some viewers might just think of this as a funny video, but the President doesn’t have time to just make a funny video. Rather, it is a strong source of rhetoric on Obama’s healthcare reforms.

He certainly chose a kairotic moment to take part in the video. The health care website had been up for about fourteen months, meaning that it was fairly new to the public. Moreover, he chose the medium of a video that is easily shareable on on social media platforms, which is kairotic to the rhetorical situation of a social media dominated era. His rhetoric in the video is almost entirely pathos based. Through the various scenes he attempts to make a connection with the viewers—especially younger viewers—for whom these scenes would be relatable. He establishes in this way the logos: he is not a faraway, distant politician who wants to harm the country. He is a normal person who made healthcare reforms to help normal people. The subtle relation to healthcare reforms is found at about thirty-seven seconds into the video. Obama is practices a speech in the mirror, stumbling over the word “February.” This keeps the video’s comedic, relatable feel. The speech he is practicing is about visiting healthcare.gov in order to sign up for healthcare. It is mere seconds of the video, but the subtlety of it may be its strength.

These two artifacts are from different time periods and places, to different audiences, and shared through different mediums. However, they are both at least influenced by world leaders. The juxtaposition of these two sources of rhetoric shows the importance of rhetorical situation. The different time periods and countries (Kairos), the different speakers and audiences, the logos, pathos, and ethos, will all depend upon the rhetorical situation.

My rhetoric analysis paper will be comparing two rhetorical artifacts. The first is that on which my speech was based, the ballot put out under Hitler’s regime regarding the annexation of Austria, and a video published on Buzzfeed featuring President Obama. I want to examine the differences between pieces of rhetoric made under the rule of two leaders of their respective countries.

Intimacy and privacy have a close relationship. The best known example of this is a romantic relationship, but intimacy can be shared between friends and family as well. Intimacy entails allowing another to invade one’s own privacy. For example, when friends share thoughts or opinions with each other that they would not share as willingly with a coworker this shows an allowance of others into their privacy. This is especially true when it comes to insecurities; the trust that is intrinsic to intimacy allows those intimate with oneself to speak with one another about their respective insecurities.

In The Circle Francis and Mae have a certain level of intimacy, meaning that they are involved in each other’s privacy to a degree. In the latest reading, Francis invites Mae to a presentation at the company. They have yet to have gone on any official dates, but both appear interested in doing so. However, instead of keeping this at least mostly between the two of them, Francis purposefully brings it up in front of the entire crowd at the presentation, thinking that this will make Mae happy. But Mae is not happy; not only does she not appreciate that level of attention focused on herself, but also Francis has opened their relationship development up to the public without her permission. He has taken her privacy and offered the general public a way into it without the level of intimacy normally needed.

Intimacy is an allowance on both persons’ parts into each other’s privacy. Thus, as Mae’s privacy has unwillingly been exposed to this large public, people have been let into her privacy without intimacy. This is understandably a horrifying experience to Mae. When she sees Francis up on the stage, and the way that he interacts with the audience and the host, she loses interest immediately. Her trust was violated when he went on that stage and said her name; intimacy cannot really be had fully without trust. So, in that moment, her intimacy with Francis was at least largely damaged, although I suspect it was destroyed, from Mae’s reaction to Francis after the presentation. In the end, Francis invaded her privacy as well.

Francis, however, does not seem to understand this. Though he repeats his apologies, he defends his own actions more than he truly apologizes for what he has done. He says that all the information was already available, that someone else told him it was best as a surprise, excuse after excuse. Yes, that information was already there, which is disturbing enough. But he highlighted it, invited people to look at it, and revealed even further information than what it had on Mae. He revealed information about their relationship.

Once again, intimacy can be had between friends, family, as well as romantic interests. I am more willing to ask my parents personal questions than I am to ask my classmates or a stranger on the street. Because I have a higher level of intimacy with them, I allow them into my private thought processes by asking them such questions first. Parts of my and their privacy become our privacy, a concept that Francis did not grasp.