ENGL 124 Grossmont College David Wallace Speech This Is Water Essay Successful Essays Need:An introduction with a hook, background information and a thesis

ENGL 124 Grossmont College David Wallace Speech This Is Water Essay Successful Essays Need:An introduction with a hook, background information and a thesis that directly respond to my prompt. Remember your thesis must be in response to Comparative Analysis on Horgan and Wallace, and as such must inform your reader who is the more successful author.A minimum of 2 PIE body paragraphs with a clear Point that is an opinion, Information that is properly introduced quotes from the articles and Explanation that is thorough and connects the reader back to the point. These points should be based on two out of the four rhetorical strategies you have chosen to focus on for this essay. Remember that each body paragraph should have at least two pieces of information/explanation per paragraph. Consider either writing one paragraph on Horgan and one on Wallace if you are doing block format, or writing two paragraphs centered on two different points of comparison between between Horgan and Wallace, such as ethos and word choice or organization and pathos. Transitions to help the reader move through different paragraphs and examples. A conclusion that restates your thesis and provides a final thought. Do not worry about MLA formatting for this timed draft. You may chose to focus one of your body paragraphs as the Counterargument & Refutation paragraph, but this is not required for the first draft. (This is a requirement for the final draft.) Essay 2: Rhetorical Comparison (Comparative Analysis)
o You are expected to turn in your peer workshop
rough draft and your final draft. Also, you must
submit the final draft of your essay to Canvas.
o Your essay is considered incomplete if it is
missing any of these components. I will not
accept late or incomplete essays without an
extension.
•
Objectives: Use all phases of the writing
process to create a largely error free essay; avoid
plagiarism; employ a variety of organizational
patterns to support or advance central ideas
(theses/claims).
•
Minimum Length: 5-6 pages
Background/Required Reading: While David
Foster Wallace’s speech and John Horgan’s essay
have stark differences in style, tone or even
evidence, they do focus on a similar concept: the
idea of humanities, more specifically our own humanity and why we should study or be aware of it. For this
assignment, you will develop a rhetorical analysis of text (just like you did for Essay 1). However, you will
focus not only on one but on both of these texts. Your purpose is to analyze the effectiveness of each argument
to show which text has a stronger argument.
Essay Prompt: You will re-read/watch David Foster Wallace’s speech titled “This is Water” and John
Horgan’s article titled “Why Study Humanities? What I Tell Engineering Freshmen.” Both focus on a
similar issue: the importance of humanities in our lives.
Then, you will write an essay in which you evaluate AND compare the authors’ arguments. As
always, this does not mean that you will agree or disagree with the arguments. (You should not be
focusing on the issue of humanities as they are; you should be focusing on the way they present their
arguments and the rhetorical strategies they use or logical fallacies they commit). You should not
comment on the actual arguments but rather focus on how well/effectively those arguments are
written or developed.
You will analyze the rhetorical strategies used and compare and contrast the two texts to ultimately
determine which one is more effective and why (meaning that your thesis will make a claim about
which one is more effective and why, and you will focus your body paragraphs on showing why you
think that).
In order to analyze the argument, you will consider the author’s use of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pathos
Ethos
Logos
Assumptions
Logical fallacies
Tone
Types/Strength of evidence
Objectivity/Bias
OR any other points you saw in the powerpoints or videos
*Remember that the author can use one rhetorical strategy effectively while failing to use others effectively.
Directions:
You will need to think about:
1) An Introduction (where you introduce the issue and the articles as well as develop a thesis, stating which
article you think is more convincing and why)
2) At least three body paragraphs (with clear points of comparisons and examples from each article that
support your thesis)
3) A Counter-argument & Refutation Paragraph (that directly answers one of your points/topics sentences in
support of your thesis)
4) A Conclusion
Requirements:
•
•
Length: 5-6 pages (This does not include your Works Cited page)
You will need
o Introduction (including a hook, background information, the author’s thesis
and his audience and your thesis)
o At least three paragraphs (including examples from the text as well as your
analysis of effectiveness)
o Counterargument & Refutation where you address an opposing viewpoint and
o show how that argument is incomplete, inconsequential or doesn’t stand up.
o Conclusion where you restate your thesis, summarize your key points, and leave your
audience with a final thought.
o If you have questions about structure or format of introduction, body, or conclusion
paragraphs, please see the Writing Essays PowerPoint)
Format For Comparative Analysis Body Paragraphs
1. Block format – This is where you talk about the first text in one or more paragraphs and then in the
following paragraphs, you focus on the second text. This is best if it’s more important to your argument
that one text is more effective or not.
2. Point by point – This is where you focus your paragraphs each on a point of comparison or contrast. This
is best if the points of comparison are more important than the separate texts. This is more useful the
particular points are more effective than the whole argument itself.
This is Water
David Foster Wa!ace
There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to
an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and
“Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on
bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and
“What the hell is water?”
meet
says,
for a
goes,
If at this moment, you’re worried that I plan to present myself here as the
wise old fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don’t be. I
am not the wise old fish. The immediate point of the fish story is that the
most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are
the hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course,
this is just a banal platitude — but the fact is that, in the day-to-day
trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have life-or-death
importance. That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense.
1
A huge percentage of the stu? that I tend to be automatically certain of is,
it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. Here’s one example of the utter
wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of: Everything in
my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the
absolute center of the universe, the realest, most vivid and important
person in existence. We rarely talk about this sort of natural, basic selfcenteredness, because it’s so socially repulsive, but it’s pretty much the
same for all of us, deep down. It is our default-setting, hard-wired into our
boards at birth. Think about it: There is no experience you’ve had that you
were not at the absolute center of. The world as you experience it is right
there in front of you, or behind you, to the left or right of you, on your TV,
or your monitor, or whatever. Other people’s thoughts and feelings have to
be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent,
real — you get the idea. But please don’t worry that I’m getting ready to
preach to you about compassion or other-directedness or the so-called
“virtues.” This is not a matter of virtue — it’s a matter of my choosing to do
the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired
default-setting, which is to be deeply and literally self-centered, and to see
and interpret everything through this lens of self.
People who can adjust their natural default-setting this way are often
described as being “well adjusted,” which I suggest to you is not an
accidental term.
Given the triumphal academic setting here, an obvious question is how
much of this work of adjusting our default-setting involves actual
knowledge or intellect. This question gets tricky. Probably the most
dangerous thing about college education, at least in my own case, is that it
enables my tendency to over-intellectualize stu?, to get lost in abstract
arguments inside my head instead of simply paying attention to what’s
going on right in front of me. Paying attention to what’s going on inside
me. As I’m sure you guys know by now, it is extremely di?cult to stay alert
and attentive instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue
inside your own head. Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come
2
gradually to understand that the liberal-arts cliché about “teaching you how
to think” is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea:
“Learning how to think” really means learning how to exercise some control
over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough
to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct
meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of
choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about
“the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.” This, like many
clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great
and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who
commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in the head.
And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before
they pull the trigger. And I submit that this is what the real, no-bull- value
of your liberal-arts education is supposed to be about: How to keep from
going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead,
unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default-setting of
being uniquely, completely, imperially alone, day in and day out.
That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. So let’s get concrete.
The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what
“day in, day out” really means. There happen to be whole large parts of
adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches.
One such part involves boredom, routine, and petty frustration. The
parents and older folks here will know all too well what I’m talking about.
By way of example, let’s say it’s an average day, and you get up in the
morning, go to your challenging job, and you work hard for nine or ten
hours, and at the end of the day you’re tired, and you’re stressed out, and all
you want is to go home and have a good supper and maybe unwind for a
couple of hours and then hit the rack early because you have to get up the
next day and do it all again. But then you remember there’s no food at
home — you haven’t had time to shop this week, because of your
challenging job — and so now after work you have to get in your car and
drive to the supermarket. It’s the end of the workday, and the tra?c’s very
3
bad, so getting to the store takes way longer than it should, and when you
finally get there the supermarket is very crowded, because of course it’s the
time of day when all the other people with jobs also try to squeeze in some
grocery shopping, and the store’s hideously, fluorescently lit, and infused
with soul-killing Muzak or corporate pop, and it’s pretty much the last
place you want to be, but you can’t just get in and quickly out: You have to
wander all over the huge, overlit store’s crowded aisles to find the stu? you
want, and you have to maneuver your junky cart through all these other
tired, hurried people with carts, and of course there are also the glacially
slow old people and the spacey people and the ADHD kids who all block
the aisle and you have to grit your teeth and try to be polite as you ask
them to let you by, and eventually, finally, you get all your supper supplies,
except now it turns out there aren’t enough checkout lanes open even
though it’s the end-of-the-day-rush, so the checkout line is incredibly long,
which is stupid and infuriating, but you can’t take your fury out on the
frantic lady working the register.
Anyway, you finally get to the checkout line’s front, and pay for your food,
and wait to get your check or card authenticated by a machine, and then
get told to “Have a nice day” in a voice that is the absolute voice of death,
and then you have to take your creepy flimsy plastic bags of groceries in
your cart through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and try to load
the bags in your car in such a way that everything doesn’t fall out of the
bags and roll around in the trunk on the way home, and then you have to
drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive rush-hour tra?c,
etcetera, etcetera.
The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work
of choosing comes in. Because the tra?c jams and crowded aisles and long
checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don’t make a conscious
decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I’m going to be
pissed and miserable every time I have to food-shop, because my natural
default-setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about
me, about my hungriness and my fatigue and my desire to just get home,
4
and it’s going to seem, for all the world, like everybody else is just in my way,
and who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of
them are and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they
seem here in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that
people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line, and look
at how deeply unfair this is: I’ve worked really hard all day and I’m starved
and tired and I can’t even get home to eat and unwind because of all these
stupid god-damn people.
Or, of course, if I’m in a more socially conscious form of my default-setting,
I can spend time in the end-of-the-day tra?c jam being angry and disgusted
at all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup
trucks burning their wasteful, selfish, forty-gallon tanks of gas, and I can
dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper stickers always seem
to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles driven by the ugliest,
most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers, who are usually talking on cell
phones as they cut people o? in order to get just twenty stupid feet ahead
in a tra?c jam, and I can think about how our children’s children will
despise us for wasting all the future’s fuel and probably screwing up the
climate, and how spoiled and stupid and disgusting we all are, and how it all
just sucks, and so on and so forth…
Look, if I choose to think this way, fine, lots of us do — except that
thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic it doesn’t have to be a
choice. Thinking this way is my natural default-setting. It’s the automatic,
unconscious way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of
adult life when I’m operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I
am the center of the world and that my immediate needs and feelings are
what should determine the world’s priorities. The thing is that there are
obviously di?erent ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this
tra?c, all these vehicles stuck and idling in my way: It’s not impossible that
some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the
past and now find driving so traumatic that their therapist has all but
ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to
5
drive; or that the Hummer that just cut me o? is maybe being driven by a
father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s
trying to rush to the hospital, and he’s in a way bigger, more legitimate
hurry than I am — it is actually I who am in his way. Or I can choose to
force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the
supermarket’s checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that
some of these people probably have much harder, more tedious or painful
lives than I do, overall.
Again, please don’t think that I’m giving you moral advice, or that I’m
saying you’re “supposed to” think this way, or that anyone expects you to
just automatically do it, because it’s hard, it takes will and mental e?ort,
and if you’re like me, some days you won’t be able to do it, or you just flatout won’t want to. But most days, if you’re aware enough to give yourself a
choice, you can choose to look di?erently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-madelady who just screamed at her little child in the checkout line — maybe
she’s not usually like this; maybe she’s been up three straight nights holding
the hand of her husband who’s dying of bone cancer, or maybe this very
lady is the low-wage clerk at the Motor Vehicles Dept. who just yesterday
helped your spouse resolve a nightmarish red-tape problem through some
small act of bureaucratic kindness. Of course, none of this is likely, but it’s
also not impossible — it just depends on what you want to consider. If
you’re automatically sure that you know what reality is and who and what is
really important — if you want to operate on your default-setting — then
you, like me, will not consider possibilities that aren’t pointless and
annoying. But if you’ve really learned how to think, how to pay attention,
then you will know you have other options. It will actually be within your
power to experience a crowded, loud, slow, consumer-hell-type situation as
not only meaningful but sacred, on fire with the same force that lit the stars
— compassion, love, the sub-surface unity of all things. Not that that
mystical stu? ‘s necessarily true: The only thing that’s capital-T True is that
you get to decide how you’re going to try to see it. You get to consciously
decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. You get to decide what to
worship…
6
Because here’s something else that’s true. In the day-to-day trenches of
adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing
as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to
worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or
spiritual-type thing to worship — be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the
Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set
of ethical principles — is that pretty much anything else you worship will
eat you alive. If you worship money and things — if they are where you tap
real meaning in life — then you will never have enough. Never feel you have
enough. It’s the truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure
and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will
die a million deaths before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know
this stu? already — it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides,
epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping
the truth up-front in daily consciousness. Worship power — you will feel
weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to keep the
fear at bay. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart — you will end up
feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. And so on.
Look, the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re
evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default-settings.
They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day,
getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure
value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing. And the
world will not discourage you from operating on your default-settings,
because the world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on
the fuel of fear and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship
of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that
have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The
freedom to be lords of our own tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the
center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But
of course there are all di?erent kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most
precious you will not hear much talked about in the great outside world of
winning and achieving and displaying. The really important kind of
7
freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and e?ort, and
being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over
and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom.
The alternative is unconsciousness, the default-setting, the “rat race” — the
constant gnawing sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.
I know that this stu? probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grandly
inspirational. What it is, so far as I can see, is the truth with a whole lo…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment