The Tradition That Keeps on Giving

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKeyOkoCyo4&feature=youtube_gdata

Convincing people that a job in the video game industry isn’t that easy is not very easy. But there exists a thing that if used inconspicuously can help guide an audience towards your goals. These things are fallacies. In the book Paid to Play the authors do a good job of painting in words the life of a worker in the gaming industry. However this is not done without a healthy portion of fallacies.

One kind of fallacy that I have found quite often within the duration of my reading the book was the red herring fallacy. In fact, these red herrings are generally not even disguised into the flow of the book but are instead used in another form. This form being in the form of notes at the bottom of the page. These notes being in reference to something mentioned in the main text above. These notes also have nothing to do with the point the author is attempting to make; instead, they merely distract from it. Bingo, red herring.

Let’s take a look at some examples. For example, on page 97, the authors of Paid to Play are describing how influential audio is in the making of a game. They then mention a quote by Oscar Fischinger relating to this idea. From here they include a note which talks about how he also invented the lumigraph organ which has nothing to do with audio in video games. They even acknowledge this by saying in regards to this machine “as far as we know has never been used on a video game soundtrack” (97). So essentially they are committing a rhetorical foul in redirecting the argument but are also acknowledging it. This is to say the least very interesting.

However, in addition to the red herring, the authors also have another favourite fallacy: the straw man. In this fallacy the authors set up a hypothetical situation and proceed to attack it. These authors do this pretty often. I even mentioned in a previous blog entry. Here I was describing how I was how frustrating it was to have these authors assume that the books readers are not taking these jobs seriously and proceeding to attack them for that.

A good example of this is where the authors are  pointing out that contrary to what they expected, you will have to spend a good amount of time writing if you want to be a good script writer. This is set up by the quote “You didn’t actually think that you would be just handed checks without having to earn them?” (150).

And examples of this are found in nearly every section. In regards to sound implementation, the authors go on to critique a situation they have made up in which the reader is going into this chapter thinking that sound production was actually all about creating music.

All in all these aren’t terrible uses of the straw man fallacy but they are using it which itself is a foul if not a major one.

I Take That Other Post Back

Turns out that my prediction from my previous blog entry has held true. No longer am I having to put up with pages and pages on how working in the gaming industry sucks. And while they sure aren’t making it sound easy, in recent chapters they have been good at providing a contrast of the good and the bad. Much better than flat out saying “if you think you’ve got what it takes to do these jobs, read this chapter and reconsider (Rush, 5).

This is not to say that they do not tear these jobs apart. It is actually quite the contrary. When describing the life of a programmer, Stratton is quick to point out that you can “work eighteen hour days for a month” (Stratton, 56). However this bothers me less as this is concrete information regarding why it can suck, of which I am sure constant 18 hour days would suck. This is as opposed to the first few chapters in which they would essentially questioning why anyone would want to be a programmer in the first place.

What is especially refreshing is that they also point out the good in those same positions they tear apart. For example while they stressed that programming can be very stressful, they also made sure to include positives such as “always working with the latest technology” (Stratton, 54). They also make sure to include various quotes from those who love their jobs, as stressful as they may be, to ensure that the reader is able to view various opinions on each area of work in th gaming industry.

Overall, I think that this past section of the book has been much more objective than the earlier parts as the authors take a bit of a step back with their subjective opinions on the various careers. Instead of telling you what you probably would be up to or what they think you may enjoy, they instead give you a career and list the types of personalities it fits as well as the opinions of those working in the fields. Add to this a summary of the ups and downs to ensure that the reader has sufficient pros and cons to where they can make their own decisions and you have a pretty good overview of that specific career. And while there will always be some opinion shining through (oftentimes in the form of a bad joke pertaining to a certain job), it has been, for the most part, very informative.

You Aren't Cut Out for this Job

I have always thought that many people have this skewed image on how the gaming industry works. That somehow the games manage to make themselves and the designers are always having fun. This book so far has been devoting all its energy to that. Especially the idea that “The one thing you can count on in the game industry is that you can't count on anything in the gaming industry.” (Hodgson).

And while I do think that it is important to weed out those who can’t understand that  the gaming industry is just like any other industry in terms of stress or workload...  I didn’t read this book to be able to understand that which was already understood. So far there have been short descriptions of the roles involved in making the final products followed up by a long snippet describing how this job is harder than you think. So far the writers have essentially been writing this phrase over and over: “Think you could do this job as a possible career? Yeah right... odds are you aren’t smart enough and lack work ethic”

And again, I know where they come from. They probably hear the phrase “you play games for a living, awesome!” way too much. And reflecting on this I am seriously questioning why their title is what it is. Don't they realize that the title Pay to Play is just going to attract those who they are trying to drive away for the first 40 pages. Wouldn't it just be more efficeint to have a title something akin to: The Harships of the Gaming Industry and save us all some time.

But what they don’t realize, at least what I assume is true is that those who are reading this book probably realize this as most of them want to seriously find out how the industry works. Because if you are willing to put the time in to read this much about the process of game creation aren't going to be the ones to put things lightly.

But maybe I am being a bit too harsh on this book up to this point. After all I am still only a fraction fo the way through.And while this is pretty annoying I do think that they will soon switch over from weeding out those with false hopes of an easy career and begin to focus on what a job in the industry actually entails. This is why I still have a good feeling about this book and as of now I just have to get through the initial period of “There’s a good chance you aren’t cut out for this industry.” So for now I will just have to wait it out until it gets good, using the occasional humorous jab at gamer stereotypes as fuel to keep reading.

Let the People be the Judge of This.

Article

These days it is incredibly easy to forget that behind every prison sentence is an actual human being. This might be a father, a mother, a teenager. And  while oftentimes they do deserve the sentences they are being given, this is starting to become the exception rather than the rule. And you (assuming you are American) are paying for it. And I think that in this case we can all agree that we have better things to spend money on as a country than  making sure Sharanda P. Jones doesn’t return to the streets.

These people were never malicious. They pose no threat to our country. They merely saw no other way out than to sell drugs to support a child that they could not support with their jobs. To add to the injustice, these kids own lives are negatively impacted by knowing that their parent is imprisoned for life. Some may even be blaming themselves for it.

The sad thing is that the system we operate in now seeks to prolong problems rather than seek out solutions. Because if you think about it, it makes sense that if these people were being paid sufficiently in their low wage jobs to begin with, there is a good chance that none of this would have happened.

Certainly a good part of this is due to the greed of the institutions where these people are being kept. They want them there. And they want you to pay for it. Certainly the least we can do is voice our opinion that we do not want this to continue. That we as a country will no longer stand for this. Because when pressure, we can influence the government to change and change for the better.

Futurama: Mocking Richard Nixon for Thousands of Years

I have always love Futurama. Never have I seen a show with so much awesome wit, both obvious and subliminal. Sometimes it even seems like they know who I am and my political views while watching the show. And based on what I learned from Thank You For Arguing chapter 20, I am sure now that they do know who is watching.

I realized this while watching an episode in which Fry, the protagonist, attempts to decide which party to vote for.  The candidates being two clones who state the same things in regard to every issue, changing their wordings only slightly. I find this to be pretty funny as it, in my opinion, reflects how democrats and republicans are in many situations in today’s politics. I also fondly remember an episode in which a monkey, who has just been given basic human intelligence, declares he suddenly feels like joining Fox News. This  makes me laugh as I realize that Fox is a pretty extreme right news station.

But wait, wouldn’t making these kind of jokes alienate extreme conservatives? Well to be honest, yes it would. But for Futurama, it is worth the trade off. This is because while it is alienating this group, it is making the vast majority of its viewers happy. The creators of Futurama realize that their type of sarcastic humor is more likely to appeal to a young, diverse crowd. And to a larger extent, a more moderate to liberal crowd.

The writers for the program here are using a great example of code grooming. They are able to realize that their show appeals to a certain crowd more than others. By constantly making a fool out of prominent political figures such as Richard Nixon, they are accepting that they have a chance of losing the whole 3 viewers of the show who think Nixon was the best ever president of the US while simultaneously encouraging those who think otherwise to watch more.  

Why Nobody Loves a Smart-A**

I have always loved opportunities to be a smart-ass. What could be more fun than being able to poke holes in a friend’s logic? To see through and point out their fallacies? And while it may be fun, it also derails arguments. For I, in these situations, had been committing “rhetorical fouls” (Henrichs). Because although it may please me to annoy my opponent by pointing out these fallacies, they would have, in most cases, stayed in bounds - rhetorically speaking. I, though, would not have. This is because many logical disconnects are permitted within rhetoric for the reason that the main purpose is to persuade the opponent. If a logical fallacy aids you in your pursuit, so be it. I then made it worse by committing a rhetorical foul: I tried to humiliate my opponent. This has no purpose but to put an end to useful argumentation and may lead to a fight.

For example, I may be arguing on the side of nuclear power (which I am against) with a classmate who supports it in a class debate. They may cite the events of Chernobyl as the main reason why nuclear power should not be used. This, however, would be a fallacy. While the events of Chernobyl were no doubt catastrophic, this alone does not mean nuclear power is bad. More so that it was misused in the situation. But to the audience, this does not matter. For to them, a disturbingly eerie picture of the post-apocalyptic Chernobyl will align them emotionally with my opponent more than my pointing out his/her fallacy will.

And this makes sense. I have often left an argument in which I lost trying to figure out how exactly I lost. How could I have lost when I had logic on my side. But the thing is that in rhetoric, nobody cares about “Vulcan logic” (cold, hard facts) (Henrichs), you need some emotion too. Because you need to get them on your side. Something that pure logic will always fail to do.

While reading the last few chapters of Thank You For Arguing, I realized something interesting. This came to me while I was thinking of my own use of rhetoric in everyday life. I realized that I was developing a more sanguine view on my knowledge of rhetoric. I was starting to understand the arduous terms involved in rhetoric. Decorum, patheticness, seduction, emulation: they were all coming together. However, I still oftentimes find myself after certain situations that I had not used all the possible rhetorical skills I could have used. How the heck am I supposed to remember all this? Henrichs, however seems to think this is all a walk in the park. As stated by him  in regards to a certain rhetorical technique: You can apply the same method yourself. Simply claim you used to hold your opponent’s position." (Henrichs). But is it really that easy?

I mean, I'm not saying that it is impossible. Let alone the possibility of me implying that these skills are useless. No, not at all. I am just having a hard time remembering to make my friend sympathize with me before trying to convince me to lend me a pencil. Possibly I just need to be exposed to these techniques longer, pound them into my brain. Try to use at least one once a day. I don't know.

Maybe I’ll try some of these and see how it goes. And while it may sound like I am leading towards some type of epiphany here, this would not be the case as surprising as it may sound. Most of the time for students, this type of essay results in some kind of culmination of their problem. To show how they have mastered the topic. But nope, not me. In this essay, I am not showing a solution. I am realizing a problem. However, on this account hopefully the statement that accepting there is a problem leads to its resolution comes true. And while it still sucks that I can’t make my real life audience bend to my will (yet), hopefully one day I will reach that point. 

I See What You Did There.

When asked about the benefits of understanding the art of rhetoric, undoubtably the first response you may receive would pertain to leading you're audience to you're side of the argument. However, an equally important skill, in my eyes at the very least, is to recognize when others are using the same skills against you. For example, I have now been able to pick up on many rhetorical tricks Jay Heinrichs uses to convince you that using such rhetorical tricks is important.

This first occurred to me while reading chapter five of Thank You for Arguing with my father. Near the beginning of the chapter, Henrichs describes Eminem's abilities with decorum. I was please as I enjoy a few of Eminem's songs. MY father though could care less. I had begun to like the book a bit more as I was sympathizing with the Author. He knew where I was coming from and therefor I felt more compelled to listen to this mans advice. He had practiced one of his tactics on me without me even knowing it.

I didn't know it at least until my dad suddenly seemed delighted when Henrichs began discussing this Captain Kangaroo show I had never heard of. My dad, though, had defiantly heard of the show. He, upon noticing the reference to his childhood era suddenly began remarking how good he thought this book was.  And suddenly it had hit me... Henrichs was using such a broad spectrum of references to ensure that he brought in every possible reader of his book. I, for instance, may not care in the slightest if Henrichs names a section: Captain Kangaroo’s Fashion Tip (Heinrichs, 1188), but my dad sure did. And he on the other hand wouldn't care in the slightest if Henrichs began discussing Eminem, but I did.

Henrichs had succeeded in making two vastly different members of his audience open up to his suggestions. In convincing two people from vastly different time periods that he knew where they were coming from. And while  I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise to find Henrichs using his own strategies in his own book, it is very interesting. And in the future, not only will I look for this while continuing reading Thank You for Arguing, but also in other reading. It will be very interesting which authors have been molding my sympathies without me even knowing it.

It wasn’t until I started reading Thanks for Arguing that I realized that I have rarely if ever argued in my whole life. Which comes as a huge surprise to me as I have 2 siblings who are far from angelic to say the least. This is not to say that we never disagree though. In fact, it is far from it. While I rarely argue with my siblings, it is not uncommon for us to fight. For you see, up until this point in my life, I have always argued to win. And it turns out that this is not truly arguing at all. For “you succeed in an argument when you persuade your audience” (Heinrichs, Jay). However, persuasion had never crossed my mind. I was playing for the win. And “you win a fight when you dominate the enemy” (Heinrichs, Jay).

However this did change when I left home. Win, Win, Win: that was all that mattered. To show my audience that I was right, and my opponent wrong. It was always black and white, never gray.  When I look back now, I realize that conceding to the opponent can actually be a good stepping stone for getting what you want in the end. As Henrichs describes in his fictional confrontation with a cop: acknowledging your wrongs and appealing to his authority may make it seem as if you have lost. When in reality, you have won as in the end you get what you are looking for: exemption from a ticket.  As a result I have come to think of arguing as I do sports. It does not matter how many times you lose matches as long as you get what you want in the end: a championship.

However, Henrichs takes this a step further by stating that arguing is often more than getting your way. A good argument will result in your opponent being satisfied with a solution in which you get what you want. This is also something I consider an invaluable skill to learn. For fights are generally known to destroy relationships. Arguments, on the other hand, can enhance them. As stated by Henrichs when discussing marriage and argumentation: “the couples who stayed married seemed to use their disputes to solve problems and work out differences” (Henrichs, 383). This I would consider invaluable as I can say myself that I have come close to losing friends over fights. Something I learned can be completely avoided through the art of rhetoric.

In the end, I have come away with this. Rhetoric is far more than a skill I can use to impress my English teacher or a potential employer. Rhetoric is in fact something that can be used to enhance my life. It is a tool in which I can use to get my way in arguments and to augment my relationships. Currently I am a 4 year old which has just been given an Iphone. I now have a powerful tool under my control. However, I still am unsure how to use it skillfully. I will however, (much like the 4 year old with the iphone) learn. And once I have mastered how to wield this new weapon, I will be sure to

reap many benefits.

Holocaust Survivors: Alive or Undead?

Survive a disaster and all is good... right? Wrong. As the protagonist in Day by Ellie Wielsel testify, escaping inevitable death does not mean the end of suffering. And with the Holocaust being one of the worst calamities one could survive, the subsequent tormenting ones mind is subjected to following the event would be excruciatingly painful. Here, Ellie Wiesel is trying to dispel the notion that somehow the holocaust ended when it ended. That it is not simply an event that can be given a time frame, but a horror that will continually live on with those connected to it.

Day is the story of a man dead to the world,  a man who has yet to come to terms with having survived. For him, even the simplest of tasks become related to that which he wishes to forget. When he eats his mind wanders to a time where eating was part of survival and not pleasure. This occurs when he attempts to enjoy a burger but is trifled by this though: “Once I had seen a man eating with great appetite a slice of meat without bread.” Here he is referring to a starving man eating human flesh.

For our troubles protagonist, thought itself is painful, every thought inducing action like a bullet penetrating his troubled soul. Even movies with complicated plots are agonizing to him, and he does all he can to avoid them. “Something without philosophy, without metaphysics” “It’s too hot for intellectual exercises,” Our protagonist desperately urges as he attempts to convince his girlfriend on which movie to see. He then attempts to convince her to see a mindless Brazilian murder flick: “I’d love to see how the commit murders in Brazil,” making up any possible lie to avoid a complicated movie. But why should he care? It is just a movie after all.

But for him, the character of the plot makes all the difference. For if the plot is simple and mindless, he will be able to sink himself into the world of the movie and wrap his conscious around the protagonists simple problems, avoiding his own drastic predicaments. However if he sees a thought inducing movie, his mind is forced to think, and when he thinks he thinks of the holocaust, of the horrors he has seen. For him, what movie he sees makes all the difference.

For him the challenge in the novel: Day will be to come to terms with his past, to accept his present and to not fear the future. Something that comes off as simple to the majority but near impossible for a select few.

Masters: Deities in the Minds of Slaves.

Something the I could not stop but question myself in regards to Douglass’s predicament is why he nor any other slaves had attempted a mass revolt on their slaveholders. But at the same time I question whether I would of been able to revolt myself. As for the reasoning, I would have to disagree quite heavily with a fellow AP Lang blogger: Jong Park. He argues that the reasoning for why slaves would not rebel to be the following: “Slaves had become so used to their conflicted lives that their thoughts, which should have consisted of rebellion, became thoughts that seemed as if they were satisfied with their lives” (Park). Clearly the slaves were unhappy with their lives, they showed discontent in practically everything they ever did. Whether it be their songs, which Douglass described to be full of sorrow, or the attempts at sabotaging the master in any way possible. Clearly they were not content to continue suffering.

And while I agree with him in regards to the fact that clearly the slaves should have rebelled or at least attempted some sort of mutiny, I do not think that this is due to them being content with their lives whatsoever. I agree that they were somehow able to cope with their lives however I do not think that this is why they would not rebel. They did not rebel due to a sense of fear that the slave holders were able to instill upon the slaves. The slaveholders through much practice were able to instill and idea that somehow they had divine, ultimate powers in regards to  dispelling any slave resistance. The slaves developed this mindset as a result of being constantly exposed to the inhuman actions of the masters and the feeling of despair created on the plantations. It was created as such because when one slave revolted or denied the authority of the master, he was whipped to oblivion and after seeing this done to an individual, I conjecture that the slaves assumed the same result if tried with a group. The feared the horrors that would result if they happened to get punished. Douglass had to deal with this while explaining his escape plan: The strength of our determination was about to
be fully tested. "At this time, I was very active in explaining every difficulty, removing every doubt, dispelling every fear, and inspiring all with the firmness indispensable to success in our undertaking" (Douglass, 75). It would have been near impossible to organize a revolt on a grand enough scale to cause an effect as most slaves lacked the confidence that they would succeed, and this is why Douglass failed at first, as his slaves could not overcome the fear of failiure.

Douglass: Defying Biology one Narrative at a Time

Frederick Douglass was clearly a manifestation of all a slave was not supposed to be: clever, educated, brave. According to southerners, these traits were somehow absent in the slaves’ genetic code. The slave loving Southerns, trapped in their own egotistical circle of things had deduced that slaves were incompatible with intelligence. While Douglass may be able to Describe his predicament as such:"You are loosed from your moorings, and are free; I am fast in my chains, and am a slave!” (Douglass, page 82) .  However this was the exception rather than the rule. This shows the importance of being able to write with a register that is not familiar. Douglass is able to write in a register that would be applicable to the upper class.

          Douglass shows that it is just as painful for one with knowledge, regardless of race. If one becomes aware of how life may be outside of bondage then it doesn't matter if that man was white or black or blue or yellow. It is not the race which determines how a man suffers or how he will cope with freedom, but it is experience and knowledge which all races are equally able to comprehend. Some masters comprehended this and yet they feared to give slaves this knowledge as they knew it would serve them well: “As I read and contemplated the subject, behold! that very discontentment which Master Hugh had predicted would follow my learning to read had already come, to torment and sting my soul to unutterable anguish.” However, when Douglass published his narrative, it became pitifully obvious that slaves, were not incompatible with knowledge because they could not comprehend it but instead, because it would provide them with the spark that would cause them to look for a freedom, and long for a freedom which the slaveholders wanted to deny at all costs to the slaves.

And to guide the thinking process of those on the fence in terms of slavery, slaveholders would attempt to bend the minds of those who were more malleable by introducing false notions implying that slaves were somehow biologically inferior to white men. They would come up with lies such as, the negro has a primitive mind due to years living in African jungles or that somehow they were created for the sole purpose of intense labor and would come up with some sort of insane scientific proof out of thin air. In fact there were scientists who specifically searched for nonexistent differences between blacks and whites to prove their supposed inferiority.

However there were those like Douglass who made their jobs a bit trickier in regards to justifying slavery. For if all men with African lineage were intellectually challenged then how was Douglass, a black man, capable  of such deep thoughts, such brilliant ideas. With writing that matched and even surpassed that of white writers. It was texts such as this one that helped swing people to the abolitionist side of things as they realized through reading that maybe this man was similar to himself.

They're Taking the Slaves to Isengard.

Over the course of my reading of chapters 8 and 9 of Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass, it has become clear to me that knowledge, which all humans have an insatiable thirst for, can prove to be as much a curse as a gift. I have come to view it as a parallel to the master ring in The Hobbit. I came about making this odd connection while analyzing how the possession of knowledge transformed Douglass in a relatively short amount of time and realized that the ring held by Bilbo, which quickly transformed him, could easily be interpreted as an allegory for knowledge; knowledge being the ring Douglass now must bear.

In both cases, the discovery of their new-found powers is met with a sense of elation, of power. However for them both it quickly becomes apparent that this power has a major downside. It was a power which they had to keep themselves for fear of higher powers who did not wish for them to have these gifts. For Bilbo these would be the forces of evil who would hunt Bilbo to the ends of the earth for possessing the ring. For Douglass, his equivalent of forces of evil are clearly his masters who fear that with the power of knowledge he may be able to rise up against them much like Bilbo would rise up to defeat the forces of evil with the ring.

Once they become accustomed to the ups and downs of their gifts, they feel enlightened by what they have gained but also severely miss the ignorance they had before. Douglass would often feel that “In moments of agony, [he] envied [his] fellow-slaves for their stupidity”. However they would never give up the knowledge they now possess as they can now barely imagine life without it for it has been etched into their beings and is now a part of them. They must carry it with them and complete their task for it is the only way for them to rid themselves of their complications. For Bilbo this task is slaying a dragon; for Douglass this task is to attain freedom. And while these two things may not seem alike under any circumstances, they are akin to  each other in challenge and both reflect the hero’s determination to rid themselves of the curse which they have acquired.

It is truly unfortunate that those with the blackest hearts attain the most opulent lifestyles. This is what comes to mind the majority of the time when one comes to question the negative actions or the self centered lifestyle of the rich and the famous. However one could also argue the opposite: it is truly unfortunate that those with the most opulent lifestyles attain the blackest hearts. As was the case with the Mistress of Mr. Douglas with whom “the fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work” (Douglas, 35). And what is even more shocking than her transformation itself is the amount of time it took the transformation to transpire. Or to betterly put it, the lack thereof.

This then caused me to consider an idea which I hadn't considered prior to my reading of this memoir. Was the institution of slavery as much a curse to the slavers as to the slaves? And while I realize that it is nearly criminal to compare the suffering of slave and master, one must realize that it remains indisputable that  both parties were changed in the exchanges that occurred between the two. With every lash of the whip grew a scar on the slave’s back however the slaver does not escape unscathed for  with every lash of the whip grows a new scar upon his own heart. The number of scars being determined by the amount of power or in this case slaves a slave driver owns. As best stated by Douglas: "a city slave is almost a freeman, compared with a slave on the plantation" (Douglas,37). For the plantation owner, feeling himself more powerful, more righteous, feels he should exert enough power to balance out his greatness.

And while over the course of writing this I have wondered if I would succumb to the same tantalizing power that thousands did during the antebellum period in the US.  Part of me thinks I would as I have had tons of conditioning telling me how wrong a deed it is to treat another human being as such. But another part of me wonders that if I had grown up under a different background and had been suddenly thrust into a position of power, owning perhaps thousands of slaves, would I have been any different? Would a slave had done the same to a white man under different circumstances? And the only logical conclusion is yes. It is human nature, it is nearly impossible to avoid when one life is in control of another’s.

And don't get it wrong, I am in no way shape or form attempting to justify slavery or give an excuse for it. I am merely saying that slavery was way more destructive than people give it credit for. It was a double edged sword, literally killing the slaves and figuratively, the masters. And when slavery was finally defeated with the emancipation proclamation, it wasn't only the slaves who were saved, but also the masters.

For a self taught writer, Frederick Douglas is a paradigm for the use of rhetoric. This is due to the fact that Douglas takes his experiences and discusses them with authority, with ethos. In addition,  Douglas augments this story already laden with ethos through adding a heavy does of pathos as well as sprinkling a bit of logos here and there.

Let us begin with ethos. Ethos, which if misused can backfire heavily upon the one whom misuses it. It also, however, may be used to bring an argument to life. Douglas clearly exemplifies the latter as his subtle use of it provides the basis of the narrative. If one thinks about it, Douglas is implying that all his views and tales are correct as well as accurate however he never gives a reason for why one should in fact believe his word. He doesn't have to. Because underlying every argument he makes is the fact that he was once a slave. He speaks with authority and yet never explains why on the grounds that he knows what hes talking about, he has been through this himself and in consequence, his words should be headed. Ethos, however, is not the only weapon of speech wielded by Mr. Douglas; his arsenal delves deeper into rhetoric with his use of pathos as well as logos.

One thing that is true for the majority of the human race is that each and every one of us, if attacked from the right angle, will heed to sympathy. And in this type of battle, Douglas is a master general, using vivid imagery to evoke an emotional response in any compassionate soul who passes upon one of his passages. This is exemplified in every occasion in which Douglas describes the horrors committed unto the slaves.  "And in an instant poor Demby was no more. His mangled body sank out of sight, and blood and brains marked the water where he had stood". And it is true that most of us cannot go reading without feeling the slight twinge of pity for this man for our conscious tells us that it is only right to be a bit dismayed. 

However Douglas is also a man of cunning and logic. One who is able to gain ground in his arguments via using common sense to his advantage; in other words, logos. The prime example for this type of rhetoric is when Douglas goes on to describe how slaves were beaten for telling the truth. Not for lying to make themselves look good but for being utmost honest. Here our common sense rings in because we are conditioned to believe that the truth is the right thing to speak of no matter the circumstances. 

Textbook Vs. Reality

While reading the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, my mind would return time and time again to the last text I had read regarding American history and in particular, its interpretation of the institution of slavery. And while I recognize the intentions of said history book are to be unbiased in every sense of the word, in doing so they are insulting the memory of so many human beings by not presenting the slave’s account of the institution of slavery. Which in itself cannot be represented by a 3 line quote thrown onto page 52. And while I’m not trying to say that these books have bad intentions, I am saying that they are very objective in their approach. And while maybe it isn't the job of history courses to be human in their teaching of the subject, I would consider it to be fitting for them to assign reading of a first hand account such as the narrative of Frederick Douglas to show the true cruelties of slavery for which no 3rd hand account could ever do. For while the history book’s description of practices slave masters would do unto their slaves show that slavery was cruel, they cannot compare to the spectacle of Douglas’s account of his own aunt being tied to a hook and lashed to oblivion. For no so called objective or unbiased account of slavery can do justice to the unspeakable truths portrayed in Douglas’s memoir. For when Douglas describes the slaves use of singing to expel the sadness which lies in their hearts he is appealing to human emotion which is something other texts fail to do.

How did this bloggers focus differ from yours?

It differed from mine in the way that this blog is trying to answer questions in regards to how modern day western students would have acted in Douglas's situation where I was I was comparing mine to another text.
-Response to http://youknowwhattheysayaboutbrevity.blogspot.com/

It is similar but different in many ways. In being similar, we are both comparing the text to others. He is comparing the book to Django unchained while I was comparing it to another book (a textbook). Although he is trying to say that the message  given in Douglas’s novel is somehow incomplete or at least provides the same insight. I however claimed that Douglas provided a much deeper insight as opposed to others which lack emotion.
--Response to Theparadoxofwit.blogspot.com

AP Language Video

Video