White Blank Page of Emotions

            One of my favorite bands, Mumford and Sons, an English folk-rock band, won two Grammy’s earlier in 2013 and continue to gain popularity throughout the U.S.   Their use of the creative style is extremely intriguing for many, because unlike plain or official styles, the creative style has the ability to evoke a tremendous amount of emotion when read or listened to.  But, because the creative style is very subjective, there can be many different interpretations of what the lyrics mean.

I believe that the lyrics to “White Blank Page” by Mumford and Sons are referring to a failed relationship in which one partner wasn’t giving it their “all”.  It seems as though the writer is reflecting on the relationship, trying to figure out why they should feel guilty for giving their whole heart, and all of their trust to this person who wasn’t able to do the same for them.  I think the “white blank page” refers to the relationship being erased, or over, but the swelling rage is the writer not able to move on because there are unresolved issues or questions.  

Because in the beginning of the song it says, “Can you lie next to her and give her your heart, your heart as well as your body...” he is referring to his ex-lover being with someone new.  It seems as though he is questioning how her new partner is any better for her than he was.  “And can you kneel before the king and say I’m clean, I’m clean.” In many interviews the band members have spoken about faith, and the importance of it in their lives.  So I think this line refers to the writer’s relationship with God.  I take it as the writer being a holy man, willing to admit his faults.  But, as he says many times, loving this person with his whole heart was not a fault.

He also seems to feel very used for his emotions.  “You desired my attention but denied my affections...” I think means this girl was interested in him, but not getting to know him on a deeper level or emotion that he was interested in.  He seems to have cared for her greatly, while whoever he is speaking of just kind of enjoyed the attention she was getting.  Their intentions when entering into whatever relationship they had here different.  This often happens in many relationships, and is devastating for the individual who pours out all their feelings and expresses their love for someone, so this line especially evokes emotions of let down, sadness, and almost betrayal.  In the very end, the lyrics say, “Lead me to the truth and I will follow you with my whole life.”  I believe this is also a reference to God or religious beliefs, because as I mentioned before, faith is a major part of many of the member’s lives.  

There can be many interpretations on the lyrics to “White Blank Page”, but the use of the creative style paints a very straightforward set of emotions for the reader or listener.  “White Blank Page” begins with instruments being played quietly yet quickly with lead singer Marcus Mumford crooning the lyrics, “Can you lie next to her, and give her your heart, your heart, as well as your body…” quietly, creating emotions of past letdown in a relationship, making the listener realize that the person they were with wasn’t doing all that they could to make the relationship work, which could either be a reminder or an eye opener for the listener.  If they already knew that the individual they were in a relationship wasn’t putting in a full effort, they might feel angry again about the whole situation.  It might bring back that sense of betrayal they felt in the past.  But, if they are just realizing while listening to this song that the person they were in the relationship with wasn’t really putting much of an effort into it, it may create emotions of sadness and even disappointment in themselves not being able to recognize this earlier on. 

As the music slows down and gets very quiet, lead singer Marcus Mumford’s voice slowly sings the lyrics, “But tell me now where was my fault, in loving you with my whole heart, oh tell me now where was my fault, in loving you with my whole heart.”  This would create a sense of sadness and loneliness to the listener, reflecting back on how much they sacrificed in the unbalanced relationship.

Then, the strings of several instruments are strum at the same time to create a loud, dramatic, dark emotion.  Marcus’s voice raises, and if you watch the music video, you see he begins to belt out each phrase with all of his might, sweating as he aggressively strums the strings of his guitar.  The music builds up a bit, then slows, and continues in this pattern throughout the entire song.  It’s done to create a sense of anger with the listener; anger in themselves for giving so much to someone, but also anger towards the person who was not able to give all that love back.  When the music slows it creates emotions of sadness, sadness that the relationship didn’t work and also sadness that at the time of the relationship, you didn’t realize there was such an imbalance.  

The back and forth of emotions comes together at the end with the lyrics, “Lead me to the truth and I will follow you with my whole life.  Oh, lead me to the truth and I will follow you with my whole life”.  As I discussed earlier, “the truth” could be a reference to The Bible and God, or it could mean just wanting to be with someone who is true and honest.  Either way it’s taken, it creates an emotion of optimism and ambition.  A confidence that one day you’ll find truthfulness and where you find that you will be content and happy.  The pace picks up and then slows down throughout the entire song, and there is a battle between his emotions of anger and sadness.  At the very end of the music video, the band members close their eyes as they repeatedly sing the word “heart” slowly with the lead singer, and it appears that there is a single tear in the corner of Marcus’s eye.  The emotion is easy to feel when listening to the song, but it intensifies greatly by watching the video.  

Because the creative style does evoke so much emotion dealing with losing something you’ve loved, or realizing you deserve more, Mumford and Sons appeals immensely to individuals around ages 25-35.  At those ages individuals have more than likely experienced a few failed relationships of their own, and often times are beginning to wonder if they’ll be alone forever, which is something nobody hopes for.  Through the use of creative style, Mumford and Sons can relate to their audiences emotions of heartache, let down, and feeling alone.  They are able to bring their audience back to their darkest times relationship-wise, yet really keep the listeners hope and goal of a successful relationship alive.  Through their lyrics, Mumford and Sons create emotions of the strength to carry on, and the confidence that you will find someone who treats you well, as well as the ability to respect yourself and know what you deserve.  Overall, Mumford and Sons seems to be intending to make their listeners know that they are not alone, we’ve all been through relationship ups and downs, which is very comforting, and a big part of why I think this band has had so much success.                                                             

Looking into the rhetorical devices used that helped in creating these emotions; the main device used in this song is the use of epizeuxis.  Lines such as “your heart, your heart..” “your love, your love”, and “Lead me to the truth and I will follow you with my whole life” are repeated immediately after they are stated.  The use of the words heart, love, and truth are very revealing to the emotional text in particular, because all three of those words trigger various intense emotions of caring.  Each of those words mean so much more than just the word itself, which is why Mumford & Sons chooses to use the creative style, to evoke such deep emotions of love, tenderness, and devotion.  

There is also the large amount of times “and” is used in the lyrics, which is polysyndeton.  This is probably used in order to build up the story and to create a feeling of multiplicity.  It’s almost cueing the audience that there is going to be even more emotion loaded onto the emotion that’s already been expressed.  It’s almost as if it’s an overload of emotions.  There are a few times where hyperboles or exaggerations can be found within the lyrics, such as when it says, “give her your heart”, and “lead me to the truth”, and “loving you with my whole heart”.  It would be hard to actually physically give someone your heart, just as it’s not possible to lead someone to the truth, because “truth” isn’t a physical object.  But, there are emotional undertones in these exaggerations, because the emotions involved with metaphysically giving your heart to someone is a big deal.  You’re giving them all your trust and raw emotions, and it’s easy to get hurt when you do this.  These metaphors and exaggerations create that emotion and imagery in the listener’s mind of loving someone so much that you don’t have any walls up, you’re all theirs.  Those are all very strong emotions.    

There are also two phrases in which the use of an adjective is used to describe something that doesn’t necessarily need to be further explained, “swelling rage”, and “white blank page”.  The writer of this song could have just used the word “rage”, or “blank page” or “white page” as descriptions, but he elaborated probably to create a clear image in the listener or readers mind and emphasize how much rage there is, or how blank the page is.  This is another way in which emotion is evoked, because everything is described in such detail that it paints the picture in your mind.  As the listener you’re picturing a swelling rage (anger), and a white blank page (possibly erasing the relationship).  Because these lines aren’t until later in the song, they already have the audience’s emotions revved up, so the use of descriptive words just helps to not lose any of the strong emotions they are feeling already.

There is also the possible use of allusion when the lyrics state, “kneel before the king”.  I would assume this means God, but the fact that “king” is not capitalized, it makes me question who he is referring to for sure.  But if the listener pictured God, symbolically someone who is able to pass the type of judgment that he’s looking to find would be someone who is able to admit to his or her faults and be humble.  So “kneel before the king” creates the emotion of surrendering to your own faults, or humbling yourself.     

Mumford and Sons would not be able to evoke the types of emotions they want to create through plain or official styles, because those styles come out and say exactly what they mean directly.  The creative style allows there to be interpretation, allowing the audience to imagine their own experiences into their minds while listening to “White Blank Page” because of the shared emotions.  When they use creative style to evoke sadness with a relationship, the listener is able to think of a time they felt sad with a relationship, and make that song their own with their own experiences.  If Mumford and Sons had chosen plain style, it wouldn’t have been as relatable for listeners because the emotions aren’t implied with those styles, they’re provided. The creative style has many implied emotions through the use of rhetorical devices, allowing the story of the song become lifelike in the mind of each listener.       

- Katie TerBeest 

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/mumfordsons/whiteblankpage.html (Lyrics)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Od0PJp6GI (Video)

Smashing Windows with Dr. Gonzo

Hunter S. Thompson is a man renowned for his contributions to the journalistic style dubbed Gonzo, one which favors reports from personal experiences and emotion, often through use of sarcasm and satire. While Thompson’s journalistic style was readily available, I chose to look at how he used rhetorical devices of the creative style to communicate in a personal letter, “The Pro-Flogging View”, which he wrote in response to his friend and fellow artist Ralph Steadman. The letter that this responds to is a desperate plea from Steadman for parenting advice regarding his son. The letter is grounded in a similar regard to Gonzo journalism, with its focal point hinged on elements of the creative style, meant to be a cut-to-the-core satire that bites at the situational irony of Steadman’s son breaking windows, when Steadman, as an artist, was renowned for his politically satirical artwork. “The Pro-Flogging View” further uses similar elements of the Gonzo style by positioning Thompson in an objective viewpoint which focuses on his own experiences and direct reaction to the letter he received from Steadman originally.

The opening line conveys not only the essence of Thompson’s journalistic style, but also multiple instances of the Creative Style tinged with satire:

“I received your tragic letter about your savage, glue-sniffing son and read it while eating breakfast at 4:30 a.m. on the edge of Mobile Bay...and I made some notes on your problem, at the time, but they are not the kind of notes that any decent man would want to send to a friend...So I put them away until I could bring a little more concentration to bear on the matter...”

As a response to the received letter, Thompson uses Apostrophe to directly address Steadman and his plight. He goes a step further, belittling Steadman’s son through meiosis, attaching the term “savage” and “glue-sniffing”. But this also functions as epitheton, and similar terms are attached throughout the letter, but the attached attributes and belittlement actually serve to amplify Thompson’s belittlement of Steadman, rather than his son, in the claim for advice on parenting. All of these creative elements reassert Thompson’s satirical stance toward Steadman. 

Another section of the letter is ripe with rhetorical devices: 

England is the wrong place for a boy who wants to smash windows. Because he’s right, of course. He should smash windows. Anybody growing up in England today without a serious urge to smash windows is probably too dumb for help.

You are reaping the whirlwind, Ralph. Where in the name of art or anything else did you ever see anything that said you could draw queer pictures of the prime minister and call her worse than a denatured pig- but your own son shouldn’t want to smash windows?

 

Thompson uses Diacope, the split repetition of the phrase “smash windows”, to emphasize the core concept of his satire. Each time he amplifies the idea through additional detail, noting that anyone without the urge “is probably too dumb for help.” “You are reaping the whirlwind,” Thompson says, pulling from the proverb that the actions of Steadman’s son are the natural consequence of Steadman’s propensity to smash windows with his artwork. Thompson uses exemplum, the concrete example from Ralph’s life, to deny the intolerance of the father to the son’s actions. Of course Steadman asked for no permission to “draw queer pictures of the prime minister” or “call her worse than a denatured pig”, but that is the nature of satire, which then serves a double purpose because of Thompson’s choice of these devices. They all capitalize on the shortcomings on Steadman’s thoughts regarding his situation, and Thompson uses this ridicule in the letter to emphasize that point.

Four other continuous fragments from the letter serve as savage blows to the request from Steadman:

What do you think we’ve been doing all these year? Do you think you were getting paid for your goddamn silly art? 

No, Ralph. You were getting paid to smash windows. And that is an art in itself. The trick is getting paid for it. 

What? Hello? Are you still there, Ralph? 

You sniveling, hypocritical bastard.  

 

Thompson uses hypophora to berate Steadman first, setting up his swings with an intensity that reads like he is screaming the words in your face. He asks the questions and then follows them with the answers regarding the window smashing nature of Steadman’s son. This time, however, diacope is used to echo “paid” and “art”. Thompson is asserting that there is an artful variant of smashing windows through the right channels that lends itself to payment if harnessed in the right way, which he and Steadman have both been doing through their respective art forms.  The “What? Hello? Are you still there, Ralph?” that follow are rhetorical questions and direct address that emphasize the impact that Thompson was aiming for. “You sniveling, hypocritical bastard,” he follows, delivering another satirical blow that only adds to his argument through epitheton and meiosis.

As Thompson says regarding his words, “they are not the kind of notes that any decent man would want to send to a friend.” But Thompson doesn’t typically regard himself as a decent man, and he doesn’t spare the use of any harsh words in the letter to Steadman. Through use of all the rhetorical devices highlighted, Thompson repeatedly smashes the windows that Ralph Steadman tries to keep in place. He wants direct access to Steadman’s thoughts, not just the view offered through the transparent windows, and when he breaks the window, he doesn’t let the satire drop, even when he writes the post-script: “P.S.: Jesus, Ralph, I think I might have misspoke myself when I said ten thousand would cover it for the murderous little bastard. No. Let’s talk about thirty, Ralph. You’ve got a real monster on your hands. I wouldn’t touch him for less than thirty.”

As successful as Thompson’s style is at delivering his message, it is also important to look at the context of the letter. While originally intended for Steadman, the letter was also published in Thompson’s book, “Generation of Swine – Gonzo Papers Vol. 2: Tales of Shame and Degradation in the ‘80’s.” The book is a collection of political articles published by Thompson throughout the end of the 1980’s that highlight both the lived experience in the political climate, and the foul nature of politics near the end of a decade. Given the fact that it is dated April 21, 1986, one week after the previous article included, it is likely that it was published as an article in the San Francisco Examiner like the other articles.

Why, amongst the political turmoil of the other articles, does Thompson take the time to include this letter? Not only does it paint the image of deprivation in a world where windows should be broken, but the letter also points to it as a requirement for anyone that is intelligent. “Children are like TV sets,” Thompson states, “When they start acting weird, whack them across the eyes with a big rubber basketball shoe. How is that for wisdom?” Something wrong with it? No. I don’t think so. Today’s plate-glass window is tomorrow’s BBC story.” How do you build a career around smashing windows without raising a child prone to doing the same, even if he throws a brick instead of paint, ink, or type-written text? You don’t, and Thompson is candid enough to point that out you don’t avoid it. You embrace it. And in a readership steeped amongst a generation of “huge brains, small necks, weak muscles and fat wallets,” smashing windows might have been the most sane, grounding option available. Res ipsa loquitur.

Mitch Marty

Thompson, Hunter S. Generation of Swine: Tales of Shame and Degradation in the '80s. New York: Summit, 1988. Print.

Artwork by Ralph Steadman.

Guns: Who is in Control?

            One of the largest issues open for debate in government policy now is gun control and gun rights. Almost daily, arguments and rhetoric can be heard from both sides of the issue trying to prove what path of acting or proceeding needs to be taken in order to stop, reduce or control the amount of gun violence we have in America. Since the election of Barack Obama in November 2008 and again in 2012, right wing Republicans, the National Rifle Association and gun lobbyists have continuously spread panicked information about how this will be the final frontier for the right of Americans to keep and own guns. Wayne LaPierre is the Executive Vice President and CEO of the National Rifle Association. LaPierre is in charge of the NRA’s 76 member board of directors and oversees the organization’s policy. He is considered to be an outspoken hardliner on gun control rights and is no stranger to extreme rhetoric to promote his cause according to the National Rifle Association’s own website under their title of “Who is the NRA’s Leadership?” He is the man in charge of organizing others against Democratic politicians, making contacts with the public through the use of articles, the NRA website, or appearances on television. LaPierre is the public voice being used and creating the outspoken opinion of gun freedom.

            In an article entitled “Stand and Fight” from the NRA website, Wayne LaPierre uses this persuasion for the reader in brief, clear, non-misleading language that it is time to take action in the American fight for guns. Many feel his rhetoric is extreme. However, it follows the guidelines of the plain style by using a basic approach, specifying and considering who the reader is, where it will be used, and for what reason. His audience is an identified group and his articles are clearly created for them. Because of this, he can focus on what is important for these people in this cause. He knows what to use as top information and the questions or opinions of the readers to focus on. In one way, he does not have to be inclusive to everyone because he already has his key demographic. Examples of LaPierre identifying his audience are throughout the article. He begins with the statement “Before I tell you how the NRA and our members are going to stand and fight,” immediately shows the plain style tactic of addressing the audience and inserting personal pronouns. When a personal pronoun such as “you” is used, the reader may feel he or she is being directly addressed and is then more likely to understand what their personal responsibility is to the cause. LaPierre recognizes and relates to his audience throughout his article with the words “good Americans, good citizens, decent people, law abiding Americans, fabric of America, NRA members, Army of freedom, gun owners, shooters and freedom lovers” and finishes with a call to “freedom loving NRA patriots.”

Others statements make allusions to contrast the good citizens of the NRA against the criminal element he feels the need to stand and fight against. Claims for good Americans to be ready “for lawful protection against violent criminals who prey” or the president who “flagrantly defies” construction of protective walls around the Mexican border. He also includes radical statements to contrast against the identified ideal reader so they know the importance of action. “After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.” He cries Obama is “leading” the country to financial ruin and at some point we will all be forced to either protect ourselves or pay for protection from others. Much of his article is dedicated to alarming the reader about how close we are to a full on political and cultural collapse of everything we know and as “good Americans” we must “buy firearms, anticipate a confrontation” and “withstand the siege that is coming.”

This introduces his next use of plain style rhetoric. Wayne LaPierre writes his articles with active verbs and active voice. The active voice emphasizes the doer of the action. It makes his arguments briefer, more concise, clearer and more empathetic than if it were written passively. Statements written in active voice fill his article. Some examples are “tens of millions of Americans are always preparing, prudently getting ready to protect themselves.” They are “lining up in front of gun stores, exercising their freedom” or “demonstrating they have a mass determination to buy, own and use firearms.” He contrasts these thoughts by using the active voice for the other side of the gun control argument saying “the enemies of freedom demonize gun owners and portray them as social lepers.” He states and restates the importance of acting now before the others get a chance to take away the freedom of owning a gun. He writes to his readers “We must meet that challenge,” because there is “no doubt” the federal courts will “become worse and worse” until anti-gun laws are enacted in most states helped along by “the national media, with its slanted and inaccurate “news” coverage of the gun issue.” Strong messages from the NRA continuously pour out reusing the fear that Pres. Obama will definitely take the guns away. LaPierre even feels the news coverage of the gun issue has given the gun banning groups the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertising every year.

The complexities of creating comprehensive gun control become problematic just based on the difficulty and ability to explain the many parts or aspects needed to come together in order to build a policy to be accepted by a majority of people. Building gun control becomes so entangled with the rights, opinions and culture held by Americans making new legislation would definitely need complex, official style rhetoric. It is far easier for a character such as Wayne LaPierre to make plain style arguments promoting the opinion of the NRA. This is one final aspect of plain style rhetoric. It is easy to read, arrange an argument, organize, write and design while keeping the information flowing so it can be understood by the majority of the public and easily be passed on through conversation and lifestyle. Complex words, unnecessary qualifiers, multiple negatives and ambiguous words have all been avoided in order to create information more easily accessible to all. The article “Stand and Fight” has a Flesch-Kincaid ninth-grade reading level. This reading level is low enough for the vast majority to understand the argument being presented on this website. Plain style rhetoric relies on being short, concise, well laid out and designed for consumption. It is meant to be simple and direct with the goal of straightforward delivery of this information/opinion.

Gun lobbyists dispense these easy to explain pro-gun ownership arguments in newspapers, magazines, television appearances, and on websites through the use of plain prose style rhetoric but they are simplistic, one-sided, biased and seem to solely function in the one activity systems for which they were created. There is no substance to back this particular article “Stand and Fight.” It is a persuasion editorial for the opinions of the NRA and powerful gun lobbyists. These lobbyists have enough money behind them and enough power in the government system that it would take the most apparent and extreme actions to make any changes in the legislation around gun rights. The numbers for or against gun control are difficult to interpret because there are so many different ways to question the public about their feelings. Statistics can be used on either side of the debate with both sides remaining certain the country needs either more gun freedom or incredibly strict gun control. Because the statistics and the information can so quickly become biased in one direction or another, many people find it incredibly difficult to create an idea about how to fix a problem based in the activity systems of culture, politics, money, history and an idealized American identity. Only through a calm and educated discussion of all possible gun control pros and cons could the country arrive at any sort of comprehensive conclusion as to how to proceed with legislation.

Just recently, April 17, 2013; a gun control bill was voted down by the Senate despite the fact recent tragedies had the majority of the population of the United States in favor of laws limiting clip size and calling for background checks on gun purchases. A transcript from a speech given by Pres. Obama on April 17 in the Rose Garden of the White House helps to illustrate how a minority of not only the general population, but also a minority of Senate members were able to vote against a bill so many people wanted. Within moments of beginning to speak he refers to the failed bill as “common sense gun reforms,” according to Time Magazine’s transcript titled “President Obama’s Speech on Gun Control Bill Defeat.” He goes on to speak of about how 90% of Americans are in favor of stricter gun control, especially the support of a universal background check on gun purchasers. Many Americans already thought a background check was included before purchasing a weapon. “A few minutes ago, 90% of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea, but it’s not going to happen because 90% of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.” The bill had been drafted by a Democrat and a Republican and was created in a way so as not to infringe on the Second Amendment right, but to only extend the responsibility of a background check to all purchases. It was intended to show respect for both victims of gun violence and gun owner rights. Wayne LaPierre himself used to support background checks. However, gun control has become a strongly contested bipartisan issue. The relations between Obama and Republican politicians have created strong party lines Republican members will not cross. Obama continues his speech with great information about the bias and lies that ruin this opportunity for change.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators.

The culture of Americans and guns are always going to be a challenging barrier for gun control. At the end of both arguments, the decisions over what to do about gun violence may just come down to the more important idea of humanities and how we learn how to handle each other in society. One side may always feel we need more guns and the other side will remain asking for fewer weapons and more rules, but none of this will change the amount of the firearms which are already out in the general public or stop someone from acquiring the weapon they want if they are really driven. I feel the time and the money could be spent better on education and equality instead of the never ending argument over who deserves firearms and who does not. Opinions on this matter will always be difficult to change. The rhetoric used by LaPierre and the NRA only creates a perception of fear that is believed to be true without valid knowledge and consideration for the entire societal system.

Keeley McConaughey