Just be me

Kurt Vonnegut writes a matter of fact inspirational article, How to write with style. In the article Vonnegut gives 8 simple steps on how to become a better writer by generally being true to who you are. He states that by keeping things short and simple for both readers and yourself your personal style will come naturally and from the heart (Vonnegut, 1980, p.66). Also trying to write a masterpiece will not come from trying to write like someone else.

            Young American students are who this article is directed towards, because Vonnegut makes comments about his experiences with teachers. Relating his thoughts back to teachers helps a student reader make a connection by experiencing a similar frustration or understanding. One example that he uses is; “The one most vehemently recommended by teachers has no doubt been pressed on you, as well: to write like cultivated Englishmen of a century or more ago.”(Vonnegut, 1980, p.67).  I believe that Vonnegut is trying to show up-and-coming writers that striving to write like someone else is not the way to become a great writer.

            Using a clearly laid out format of numbered headings allows the readers to easily remember the main points of the essay. One of the most affective points is the first one where he explains the importance of having passion in your subject. Having to write a paper about something that does not matter to you will show through in your writing (Vonnegut, 1980, p.66). Having fun and enjoying writing are the core messages of Vonnegut’s piece, and this also shows through in the pictures that accompany the writing, which show a humorous side.

            The paper is somewhat dated and that shows by the actually visual of the paper, but is still seems current maybe that is because the message he sends is somewhat timeless. Vonnegut restates this message as his concluding sentence by saying that you could be the most poetic writer, but when you do not have anything important to say, no one will listen (Vonnegut, 1980, p.67)

So the question I pose is this; what point if any is there to study different types and styles of reading when we should just be ourselves?

This little piggy had none

I found Thomas Friedman’s 30 Little Turtles, to be somewhat vague as to the actual purpose of the excerpt, which remained so until the very end when it is put in perspective. Friedman’s article talks about his first hand experience in situations dealing with young people from Bangalore and Ramallah. Through these experiences Friedman discovers some positive effects of outsourcing from Canada and the United States. These jobs translate to high paying jobs in other countries and enable people to obtain a higher standard of living (Friedman, 2008, p.176-177).   

I believe the intended audience for this article is your working class American and Canadian, and I believe so because there is a lot of turmoil around sending jobs to other countries. There has been a lot of negative press around this issue and hearing the positive side of the argument might help people see how it can benefit us. Friedman uses a form of pathos by using first hand experiences and stating that the people whom he interacts with is just looking for a better standard of life like many of us are trying to do as well. This I find to be very effective, but the example where talking about a caller saying “I am glad I reached an Indian” (Friedman, 2008, p.177), this I find contradicts the general public’s opinion. There is also a form of ethos, which is not in the writing particularly, but in the mini biography before the writing. After reading the bio, which lists his numerous successes, I found myself thinking this has got to be insightful; he’s won three Pulitzer’s!

                I found the ending to be quite strong, but it was partially because I was now finally learning his point, which I actually found to be more effective that way.  One conclusion that does not seem to be effective is, “we make not only a prosperous world, but a safer world” (Friedman, 2008, p.177), which makes me question his thinking. In reality it is making North America a more unemployed continent, and although it helps them it also hurts us.

Do you think that there could be a better solution than outsourcing to help other countries have higher standard of living instead? Do you think that Friedman’s article length helps or hinders making his point?