Tuesday, August 08, 2006


I wish that I did not wait till my final year here at UT to take this course. I think that it would have been beneficial to me in the past few years. My writing has always been on the weaker side. I think this course has made me see that writing can be more that just a summary of what you know, but a means of persuasion.
Before when I would write my papers I would just write everything out, turn it in and forget about it and hope for the best. Now that I have to rewrite my papers adding and subtracting things to make it better, I see better what I was lacking or other problems there were. I always got back comments on my papers that I needed more evidence to support my topics and with the abilty revise now I feel better about my papers when I turn them in because I know that I was able to fix things.
I noticed a change recently in a debate with my friend. I usually argue in a way that was close minded and I only wanted the other person to see my point while I shot down everything the other person had to say. While I was talking I noticed that by doing so I wasnt being very persuasive and I thought to myself that I was being like Thrasymachus. This changed the way I was talking and I think that I got my point across without alienating my friends views.


This is the first rhetoric class I’ve taken, so my understanding on this subject has definitely expanded. Actually, I did not even know what rhetoric and rhetorical analysis were. I thought maybe the class would be analyzing symbolism, characters, and whatnot. But it wasn’t. However, I did think it would help improve my writing skills…and improve my writing skills it did. I feel that I am now more organized in my writing. For example, I am cautious not to throw out random claims in paragraphs and not support them with evidence. Those handouts given in class (essay structure, using evidence, etc) were very helpful. They allowed me to pinpoint some of my bad writing habits and change them. My skills on writing persuasive introductions have also improved. I now know what kind of introductions to avoid when writing a persuasive paper. Also, this class exposed me to many rhetoric styles that have changed the way I analyze certain readings and persuasion styles. It’s interesting to know the different names of different rhetoric styles and what they are. I thought everybody’s ideas in class were interesting and they had made me look at our topics in a different, more in-depth way. This class has taught me useful knowledge and I will take it with me and apply them whenever I will have to do some sort of rhetorical analysis or write another paper.

blog #11 Reflections

At the beginning of the course, I didn't really know what this course was about. I knew that we would be reading novels and writing some type of paper about it. What I didn't know is that we would be writing persuasive argumentive papers. I was surprised that there were many types of of persuasion. For example, Aristotle's Rhetoric with his ethos, pathos, and logos; Austin's Speech Act Theory; Burke's Pentad; and Booth's method. Writing our papers have been quite challenging for me. I didn't seem to understand the concept of a rhetorical analysis with The Republic. It showed in my writing because I found The Republic a hard book to understand. It was difficult to know what Plato was trying to get at. However, I enjoyed the book, We, so much more because it was easier to read. The story became more interesting as Zamyatin's fictional story connected with his own life experience. It was fun finding out the message that he tried to get across. I've noticed that with both books, the subject was about utopian societies. One showed us the arguments and persuasions of wanting a utopian society. The other showed us a perfect society, but brought us persuasions and arguments of whether it is considered perfect or not. Overall, I believe that my understanding of writing and rhetoric has improved considering the time restraint of this course.

Final Entry...

Until now, I have not needed to take a serious rhetoric or english course here. I tested out of it awhile ago, so my skills were a little rusty. Though the course was short and very compacted, I do feel as if I've learned some valuable lessons. My overall writing skills have improved a bit, thanks to the multiple discussings of how to write in a convincing manner, etc. I thought plato's book was a bit hard to read and not the most exciting book; but I thought that We was great. It was something that I might even have picked up on my own. I like how we explored the idea of utopia throughout the whole course and how it weaved into both of the very different readings we had. I learned alot about different persuasion styles through the teachings of burke, austin, boothe, and more. I like how we did the blogs. I felt like it was an in class discussion where we didn't have any reseravations in particpating. I think its a great idea that many classes should utilize. I'm actually surprised how much I've learned in such little time. Stuff that will benefit me to no doubt in future classes, and even life as well. I liked the learning record somewhat. I like how it was a great tool for getting feedback on your work without worrying about receiving a grade. I thought the observations part of it were neat and I liked how you could prove your grade, whether you deserved it or not. I liked learning how to argue it. I still need to work on my writing and my style in general, however, and learned that I have a lot left TO learn about it all.


Last blog! Wow....

At the beginning of this semester, I didn't even understand what rhetoric really was. And I most certainly didn't know how to write a rhetorical analysis paper... I thought I sucked at writing in general, and avoided it as much as possible. Hence, why all my writing components were left for my senior year here at UT... Not a good idea btw. I'm glad I learned about some of the major theories of rhetoric and the proper formula for rhetorical analysis papers for future reference. I wish I could say that I'm an expert at applying this knowledge when it really comes time to write my papers, but I can't. I still have trouble finding the right evidence for my claims, and my introductions definitely still need work. But at least I've improved. (The finding evidence thing really sucks when it comes time for the LRO, though. I never know what to put as proof of my improvement throughout the course. Oh well... moving on.) And I loved observing the discussions/debates in class. It's a great learning experience, even if I don't ever join in. (I don't particularly like the sound of my own voice and public speaking is honestly kind of terrifying.) But listen to others debate about the novels we read or the theories we learned was a great way to get multiple perspectives on the same topic. This blog actually does the same thing as well, which is cool. The most important thing I learned this month, however, is that almost everything I was taught in elementary through high school about writing was a bunch of crap. It helped me none in this course... What a wonderful feeling to know 12 years of taking Language Arts was a waste...

In closing, I would just like to say that everyone in this class was awesome... very fine people. I hope you guys have a wonderful 2 1/2 week break before we have to get back for the Fall.

Rhetoric? What's that?

I can say without a doubt that this course has been a very valuable learning experience for me. Up to this point all I had ever written was literary analysis- symbolism, diction, etc. I didn’t realize it, but I didn’t even know what rhetorical analysis was. Huge improvements may be observed between my first and second papers- let’s just say the first one was A-W-F-U-L. Even though I have improved, I’ve spent the better part of my weekend revising and editing my second draft/submission of my paper, and still have some work to go. I think I’ve really achieved a better understanding of the time I need to spend writing, revising, etc. my work.
I similarly found the blog to be extremely helpful in this class. It provided a really great way to get your ideas out there, and then get peer feedback on your thoughts. By reading and commenting on other people’s blogs I also was able to better understand the context of the novels and improve upon my own ideas. It was a great way to get and give constructive criticism.
Having The Elements of Persuasion really helped me understand just what rhetoric was, and proved to be extremely useful during essay writing. I really enjoy Aristotle and Burke’s methods, but feel I could still achieve a better understanding of Austin’s Speech Act Theory- it’s still a little blurry to me in context.
I believe the two novels we read will also be beneficial in my future. The Republic and We both forced me to evaluate my ideas of a utopia, and more importantly, made me step back and evaluate my own society in a light I had never seen it in before. I selected essay 1b for our second paper- why is imagination a social construction, etc.- and it really made me question my own societal values and why they exist.
**I wish ya’ll the best, make sure to enjoy the rest of summer!


I really have learned a lot in this class. The last time I took rhetoric was my frehmen year and now I'm a senior so I really had forgotten everything.

The rhetorical theories we learned by Burke, Austin and Booth were all new to me. I knew a little about Aristotle but this class went into far more detail about his rhetoric than my other class did.

I learned about the formula to writing rhetorically: claim, evidence and interpretation. Trust me if you read my first paper you wold know that I didn't know this formula existed.

I learned about the types of introductions that are useful and those that are not. Ever since I can remember I've been using the summary lead to start off my papers. I know in jr high and high school that is what they told us to use.

I also learned how to better incorporate quotes into my paper. After going over the handout about quotes it seemed like when I used these things in my paper it made it sound better. The statements that it said were good to use coming out of quotes was also helpful for my paper.

I don't really like to argue with people that much, but if I did this class has correctly shown me how to do so. It also showed me how to argue for the grade I want in a class.


My understanding and application of rhetoric has improved throughout this whole semester. I started out trying to figure out just what rhetorical analysis was and how to approach our first paper. My mindset was still focused on something I learned when I was in high school. From the books on rhetoric and the examples in class I was able to get a firm standing on the topic. I no longer asked “what” regarding the text, but rather “why” it was written. I feel that the blogs were an excellent way for peer to peer communication in class. By posting almost everyday I was able to better understand the areas of the book that seemed confusing. The input by others allowed me to incorporate their ideas into my thoughts. The reading we did for this class also provoked me to think critically about our society and way of thinking. I guess my expectations for this class was low, because I feel the knowledge I learned this semester will help me become a better writer. Finally, perhaps the most important part about this class was that I never felt the pressure of being judged as far as my writing was concerned. The constructive comment allowed me to get a different perspective on my writing and in turn allow me to focus on the areas I am weak at. I guess thats it, the only thing left is to turn in the paper.

Rhetorical Reflection

This course has developed my idea of rhetoric in several helpful ways. First of all, I have found this Blog itself to be a useful creator of rhetoric and rhetorical analysis. If I had trouble understanding the novels, or just wanted another opinion on the topics assigned, I was able to get my answers here. As a forum for rhetoric itself, the Blog has shown me the power of internet discussion in the classroom setting. Second, the novels we read helped improve my general understanding of rhetorical methods employed by authors. Third, I found the rhetorical analysis theories of Burke, Booth, and Austin to be new and extremely helpful models. I feel as though I now have new tools I can apply later in other classes. Fourth, in having to write papers involving topics and methods I had not tried before, I found my capacity for new types of writing grew substantially.

Hopefully I will continue to use the experience I have gained in this course in my further studies. I have a feeling I will be using at least The Elements of Persuasion to help me write rhetorical analysis papers later on if not also having an opportunity to reference We or The Republic.

no mo mo more blogs after this :(

ok GOOD NEWS. my blog just got erased. so now i'm re-writing it. I LOVE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok anyways, about my writing.....I know that i have learned a lot of ways to improve my writing...theoretically. But I'm not entirely sure that I am proficient at applying them. For example, I know that I need to convince the audience that I'm the person to answer the questions that are posed in the introduction, but I don't really know HOW to do that in my writing. I always think I'm supposed to say, "Why does this happen? Well just trust me, I know the answer because I'm a senior at UT and therefore I am a credible sorce."
I do think that I've improved in my use and placement of quotations in my writing, however. And I also do a more thorough job of explaining the signifcance of the quotation that I use and how it relates to my argument.
But what can you really expect after one month? I didn't think my writing would be out of this world by the end of the course, but I am glad that it improved. That's what's important afterall....according to the Learning Record Online, at least.

Final blog

Well, I didn't really have that much of an understanding of rhetoric/writing to begin with so this class was sort of a catch up session for me. I learned a lot about how to persuade the audience but I think I am still struggling with basic concepts and have much more learning to do. I think the technical skills and grammar in my writing need a lot of improvement and are very big roadblocks that hinder me.

I always viewed english as a subject that would not be very appealing to me but this semester I realized how important it is to be able to communicate clearly. My perception of what rhetoric is and what it can be used for has also changed greatly. I never really thought about how the audience views the speaker and the connection between the two. The whole thing on the different types of rhetoric(listening rhetoric a, b, etc) was a huge eyeopener for me because I never realized how much of it I see in my life.

I enjoyed poking around at the concepts of utopia because I never really thought about it before and my perception of life has been shaken around a little. I think the readings were not difficult but the ideas were overwhelming to my adolescent brain. I had difficulty trying to think the concept of utopia them and even when I tried to make decisions for myself, I kept thinking how people must have debated this for centuries and my ideas are probably not original or correct.


Sorry this is late, I misread the due date. Here goes:

How to begin? I guess that one of the things that has changed most as a result of this class is my understanding of persuasive writing. From this class I have learned the importance of embedding quotes in the text to strengthen your argument by providing evidence. I have also learned how incredibly important it is to support your quotes with analysis. Before, I was under the mistaken impression that quotes were to be used to simply provide extra proof of what you had already said. I now know that quotes do not speak for themselves, and that you have to tell the reader what he should be taking from the quote. Also, I had always written my papers with the bland summary introduction. Learning the different types of introductions and why each one is good or bad was helpful for me, and I now try to begin my papers with different types. I also enjoyed learning about the different theories regarding rhetoric, such as Booth's, Aristotle's, Burke's, and Austin's. Knowing the theories makes it easier for me to dissect what the author is trying to accomplish with his rhetoric. Lastly, this class has forced me to look deeper into the readings and uncover the true motives of the author. It's been fun, and the readings have kept me entertained. I'll see you guys in class tomorrow, but have a good rest of the summer.

Monday, August 07, 2006

blog 8/07

I have learned many new things about rhetorical writing this summer. I have learned to revise my writing in a way which I focus on capturing the readers attention. Previously, I never really thought capturing the readers attention was as important as i do now, and I have always written my introductions with the intention of setting up an organization for my paper, rather than trying to pull the readers into an interesting persuasive argument. Another important thing that I have learned is not to begin my papers with strong statements that may turn off readers from my writing. I have been so used to setting up my main points at the beginning of my paper that I have never thought about how this may affect someone reading my paper. I have learned to introduce my topic without making claims without evidence to support them. Another topic stressed in this class was to consider the arguments of the opposing side an incorporate this into your argument in the paper. This also helped me learn to make my papers more persuasive. For the most part, I have transformed my rhetorical analyses from simple analysis of an author's writing to analysis in a paper which is appealing to the intended audience.

My Final Blog

When this class first started, I thought it was going to be just like high school AP classes in rhetoric. Back then, they did not teach you theories of rhetoric or how to write essays with different styles and elements. In this class, I was taught that there are many ways to write a paper, and following the standard 5 paragraph structure is not necessarily the most persuasive way to write. I feel as though my writing has developed in this class because I can now not only pick apart an author's writing, but also pick apart my own writing to see what is actually going on.
I also feel as though my abilitiy to analyze text has improved due to the various theories that we were taught. For example, knowing Booth's models of rhetoric, and J.L. Austin's Theories of Persuasion enable me to apply that knowledge outside of the classroom and discover more about whatever it is that I happen to be reading.
Although 5 weeks is really not that long to drastically improve one's writing skills, I do believe that I improved to the extent of what is possible in such a short period of time. It is true that I still have the tendency to revert back to what I learned in the past about writing, but that seems natural since I had only been writing that way for the past 10 years or so.
In conclusion, I feel that this class has been of more benefit to me than I had previously anticipated, and I will continue to use the knowledge that I gained in this class in my professional career.

-Nikhil Out

Blog de Final

In the past four weeks I think I've learned a number of key elements which factor into effective rhetoric. First off, I feel that I'm much more able to critically analyze a piece of text and deduce the the intended audience, which usually serves as the framework for further analysis of the author's illocution and perlocution. Also from that, I think that I am much better at knowing whether a rhetorical text would prove to be effective or ineffective and why. If I believe that the text was ineffective, I can usually locate the flaws in either the actual argument or the presentation of the argument, which allows me to better prepare my dissent.
In the realm of rhetorical writing I think I've improved a amount as well. I was trained to follow a very concrete and ordered 5-paragraph structure for writing, but I've realized that this format isn't ideal for persuasive writing. Stating your thesis too early usually causes individuals who do not share your viewpoint to be turned off quickly, so I've altered my style to hopefully induce my readers to be more susceptible to at least hearing my side of the argument.
I think I've also taught myself how to better construct each individual claim that I bring up by putting the claim in context, providing evidence for the claim, and most importantly interpreting that evidence so that it indisputably supports my claim. I realize that that is the most important part of rhetorical writing, because any "evidence" that you use to support your premises can be interpreted in a number of different ways, and your argument only proves effective if you can show how the evidence does support what your saying.
That's the jist. I'm sure I've learned more, but I think those are the key concepts that I'm now familiar with.

Final Thoughts

Persuasion and being persuasive have always been things that I have found interesting, being myself one who interests himself in debate and such things. However I have never had any kind of Rhetoric course, and therefore my knowledge of it has always been of a shaky, rudimentary, and non-fundamental nature.

However, since taking this class, I feel like I really have a concrete grasp of the elements involved in persuasion. This includes how/what a speaker/author should present to any given audience. I also feel that I myself have grown in my capacity for persuasiveness, taking into account different peoples' presuppositions among other things. And I feel undeniably that I am a better listener to those who would persuade me in analyzing their method and discovering whether it is honest or malicious, and seeing whether there is any actual pertinant substance to their argument.

I believe also that I have progressed as a writer significantly in all areas. From introduction, to organization and leading points into one another.

overall, I feel that I have cemented the once-foreign lessons of this class permanently into my knowledge, and that I will be well served by it in the future.

Final Blog

I have always thought persuasion and being persuasive is a very important skill to have, especially for my major- public relations. I have always felt that my persuasion skills and knowledge were undeveloped and not firm. Some people are better at persuading, for those who aren’t, like myself - we just have to get more training. Prior to taking this course, I have taken an English/literature class. However, the focus in that course was geared more towards literature analysis rather than rhetoric and persuasion. At the same time, I have been gone for one year to Japan, I also felt that my writing skills have become worse than before. This class has helped me learned how to persuade, through knowing the elements of persuasion, and has also helped me improve my writing. Knowing the different kinds of rhetoric methods such as listening rhetoric, win-rhetoric, bargin rhetoric, etc. has helped me understand more about the speaker's intention, whether it is a honest or malicisous one, and determining whether there is any significance to the arugment. The elements of persuasion I learned in class helped me analyze rhetorically and create firm, effective arguments for my writing. Another area I improved on is my writing, or structuring and organizing my argument in the paper to make it more effective, from the introduction to the lead, and the conclusion. Also, using the blogger, my classmates and I can exchange ideas. Reading each other's blog lets me realize other views, which may be slightly different from that of mine sometimes. I think this class has helped me obtain and improve life-long invaluable skills of persuasion and writing. I think I can take what I learned in this class and apply it somewhere in the future; it will definitely come in handy.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Last blog!

I could not really say what has happened to my writing with in the span of this past four weeks. Four weeks is kind of short to really develop or even improve. I view my writing to be sufficient for the average person. Out side of the English department and in the rest of the world writing is not going to come under the same scrutiny as it does now. If I can get by in the world with the way that my writing skills are now than that will be perfectly fine by me. Any improvements within my writing I do not know of. I do not know what my best form of writing style is but I do know that it is not rhetoric. It is just something that is analyzing to me. When I want to analyze something I sure will not put it into a paper. Reflecting back I feel that any rhetoric should be changed and allowed to bend and adjust for the individual’s style. My rhetoric is very bad. Any improvements that may have occurred are only going to be seen from the eyes of some one else because I do not notice much of a difference. My understanding of this subject is still bland. Coming in rhetoric was just another way to write a paper and it was still just a paper to me; nothing too different than that of an essay for a history class and now nothing has changed. That’s all.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Prompt 2

So I can't tell if anyone else from my group has posted yet, so here's some of the claims we came up with.

-Obviously the effectiveness of rhetoric depends largely upon the presuppositions that the audience holds. D's rhetoric would only be effective if the audience believed that the soul was bad, dreams were sickness, imagination was wrong, etc. They would also probably have to place as high an emphasis on logic, reasoning, etc.

-This is because D's logos was flawed (he went back and forth in his beliefs so much) and the ethos of the One State was kinda shady.

-D also assumes that his audience was more primitive than the One State, and this could also be false and a society similar to the One State could've been in their past already.

-The important thing though is that Zamyatin shows how implausible and inherently wrong a society like the One State is through D's inability to effectively "sell" the idea of the One State.


-The soul and imagination, emotion and personality are all treated as illnesses because it is forbidden in the one-state. Ironically, these all dominate the right side of the brain hemisphere. So when they mean lobotomy, they must mean one half of your brain; ie, one half of your being.
-by portraying the one-state in a way that seems positive at first, Zamyatin is actually trying to convey the opposite. He is taking what was happening in his own russian government at the time, and greatly exaggerating it to show how wrong everything could turn out.
-Zamyatin intends to reach the audience at hand where maybe he could inspire a small glimmer of hope, the artists guild to prove his worthiness and make his point.

claims 7/3

The writer of the One State Gazette uses the common value of happiness and the idea of perfection to appeal to the audience.

The word choices of the bulletin such as "purest" and "flawless" make the readers interested in what they are reading.

The writer of the One State Gazette uses pathos to first make the readers excited, then make them feel ashamed, and yet hopeful that they can be cured from their "sickness".

The writer uses a clear enthymeme so it is easy for the readers to make a connection to what the author is saying.

Nikhil and Sherry

D-503's persuasiveness is very eneffective to his Alien audience:

Using Aristotle's Ethos- D has Character flaws that make it hard to convince people that the One State is a good place to live.

Phronesis (practical wisdom or common sense)- D's common sense and is lost after his encounters with I330
Arete (moral virtue)- D begins having a firm grasp on what he believes is right or wrong and what should be done when others break the laws but when he meets I330 he his moral virtues are lost.

Eunoia (goodwill towards audience)- D talks about how freedom and imagination are barbarian and unsophisticated. His audience is unknown so if his Alien audience still practices freedom they may be offended.
Topic 1b.


1. The soul is treated as an illness because the One State views it as such. We should question she status quo and challenge the soical construction.

2. Zamyatin knew We was not going to be well recieved, therefore he used the One State to symbolize the Writers Union. He wanted to challenge the Writers Union opinion about his book.

3. Zamyatin was also writing the book to appeal to the Soviet Union's population as a way of questioning the social construction set by the government. This may include lack of freedom, speech, and control of imigination.

Ma Ma Main claims for Prompt 1b

This is the second time I have to type this cause Blogger erased EVERYTHING when I hit spell check cause the computer blocked the pop-up!!! Ahhhh!!!

Hola, Ash and Simon. Here are some of my arguments for my paper. I'll elaborate more when I write the actual paper, and of course, provide the support then as well. Here's what I got so far... Though it's a crappier version since my original was DELETED! Grrrrrrrrrr.

-Set up my pentad for D-503's "illness"... Which is going to be what I read to you guys in class yesterday.

-The One State treats imagination and soul as sicknesses because they affect how a person thinks and feels and the actions they take; Therefore, if you possess either of these, you will not be exactly like everyone else. And as we know, individuality is not an acceptable characteristic in the One State. (I think I'm going to take you advice here and incorporate the bulletin into this argument... more details later.)

-D-503 thinks his new personality and feelings are illnesses because he wants to use that as an excuse for why he broke the One State's rules. He convinces himself that he is not well and he is not in full control of his actions. This way, in his mind, he is still very loyal to the One State, because the "real" D-503 would never do anything that's not allowed. (I want to show that the nature of his sickness is a social construction moreso than a physical or mental ailment... again, details later.)

-Zamyatin created this element of the story to warn people of what could happen in Russia if totalitarianism reigned on: People would lose their freedom and feel bad for thinking and doing things they know are not bad but are not accepted in the eyes of their society. I'll read the intro and do a little more research to try and show that Zamyatin wrote this story as a reaction to the events that were taking place in Russia during that time.

-Zamyatin's argument would be effective on an audience of free-thinkers, non-communists, artists, etc. such as himself.

Sorry guys, no spell check this time... Not risking it. I'm not going to click any button other than "Publish"!! Hope you two have a grand "8 day" weekend!

Claims 1B

FOR: Nick, Ami
FROM: Jordan

Claims for 1B:

1. Abnormality and sickness are one and the same in the context of this society.

2. D-503 recognizes changes in his own personality (i.e. individuality, creativity, imagination, etc.) and rationalizes this "rule breaking" by considering himself to be "ill".
--> incorporate Burke's Pentad here, as seen through the eyes of D-503

3. Imagination and soul need to be cured because diversity is not valued in the One State; rather, it is a deterrent from true happiness.

4. Zamyatin presumes individuality and creativity to be good and valuable things. (maybe in intro?? what do you think?)

Hope ya'll have a great day at home on the couch! ;)


D-503’s rhetoric is not effective. Through Austin’s speech act theory, D-503’s persuasion of the One State being the best place to live is not convincing.
D-503 is not persuasive b/c according to the speech act theory, to be effective, it must be uttered correctly, completely, and sincerely…and D-503 does not utter it in those ways.

Speech act theory says that the purpose and intention of an utterance are equally important. D-503’s action is insisting that One State is the best way to live, instead of persuading.

Performatives are only effective if uttered by authorized people. D-503 is not any kind of authorized person over people’s lives. He is just a citizen of the One State.

Whenever we interpret a speech act, we take account of its probably intention. It may seem to the aliens that D-503 intends to look down on their way of life, mocking them, and saying he is better than them. That may make them not want to take D-503 seriously.

Promt 3c


Overall claim: the loyal citizens of the One State were convinced by the
imagination bulletin.

~Supporting claims:
• The citizens of the One State were taught that having a soul was bad
• The citizens want to be machinelike
• Everyone wants reason (the society is built on reason)
• Bulletin said that dreams will keep them awake all night
• Makes imagination sound like a nasty disease
• Makes the operation sound simple
• They want to be loyal to the One State and the Benefactor (I think I can find
evidence to back this up)
• Want to be perfect
• Think imagination will put an end to happiness

Overall claim: citizens of the One State dealing with an imagination will not be
persuaded by the bulletin

~Supporting claims:
• Don’t want to be perfect
• Want an imagination
• Don’t want to be run by the Benefactor
• Want to put an end to the One State
• Don’ think they are sick
• Don’t want to be run by reason

my claims

Here are my claim. I might move the analysis of zamyatin to the beginning? I don't know... tell me what yall think.

1. Analyze how D-503 thinks and why he thinks that way with a pentad.
2. D-503 uses the idea of illness to give rational explanations for his feelings.
3. Explain why his idea of illness is a social construction.
4. Analyze what Zamyatin was trying to communicate to his fellow authors through the idea of illness.
5. Analyze what might have driven Zamyatin to write about this based on what was going on during his time.

Wh Wh Wh What's the deal with D-503

Topic 2 Main Arguments:

-D-503 intially performs the act of writing We in order to articulate the perfect society for his alien audience. This goal is mostly explicit in D's words.

-D-503's "alien audience" can be interpreted in many ways: D-503 literally means an alien society, but as Zamyatin's real audience, we can see D's words as a critique of our own "primitive" ways.

-D-503 makes many implicit and explicit assumptions about his audience that undermine his initial intention: He assumes they will be able to read We. He assumes they will want to switch lifestyles. He assumes the greatest goal in society is happiness, and that the One State (and only the One State) has the right means to achieve that goal. He assumes the audience is more primitive, as the One State is supposed to be the pinnacle of societal formation.

-D-503's involvement in the opposition to the One State calls his original intention into question.

-Though he fails to follow through with the opposition plot, his involvement highlights the reasons why people would choose not to live in the One State.

-Both D-503's alien audience and Zamyatin's intended and real audiences would be hard pressed to be fully convinced by his argument (seeing as even D questions his own beliefs).

-D-503's illocution: Follow the One State
-His audience's potential perlocution: Confusion and doubt based on the questions raised against the One State. Though this does not defeat D's argument, it surely weakens it.

Topic 3c

My topic for the paper is 3c.

Main Arguments:
· The bulletin issued by the One State demonstrates an intimate understanding by the One State of the Aristotelian model of rhetoric, as the One State attempts to use common sense and bold statements to manage their image with the citizens.
· The One State’s use of the bulletin as a rhetorical tool is persuasive to some groups and unconvincing (to say the least) to others. The hardcore supporters of the One State no doubt see the bulletin as a reaffirmation of their beliefs, while the revolutionaries would most likely be provoked further. Finally, there is a group in the middle (including D-503) who are not eager to be persuaded by the notice, but at the same time lean towards supporting the One State.
· The One State is not completely honest in its argument, and has underlying reasons for its deception, mainly the preservation of the society. I intend to explore these underlying motives and discuss whether or not they affect the persuasiveness of the bulletin.
· I will analyze how persuasive the bulletin would be to the different main characters of the book, including D-503, I-330, U, and O.

blog #10 Prompt

I am doing prompt 1b. Here are my claims so far. Please leave me some helpful feedback. Thanks.

1) Having an imagination and a soul is abnormal.

2) Zamyatin wrote the element of the story about D-503 experience with the illness, to show how imperfect a utopian society could be in contrast to our own society.

3) Nothing is totally perfect. However, the closest possibility of being perfect would take sacrifices.

4) The existence of a soul can be seen as good or bad, depending on your surroundings, values, and beliefs.

5) Using Burke’s method of dramatism, having an imagination and a soul may be a terrible discovery for D-503, but in our society we may perceive it differently.

Prompt 1A

Here’s what I have so far… feel free to leave me comments!

- Using J.L Austin’s speech act theory, I will illustrate how D-503’s preoccupations and values are reflections of the society One State.. like his obessession with math and accuracy and personality..
- Illustrate why the values of One State are not good for the people by pointing out what people’s desires and values are....
- Illustrate how on the surface level, the One State is a satire of the perfectly ordered, systematic kind of society.
- link how We and the futuristic society of One State is actually a satire of the Russian government.
- Explain what are the possible reactions and responses of the All-Russian Writers Union and the international community

Claims on Prompt 3c

So, my main claims for my paper are going to be:

-Using Booth- The One State (benefactor/author of the bulletin) is engaging in Win-Rhetoric B, by convincing citizens of the state to undergo the operation. They know it is harmful to the people, but it preserves the general order of the One State, therefore they still post it.
-The One State is also engaging in Win-Rhetoric C because they know that what they are doing is really unjust, but it is profitable to them (to remain in absolute control) and therefore will use, as Booth says, "rhetrickery that appears to be honest".
-As Booth points out, "...rhetoric is just plain immoral: the speaker is cheating, lying, manipulating, deliberately distorting"-- this supports the claim that the One State was not acting ethically, which also suggests that they knowingly cause harm to the citizens.

Sherry and Rosa- please take a look and let me know what ya'll think. See ya next week--

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

ch-ch-check out my m-m-main claims

Word up tiffany and simon! I hope you two are having a FABULOUS evening!
Here are some claims for you guys to ch-ch-check out:

*Analyzing the bulletin about imagination using Austin's Speech Act Theory, it becomes evident that it is rhetorically persuasive to the intended audience of the loyal citizens of the one-state. These citizens believe that everything they are told is true, and will do anything that they are told is a good idea....anything to become more machine-like.
*The language of the bulletin will propel them to go have their imaginations removed.
*To the revolutionaries, no matter what the bulletin says, they are not going to think it's a good idea if it is put out by the One-State.
*To those citizens on the fence (D-503 and O-90), the bulletin may or may not be persuasive (which do you guys think?). On one hand, all they know is the One-State so they are inclined to think it's true, but on the other hand they are questioning the ideals of the One-State, so it might take some very persuasive verbal action going on to convince them that it's a smart idea to have their imaginations removed.
*Regarding the Speech Act Theory, I will incorporate the following:
1. "certain performatives are only effective if uttered by authorized people" --> the faithful citizens of the one-state obviously believe that the guarantor would be considered "authorized".
2. "for a performative to be effective, it must be uttered correctly, completely, and sincerely." --> the bulletin accomplishes this, but it can only reach the people who are willing to accept what it puts forth.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, I've got nothing else. Let me know your thoughts!
have fun not going to class! not that rhetoric isn't like amazingly fun everyday, but everyone loves having a free day and an 8-day weekend! enjoy!

1b claims

things i will do, in no particular order, in this paper:

-set up a Burkean Pentad from D-503s point of view to illustrate his state of mind.

-show that Zamyatin dislikes the One State, and all things that are in agreement with it.

-show why D-503 is trying to rationalize his imagination.

-show why imagination and the soul are considered illnesses in the One State.

-give insight into why Zamyatin sets up this dynamic based on his historical context.

-support my speculations as to who this would influence.


Zamyatin's presupositions are the same as the All Russian Writers Union. He hold true that a soul and an imagination are a good thing.

Using Burke's Dramtism:
Through the discovery of D 503 beging to dream and a doctor telling him that he ahs a soul the conflict of his rational mind and his creative mind begins. Both minds work together through the rest of the novel up to the point where his imagination is removed.

The society as a whole believe that the imagination is something that is nothing but as sickness that causes one to divert from the path to great happiness.

Th One State view the imagination as a way of the masses coming out side of thier control to question their way of life. They treat this a sickness that can be cured and corrected at an early age.

prompts 3a-3c

sorry about posting these late, but . anyway, here's our notes.

Pentad of execution ceremony as viewed by D-503 and loyal members of the one State:

act: the execution of a criminal
agent: the Benefactor
agency: the Justice System of the One State
purpose: to maintain order and strengthen the One State
scene: a gathering of citizens to witness the execution of a dangerous criminal

Pendad of execution ceremony as viewed by I-330 and other revolutionaries:

act: poet/artist/free-thinker/etc. executed
agent: the Benefactor
agency: the repressive Hand of the One State
purpose: to repress those who do not want to conform/to repress free-thinkers
scene: gathering of people to witness the death of a free-thinker

what's important here is the difference between how the same scene is perceived by two groups. obviously, for those who think of this ceremony in terms of the first pentad will find it highly effective in its purpose, whereas those who follow the second pentad, will not find it very effective. We know they don't find it effective because they don't give up all of their revolutionary ideas just by viewing the ceremony, on the contrary, their plans continue to move forward.

3B: in the same way that the first ritual was effective for the loyal members of the one state and ineffective for the revolutionaries, the Ceremony outside the walls of the One State would obviously work the other way around. it would be effective for the revolutionaries, but ineffective for loyal members of the state. we know this would be ineffective for several reasons, including the fact that phrases like "we must all go mad as soon as possible" are not likely to sway the very logical way of thinking of the citizens of the One State.

one could make up a pentad for each of the groups of this ritual to illustrate this.

3C: here's a very rudimentary Aristotelian analysis for each of the groups when looking at the ceremony of the execution

Faithful Citizens of the One State: ethos=good, truth; Pathos=good; logos=good.

Revolutionaries: ethos=bad, repressive; pathos=bad; logos=bad

Fence sitters (those like D-503 after having fallen in love with I-330): ethos=good, truth; pathos=confused; logos=confused.

the fence sitters still respect and feel the One State is good, but don't know whether or not they still feel the same way about the same arguments. The premises on which the arguments that would have previously swayed them are no longer as true to them as they were before, so the pathos and logos fails a bit.

Group 1a

Some points of argumentation:

-Is mathematically precise reason the proper tool to model society after?
-Is rigorous structure (lack of free will) good for society overall?
-Is privacy important or dangerous?
-What is the importance of creativity and imagination?

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Prompt 2B

Sorry guys... leave it to me to post this so late... hope it helps anyways...

D-503's "illness" is considered so because he is thinking outside the box, which is unacceptable in the One State's close-minded society.

Occasion: Zamyatin, observing what was occurring in Russia (leaders controlling/censoring the people, etc.), created We to show his own fears of what presumably could happen in his own society (exaggerated)

Presupposition: We would be effective to artists/creatives.

It's effective to an audience who is already "riding the rail" on the subject of the Soviet Union's current (and possible future) state; could be inspirational or eye-opening

It is the right side of the brain which the numbers of the One State find unacceptable: this is the side responsible for all creative elements on human nature (vs. the left side which is often referred to as the "mathematical" side)

**again, sorry so late!

Prompt #2

Zamyatin dramatizes his out group through D 503's ineffectiveness of a rhetorical discription of D's in group.

Using Booth's model of listening you can make a claim for D 503's effective/ineffective rhetroic of being a utopia/distopia. (depends on the pressuposistions you believe D holds)

D 503 is uneffective due to the questionable his questionable ethos (his true purpose, how he adresses the audiance, and his place within society)

blog 8/01

D-503 and I-330's ideologies are different throughout the book. D-503's life is ruled by logic and the One State's rules at first, and when he meets I-330, who does as she pleases, indulging in illegal desires, D-503 begins to have feelings and thoughts that he believes is a sickness. D-503 becomes more intrigued by I-330 and a life of imagination and breaking rules as the novel goes on, but he never believes that it is normal to have these feelings. I-330 lives her life smoking, drinking, and breaking other laws and find these things as natural, the One State laws with no guilt. D-503 however, believes that he is just sick and although he likes what I-330 is showing him, he never like I-330 believes that what is he doing is normal. It seemed to me that D-503 would eventually becomed like I-330, accepting his "sickness", but in the end his ideology remains the same. D-503 believes that life should be lived by reason, and that the One State is the correct way to live.


At the start of the novel I-330 and D-503 are very different in their beliefs about the One State. Although I-330 seems to agree with some of the statements made by D-503, she does so satirically, mocking the stubborn and naive beliefs of D-503. As may be observed through I-330's actions, she believes in personal freedom, individuality, privacy, and happiness. D-503, on the other hand, believes in the truth of numbers and the simplicity and organization of the One State. As the two become better acquainted, D-503 begins to find the beauty in I-330's ideology. He begins to question his "old self", and eventually becomes more like I-330 in that he begins to question (and break) the rules of the One State. A greater understanding and appreciation for that which they may not have in the One State (i.e. freedom, etc.) is achieved by both.


D-503 starts off as one of the normal, rule-following, loyal people of One State. He plays safe and is not a rebel at all. However, I-330 has a different first impression. She seems strange to D-503, with her very white teeth, yellow dress, and breaking of rules by consuming alcohol and tobacco. D-503 and I-330 differ most in their ideologies towards the beginning of the novel. He believes that One State was the best place to live, and that the Green Wall was a glorious protector of what existed beyond the wall. Later, he becomes very uneasy about developing a soul, which I-330 gave him. I-330 was determined to bring down One State, believing the world outside of the wall was greater. As the book progressed, their ideologies did start to share some relatedness, but still had their many differences. They differed in their degree of persistence of weakening the One State. I-330 wanted to give it her all, while D-503 didn’t. He followed her instructions, but he mostly just wanted to be with her. And when I-330 tells him of the plan of capturing the Integral to start a revolution, D-503 believes that the revolution of the One State should stay the last revolution. He still used phrases such as “for the Benefactor’s sake,” while I-330 did not want to do anything “for the Benefactor’s sake.”

Towards the end of the novel, D-503 gets a taste of the world beyond the wall. In the heat of the moment, D-503 jumps on a stone shouting that everyone should lose their minds. “The sooner the better! It is essential- I know it” (158). D-503’s action put a smile on I-330’s face. They had the same ideology at that point. Mostly though, their ideologies stood at opposite sides.


Taking a very general look at the book, I find that D-503 and I-330 are actually very much alike. They both are passionate about their causes, they're intelligent, and they both seem to observe a healthy love of beauty. The thing that sets them apart is the details of these items. D-503 is highly enthusiastic about the Integral, the One State, the Benefactor, and math as a whole. I-330 seems to be enthusiastic about loving life. She smokes, she drinks, she breaks rules, she wears revealing archaic clothing. D-503 is obviously very technically gifted, as he has been given the role to be the primary builder of the State's most important project, and I-330 is intelligent as well, but in a different way: she is very intelligent about people, how to manipulate them, how to convince them, and how to deceive them. Another difference is what they each consider beautiful. D-503 loves R-13's poem about the multiplication table, the other poets works about whatever, the bland music they play in the auditorium, and of course, his math. He also finds the absolute lack of freedom in the One State to be beautiful and perfect, and loves the thought of the State as a whole being perfect over the happiness of any individual.. I-330 is the antithesis of him in this way. She loves individual creativity, self-expression, spontanaity (sp?), and individualism in general.

D-503/ I-330

For what may seem like a moment both D-503 and I-330 attained the happiness away from the rules and regulation of the One State, however after visiting the Benefactor D-503 returned to the preaching model citizen of the One State. Throughout the book we see glimpse of the ideology of both D-503 and I-330. From the first meeting between the two we saw a rebellious, independent, and headstrong spirit in I-330. As we read her opinions about the One State are revealed. I-330 showed D-503 a world outside logic and implanted the seed that eventually took root in D-503. I-330 valued happiness obtained by the individual, rather than a society where happiness is given. In the book I-330’s thoughts and actions were considered the “enemies of happiness” by the One State, but in reality it was the One State who was preventing the citizens from obtaining true happiness. D-503 started out as a strong advocator of the One State. His values relied on logic and rational decision without the influence of emotion or imagination. That changed slightly after he meets I-330. He no just relied on logical thought but now had a soul in which to make decision. The soul he gained allowed him to view the world in a different light, however almost as quickly as he gained it the Benefactor took it away from him. The soul was removed and D-503 went back to the logical man at the beginning of the book. During D-503 time with I-330 he was able to be open to the alternative way of thinking. He found himself, however he wasn't able to keep it.

I-330 & D-503

I330 and D503 are two characters that are very different. D503 was someone who was happy in his life and loved his job and purpose in the One State. He was a perfect citizen and followed the rules. Until he met I330, who used her mystery to lure him into questioning everything he had believed in. The two are very different. I330 was a rebel and didnt care who knew it while D503 did everything by the book. The two could not have been more different. I330 smoke drank and skipped out on her duties as a citizen of the One State. Things that scared D503 but somehow leaves him wanting more. As the book progresses D503 begins to fall in love with I330 and his feelings in turn change about the One State. Zamyatin used emotion and desire to allow the change in D503. This makes sense because people respond to situations differently when they use emotion over logic. This allows for spotanaety and acting on whims and intuition.


I-330 and D-503 are very different from one another from the beginning of the novel. D-503 was a very conservative person who did not know anything besides the one state. I-330 was the undercover rebel who challenged old beliefs. In these two ways they are completely different people but D-503 slowly changes through the novel and becomes more open and starts to explore.

Although their original philosophies on life were completely opposite, I dont think that I-330 is too different from D-503 because it seems like D-503 was becoming more and more like her. Although D-503 does not challenge the one state and its beliefs as strongly as I-330, I think it is because he is confused and new to the open minded thinking while I-330 has had time to adjust and think about it.

D-503 and I-330's Ideologies

D-503 and I-303's ideologies are the same in the sense that they both have certain beliefs about the One State. But, while D-503 believes that the One State is the perfect place to live, I-330 thinks the exact opposite of the One State. D-503's confusion and love for I-330 led him to stray from his original beliefs a bit; but in the end, his loyalty for the One State remained true and he was able to finish his entries for the launching of the Integral in order to let others outside of the Green Wall know how "great" the One State is. D-303 is a conformist and I-330 is a rebel. He tries to repress his emotions, she lets them flow free. He believes imagination and freedom is bad, she thinks they're good. Their loyalties lie in different places, but at least they have a common goal: happiness (even though their methods to achieve this goal may be radically different).


I-330 believes in freedom, happiness and all the other things that come with it. She doesn’t want to live in society where everyone is programmed to think the same way, act the same way and look the same way. Her ideology is that happiness is more important than any other emotion or thing out there. She doesn’t want everyone including the aliens to live in place where they can’t feel anything. She wants everyone to be happy she didn’t care about being perfect.

D-503 believes that a state without reason will always fall. During the story he gets a soul and then he starts to see things all jumbled up and confused and he gets to experience happiness and life without the benefactor. After coming to his senses he knows that nothing can out weigh reason and he knows that there is no place like the one state. After his experience with the soul, he gets his imagination removed now he feels like a new person because he can think logically and not with his emotions.

Both D-503 and I-330 want what they think is for the best for them and everyone else. They are strongly believe in their ideologies and both act as leaders to their people. I-330 is obviously the one in charge of the Mephi and D-503 is the main builder to one of the most important technical advances by the One State. I-330’s actions and wanting to take over the One State shows her dedication to the Mephi and D-503 writing his story and wanting to spread the power of the power to aliens shows his love and dedication to the One State.

Ideologies etc

I-330 and D-503 are both direct contrasts to one another. They say that opposites attract, and this is more than the case at hand here. D-503 begins very much as a conformist to the one-state, and a true believer in all that it stands for. He is very logical and strives for purpose of math and belonging to the one state. I-3303, on the other hand, believes there is something wrong about the one-state and thinks that all its rules and regulations are flawed. She is rebellious and chooses to break the one-states' rules many a time. She is the temptation that I believe D needed in order to break out of his mundane circle of math. She is the inspiration, the muse, sort of. She is pretty much the seduction to the normal. I feel that D has always had this inner knowledge in him to some degree, but just needed a little push and eye-opener for it to release. Anyone can be shown the 'other side' but few actually make the choice to give it a chance. The only similarities these two characters possess is the fact that they both break the one-state's rules and think that it is flawed. However, D only truly begins to consider doing any of that after meeting the ever so rebellious I-330. They are still on opposite ends of the spectrum however, all the way to the end. D has hesitation, after all, and I was born to rebel.


The ideology of D-503 and I-303 are completely different in the beginning of the book but as the book progresses, as D-503 falls in love with I-303, he begins to question his original beliefs. At first, D-503 supports the One State. He’s a proud citizen, a head architect; he’s someone who follows the rules, and does what he supposes to, and conforms to the government. He's logical and rational; at first, he thinks emotions are unhealthy for the One State. On the other hand, I-303’s character is rebellious. She doesn’t like the One State, and breaks all the rules. After D503 falls in love with I-303, she makes him question his previous beliefs about the One State. He becomes more emotional because of his infatuation with her, and knowing all the rules I-303 breaks, D503 helped her get away with it. I-303 has really changed him.


Throughout We, the numbers D-503 and I-330 both share some characteristics and diverge on others in terms of ideology. I-330, from the beginning of the novel, is portrayed as a subversive and potentially dangerous rebel. Though at first, her actions seem to be only slightly mischievious, it becomes clear that she has intentions for the One State of her own. D-503, starting off as a model example of a One State number, gets a chance to experience (through I-330) things he would most likely never have had a chance to. Though both numbers share a common urge to separate from the One State, they differ in terms of the degree of separation. D-503 appears curious and confused, stepping out of bounds cautiously, while I-330 already knows what she wants and manages to get the builder of the Integral to do just about everything she asks. It is almost to be expected, by his weaker ideological rebellion, that D-503 would turn on I-330 eventually (even if it meant harm to himself). His love for I-330, genuine as it may have been, was definitely not fully reciprocated. D-503 does remain, to the very end, devoted to his writing and submits to the One State, while I-330 remains just as devoted to her cause of fighting it. So, in terms of devotion to a cause, the two appear similar, but in terms of goals and intentions, they differ greatly. For a short time, the two manage to spend time together, intertwining their lives and goals, but eventually they end up chasing different ends.

blog #9 Ideologies

D-503 and I-330 had different ideologies at the beginning of the book. D-503 was sucked into idolizing the One State. His beliefs were very straightforward with no intention of questioning anything he wasn't supposed to. D-503 believed that the One place is the perfect place to live because you had everything handed on a platter for you. You already have a place to live, a job, and a place where everyone was equal. On the other hand, I-330 was the complete opposite. She had a life outside the Green Wall and believed against the One State. She was the rebel that persuaded D-503 to question his beliefs. She believed that there were different ways in finding happiness and wanted D-503 to actually feel emotions and feel what happiness is instead of being told that you are happy. Even though they have different ideologies, they are quite similar as well. Both of their roles in the novel was that they had goals that they were both trying to achieve. D-503's goal was to let the "unknown" learn about the One State by writing every event and describing life there. I-330's goal was to show D-503 about the life outside of the Green Wall, and wanting to tear down the One State. In the end, they both reached their goals with D-503 finishing his entries, and I-330 exposing life outside of the Green Wall. But, D-503's entries showed all the flaws of the One State instead of this perfect world. I-330 did get to show D-503 life outside of the One State and made him see past the Green Wall, but failed in tearing down the One State.

blog #8 happiness

I think the reason why Zamyatin made happiness the goal for the citizens of the One State because not everyone is happy. Happiness is a controversial emotion because I don't think people actually know the definition of happiness. We all have different meanings of happiness because we all view the word "happy" differently from one another based on our values, attitudes, and desires. I think that Zamyatin is trying to show us that sometimes people think they know what they want, but in actually dont know what they truly want. For example this story in the book. The One State is considered this perfect place where everyone should be happy with all the rules and living situation. However, a person like I-330 shows D-503 that she isn't happy with the One State. It's like people are sometimes tricked into believing in something and are blinded by the reality of it. In my opinion, I think that this can be explained in rhetorical terms because it had some effect on me. I got to thinking about life living in a utopian world and the life that we live in right now. I 've gotten to think about the pros and cons of both sides. I think that if Zamyatin were to choose a different criterion such as excellence, hard work, fullfillment, etc., I think that it would still be effective because it will be based on what everyone's opinions are of it, since we all are different.

D and I's Ideology

It's difficult to notice any actual similarities between D and I because they are so radically different, but I do believe that they hold one fundamental similarity in their ideologies. Both D and I seem to believe that happiness is the primary motivation and the pinnacle of human existence. Although this is the premise that the entire One State is built upon, there are many ideologies of the One State that some of the citizens don't agree with, so this premise can still be seen as a thread between their two ideologies.
However, just because their ideological foundation is the same does not mean that the rest of their ideologies are constructed congruently. While they both believe that happiness is the ultimate goal, they believe in entirely different means to accomplish that end. D believes in the sacrifice of the individual (or many individuals) for the betterment of the whole; I believes in the innate sacredness of the individual. D basks in the glory and beauty of technological perfection; I abandons the life of machines to escape to the wilderness. D believes that the elimination of freedom is necessary to ensuring happiness; I holds that freedom is a necessary component of happiness.
One may declare that since they both believed that being with each other was worth it, no matter what the repercussions, they must have held similar ideologies which motivated that decision. This is probably far from the truth though. D was obviously in love with I, and this love served as the motivation for his following actions. While one could argue that I's love for D motivated her decisions as well, it could just as easily be posited that I's choice to be with D was a logical, rational, and completely calculated decision devoid of love and she simply chose him because she needed the builder of the Integral in on everything.
So yes. They are different.

Thoughts on Ideologies

Considering the ideologies of D-503 and I-330 leads me to the conclusion that in the beginning of We they are quite opposite, and almost at the end (not at the very end) they are quite similar. D-503 shifts from being completely pro-reason and pro-One State to uncertainty of where he should stand and an almost pro-freedom ideology (though he seems to believe that this belief of his is foolish). I-330 is steadfast in her belief that the One State is evil and that the people need to be liberated. One could make the argument that D-503 only changes his views because of his love (or infatuation) with I-330. With all of the self-questioning that D-503 does, I think he falls somewhere in the middle range: he doesn't completely support the One State, but at the same time he believes that the One State is more efficient and somewhat necessary. In my opinion, I-330 uses D-503 to suit her own ideologies, most likely because she, like the One State but opposite in their end goals, believes that the manipulation of a few is justified when it means the good of many.
I don't really have much more to say about their ideologies. But I will say that I didn't see that ending to the story coming. It definitely wasn't what I had predicted. I guess it didn't take me completely by surprise, but it definitely was not what I would have put my money on. My question is, Who succeeds in the end, the rebels or the One State?

blog schmog

Umm...is it just me or is it a typo in the blog prompt? Isn't her name I-330?
Anyways, comparing and contrasting D and I....they're like night and day.
I-330 is always trying to get D-503 to do something and test him, and just when he's thinking how bad and wrong it is and saying how he's not going to do it (meeting her at that house), he goes against his instinct and does it. He didn't report her to the Guardians for her misbehavior. He skipped work saying he was sick because of her. She is just a bad influence on the guy.
But on the up-side, at least she's making him realize that he's not like everyone else. Anyone else would not have any problem reporting her, but deep inside, D-503 likes a little adventure. He likes to veer from the norm from time to time. Afterall, he DOES have a soul.
The similarity is that they will both break rules, but the difference comes in with D-503's hesitation to break them sometimes. I-330 just basically walks around in the One State with a cigarette hanging out of her mouth and a flask in her hand. Well, maybe that's an exaggeration....but she doesn't have any issues with acting out and doing things that everyone considers to be "unacceptable".
But since they both aren't zombies like everyone else in the One State, they both just ultimately want to be happy (even though, as we discussed in the previous blog, this may be unattainable).

Monday, July 31, 2006

Ideology of the 03s

From the first moments of meeting I and D any one can notice the difference between the two characters. They contrast one another and represent the extremes with of the One State. D is a believer and there is nothing more dangerous than that of a believer. But D is fractured, he starts to look out side of the bubble that he has created for himself and notices that the world he was always told to love may not be something he loves. With in the novel this is when he meets I 303. She is the complete opposite of D 503. She goes against the regulations of the One State. She knows that the system is flawed and chooses to live outside of the strict rules and manages not to be caught. She does not so much seduce D but holds out the apple. D believes in the purpose of the One State. He likes having the purpose of building the Integral. There is his love of math and the happiness of the overall society’s sense of belonging. I 303 on the other hand rebels against the natural way of life. There exists the question of I 303’s knowledge prior to her meeting D 503. After reading further into the story you can assume that she sort of stalked him. She had a purpose of getting to know him. I don’t really notice any similarities between the two. The reason the characters work so together is because they are the opposite. They could be said to represent the Apple and the Adam.


I think Zamyatin chose happiness as the main goal for his citizens because it helped D-503 find some flaws with the society that he was content with. If Zamyatin were to choose the other examples of excellence and fufillment he probably would not have found anything wrong with the One State. The way that the One State is organized is in a way that excellence and total fufillment (that a citizen fufills his purpose to the One State) is met.
Zamyatin set up his book in a way that there would be something to pick apart. The One State seemed perfect and D-503 seemed happy with the society but he soon found out that he was not experiencing true happiness. Everyone has a different view on what is really happy and what can make them happy, and that makes it impossible to have a utopia because not everyone will be completely happy with their lives in the society.


Note to classmates: I'm writing this on 2 hours of sleep after I finished moving everything out of my apartment last night. It's been a long weekend... and this might not make sense cause I'm barely able to function... I think Zamyatin made happiness the goal for the citizens of the One State because happiness is what (almost) everyone wants to achieve. The One State controls every aspect of life and believes that it will help its citizens to achieve happiness by eliminating all of their freedom, but Zamyatin tries to show that this system does not work with D-503's story, who discovers a new part of himself after meeting I-330 and begins to seek true happiness. I'm not sure if the novel would work if it were some other criterion other than happiness, because (using the examples that were given) not every wants to achieve excellence and not every wants to be a hard worker.

I don't know, that's it... my mind is dead. Sorry this was so short.

Everyone Should be Happy

Zamyatin made happiness the goal for the citizens for one reason, and that is to keep the One State going. If we think about the basis of the One State we realize that the only reason everyone fulfills their duty and go to work is because they are perfectly happy with what they are doing and in some cases ecstatic about their job. Not only do they not question the government but look to it for support for happiness. We all remember D-503 as he introduced us to his society. He spoke with such pride and admiration about the One State and how unfathomable it was to live any other way. From this we can see that most of the citizens felt the same way about the society. As a result each person contribute to the society and the society slowly progresses. My making happiness the main goal Zamyatin shows the reader that Happiness is a state of mind and can be taken away in a mere instant. On a broader since, all society make their goal to try to make the most amount of people happy. Although this is realistically impossible, being happy can and will contribute to productivity. This is clearly seen in the One State, people are happy therefore they show up to work. I think even if Zamyatin wanted to change the main theme to some other criterion the structure of the book will change. Excellence, hard work, fulfillment all lead down the road to happiness. We strive to be excellent at a particular task because we feel gratification from achieving it. As a result we fell “happy”, and continue what we are doing. It will be hard to isolate any individual criterion without it ultimately leading back to the main goal of happiness.

Happiness in 'We'

I believe that Zamyatin uses happiness as the goal of the citizens to show that in a so-called "perfect" society, people can still be unhappy. The mask of happiness may be present, as in D-503's case at the beginning of the novel, but that does not really mean that it truly exists. Furthermore, happiness is a basic human characteristic that all men and women strive to attain. The fact that every person has a different definition of happiness and different things make them happy, is the exact reason that Zamyatin chose it to be the main goal of The One State. Ultimately, happiness is nothing more than the release of seratonin, dopamine, and other endorphines, all caused by different stimuli for different people. In "We", D-503 seemed as though he was happy at the beginning of the novel, but than began to realize that his world of perfection was inherently imperfect because life was stripped of emotion-like happiness and love. He begins to develop these feelings, and later a 'soul', which I think Zamyatin uses to show that people can be happy if they desire to be happy.
The book would not have been effective in its message if Zamyatin chose a different characteristic, such as fulfillment or excellence because those are somewhat measurable achievements, unlike happiness. Fulfillment can come from simply filling your role in society and keeping the gears working. If this were the case, there would be no need for D-503's "spiritual rebirth" (if you want to call it that). Furthermore, it cannot be said that all humans desire to be excellent or work hard, but it would be hard to argue that there are people out there who do not desire to be happy-

If You're Happy and You Know It...

"The Grand essentials of happiness are: something to do, something to love, and something to hope for."
-Allan K. Chalmers

I seems almost ironic that Zamyatin would select happiness as a goal for the citizens of the One State. Although happiness may exist for some (such as the previous D-503), is happiness really achievable for these citizens? Do they even have the freedom to know if they are truly happy? Happiness is a state of mind, an "ethos" of sorts: it is immeasurable and an element that is unable to be documented. The One State tells citizens to "hold on to your happiness with both hands" (Zamyatin 194), which, being an intangible object, is physically impossible. I think Zamyatin intends to show how the One State uses happiness as an illusive element to manipulate the citizens. Obviously, happiness is something to be valued, as there do exist "enemies of happiness" (Zamyatin 194), but what is happiness? Happiness is a human sensation, something that is felt and witnessed, something unexplainable by concrete terminology.
Had Zamyatin chosen to use another element, such as excellence, hard work, fulfillment, (etc.), I believe that the contrast in their existence in the One State and their tangibility to its citizens would be far less than that which becomes appearant when observing happiness. Excellence and hard work can be measured in terms of improvement (i.e. are we more functional this year than last, etc.); Fulfillment is less concrete, but the One State believes that if each individual completes his or her assigned role then the goals of the society are fulfilled. Happiness is something that is individually achieved and individually experienced, and therefore I think Zamyatin tries to use it to point out how lack of individuality in society creates a lack of happiness. If people are unable to individually seek out that which makes them happy (vs. that which contributes to a "happy" society, something that is quite different), then happiness may not be truly achieved.
Just like that little jingle we are all so familiar with, the One State wishes for society- since they are happy (and they know it!) to "clap their hands". Groupthink rules what they deem to be happiness, and some who believe themselves to be happy only think so because that is what they have been raised to believe that they are. By no other means of criteria would Zamyatin be able to illuminate this ideology.

blog 7/31

Zamyatin makes happiness the goal of the one state for very important reasons. In the book, a society of "happiness" is one in which the people of the One State believe is perfection, order, and equality. As the book goes on however and I-330 is introduced and D-503's gradual feelings against the One Sate are shown it is apparent that the values of the One State are not intune with everyone's values who live in the One State. Zamyatin is trying to point out that you cannot fufill everyone's happiness with one set of rules, because each person is different and has a different view of what happiness means to them. By basing the One State on the idea of happiness, Zamyatin can easily portray how the goal of the one state isn't met. If Zamyatin were to focus the goal of the One State on something different such as hardwork, the audience would feel differently. In this situation even if people were unhappy, it would be easy to agree that the One State is hardworking state, and that the rules that are set up for society imply the goal of hardwork. Zamyatin uses happiness as the goal of the One State very strategically to get the reaction out of the audience that he wants to get.


I think that Zamyatin makes happiness the ideal goal for the one-state because, ultimately, that is the goal that the human race as a whole has been striving for, for quite some time. He is trying to portray that finding happiness is something unique to that person and that person's true desires, whatever it might be. It has nothing to do with being forced to conform to a government or compromising your emotion and creativity. So, even though he creates this world based on finding happiness in a lack of emotion, he is actually trying to say the opposite. If this novel were based on, say excellence or hard work, then the impact would be dramatically different. The point would be very easy to understand and the book would take on an impersonal overtone. The central difference between making happiness goal as opposed to making 'fullfillment/hard work' is that happiness is an emotion. Emotion is what we as humans can relate to. It instantly makes the story more appealing and gives it a 'heart'. Using hard work as a goal would only leave the reader emotionally unsatisfied and quick to get through the book.

Happy Happy Joy Joy

Zamyatin uses happiness as the center point for his utopian society because of two things. 1) Happiness is the mast basic desire that anyone asked about his or her own utopia is going to say. Every man, woman, and child wants to be happy. 2) Happiness gives Zamyatin a core emotion to tie all the characters too. Every character in We wants to be happy. With D 503 he already is happy and lives in this society that he wants to exist within. I 330 find the joy of using trickery. She enjoys the things that she gets away with. Happiness is a universal term that can tie all of every race and religion together regardless of the differences that may separate us. The use of other ethics from the One State does not help with the story. If Zamyatin wishes to he could have changed the desired emotion to something else but I believe that the novel meaning would be less effective that way. All emotions can be taken to different levels based upon the person. Over some out come two people are not going to share in the same level of an emotion as the other. Could Zamyatin have used another criterion: yes. Would the story have come out the same: no. The simple change of the criterion would have a different type of reader. The book, as is, is attractive to many of societies because of the idea of happiness in a place where ever person has a place. Not everyone can relate to hard work and excellence but everyone can relate to happiness.


Well I think that zamyatin was trying to make a statement about where he thought the society he was living in was headed for. He chose happiness because it is not something you can measure with a stick and no matter how perfect something may be, happiness cannot be assured. In the city in WE, the people were living in a blissful happiness but D-503's development throughout the story shows that people have something innate that can not be satisfied even with complete control. Zamyatin uses this to show that human beings cannot be happy when controlled and censored.

Should Zamyatin have used a different criteria, I don't think he would have been able to get his meaning across as clearly. Excellence, hard work, and fulfillment seem like they could be created by the methods the people used in the city of WE. Happiness, on the other hand, is not very tangible and can occur spontaneously so Zamyatin used it as kind of an "x-factor" that doesnt fit perfectly into an equation. If Zamyatin used something else, the distopia might not have been as convincing because it could be argued that those values(Excellence, hard work, and fulfillment) would be present.

Why is happiness the goal

I think Zayamatin make happiness the goal of One State because it is the one thing that can’t be controlled or enforced, yet they can enforce hard work, excellence, and etc, therefore making happiness the most desirable. In a place like the One State, everything seems to be perfect, and when people are given everything they need; they don’t have to strive to succeed, they also lose the meaning of happiness. For some people, they attain happiness through succeeding above others, but in One State, everyone is equal, you’re not allowed to stand out in the crowd. There also would be no jealousy since everyone is the same, and this also discourages happiness. Everyone has a different definition of happiness... there's no universal equation to this. Some people's happiness can be measured by their success, by material goods, by love, or by just about anything. So Zamayatin makes happiness the goal because some people may think One State is a “utopia”, a perfect world, yet it is a irony that happiness can’t be attained.

The Goal of Happiness

Happiness may have been made the goal for the citizens of the One State because Zamyatin wanted people to see that happiness could not be forced upon people by the government, rather it is something everyone has to find for themselves. The One State government is trying to create happiness to all under a single definition, but happiness is something everybody has their own definition to. What makes one person happy doesn’t necessarily apply to another person. There seems to be a kind of irony to this since the main goal in the One State actually produces the opposite effect, as D-503 demonstrates as he discovers experiences outside of the law that make him much happier. The law in the novel attempts to manage precisely what everyone does to control happiness, but happiness is not something to be controlled in a population.

There would be a different impact on the novel if some other criterion (like hard work) was the goal instead of happiness. There would not be the same effect of irony. Hard work could be a part of some people’s definition of happiness. Happiness is a broader subject and it can’t be forced. Hard work is something that can be forced.


In most cases, it seems as though the purpose of a novel can be deduced when you study the primary conflict of the story. In the case of We, the primary conflict is the old man vs. man conflict in which D begins to have a mental breakdown and question his purpose because of everything he is going through.
Your probably saying, "that has nothing to do with the prompt," and you would be right. Now let me try and tie in happiness. If Zamyatin had picked a goal such as "productivity," or "efficiency," or some other concrete goal such as that the entirety of the book would be different. Things like productivity can be specifically quantified and measured by the quality and quantity of what is produced. Happiness, on the other hand, is nothing more than a mental state, and two people can experience the same events and have completely different levels of happiness because of them.
If D's, and the One State's, main purpose was efficiency, than D probably wouldn't have been able to rationalize and convince himself that what he was doing was acceptable. In the grand theme of the machine of the One State, romance, love, and having a soul are definitely not productive, so if productivity was D's goal he might not have been as likely to chase these desires. Because the ultimate goal and purpose of the One State is happiness, though, D convinces himself that he will be happier being in love with I than being a slave to the machine. The goal of happiness is his motivation for abandoning his old life and investigating the possibility of being with I, and everything else that that choice might encompass.

The Paradox of Happiness

I believe Zamyatin makes happiness the goal for citizens of the One State for the purpose of creating a paradox. Happiness, as defined in the One State, is the lack of desires. In this sense, happiness comes from losing something. Now, I tend to think of happiness as gaining something by following one's desires. Though I do not always know what will bring me happiness, making my own choices in finding it out seems to add satisfaction to attained happiness. If being happy was as simple as having my imagination removed (the solution described by the Great Operation), I would rather not exist. I think Zamyatin creates this opposing happiness definition situation to show that there is room for disagreement as to how to achieve happiness (even if the One State discourages such debate). Instead of claiming that the One State's way of life is bad, the author allows the reader to choose for themself what to believe. Surely Zamyatin does not believe the One State is the right way to live, however, he never forces the reader to make that conclusion. Zamyatin allows the reader freedom, even as the book claims that freedom is man's source of unhappiness. Even though the ambiguity of happiness contradicts Zamyatin's own societal creation (the One State), it appears to be his full intention to do so. The question then, is whether the reader will take on his or his society's beliefs. As the two belief possibilities rest on the same premise but contradictory conclusions, they appear to be a paradox.

If Zamyatin had chosen some other, non-paradoxical criterion (excellence, hard work, fulfillment, etc.), the novel would not have the same impact. For example, if excellence and hard work were the criteria, the One State would arguably be one of the best possible ways of living. The work is done diligently as it is assigned, and is seen (if done properly) to be excellent. The same goes for fulfillment, which is supposed to be ingrained in the heads of each citizen of the One State at birth (satisfaction with the status quo). However, it seems to me that Zamyatin chose the very ambiguous term of happiness to show how ridiculous it is to try to force everyone to follow the same method to achieve it. The One State has its method for achieving this goal, but unlike many other goals, happiness cannot be attained with mathematical precision. There is no preset definition to work from, but rather, only subjective opinion which rests in the hands of the individual.

Happiness... according to Zamyatin.

I think that Zamyatin picks happiness as the goal for the citizens of the One State for one main reason, but I'll get to that in a minute. First, I'd like to discuss the issue of Zamyatin's choice of happiness rather than excellence, hard work, and so on. I think that he chooses happiness because excellence and hard work are merely ways in which certain types of people define happiness. Put more specifically, happiness is the broad category into which things such as excellence and hard work fall. Some people define happiness as working hard and being productive, while others define it as being lazy and sitting around doing nothing. Now, that put aside, the One State's definition of happiness isn't quite what we ourselves think of as being happy. Their definition of happiness is much more restrictive: deriving pleasure from serving the State to the best of your ability. This leads us to the other part of the question--why Zamyatin picked happiness as the goal in the first place. I think the answer to this is that happiness in its true form is for the most part a selfish desire. Very rarely does someone derive happiness from something that benefits the entire society. Granted, there are the few who are happy because they benefited the society, but for the most part people define their pleasure from things that only benefit themselves--often to the detriment of society. Using this idea of happiness as a goal for the citizens is, in my opinion, Zamyatin's way of inserting irony into the text: that the society should choose for one of its goals something that does not benefit the society, but rather often injures it. I guess that's my take on all of that. It's worth what you paid for it.

"We" vs "I"

I think that Zamyatin makes happiness the goal for the citizens of the One State because no matter who you are or where you come from, everybody wants to be happy. Everything else in life will fall into place if you are happy. Along with happiness come emotions, like love. Love is something that I’m sure everybody wants to feel or either be the recipient at some point in time.

I think the fact that Zamyatin goes throughout the whole book telling us that happiness is based on perfection and then shows us how everything perfect starts to crumble, is pretty persuasive at showing that happiness is not based on a whole. You can’t be happy because everyone else is happy you have to be happy because you are happy. On page 138, D-503 says “‘everyone’ and ‘I’ are a single ‘We’” This is basically saying I am happy because him, her, them and everyone is happy. Your happiness is not based on how someone else feels. As D-503 becomes more separated from the One State and his soul starts to take over more he says on page 145-146, “…who are ‘they’? And who am I? ‘They,’ ‘We’-do I know? As D-503 begins to see his own happiness he starts to question the happiness of everyone as a whole. On page 157 he has completely felt this happiness that he has never felt before. He says, “I felt myself above all others. I was I, a separate entity, a world. I had ceased to be a component, as I had been, and become a unit.”

I don’t think that Zamyatin would have been able to use any other criterion and had the same effect as he had using happiness. Everyone doesn’t strive for excellence, many people don’t care about hard work, but I am sure that everyone wants happiness.


I believe that Zamyatin has 2 reasons behind making the One State's goal happiness for all citizens. First, happiness, in their terms, is easy to define. They believe that when one is ridded of everything bad (i.e. jealousy and the other things they mentioned), then one will be happy. In this way, happiness is not viewed as something that could possibly vary from person to person, but something that is bound to exist under certain circumstances. From this perspective, it becomes clearer why "happiness" is the keyword, instead of perhaps "fulfillment" or "excellence", since these are things that are attributed to The State, not to any individual.

The second reason is the trend that Zamyatin has of emphasizing the good or bad of a thing based on what the State and our narrator, D, think of it. Keeping this in mind, we easily see how Zamyatin is saying that what the State considers "happy" is in fact the opposite of it. That is, the steps that the One State takes to ensure happiness is bound to have the opposite effect in Zamyatin's view.