Let's Talk About Rhetoric, Baby

Let's talk. By which I mean: I'm going to talk.

Excuse me? Was you saying something?
Uh-uh, you can't tell me nothing,
You can't tell me nothing,
Uh-uh, you can't tell me nothing.
—"Can't Tell Me Nothing," Kanye West

This morning, I read this article about how to persuade someone to come round to your point of view. It points out that, if you have a strongly held belief (the moon is made of cheese, say), that belief becomes tied to your self-worth. If you are presented with evidence that the belief is untrue (astronauts went there and said it was made of rocks and dust and whatnot oh no!), you will tend to become more certain that it is true (seeking out evidence and coming up with counterarguments: the moon landing was faked, obviously!) in order to avoid having your self-worth taken down a notch. The article's proposed solution: either make your arguments right after affirming the listener's self-worth, or make weaker arguments that are less likely to feel like a direct blow to someone's ego because of their relatively low strength.

All this led me to start thinking about rhetoric.

"Rhetoric" has a bad rap (think "this is just empty rhetoric" or "what's all this rhetorical mumbo-jumbo; let's get real"), but the word itself simply refers to the methods we use to try to persuade others to see things our way. And persuasion is arguably an incredibly important thing: it is a non-violent tool used to get people who disagree with us to do what we want them to do, which is really hard.

This is Aristotle, yo.

Aristotle said that there are three main tools for persuading people: logos (logical, reasoned arguments), ethos (appeals to authority or character), and pathos (emotional arguments). For example, if I wanted to convince my sister to give me her cookies, here is how each kind of argument might work:

Logos: Cookies are not very good for you. If you give me your cookies, you will be healthier.
Ethos: I'm your older brother, I've seen more of the world than you, and I know what's best. And what's best is for me to have those cookies.
Pathos: I'm super hungry right now. So hungry it hurts. Please give me some cookies!

(For a more engaging take, check out this article on teaching kids to argue persuasively. It's the other big inspiration for today's post.)

Most truly effective arguments will take advantage of all three tools in order to have the best chance of being convincing to the listener. As listeners, it can be helpful to know what kinds of arguments we are hearing so that we can evaluate them critically; for example, if I hear a persuasive argument in favor of me going to see a movie I'm not interested in, it can help to realize that the argument is appealing to my emotions and that I haven't yet been convinced that I will really enjoy, say, Grown Ups 2.

In part 2 of this post, I'll take a look at a highly charged political argument, showing just how the tools of rhetoric can be used to one's advantage in convincing a listener.

Let's Talk About Rhetoric, Baby: Part 2

Following on from part 1, I'm taking a look at a specific piece of rhetoric and showing how it employs all the rhetorical tools at its disposal to make a persuasive argument. 

A friend of mine posted the following short essay on Facebook the other day. On first reading, I was disturbed, because I found it very persuasive and yet I knew that I disagreed. Take a look. (Note: if you don't feel like reading this material on its own before reading it with commentary, just skip down a few paragraphs and the fun will start again.)

*   *   *

Hobby Lobby Founder-May Close ALL Stores

(****Notice: Ignorant or Liberal Biased Comments against this post or the family and business involved will be deleted and blocked....BJD)

The wisdom that comes from above is, first, pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. James 3:17

By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames.. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word.

From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest.

We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that.

A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.

It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.

If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running.
Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult.

The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.

The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this in the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green
CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

*   *   *

Okay, maybe you thought that was persuasive, and maybe you didn't. (Maybe you haven't read it yet because you don't feel like reading it twice.) I read this and thought, "Huh, he makes a pretty good point. Why should he have to pay for stuff that is against his religion?" I was genuinely curious, so I thought about it some more, looked up some opposing viewpoints, and realized what I had missed in my un-critical evaluation of the author's argument.

After this, I went back and tried to determine what kinds of arguments were being used throughout this essay. I wanted to see if this would make it easier to evaluate the persuasive force of the author's arguments. I did this with highlighting; yellow is for logos arguments, blue is for ethos arguments, and pink is for pathos arguments. I'll interrupt from time to time with notes in bold, along with some questions to reflect on in parentheses. 

Hobby Lobby Founder-May Close ALL Stores

(****Notice: Ignorant or Liberal Biased Comments against this post or the family and business involved will be deleted and blocked....BJD)

The wisdom that comes from above is, first, pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. James 3:17

By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Okay, right away we have the somewhat inflammatory emotional direction to not be "ignorant" or "biased" and the assertion that contradictory comments are interpreted as being "against" the post/family; this warning may prompt feelings of outrage on the family's behalf, but also serves as a warning that this post is primarily meant for conservative readers. Note also the emphatic, emotional headline. We then have the appeal to the authority of (1) the Bible and (2) the credentialed businessman. (Do we trust these sources of authority? Is the Biblical quote integral to the argument, or is it just there for authoritative effect? Are we comfortable with the implication that disagreement equals ignorance?)

When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames.. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word.

From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.

The first paragraph is designed to elicit empathy and fellow-feeling; we may feel connected to this guy because he started from little and worked his way up, and because he believes in God. We then learn that he speaks authoritatively, on behalf of an important and successful business, and then we learn the heartwarming detail that it is still a family business. (Do we believe this story? Do we generally trust successful businessmen when they talk about their business?)

We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest.

We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.

But now, our government threatens to change all of that.

Again, more appeals to the emotions, asking us to sympathize with honestly held religious beliefs and to trust the authority of the person behind a successful, thriving business. Then, the emotional warning of the threat of change from the government. (Again, do we believe the story we're told about the owners of this business and the principles they run it on? And do we think the government can in fact change everything that has been mentioned so far?)

A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.

It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.

If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running.
Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.

Here, we get to the logical center of the argument. The author tells us what's happening, and why he objects to it. If we've bought into his previous arguments that we need to (1) feel strongly about the goodness and Godliness of the author and his business and (2) trust him because he is successful, we may not notice that we have reached the point in the argument that calls for real investigation, analysis, and critical reflection. If the argument has a basis in reason, the reader will find it in these and the following paragraphs. Note the emotional slant [all caps text, e.g.] to much of the logical argumentation here.

So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.

My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult.

The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.

The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.

Since you will not see this in the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green
CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

The last paragraphs are a mixture of all the approaches, reporting the response the author is taking to the situation, summarizing the emotional appeals that came before, and making a final logical argument about what the government can and can't do, connecting it to the emotions the audience will feel about such activity. 

*    *   *

Do you see what might make this essay effective? It starts by asking for the readers' trust and by appealing to their sense of what is right, and only then tells the them what is actually going on and how they should react to it. By questioning the first part, the reader can be better prepared to agree or disagree with the actual content of the argument in the later parts of the essay.

I won't say much more at this point about the logical content of the argument, except to point out that at least one part of it appears to be quite false.

In part 3, we'll take a quick look at an argument on the same issue from the opposing side, just for balance, and come to some conclusions.

---

Photo Source: I was not able to find an original source; this image accompanied the post I read on Facebook.

Let's Talk About Rhetoric, Baby: Part 3

In part 2 of this post, I talked about the rhetorical approaches used in an essay in which a religious business owner argued that he was being forced to pay for healthcare he believes is morally wrong. Below, I've excerpted a few paragraphs from an article titled "The 5 Most Absurd, Self-Pitying Gripes of the Christian Right" (note that we're already deep into emotional appeals, just in the title: "absurd," "self-pitying," and "gripes" all encourage the reader to jeer at the subjects of the essay.) Take a look, then I'll dissect it and add some commentary. Feel free to skip down to the fun part if you don't want to read it twice.

*    *   *

The issue: The new HHS regulations requiring insurance plans to cover, without a copay, an assorted list of preventive care, including contraception.

Who the right claims is being hurt: Religious business owners, whose “religious freedom” the right claims includes being able to deny earned benefits to employees, if they disagree with those employees’ personal choices. When Hobby Lobby sued to be exempted from the mandate, the suit cited the family that owns the business’s religious beliefs: “The administrative rule at issue in this case runs roughshod over the Green family’s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling.” (“Abortion-inducing” is a bit of right-wing speak that should be translated to “pregnancy prevention.”)

Who is actually being hurt: Everyone who pays into health insurance systems. The reason the Obama administration decided to make copay-free preventive services a benefit is that it maximizes the return on people’s healthcare investment, both in terms of their own health and saving costs down the line by preventing unnecessary health problems in the first place. Childbirth is incredibly expensive, and preventing unwanted childbirth promises to save both the immediate expenses and allow families to better prepare financially for when they do want children.

Again, the “religious freedom” argument being advanced by the right falls apart upon close inspection. Religious freedom is a right held primarily by individuals; having your boss impose his religious beliefs on you by manipulating your compensation is an infringement on your right to work without religious discrimination.

*   *   *

Okay, so were you convinced? Did you pick out the logical, emotional, and authoritative appeals? Below is my analysis; the colors refer to logos (logical), ethos (authoritative), and pathos (emotional) arguments, and my comments are in bold.


The issue: The new HHS regulations requiring insurance plans to cover, without a copay, an assorted list of preventive care, including contraception.

I think the issue at hand is stated pretty neutrally here at the start; just the facts. 

Who the right claims is being hurt: Religious business owners, whose “religious freedom” the right claims includes being able to deny earned benefits to employees, if they disagree with those employees’ personal choices. When Hobby Lobby sued to be exempted from the mandate, the suit cited the family that owns the business’s religious beliefs: “The administrative rule at issue in this case runs roughshod over the Green family’s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing them to provide health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as related education and counseling.” (“Abortion-inducing” is a bit of right-wing speak that should be translated to “pregnancy prevention.”)

This is a mix of logos and pathos. For the most part, the writer relies on scare quotes (nearly always designed to provoke an emotional response, usually either anger that the person being quoted used such words to describe something, or a feeling of superiority based on the foolishness of the quoted item) and other language designed to rile ("deny earned benefits," "disagree with ... personal choices"), as well as a direct quote pulled to provoke outrage. Note also the "translation" provided at the bottom, intended to anger by claiming that the other side is using obfuscating or inaccurate terminology. (Is this not an exercise of religious freedom? Is there more at stake than a disagreement about employees' personal choices?)


Who is actually being hurt: Everyone who pays into health insurance systems. The reason the Obama administration decided to make copay-free preventive services a benefit is that it maximizes the return on people’s healthcare investment, both in terms of their own health and saving costs down the line by preventing unnecessary health problems in the first place. Childbirth is incredibly expensive, and preventing unwanted childbirth promises to save both the immediate expenses and allow families to better prepare financially for when they do want children.

The initial claim is broad and seems intended to provoke an angry response ("these people are hurting everyone but themselves?!"). The rest of the paragraph advances a logical argument, however, with relatively little inflammatory language. 

Again, the “religious freedom” argument being advanced by the right falls apart upon close inspection. Religious freedom is a right held primarily by individuals; having your boss impose his religious beliefs on you by manipulating your compensation is an infringement on your right to work without religious discrimination.

Finally, some more scare quotes for good measure, followed by a fairly logical argument, though tinged with language designed again to anger: "manipulating your compensation," "infringement on your right." (Do we agree that an employer refusing to pay for things on religious grounds is manipulative and an infringement on the rights of the employee?)

*   *   *

Unlike the essay in the previous post, the argument here makes no appeals to authority; no experts on the matter at hand are called in for their opinion. On the other hand, it does resemble the other essay in its mixture of logical appeal and emotion-stoking; where in the former we were asked to feel kindly towards a Christian businessman, and angry about his being wronged, here we are supposed to be angry at him and his kind for infringing on our rights and using emotional appeals and unclear language.

To sum up: Being truly persuasive requires a mixture of rhetorical techniques, and it is important to listen for these different techniques when one is being persuaded by someone else. Looking for logical arguments amid the emotional and authoritative appeals can be a great way to come to a conclusion, but I think it's actually entirely acceptable to incorporate one's own feelings and trust for a speaker in one's opinion on an issue. It is best, however, to know that that is what one is doing when one does it. Note, finally, that I'm making no arguments about the content of either of these pieces; I trust that readers will be able to do that on their own.

Professor Davisson's Film Studies Course - Final Exam

Professor Davisson's Non-Existent Hypothetically Radical Film Studies Course 

Final Examination

Instructions:

Choose two of the following seven questions. (NB: choose wisely, and you may be granted immortality. Choose poorly, and an old man may frown at you as you age rapidly and crumble into dust. I will probably sympathize more with the old man than with you.) Answer both of your choices in an essay of no less than 451 words and no more than 2001.

Essays will be graded based on the depth of your knowledge of the films involved, the strength and originality of your arguments, and the number of movies to which you make reference in order to support your claims and make your response fun to read. Puns are encouraged. Note that more than three Star Wars references will not be counted in your favor, and more than a dozen will start to actively hurt your score. Note also that you may reference Dead Man, Stalker, and any of the films of Hayao Miyazaki as many times as you wish, though an essay composed solely of allusions to these films will almost certainly receive a zero. I may tape a copy on my wall though, so that's something.

Return your responses to me by 5pm Saturday, either by email or to my inbox at my office. Bonus points for anyone who delivers a final exam by owl, hobbit, or Kiki's Delivery Service, especially if live John Williams/Howard Shore/Joe Hisaishi music is somehow made to coincide with said delivery.


Essay Questions:

1. Watch To Kill A Mockingbird. What parts did you get choked up or cry at? (If you experienced no such emotions, consider writing an essay titled "What's Wrong With Me?" Note that this essay will not be counted toward your score, but will nonetheless probably be good for the state of your soul.) How did director Robert Mulligan and producer Alan J. Pakula use the tools at their disposal to provoke a strong emotional reaction from their audience? Would they have been more able to do so given more modern tools, or would these have hindered their aims in some way?

2. We all know Han shot first, but what if Greedo had killed Han and taken his place in the plot of Star Wars? Explore the consequences of having a central character (besides Chewbacca) who speaks exclusively in a non-Basic language, and discuss whether Greedo and Chewie would ever have been able to mend their differences and work together for the good of the galaxy. (Note that indefinite Star Wars references may be employed in this essay without incurring the penalty mentioned in the instructions.)

3. Sketch a survey of the career of Nicolas Cage. Divide his films into ones in which he appears to have been trying to act with depth and character and ones in which he was clearly there for the sweet, IRS-owed paycheck and decided to massively overact. Discuss how to tell the difference, and whether and how his "paycheck" films can further be divided into ones which are fun to watch and ones which are not. (Bonus points will be awarded to any essay which makes relevant use of the scene in The Rock where Cage asks a man if he likes the Elton John song "Rocket Man" before shooting him with a rocket. Use of the phrase "NO NO NOT THE BEES" is also encouraged, perhaps in the essay title. In fact, strongly consider using this as the title for your essay, but only if you can make it make sense as a title.)

4. Select a film from the list below and assume it was the work of one of the following directors: Martin Scorsese, Terrence Malick, Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick. Show how it fits into the thematic concerns and artistic style of said director, and discuss how it affects our understanding of their work.
Films: 
Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 
Battlefield Earth
Gigli
Catwoman
Jack and Jill
The Number 23

5. In the wake of recent comments by directors like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Steven Soderbergh, a large amount of wondering has been done about the state of the film industry and whether the current system of massively over-financed blockbusters and resultant huge flops is sustainable. Instead of worrying about all that, imagine a scenario in which your favorite director is given an unlimited budget and creative freedom; describe the film he or she would make, and defend your description given what you know about the director's tastes, thematic concerns, and (if possible) past frustrations due to budget and limits on creative freedom. (Bonus points if you choose Guillermo del Toro and sell me a much better The Hobbit. It had better be great, though. Minus a thousand points if you try to rip off Patton Oswalt's massive Star Wars blockbuster crossover event.)

6. Who killed the chauffeur in The Big Sleep? Cite evidence from the film and explain how your answer affects our understanding of the plot and the major characters, the killer in particular. Convince me; I genuinely want to know.

7. Switch the soundtracks of any two films. Discuss the consequences for the mood, coherence, and enjoyability of each film. Bonus points if you can make the soundtracks for Saturday Night Fever or Twilight: New Moon work for more enjoyable films. More bonus points if you can find a highly iconographic soundtrack (think Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, or The Lord of the Rings) that can really work for another film. Audio-visual evidence will be key to this question; I will accept electronic files or burned DVDs. Mega bonus points for a phonograph and projector combo.

Like a Polaroid Picture

Pay no attention to the chair covered in sweaters behind the camera.

Shake it, shake it like a Polaroid picture.*
—"Hey Ya," Outkast 

Does this ever happen to you: someone brings something up in conversation, or you see something on the internet, and later that day you end up on eBay searching desperately for something you never knew you wanted? It happens to me a couple times a year; mostly, I manage to convince myself that it's a bad idea and walk away, since, while it always feels good to buy something I really want, it's rare that it can actually do much to make me a happier person. Occasionally, though, I do end up buying something, and every once in a while one of these items becomes a useful or enjoyable part of my life. Today's post is about my most recent eBay impulse buy, which I'm hoping will fall into that last category and make my life a bit more fun.

A few weeks ago, I came down with severe case of wanting a Polaroid camera. I scoured eBay and eventually came away with a Polaroid Pronto!, one of the more basic Polaroid cameras released in the 70s, right when Polaroid instant photography was starting to get really big. It cost me around $15. That was the easy part.

Whee!

The tricky part turned out to be getting film for the thing, since Polaroid stopped making film in 2008 (and they stopped making cameras even earlier). Fortunately for Polaroid enthusiasts and for noobs like me, someone decided to buy an old Polaroid film factory and set up shop making film for old Polaroid cameras. I got my film shipped in from the factory, but apparently you can also find it at Urban Outfitters.^†

Because this is 2013 and I am a millennial, the first picture I took was a self-portrait. This turned out kind of awesomely bad:

Things I did not anticipate when taking this picture include: 1. it's hard to keep a camera steady when holding it at arm's length, 2. it's important to consider the lighting conditions and adjust the camera's settings accordingly, and 3. the closest distance the camera can focus at is 3 feet, which is slightly longer than my arms are. Failure to think of all this beforehand led to a motion-blurred, overexposed, and out-of-focus picture. You can just barely tell it's me wearing a bow tie.

I was disappointed, but the risk of taking a terrible photo is kind of half the fun with this thing. I don't feel any special sense of satisfaction when I take an effective picture with my phone, because I tend to take five or ten to make sure one turns out okay, and there's little effort expended in the process since the camera automatically adjusts focus, steadies the picture, and even adapts to the lighting conditions. Taking a good picture with a film camera requires forethought, judgement, and a little luck, which can makes it kind of thrilling to snap a photo. With the Polaroid, I get the added bonus of getting the picture back quite quickly, rather than having to take film in to be developed—not to mention the simple joy I find in the sound the camera makes when I press the button and the feeling of it ejecting the film (it brings back my childhood a little bit every time). There's also a great feeling of anticipation as I wait for the photo to develop; taking a peek ten minutes after the shot and seeing whether it's likely to turn out okay is always exciting.

Still, each of the problems I encountered in my first photo has taken time and effort to overcome; at this point, I've still got more pictures with problems than without them. Here's my second picture, when I was still so excited about the camera that subject didn't really matter:

I think there's literally a dog butt around the corner there.

I'd sort of figured out the lighting and managed to keep my hand steady in this photo, but I hadn't quite figured out how to focus on the bookcase.

In this picture, I think I had the focus and lighting okay, but I accidentally jiggled the camera when I snapped the shot, leading to some unfortunate motion blur.

I had hoped for something a bit better with this one, but lighting conditions in the subway led to a picture of a train without any train in it!

I haven't taken too many photos yet, and I'm still not even sure that I'm going to do much with my new camera in the long term, but I have managed to snap a few pictures that I really like. My favorite activity so far has been to take the camera to parties and give the pictures away to party guests or hosts, which people seem to enjoy. Since I don't have any of those photos (because I gave them away!), I'll show a few others that I've taken on my own.

Out the back of an El train at the Damen Blue Line stop.

On an abandoned train trestle in my neighborhood.

The view out my window at work.

Steps leading up from a stream to a back yard.

---

*Note: you shouldn't actually shake a Polaroid picture while it's developing; it doesn't help it develop any, and it can actually damage the image if you shake it while it's still developing. That said, this was the only song that I could think of related to today's subject, and it's fun, so whatever.
†Yes, finding this out did strike fear into my heart, as I worried that I might, in fact, be a hipster. No one's called me out on it yet, but I can only assume it's coming.