Humbug! Hoaxes in Literature and Culture.

For centuries hoaxes have been around, manifesting in our daily lives without realizing it. They have tricked so many into believing their ridiculous tales. So if they are obviously not true and are completely farfetched, why is it that people are still susceptible to believing their lies? The answer lies in a series of tactics used to manipulate us.

In the case of the New SeaWorld Show, which reportedly displayed an elephant drowning in its water tank, the hoax was made believable through the use of pathos, where the writers appealed to the audience’s emotional state, through phrases such as “…thrashed around…trying to get out…And then it drowned…” These words are strong and draw the attention of the reader, making the reader want to find out more about the story and if such a horrific thing is possible. People are often drawn to dramatic phrasing and stories, even if at first they deem it impossible, no one can stray away from their curious side, which begs them to dig further into the story. Once further engulfed, the reader becomes more involved in the story and finds it more believable subconsciously.

Furthermore, this story provides a variety of credibility, making the reading sound more factual and hence plausible. The writer provides a number of witness accounts “… visitor, Katie Hayes, 32 who attended the 1pm…” Through names, numbers and times, we are forced into believing the story as facts are laid out. It also adds a personal touch, where the reader is able to identify with the witness or ‘people’ in the story and creates a connection. The writer also includes “…12 000-pound animal reportedly…” this adds even more detail allowing the audience to create a better imagery of the scene, making it more realistic.

The text makes the hoax believable by portraying a very serious stance. The style is one of a news reporter, including days, names and companies. This formality overall displays a hoax worth believing. Through the addition of dialect “…After the elephant didn’t move for a while…”, the reader is provided with first hand information and feels more involved and connected to the story.

Therefore a successful hoax, is a mixture of a variety of  methods, keeping the crucial basis of trying to obtain a certain level of authenticity regardless of how outrageous the crux  of the story is.

The Onion is known for reporting modern ideas and events through satire and hoaxes. “Scientists Confident Artificially Intelligent Machines Can Be Programmed To Be Lenient Slave Masters,” is a great example of how rhetoric is used to create a persuasive argument. This is done using the “rhetorical triangle” which encompasses ideas of ethos, pathos, logos, and context. The overall tone of this article is authoritative. There are quotes from highly intelligent personnel like “Stanford University computer scientist David Alperin” and “leading scientists and engineers” to enforce the idea of robots as slave masters. This ethos or authority on the subject creates a more convincing and believable argument. Because it is coming from people who are specialists in the area of intelligence and members of the “Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence,” the reader is more likely to hold the article credible. When explaining the mechanisms of the machine, the rhetoric is broad and mostly focuses on the empty guarantee that these machines are capable of compassion. Further, the article uses logos or reason by explaining the benefits of artificial intelligence. The idea of humans as slaves to artificial intelligence is supported with many logical claims, such as the “‘incalculable application in the fields of medicine, finance, transportation, and so many others,” said MIT computer engineering professor Daphne Quintero.” Though the article seeks out to support this idea, it balances with counter arguments in a rational way. Triggering emotion, or ethos, the article aims to reassure its audience. One scientist shows compassion acknowledging that “It’s understandable to be nervous about such a formidable technology.” By showing understanding of both sides, it helps the audience see it from a more open view. The audience is assured that these machines will show a “certain amount of mercy,” in a way a human does. By emphasizing the ability for a machine to show mercy or compassion, the audience is more likely to resist since emotions are something that they can relate to. To conclude, the context of this article, being a popular subject for debate in technology today, makes the argument that much more persuasive.

Article link: http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-confident-artificially-intelligent-mach-51170

Have you ever tried to start a garden in your back yard? I have, for my mother’s 50^th birthday. I went to the store, bought a whole bunch of pots, soil, flowers, and vegetables. I planted said flowers and vegetables; sprinkled on some miracle grow and gently sprayed some water over head. After much tending to, by the end of the summer all the flowers had perished, and we had two whole tomatoes, one eggplant, and a half squirrel eaten zucchini.

Therefor, I understand Margie Helmholtz’s frustration after spending her time, money, and energy, into creating the perfect garden, and only producing one messily looking cherry tomato.  In “Full Summer of Tending Backyard Garden Produces Single Edible Cherry Tomato”, Ms. Helmholtz’s is unable to make a successful garden after investing “more than $280 for soil, fencing, pesticides, and specialty gloves and hand tools, and also devoted scores of hours to the study of home gardening, purchasing two books and visiting nearly a dozen websites on the subject”.

This hoax/humbug’s pathos is relatable to it’s audience because many gardening amateur’s experience similar frustrations in their gardens. The article is satirical and though it is far-fetched it makes sense and people can relate to the irritation experienced by Ms. Helmholtz. Gardening is an action many are familiar with, and can easily comprehend what the article is discussing.

The sources ethos, per say is not entirely credible considering it is a short article published on The Onion, a known fabricated newspaper. This satire appeals to the general public; no high educational background is necessary, and it is made to ease the audience and possibly for a short laugh. This articles strongest rhetorical tool is pathos, as it draws the reader into the story as they empathize with Ms. Helmholtz’s one tiny tomato.

In the short video “Domino’s Scientists Test Limits of What Humans Will Eat,” scientists ridicule American’s for their absurd eating habits. Using ethos, logos and pathos, the video satirically conveys the idea that many individuals consume foods that are almost as harmful ton one’s body as eating garbage. The video appeals to ethos by presenting the video in a very professional format; much like Fox News and CNN, “Onion News Network” includes a professional commentator reporting a Domino’s experiment on the eating habits of humans. According to Domino’s, the grosser and unhealthier pizza looks, the more likely consumers will be to pay money and consume the product. By including graphs, scientific data, and pictures, the video appeals to logos by giving the video a source of evidence and credibility. The video also includes shots of a scientific lab with scientists creating the pizzas, which gives the video a sense of professionalism. Gullible individuals may actually believe the video due to its imitation of other popular news channels. Finally, the video appeals to one’s emotions, or pathos, by relating the experiment to those done on animals. Despite the ethical concerns, Dominos is trying to prove that the food most people put into their body is comparable to animal food and garbage. At the end of the video, the reporter emphasizes the extremity of unhealthy eating by equivocating it to the deaths of five American in Afghanistan. This exaggerated comparison gives the viewer a sense as to how serious the issue of unhealthy eating is in America.

Baseball is an entertaining sport in many ways, including the antics that players and even fans pull on live TV. For Jayson Werth, a star outfield player for the Washington Nationals of the MLB, catching astray foul balls is a ubiquitous sighting. However, Jason Werth catching a foul ball in one hand, without spilling a single drop of beer in the other, as stated by the intriguing title of this article, entices me, the average male baseball fan looking for something other than a shabby 3-1 home loss for entertainment. Werth, who had not been paying attention to the game for the majority of the game, only needed one lucky moment of concentration to produce one of the best plays of the season, second to “Brandon Crawford catching a foul ball earlier this season while holding his baby”. Upon first glance, the picture headlining the article looks very authentic, establishing ethos: his cave-man beard in full bloom, his signature home jersey, beer in one hand, and glove waiting to catch the ball in the other. Furthermore, the piece contains a story/inspirational quote from Werth himself, establishing authority. This story is also a form of pathos, as it  vividly describes firstly, the rising action to Werth’s stressful catching of the ball after he did not have enough time to put down his beer, and secondly, Werth’s joy that he did not spill beer on his new jersey. Werth’s comparison of his catch to Brandon Crawford’s establishes logos. The informative descriptions of the “clear plastic cup of Miller Lite”,and  the “incredible play that drew cheers from the whole stadium” (which is also ethos and appeals to emotion) amplify the logical reasoning of the article and makes it more believable.

As I was scrolling through the various articles the article that caught my attention was titled “Report: Climate Change To Force People To Double Ice Cream Consumption Speed by 2050”. Personally I am a big ice cream lover so the topic of this article was urgent to me as the contents of it will affect my future and the future of many other people who also love ice cream. In the report it mentions that if greenhouse gasses rise at the expected omission rate everyone on the globe who eats ice cream will have to adapt to a new way of eating ice cream or have to face the consequences of drippy ice cream that will cause their hands, faces and clothes to become very sticky. In the report it states that the only way we can prevent this catastrophe from occurring is by reducing our CO2 emission on a global scale. This presence of pathos is shown in this article reaches to the reader’s compassion when it discusses on how if we don’t slow down the emission of CO2 our grandchildren might not be able to ever truly enjoy their ice cream. The pathos makes the reader worry about the enjoyments the future generations will miss out on and the struggles they themselves will have in the future. There is ethos presented in the article also when it mentions in the beginning of the report came from the Environmental Protection Agency; when we see the source of this claim came from a government agency it makes the article more credible and trustworthy. The logos is shown when the article basses its argument off the fact that climate temperatures have been rising and due to the fact that the rate at which ice cream melts depends on the temperature its placed in makes the argument logical; if temperatures keep rising due to CO2 emission it is plausible that ice cream will melt more rapidly and become difficult to enjoy.

“Man Dies After Secret 4-year Battle with Gorilla”. I was immediately enticed to read the article up until the very last word of the title. Even then, it was bizarre enough to peak my interest to read the article. Anyone that is skimming through a website would have their attention diverted when they see that someone has died. It is a single person that died so that one person or the means of his death must have some kind of importance is headlined that way. David Seaborne was a man from Roanoke, Virginia who unfortunately died “unexpectedly” after his long four year battle with a gorilla. The article oozes with pathos and a few unpredictable logos. Not once does the article cease with the use of pathos by addressing the hardships that the man has endured and the sorrow that his loved ones where burdened with, both during and after, his four year strife. Many people can relate with how he kept his hardships a secret, in order to independently achieve his goal. As a loving husband and father of three, one’s heart strings are pulled to the relentless nature of this man’s goal to vanquish the gorilla in his basement. It is a serious concern to this day. Although Seaborne has passed, Dr. Patterson supplies expert insight to the legitimacy of this situation with mind boggling logos. In fact, it was confirmed that one in every twenty nine million suffer from gorilla difficulties. Therefore, there are an estimated total of eleven people in the United States that must combat gorillas in their basements.  Davis Seaborne was one of the unfortunate few that have lost that battle. The even scarier fact is that in the Congo, this problem is up to one in every eighty; that sums up to a total of 843,875 people. Mrs. Seaborne now runs the David Seaborne Foundation to spread awareness and means of prevention to this dilemma, that Dr. Patterson now informs to be hereditary. The ethos are prevalent. It’s wrong to neglect the dangers that have surfaced and to not establish awareness.

Being from Sarasota, FL, I had to stop and ponder the title “Busch Gardens unveils New 9,600-Mile-Long Endurance Coaster”. Busch Gardens was the destination for me and my friends when we wanted to go to an amusement park, but even some of their older rides are arguably too scary. The park claims that “The Staminator” will be a 14-day ride and spanning all across (4 time zones) the country with speeds of 90mph for 17 hours at a time, a 1500 mile straightaway, 5,000 consecutive vertical loops, and a 1400 story drop. The article is aimed towards those amusement-park-goers who want to feel an extreme rush of adrenaline spanned over a half a month. Aside from those dare-devils, it is also possible that it could attract the attention of Americans who want to be able to see the whole country and take in its sights, as the coaster covers mostly every state. The draw of pathos is derived from the thrill and joy that some feel when they go to amusement parks and get that adrenaline rush. Since the announcement of the ride’s building comes with no concrete evidence, logos is hard to detect in this particular article. However, the numbers and statistics provide a form of evidence along with the use of quotations throughout the article. Funny quotations from actual riders such as, “This time, I’ll definitely be going to the bathroom beforehand,” make the reader feel comfortable and able to relate to the text. Finally, the author’s ethos is hard to detect because a 9600-mile roller coaster can hardly be considered ethical, but ethics in terms of believability is shown through the quotations and by being posted in what appears to be Travel magazine. I’m not sure that I could brave this roller-coaster or that the story is even a realistic enough one for anyone to believe, but the writing of it has its convincing pieces.

A hoax is something that tries to convince people of a usually false or fabricated claim, topic, event etc. Though often hoaxes contain fictitious assertions, not all hoaxes need to be a lie. More so, a hoax can be something that is drawing a lot of attention or something unintentionally untrue. But the idea of fiction versus non-fiction and created versus fact are not as clear-cut as one would imagine. Part of what makes the concept of a hoax so complex is the involvement of the notion of literature. The relationship between the two is interrelating; with hoax at the overlap of literature- a gray area full of nuances. Broadly speaking, literature is something that is written at some point in time that someone decided was important. But it is hard to classify what is literature and what is hoax because period of time and intent play a large role. Something that could have been held true 200 years ago, may not necessarily still be believed as such but does that change the intent from fact to fiction? Literature is something that is confined by its historical period, and should be treated as thus. Taking the idea that literature, as a word is objective, then how can one make a clear distinction between a hoax and literature?

Hoaxes are often considered a form of literature due to the way that they portray imaginative storytelling through the use of detailed and evidential language. Furthermore, they are told through newspaper articles many times, and news is considered a specific form of literature. Therefore, the definition of literature is any story that is written or portrayed to an audience with the intention of transferring the author’s tone, stance, and information into the readers’ mindset. The distinction between literature and hoaxes then is derived from the ideal that almost anything can be considered literature while only a specific subset of literary works can be considered hoaxes. This specific subset contains an intent from the author to deceive the reader. The intent can be to either benefit him/herself, society, or simply for the entertainment of a good and unbelievable story. Every April Fools’ day in my town, the local newspaper, the Observer, prints completely false news filled with controversial topics. For example, this year the newspaper said that the Kardashians were opening a store in a local shopping center and for those citizens who didn’t know that this was a joke, there was an uproar of gossip. This hoax was meant to deceive the readers of the newspaper, and to lead them to temporarily be drawn in by society’s minuscule dilemmas and “hot topics”.  The newspaper is a reliable form of literature every other day of the year as it portrays the local happenings of Sarasota, FL, but on April Fools’ day, it is a piece of literature that deceives the residences of the town with hoaxes of all types and genres whether it’s for a laugh or to cause stirring conversations.