|
|
Although Salman Rushdie accepts the premise that "our shadow warriors"
must take on "their shadow warriors," he structures this binary conflict
very differently from Bush's emphasis solely on abstract but exclusively
"American" principles.
|
The fundamentalist believes that
we believe in nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute certainties,
while we are sunk in sybaritic indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must
first know that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in
public places, bacon sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature,
generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources,
movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. |
|
Although unaware of the circumstances of the publication of the Satanic
Verses or the fatwa on Rushdie's life, more students were persuaded
by Rushdie's argument than by Zizek or Said. The explicit humor of
his logical propositions appealed to students, and his presentation of himself
as a "New Yorker" rather than a foreign national enhanced his ethos
. Student Lindsey
Carter wrote:
|
Rushdie builds a strong ethos from
the beginning, using the first person to demonstrate his foreboding on
the subject (and consequently, presenting his ethos in a manner which allows
him to come off to his audience as educated, intelligent, and well-informed
about international issues). His use of "we" in his second paragraph
also serves to identify him with his audience, and his use of quotations
from American literary figures further builds his both his ethos and his
appeal to pathos by playing on shared sympathies among Americans. |
|
|
|
|
