Saturday, January 31, 2009

We're Here We're Uh....Straight

In preparing my ancillary for our first rhetorical analysis, I found the task to be more challenging than anticipated. The article that I chose to write my first paper on used several different types of rhetorical strategies (ironies, analogies, symbolism, sarcasm, etc.). The most prominent of strategies that the author used were irony, and counterexamples to support her argument on sexuality.

The challenge I seemed to run into was pinpointing which category these strategies fell into. Every time I would identify a piece of the article as one type of rhetorical strategy, I would find that the same piece might fall into one or more different types of strategy by definition. Is this possible? The more I compared the examples from the writing to the rhetorical strategy definitions, the more blurred some of the lines became.

"Men are from Vengeance"

Article: “Men are from Vengeance”
This article liberal use of scientific studies and experiments effectively conveys its main idea. The constant appeal to authority lends an incredible amount of credibility to what would otherwise be a worthless piece of writing. Another very important aspect of this writing is it is logical structure. It doesn’t immediately try to convince the reader that it is true; rather it works the reader through small logical steps to reach its conclusion.
This article interested me immediately because of its interesting title. It instantly made one wonder about the implications of the article. It then further drew attention by the writer’s use of logic and scientific studies.
Unfortunately for me in an article like this it is sometimes difficult for me to identify the intended audience. To me it seemed like it would be the readers of this online publication Slate. I had to do a little bit of researcher to find out a little bit more about the publication. After reading some on the paper and the author I decided that the audience would be middle-aged, moderate to left, men and women. If anyone can either confirm or let me know that I am way off base it would be extremely appreciated.

Analyzing "Beware of Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace!"

The author of this article, Jane Sanders, dives into how bad communication between men and women in the workplace is mainly due to stereotypes men and women put on each other.  Sanders main strategy was asking questions to the reader to help better understand the points she was making.  I chose this paper because it intrigued me from the first sentence.  With personal experience of having communication problems with the opposite sex at the workplace I guess I just gravitated towards this article more than the other essays provided.


Analyzing "Men Are From Vengeance"

The essay I have chosen to analyze is "Men Are From Vengeance." I read several others before stumbling upon this one. The other essays were well written, but they did not interest me very deeply, whereas this essay won me over within the first two paragraphs. The author's purpose is to express, through statistics and his own rhetorical strategies, the difference between men and women in regards to justice and vengeance. Saletan also conveys which circumstances will most affect each gender's tolerance for bloodshed. The title itself is a parody, which struck my interest from the start, though it doesn't prove to be one of the more predominant strategies throughout the essay. The use of diction within the first two paragraphs is what won me over.

At the end of the second paragraph, the author introduces a new word to the audience, shadenfreude--"the joy of watching the suffering of someone you dislike." This word communicates an emotion known by all, but not expressed publicly without a bit of shame. He then uses convicting words, delivered in sets; three times, the words are given in sets of three. "More judgment, less empathy, more shadenfreude" is how William Saleten defines men. This rapid-fire of evocative language is especially powerful considering he is speaking for his own gender. He also uses the cliche, "eye for an eye", twice in one paragraph. Through such uses of diction, the author adds a level of emotion and sentiment to an article that would otherwise be too statistical. However, by the end of the article, the author outdoes his use of diction with of the general tone of his paper. 

In delivering his purpose, the author's tone is the most dominant rhetorical strategy. Saleton's essay is controlled and statistical, making the message easier for the audience to accept. With all of the author's sources, ranging from studies to polls to experiments, he makes it very difficult for his audience to disagree with him. He also gains respect from his audience by summarizing the tests and their results without sounding bias. Not until the end can a reader confidently assume that the author is indeed a man.

In the time that I have invested in analyzing this paper, much of it has been trying to organize and separate the excessive examples of rhetorical strategy. So many examples are intertwined between the different strategies and the essay is so saturated in them. My copy of the essay is a mess with a distorted rainbow of highlighter streaks and black and blue scribbles. It will be interesting trying to clean it all up and form it in to an organized, comprehendible final paper!
The article I chose to write about is The Descent of Marriage. I somehow thought this would be about divorce. I happen to have a lot of experience with that subject and also fighting for my children in custody battles. I was in for a surprise when I read the relating articles at the website. First of all the articles centered around Bishop Gene Robinson. He in 2003 was the center of controversy as he was appointed as the first openly gay Bishop of an Episcopalian Dioceses in New Hampshire. This has caused a split of the churches, the Anglican and the Episcopalians. To prepare for the paper not only did I read the article and saw a related video I wanted to write an outline, but was unsure. I did go to the writing center and that is a great place. I had written my paper and had the guy there read it over and let me know how to take my outline and move it towards organizing my paper. I know this subject is more on equality for all. I have to say being that my brother is an Episcopal Priest I had some prior knowledge and insight into our religion and the upheaval of emotions has caused by the appointment of this bishop whose lifestyle is not traditional . I hope in my writing I can convey the author's point of view and explain the issue without expressing my personal views. Which clearly is the reason we live in America, so that we have the right to have an opinion.

" Beware of Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace!"

The article is written by an experienced, professional, educated woman Jane Sanders. A well known expert on gender issues and communication, Sanders focuses on different stereotypes held against men and women in the workplace (as in the title) and in everyday life. Not only does she focus on the stereotypes, but she speaks about ways to improve communication with the opposite sex and how it can benefit the workplace. The strategy that stood out to me the most was her use of question marks. Throughout the article she asks many questions, to engage the audience and make you think about how you perceive the opposite sex and stereotypes. I like how she asks many questions because we don’t often notice how stereotypical we can be and this article really makes you think, that is why I picked this strategy. She also has a quiz within the article that really tests your judgement on stereotypes. The article shows how passionate Jane is about improving gender issues and you can tell she would like the audience to feel the same.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Article "The Alpha Effect"

Name of Student: Anne H


Chosen Article: “The Alpha Effect”;
assessing how boys and girls influence each other.

Newsweek online article authored by Evan Thomas: Mr. Thomas, an instructor of narrative writing at Princeton.


The fact that Evan Thomas is a writing instructor at Princeton and offers a number of citations by authors/instructors of the similar caliber; primarily, author Dan Kindlon of Harvard also Carol Gilligan, a Harvard graduate in gender studies. These facts establish his authoritative position which leads me to inform and emulate rather than argue. I chose this article because it draws me into the subject matter more readily in comparison to the others.

Mr. Thomas’ introductory paragraph more clearly defines through example the “alpha” effect of boys upon girls and visa-versa by reflecting upon the Deans overheard thoughts that lead to the decision of Dartmouth College to go co-ed and written as "she had hoped that the women would civilize the men. Insead the opposite happened: the men made ruffians of the women." The author refers back to this reflection several times within his writing, possibly to create a more insightful meaning to its introduction.

He strategically contrasts his position through repeated citations of Dan Kindlons’ and Carol Gilligans’ writings immediately followed by his personal insights and opinions within each of the next three paragraphs. His repetitive use of “quotation” marks of phrases and words create emphasis in his use of their terms/meanings. Paraphrasing is another methodology he uses for analysis. A combination of each strategy persuades the reader to agree and reflect further upon his closing argument/opinions.
It seems the blog postings, due to space and medium, require writings that are more briefly summarized for posting..is this an accurate assumption?

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Rhetorical Situations...

So I've comed to conclusion that I may not be grasping the concept as much as I'd like to. But Im going to give a shot at this...

I mainly read alot of parenting magazines, I have no time to read as much interesting things as I wish I could. Now Parenting magazines like (parenting, Baby talk, and parents) are about doctors and parents with their own view on specific topics. and its up to you what advice you take and what you dont. But they always seem to help me with mmy children in some sort of way, or prepares me what to expect when my children reach a certain developmental stage..

So If I understand this right:
The Rhetor: mothers and doctors, and sometimes even Psychologist...

Purpose : to give advice, and topics that interest mothers

Audience: Mothers

Genre: I would say reports, stories, and question and answer..
I
am trying really hard to understand the rhetorical strategies. I think and hope I have the minimal basic understanding. I have gone though the readings and the one I read that seemed interesting to me was The Descent of Marriage. In the readings one story goes into the Episcopal Church's decision to promote a gay priest to a Bishop. This situation caused me to have a long talk with my brother who is an Episcopal Priest in Texas. He had to earn his Masters Degree in order to be a priest, so our small family is very proud of him. He however in 2003 was somewhat embarrassed to be a priest due to the events that were happening around his religion. Who knew that what happened that year to divide the Anglican and Episcopal churches would be the center of attention when our first black president was sworn into office. Bishop Gene Robinson was given the opportunity to give the opening prayer for the President's Inauguration. President Obama even included a marching band in the parade which represented the Gay and Lesbian community. Now whether we agree with any ones lifestyle is truly just that, our own beliefs. As stated in the article about the gay Bishop, homosexual persons are children of God. Our elected officials, priest and others can try to analyze why someone is gay, but in the big scheme of life does it really matter? We see President Obama is breaking the glass ceiling in one aspect of race, maybe we will see more acceptance over our life time.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

"The Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams"

Artifact: Last Lecture (Speech) “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams”
Rhetor: Randy Pausch
Audience: Physical audience was the students and teachers at Carnegie Mellon. The rhetor’s intended audience, as he states at the end of the lecture, is his children.
Background: Randy Pausch, a professor at Carnegie Mellon is given the opportunity to give a lecture called a “Last Lecture” where the professor is expected to reflect on their life as if they were dying. In the case of Professor Pausch he has terminal pancreatic cancer. He decides to give this lecture as his truly “Last Lecture”.
Rhetorical Analysis: The objective of the speech is to “impart wisdom” and Randy Pausch has a very unique and effective way of doing this. One of the most obvious tactics used by Pausch is his use of humor. Every minute that professor Pausch is on stage he has the audience laughing. He is constantly smiling and laughing himself, thus keeping the audience engaged. Another effective tactic is his liberal use of props. There is a moment where he speaks about a innovative program he pioneered at Carnegie Mellon, and to make a point he brings out a vest with arrows sticking out of the back. This is an excellent way to keep the audience engaged and drive his message that “when you do something innovative you will take those arrows in the back” (Pausch). Repetition is also another rhetorical device employed by Pausch. He constantly refers back to the title of the talk, driving his point that childhood dreams can all be achieved. He also expands on this by repeating other common ideas and motifs. “The brick walls are there to show how badly we want something” as well as the “head fake” are used throughout the speech. It is actually the “head fake” the he himself used in this talk, revealing that although the speech was intended for the physical audience he was really speaking to his kids, and not about dying but about living. I know that I have only scratched the surface of professor Pauch’s incredible use of rhetoric in this speech, but I hope that it has given you all an idea of it.

Pearl Harbor Addesss to the Nation

(I have no idea if this is correct but i tried my best) :)

Speech:
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.


As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.


President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation

Audience: President FDR to the United States of America

Rhetor:
The point of the speech was for the President to address the nation about the attack on pearl harbor.

Rhetorical Situation:
The attack took place on December 7th 1941. Pearl harbor was attacked by japan. Now the United States has declared war on Japan.

Message:
The president addressed the United States with a sense of regret.
FOR EXAMPLE: "a date which will live in infamy" He chose these words so that we (The United States) would understand how important and dangerous the situation was.
"deliberately attacked" FDR chose these words to stress the knowledge that this was no accident.
"it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack" This was said to show that we had no idea that this was about to happen and that Japan gave no clue as to this happening.
"grave danger" The president wanted to stress how dangerous the situation was and how horrible the attack was and how much could still happen in the future.
"a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire" This was said to stress the fact that we are now in war with Japan.


-Melanie Marron

Some Samples from the Essays You'll Choose From

The following are vignettes about four of the texts that are options for your paper; I focus on analyzing just one rhetorical strategy in each for clarity.

“Singing the Pink Blues” (concentrating on audience identification/proof)

Because this essay is in a regular column, analyzing the title of the column can tell us a lot about audience. “Mothers Who Think” is a bold – and a rather controversial – title as it implies that there’s a cohort of mothers who don’t think. Because Salon (the publication in which this column runs) it is a more liberal magazine, we can guess that the association with “thinking” suggests that this is for mothers who are socially and politically aware and involved, mothers who are critical of culture, questioning, discerning. Most people want to be associated with “thinking” rather than not thinking, so the column title provides a positive association for readers (if I’m reading this, I’m a thinker. Of course, the title refers more to the writer of the piece than the reader, and we can assume that, while moms are probably the intended or ideal audience, the column can and does appeal to others (women thinking about becoming mothers, women interested in children and child development, fathers, etc.)

Something else to think about: the perspective the writer takes (first, second, third-person). Mifflin writes in first-person, which is what we usually use to frame opinion and subjective (personal) experience. As such, she uses her own experience to prove her points – and we wouldn’t necessarily expect her to use research. All of you, regardless of the essay you choose, can and should think about the perspective used and why it’s used.

“Men Are From Vengeance” (concentrating on appeal to authority)

One of the main strategies Saletan uses is an appeal to authority, citing professional research and even leading the essay with a reference to a published study. Such an appeal to authority, especially so early on, suggests to the reader that he/she ought to take the characteristic in question (are men more prone to vengeful thoughts or vengeance in general?) seriously AND that the answer to this question lies in the outcome of scientifically conducted experiments. In this way, of course, Saletan is presenting his thesis as objective (fact). Saletan goes on to quote other sources liberally, never framing anything as opinion until the end, when he uses the inclusive pronoun “we” to include himself in the studied group. Ultimately, do you think Saletan exposes his bias? The research suggests that men are more vengeful, and it’s up to you to decide whether he reveals that he agrees with the research or doesn’t.

“The Descent of Marriage” (concentrating on diction)

This essay offers a number of “loaded” words and terms (those that immediately incite an emotional reaction). The words we choose usually reveal not only our bias but how we want the readers to identify. For instance: Kim uses the word “anti-gay”, which is a strong term – to identify someone as anti is to suggest very, very strong negative emotion. A great example of how the term “anti” operates as one with which people often don’t want to be associated. For instance, the older, most often used terms in the abortion debate are/were “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. Both of these terms, even if though they represent absolutely opposite poles, actually have positive connotations (which is why they’re used so much!) “Choice” is something we usually think of as positive, and so is “life”. BUT. Consider these newer terms: anti-life (which some who don’t support abortion call those who do) and anti-choice (which some who support abortion call those who do not). Again, both of these terms are diametrically opposed, but both are a bit cringe-worthy as well – most people don’t want to be consider either anti-life or anti-choice. So, the terms writers use to refer to individuals and groups are hugely important in rhetorical analysis. Kim uses a number of words and phrases that are loaded, like patriarchy, anti-gay, sinister secret agenda, painstakingly calculated, “compassionate conservative”, rogue officials, clinically homophobic, paranoid fantasy, sexual anarchy, and so forth.

“We’re Here . . . We’re uh . . . Straight” (concentrating on figurative language)

This essay offers some great figurative images. One of the best comes really early on: “John and Anne Paulk are the poster children of this movement, posing stiffly in front of two incongruous plates of fried eggs and bacon in media all over the country.” What’s going on here? Well, since the author is implying that John and Anne are not and cannot be heterosexual (despite their fervent attempts); they do not “go together” like eggs and bacon do – thus, the “incongruous” image. However, this is the literal interpretation of the metaphor – figuratively, the “bacon and eggs” represent tradition, homespun American wholesomeness . . . and John and Ann Paulk cannot become this image, be part of it (at least not genuinely). The metaphor is a bit more complicated than some but works very well for what Tisdale’s trying to get across. Something else to consider, always, is why an author uses a figure of speech rather than literal language/imagery. Usually, the main motivation is to expose/educate/show readers unfamiliar ideas and concepts by using familiar ideas and images to increase their understanding. Also, figurative language is often used to provide a concrete image (bacon and eggs are pretty recognizable, and easy to picture) for abstract ideas that aren’t easy to convey.

Starting To Understand...I Think.

 
   I have been contemplating rhetorical analysis for a little bit now, wondering about what it is EXACTLY. Thanks to everyone and their blog posts out there, since they have helped me to understand this so much more in each post I read.

After thinking about books and movies to write about, I finally came to the conclusion. The movie called "A Clockwork Orange". This movie takes place around a boy and his gang who often display what's considered beyond indecent behavior. They terrorize London and a number of innocent people they come across. The boy turns on his own gang and lands himself in jail only to be put through government experiments in the hope of getting out of jail early. These "government experiments" are sessions that train the boys mind to be physically and mentally ill at the sight or sound of any horrible acts that are committed (many being the horrible things he did to people himself). He is released again into the world only to come across all the people that he hurt. These people take every opportunity given, to retaliate and all he can do is freeze up and choke out of fear. He is driven crazy nearly to the end by the people he hurt seeking their redress. He ends up in a hospital bed fearing for his life asking for protection from all the people he hurt; which is quite ironic. This movie is one that in analyzing it, one thing definitely comes to mind; be careful how you treat people because you never know when or how it will come back to you. When thinking about the movie in it's entirety, I think of how Stanley Kubrick managed to make people dislike the boy so much from the very beginning of the movie and by the end of it you actually start to feel bad for the kid and vice versa. At the start of the movie you feel horrible for the people this boy encounters and then wonder by the end how they could be so cruel. Needless to say, this movie takes us for a ride on the crazy train!

A Conversation With America....

Given the significance of the events that have occured over this past week, I look to the inauguration speech of President Obama to evaluate.

The rhetorical situation: change of leadership in America, the rhetor: President Barack Obama, the audience: America and abroad, the message: the challenges that we face as a nation shall be overcome....

The objective of President Obama's speech is one of persuasion. His strategic choice of words, his delivery, and body language all serve the purpose of uniting the nation, and soliciting its trust in his ability to lead and make whatever changes necessary to restore our (America) confidence in our government. He makes a point to emphasize the challenges that the country faces are real, and that the journey towards recovery is long, but appeals to the historical resilience of our nation to overcome past challenges. His body language is commanding, tall, strong, that of a leader. Overall was he effective in his objective of convincing the majority that under his new administration America would once again unite and prosper? Though not all would agree, I would say yes. The speech itself was brilliant, and his delivery flawless. Now the real challenge will be living up to those words spoken.
I've been over thinking this rhetorical analysis for the past few days. I'm trying to understand it, and read what others are posting. I'm getting confused as I try to critically try to put something together and write about it. Maybe I'm trying to examine something too complex or just putting way too much thought into it, and probably need to start out small before trying to dissect something which is complex.

As I'm sitting down in my living room, I have acquired many Parenting and BabyTalk magazines. I'm try this route...

Basically these magazines share stories of mothers, moms-to-be, gives advice, things to buy for your newborn or baby, advertisements and what not. Mostly it gives advice and comfort to new moms who will seek knowledge in raising a newborn and other arising situations. To come to think of it, there are many advertisements of all sorts from JC Penney Portrait Studios to Sears Portrait Studio, to Nursery water, from umbilical cord banks and as well as must need toys.

Although the articles in this magazine I find quite entertaining, I simply get them for the coupons and recipes.

Have I rhetorical analyzed this magazine correctly? Or am I totally way off on understand what rhetorical analysis in everyday life is?

Vantage Point

In reading every other post, I am starting to better understand the term rhetorical analysis and its meaning. The movie Vantage Point follows a storyline that is not given in full until the end. Throughout the movie bits and pieces of a specific event are shown through many different peoples' vantage points at the exact same moment in time. This technique allows the director to keep the audience engaged in the storyline. The twists and turns that follow help to put the pieces of the story together by the end of the movie. It's not until the end of the movie that the different vantage points are combined to make the entire storyline make sense.

President Bush Farewell Address


George W. Bush
Farewell Address to the Nation

Former President Bush’s introductory message expresses appreciation to his family, friends and colleagues in that order indicating personal priority. He states thank you to his wife, Laura Bush and his twin daughters and follows with a litany of thank you’s to a number of named friends and colleagues. He welcomes the new President Obama and his family in a manner that wishes them well. President Bush’s message then mentions leadership decisions that, in retrospect, he would do different. This portion of his address is stated in a general format that de-emphasizes. His message continues to name, in more detail, a number of his favorable accomplishments while in office, thus creating more emphasis on such.
President Bush’s use of contrast in emphasizing his detailed accomplishments are stated to include formation of Homeland Security since 9/11 and a supporting comment stating no such recurrence of terrorism since; public schools; economic stimulus in the form of all citizen tax rebates; increased Veterans benefits to name a few.
He states that in all matters he acted according to his own conscience to do what is right in clearly stated ethos. President Bush appeals to the public for their continued support of these issues by an appeal for citizens unwavering resolve for these causes and to move forward with this purpose. His stature, one of firm yet gentle resolve; his diction, clear and concise; his descriptive delivery appeals to the listeners emotional response without exaggeration, but with quiet confidence.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Virtual class, Vehemency and VeggieTales

We are looking now at rhetorical analysis..... OK, right.
Umm, so... what's that supposed to mean?

Let us ruminate....


Rhetorical Analysis - definition:

Of, relating to, or concerned with the separation of a whole into its component parts.


What we are dealing with is, essentially, dissection. We are taking a literary work and dismantling it bit by bit, dividing each portion according to its type and content.


Oh, but why do we do this? For what purpose are we so meticulously fractionating?

Consider this.

Rhetorical analysis is, for me, a tool and catalyst used to deepen one's wisdom and understanding of the given text, whether it be the message of morality it may or may not convey, the emotions one engages when reading what is written, the various facts and tidbits of knowledge from the time period, or simply to enable one to comprehend the subject of the piece. It is, really, an enjoyable thing to dabble in rhetorical analysis, because by doing so one is edified and entertained.


Utilizing my makeshift theory as haphazardly described above, I contemplated the VeggieTales series. Now, aside from the fact that the characters in these productions are various fruits and vegetables (and that they have no arms, yet are able to carry, lift, hold, etc.,) these tales are surprisingly complex in their construction. I watched Minnesota Cuke and the Quest for Sampson's Hairbrush tonight with a five and eight year old and was struck by the variation in perception: we finished the film with completely different visions of the episode. Well, the basic story was the same - Minnesota Cuke (an Indiana Jones-esque character played by Larry the Cucumber) searching for the hairbrush that was said to have great power, etc., etc. The difference was in the assessment, the analysis, of the presentation. While I perceived the nods to Indiana Jones, the Barber of Seville, and Mission Impossible, the kids were transfixed by the storyline of Minnesota and his escapade. While written for young viewers, the VeggieTales stories are interwoven with many bits for us older folks, with humor, underlying sub-plots, and additional lessons for us to experience and reckon.


While it may seem as though it will be tough to write these blogs, especially for those who are new to the process, it is surprisingly easy -- I just wrote something on VeggieTales and am getting away with it! If I can do it, anyone can. Just say it...
Rhetorical analysis is fun..... rhetorical analysis is good.
Rhetorical analysis is fun..... rhetorical analysis is good.


Thank you, and good night.

Taking Advantage of Vulnerability

We are all veterans when it comes to rhetorical analysis, as it is part of our daily lives. Every movie we watch, song we hear, and conversation we share is likely rhetorical. A true understanding of the subject and the ability to benefit from our analyses and apply it to our own rhetoric skills, however, is something we spend our whole lives developing. There are seemingly infinite examples of rhetorical analysis that come to mind.
The most prominent example I thought about while reading through the material is an assignment I had as a high school sophomore to analyze the cinematic techniques used through a movie scene of my choice. The scene I had selected for dissecting was a conversation that took place in the movie, Fight Club. Throughout the duration of the scene, the narrator (the audience) is aggressively berated by his new friend, Tyler Durdin (the rhetor).
Although the assignment at the time was to study cinematic aspects without delving in to the dialogue, I believe the words themselves are far more powerful than the visuals. The camera angles, lighting, etc. are only there to emphasize what is being said. Tyler's words are spoken passionately as he angrily pleads with his audience of one to defy the norm and to combat what the world tells him to be (the message). The narrator is moved by the rhetoric maneuvers used against him, and it is apparent that this is likely because he recently "lost everything." His recent losses leave him in a vulnerable state, open to new dispositions of heart and mind.
The most interesting aspect of the situation is that the rhetorical maneuvers used by the rhetor would not necessarily have been effective if his audience was in a more sane state of mind. In fact, on any earlier day, the narrator would have likely laughed it off as an overly dramatic spiel. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe everything leading up to the narrator's emotional state and acceptance to change can be considered a significant part of the context.)

Rhetorical Analysis

I have never blogger in this kind of forum so please bear with me. I really thought about what I wanted to write on and I seemed to draw nothing but blanks. So, I decided to write on the movie Crash. It affected me an a number of levels. It was interesting to watch as all of the characters. In the movie ,everyone was somehow related in one way or another. It made me think of how you should always be nice because you never know when someone might come into your life. It was also interesting because it showed all of the different cultures and how each culture is prejudice in some way. In the end of the movie it was nice to see how simple humanity overcame the color of a persons skin . I believe this movie was ment to show how people of all cultures are similar and how we are all human.

My point of view on rhetorical analysis

This is my first time blogging so I hope I'm on the right track. Our first paper in English 100 is rhetorical analysis. This will also be my first time rhetorically analyzing a text and writing about it, although I can remember analyzing films and conversations. One of my favorite T.V shows is House. Doctor house is very sarcastic and rude. I think of doctor house as a rhetor. Despite his rude attitude Doctor House is very intelligent and never lets any of his patients down. His patients often look at him with disbelief, because he has a very upfront way of communicating unlike any other doctor. During the show there are always misunderstandings because of his communication style, but in the end his patients are always happy.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Little Lecture That Could

Little Lecture on Rhetorical Analysis: How do we say what we say?

Let’s begin at the beginning. How do we define rhetoric? For our purposes, simply: communication (written, oral, and otherwise, with a clear purpose and audience (usually persuasive). Rhetoric is most often stylized, self-conscious communication – its creator has thought through the intended message and the ways in which that message might best be communicated. Rhetoric can be found in a short story, a news story, a piece of art, an advertisement. Regardless of the artifact (text) under review, the student of rhetoric usually examines – big picture – the following (these are generals, and a beginning)


1. Rhetor: (speaker/writer) Questions about the relationship between rhetor and their rhetoric such as the rhetor's motivation and worldview, and how the rhetoric functions for the rhetor.


2. Audience: Relationship between audience and artifact (text). How the artifact promote certain values and beliefs in the audience(s)? How deoes the artifact demonstrate the audience the rhetor addresses?


3. Rhetorical Situation: Relationship between an artifact and the situation/context in which that artifact is created, released, promoted, etc. What is the impact of a specific situation on the artifact, the rhetor's definition of a situation within the artifact, whether the artifact addresses and exigence for a situation


4. Message: Focus on specific features of an artifact and what allows it function in particular ways (terms, metaphors, word choice, etc) (this is a big focus for us in the paper)

The function of rhetorical analysis, for our purposes, involves analyzing a text not to find out what it says (though we would clearly bring purpose in through summary) but how it says it. Rhetorical analysis involves breaking down a whole (text) into various points (parts) and examining how they work together to produce a wholistic message.

************************************************************************
Why do we do this kind of analysis? For so many reasons. According to your text, the things we read “convey information, but [they] also influence how and what we think” (39). If we can all agree to agree that this premise is true, than it’s quite clear why strong, critical reading skills are necessary. We need to get beyond the surface level and be able to ascertain the subtleties of what we read, the difference between a writer’s intentions and his/her effect on audience, and we need to learn, as writers ourselves, how to use tools (strategies) to say what wish to say in a manner that’s both clear and convincing. In this course, we are concentrating on written texts, of course, and they will be the source of our analytical musings. But we will cover a few visual texts as well (though this is somewhat difficult online.)

Here’s a sample that provides a face for the four categories above. Jean Kilbourne, creator of the video series of advertising analyses called Killing Us Softly, has long argued that “Ads sell a great deal more than products. They sell values, images, and concepts of success and worth, love and sexuality, popularity and normalcy. They tell us who we are and who we should be. Sometimes they sell addictions.”

As the face-to-face (FTF) class will be watching Killing Us Softly tomorrow, I thought it would be an apt place for us to start. I will put the video on reserve on OCN in case any of you are interested in watching it; it’s quite interesting, and Kilbourne critiques a number of ads with which you are probably already familiar.

Consider the Kilbourne sample above as it relates to the four categories above. Jean Kilbourne is the rhetor, her visual text the rhetoric she espouses to communicate the message above (ads sell a hell of a lot more than products, and they influence us more than we think). Going back to what big-picture questions about the rhetor – what’s the relationship between rhetor and their rhetoric? How does the rhetor’s motivation and worldview influence the rhetoric and how does the rhetoric function for the rhetor?

Well, we could start by examining Kilbourne’s motivation for espousing the rhetoric. What does she hope to get out of it? If we consider an advertiser a rhetor who hopes to make money by selling a product via an ad (the rhetoric), we see that advertiser has a clear purpose, and one that’s both clear-cut and self-motivated. But what about Kilbourne? Why is it important to her to communicate this message? What does she get out of it? Anything? Or does she hope to give something back? What does she hope to achieve? How does the content and organization of the artifact clue us in to Kilbourne’s purpose and worldview? I’m not going to answer all these questions for you, because I want YOU to think about them. I can tell you that Kilbourne holds a doctorate, works with the Media Education Foundation (which produces her series), and is a feminist, an author, a lecturer (unbelievably, she’s lectured at over 50% of the U.S.’s colleges and universities). Consider how these characteristics and identities must influence her message and the way she chooses to communicate it, our focus as we begin to tackle rhetorical analysis.

Which values does she hope to promote? Well, she tells us quite literally, near the end of the film, that we must stop polarizing human qualities, and dividing them up as “masculine” or “feminine”, if we are to become part of an aware, educated, and thoughtful public. We can assume she’s promoting active (aware, responsive, critical) consumption of media images rather than passive (disinterested, unaware, accepting). As such, she hopes her own audience can learn to analyze the media images it encounters and make claims about their effects – and their rhetorical effectiveness.

So, next time, let’s take a quick look at an ad similar to one she analyzes in her video.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Followers

I'm just loving getting to know a bit about by you via photos, blog profiles, etc. Makes things feel a bit more intimate. Hope you enjoy mingling here!

Monday, January 19, 2009

Welcome to our English 100 blog. I'll be posting a few entries this week so you get a feel for how the blog will work. If you've never blogged before, or read blogs, you're missing out! I'll link a few here that I read regularly as well. If there's a particular blog you enjoy and want me to link here, let me know. Who knows? Maybe we'll all find some new regular reading material.

Something to keep in mind here? ANYTHING can make for a strong, useful, interesting academic study. Anything can be analyzed rhetorically (see your first assignments). Any topic can be explored in a way that says something valuable about our general culture, and our individual worlds, and the interesting ways in which they collide. So, consider this blog a way to introduce, develop, debate, and engage ideas and issues that crop up in your writing and your reading.

I will assign, over the course of the semester, ten postings that correspond to work that we're doing. These are required, but you can post whenever you want. As long as what you post has something to do with our course, it's appropriate.

Come on board! You'll be posting this week (see schedule).

Ciao,
Amy