Saturday, January 31, 2009
We're Here We're Uh....Straight
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"
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!"
Analyzing "Men Are From Vengeance"
" Beware of Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace!"
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Article "The Alpha Effect"
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...
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"
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
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
“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.
A Conversation With America....
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.
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
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
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
Rhetorical Analysis
My point of view on rhetorical analysis
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
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
Monday, January 19, 2009
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