Friday, June 19, 2009
Blog 1
As this is my first foray in to the realm of legitimate writing , I was a bit unacquainted with the term rhetorical analysis. After a considerable amount of googling, and reading the lecture several times I have come to the realization that it is one of those things we do inadvertently day to day. As we are bombarded by information as it is slung about by dueling media outlets like monkeys hurling there crap, we ask ourselves the same questions one would when conducting a rhetorical analysis. In our minds we go through a checklist rather quickly that could be applied to any essay....what is the subject being discussed?, does it mean anything to me?, what is the writer or analyst or anchor's purpose?, how is the information being channeled (chronologically, analogy, parody), what is the diction (formal, informal, slang, emotionally evocative).....the list goes on and on. So after being moderately intimidated by this class and the new way of breaking down literature, I find that now I am only slightly intimidated by this class.
Michael Moore – King of Rhetoric
There is no one that I can think of who uses extremely convincing rhetoric more than Michael Moore. Love to hate him, or hate to love him; he is brilliant at creating controversy. For the purpose of this blog, let’s reference his article on GM’s downfall. The article can be found at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php.
The article is titled “Goodbye, GM”. The article requests that we, the readers, view the GM demise with open minds. Moore often stands on the platform of preventative action, and states that although tragic to many American families, the collapse was foreseeable, and most importantly preventable. Through proving this point, he then has a basis to explain how we can use this tragedy to prevent further catastrophes, and potentially provide new work for these displaced families.
Moore uses a myriad of rhetorical tactics in his movies and articles. In this particular article, he blatantly uses irony to prove his point. He states “It is with sad irony that the company which invented ‘planned obsolescence’ -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete.” Once the reader digests this statement, Moore has set the reader up to lose some sympathy for GM.
Figurative language and analogy are two key strategies used by Moore as well. “So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold…”, “The things we call ‘cars’ may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature.” These are merely two examples, but it showcases the dramatic effects that Moore utilizes to make the reader feel more emotional concerning his points. A great example of analogy is “Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.” These analogies allow the reader to see an instance of Moore’s ideas in our very own history. It helps make his ideas not seem so “far-fetched.”
Without staying too technical on this conversation, I wanted to say that I enjoy Michael Moore. I generally agree with his mindset, and I am curious as to his point of view. However, when I do watch one of his movies, or read his articles, I question how much is biased. It’s not often he shows two sides to a story, and he tends to drill in on small clips of time and focus on one to two lines of a document, whatever proves his points. Regardless, he’s convincing and has definitely made his place in the media world. Most people know who he is, and for the most part, understand his style. He’s made a business of rhetoric.
The article is titled “Goodbye, GM”. The article requests that we, the readers, view the GM demise with open minds. Moore often stands on the platform of preventative action, and states that although tragic to many American families, the collapse was foreseeable, and most importantly preventable. Through proving this point, he then has a basis to explain how we can use this tragedy to prevent further catastrophes, and potentially provide new work for these displaced families.
Moore uses a myriad of rhetorical tactics in his movies and articles. In this particular article, he blatantly uses irony to prove his point. He states “It is with sad irony that the company which invented ‘planned obsolescence’ -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete.” Once the reader digests this statement, Moore has set the reader up to lose some sympathy for GM.
Figurative language and analogy are two key strategies used by Moore as well. “So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold…”, “The things we call ‘cars’ may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature.” These are merely two examples, but it showcases the dramatic effects that Moore utilizes to make the reader feel more emotional concerning his points. A great example of analogy is “Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices.” These analogies allow the reader to see an instance of Moore’s ideas in our very own history. It helps make his ideas not seem so “far-fetched.”
Without staying too technical on this conversation, I wanted to say that I enjoy Michael Moore. I generally agree with his mindset, and I am curious as to his point of view. However, when I do watch one of his movies, or read his articles, I question how much is biased. It’s not often he shows two sides to a story, and he tends to drill in on small clips of time and focus on one to two lines of a document, whatever proves his points. Regardless, he’s convincing and has definitely made his place in the media world. Most people know who he is, and for the most part, understand his style. He’s made a business of rhetoric.
Second blog
I wrote about the article titled "Does Facebook Replace Face Time or Enhance It?" by Lisa Selin Davis. The one thing that intrigued me the most about this article was the fact that it relates to a lot of questions I have about today's society. Why is it that we have to pay so much attention to social networks in order to keep in touch with friends and even family members? I understand that it's really convenient at times, but isn't it a little too overrated? Picking up the phone and having a conversation shouldn't be that hard, especially if someone is willing to dedicate half an hour (maybe even more) of their time on the internet. I chose this article specifically because I believed it was the most relevant to my age group. A lot of people my age use Facebook and Myspace on a daily basis and I figured it would be a lot easier to understand. I'm pretty sure I'm clear on the analytical process but one question I do have is, what kind of effect would exaggeration have on a reader? I understand that it allows readers to understand the extent of a situation, but are there any other effects?
First blog
It's pretty much a given that everyone speaking the English language has written a persuasive essay at least once in his or her life. Of course it was on the topic of changing school policies, permission to use cellphones on campus, or the typical school uniform battle. Every single time I had to write one of these essays, I struggled because the art of persuasion wasn't exactly my forte. Analyzing and reading examples of other essays were crucial - I had to pay attention to what the purpose of the essay was, who I was writing to, whether or not I should write it formally, and a lot of other key points in writing the perfect essay. Evaluating other essays and analyzing rhetorical moves of the author helped me realize what I should be paying attention to a lot more when I write. Writing persuasive essays isn't as difficult for me as it was when I was in 6th grade, but keeping up with all the strategies is something that I still have to keep in the back of my mind. I've always analyzed rhetorial moves of authors or speakers and even actors/actresses but it's not the number one item on my list of priorities every second of every day. It's just really helpful for me to keep all the rhetorical strategies in my mind especially when I'm reading papers and articles, mainly because it helps me write.
Blog 1
One of the factors of rhetorical analysis is audience. I watched a film in a previous class where an artist used obscene materials to create art. She even went as far as using her bodily fluids to decorate a canvas. The entire time the film was playing the class kept making faces and whispering about how "weird" it was. Although I personally also thought that using bodily fluids to create art is a bit on the edge the film showed many other artists and historians who thought it was a fascinating idea. They said it created a unique and original masterpiece. I guess the way an audience views and interprets a work of art integrates that persons background.
2nd blog. Facebook
I found the Facebook article very interesting because i've always thought people got way into Facebook and wasted too much time on it. Instead of doing something useful or anything, they would be checking their Facebook and making pointless obvious obsvervations to friends or friends on facebook. Which is much different by the way because friends on Facebook you never have to meet or even have a real conversation with, you can just add them to your friend list and not even talk to them if you want. But I think Facebook is a perfect subject to write about because it's huge and pretty much everyone uses it now days. There are also many things people don't realize about it and I like to find those things out. I think the worksheet was very confusing but after a while i figured it out.
What's behind it all.
Blog Topic: 1
Rhetorical devices, whether acknowledged as such, or seen as just another way or “unveiling the truth,” may be effectively utilized not only in a classroom, but in everyday life. Identifying rhetorical strategies is the first step to understanding what exactly it is that you are being exposed to, the real intent of the author/speaker. Grasping the full use of these strategies can greatly affect the subtle persuasiveness of a speech or written work and allow us to use or receive them. My most recent experience with analyzing these strategies was in observing a barrage of ads in which women were severely objectified. The idea of “sex sells” is taken to extremes in the advertising industry; where women’s bodies become beer bottles and their faces are not in the picture, yet their half naked bodies are provocatively positioned to imitate one thing or another. The most disturbing of which is when the women are portrayed to be beautiful, but silent (their mouths are covered). The idea of this is to sell, to men in particular, the luxury of a woman’s touch, but without having to hear what she has to say. This signals to me the promotion of rape culture, and women’s objectification and submission to men, with or without consent.
Blog Topic: 2
“Bro-Hood and its Discontents: The Hangover”
I chose this article based on the content of the movie really intriguing me in regards to the “gender role” issue. My general overview of the movie was, yes, it was funny, although the messages that were being sent out, not so funny. Throughout the entire movie women are made out to be either overbearing, irrational, abusive, and controlling or strippers. In the same turn, men are made out to be the “good guys,” just trying to have fun for a weekend and escape the “tragic reality” of adulthood and how they must succumb to there female counterparts.
Although, the article I read, written by Will Menaker, clearly didn’t agree. He did however further the message of the movie by explaining that the men were “seeking respite form the stifling vaginocracy of everyday life” before their best friend gets “married—i.e., castrated and enslaved.”
What was really funny to me is how clear the roles are when it comes to parenting. In the movie the men find a baby and instantly freak out and debate leaving it in the room with a tiger, they accidentally hit his head with the car door, etc. but the moment the mother shows up, who happens to be a stripper, she is loving and compassionate toward the child, which is an emotion that only the “weird guy” ever displayed towards him.
If the roles were flipped, and women treated a baby like that, there wouldn’t be anything funny about it. Women are supposed to be the care takers and if one of them ever said something like “let’s just leave him in the car, I cracked the window,” no one would be laughing, they’d be saying “damn, that’s fucked up, what a horrible mother,” but in the case with men it’s a “haha, men.” As if that justifies child abuse somehow, because “they don’t know better.”
There are clear double standards and “expectations” in the world of men versus women, which are constantly being promoted and even supported by mainstream culture. These portrayals are constantly feeding the cycle of objectification and harsh steryotypes.
Rhetorical devices, whether acknowledged as such, or seen as just another way or “unveiling the truth,” may be effectively utilized not only in a classroom, but in everyday life. Identifying rhetorical strategies is the first step to understanding what exactly it is that you are being exposed to, the real intent of the author/speaker. Grasping the full use of these strategies can greatly affect the subtle persuasiveness of a speech or written work and allow us to use or receive them. My most recent experience with analyzing these strategies was in observing a barrage of ads in which women were severely objectified. The idea of “sex sells” is taken to extremes in the advertising industry; where women’s bodies become beer bottles and their faces are not in the picture, yet their half naked bodies are provocatively positioned to imitate one thing or another. The most disturbing of which is when the women are portrayed to be beautiful, but silent (their mouths are covered). The idea of this is to sell, to men in particular, the luxury of a woman’s touch, but without having to hear what she has to say. This signals to me the promotion of rape culture, and women’s objectification and submission to men, with or without consent.
Blog Topic: 2
“Bro-Hood and its Discontents: The Hangover”
I chose this article based on the content of the movie really intriguing me in regards to the “gender role” issue. My general overview of the movie was, yes, it was funny, although the messages that were being sent out, not so funny. Throughout the entire movie women are made out to be either overbearing, irrational, abusive, and controlling or strippers. In the same turn, men are made out to be the “good guys,” just trying to have fun for a weekend and escape the “tragic reality” of adulthood and how they must succumb to there female counterparts.
Although, the article I read, written by Will Menaker, clearly didn’t agree. He did however further the message of the movie by explaining that the men were “seeking respite form the stifling vaginocracy of everyday life” before their best friend gets “married—i.e., castrated and enslaved.”
What was really funny to me is how clear the roles are when it comes to parenting. In the movie the men find a baby and instantly freak out and debate leaving it in the room with a tiger, they accidentally hit his head with the car door, etc. but the moment the mother shows up, who happens to be a stripper, she is loving and compassionate toward the child, which is an emotion that only the “weird guy” ever displayed towards him.
If the roles were flipped, and women treated a baby like that, there wouldn’t be anything funny about it. Women are supposed to be the care takers and if one of them ever said something like “let’s just leave him in the car, I cracked the window,” no one would be laughing, they’d be saying “damn, that’s fucked up, what a horrible mother,” but in the case with men it’s a “haha, men.” As if that justifies child abuse somehow, because “they don’t know better.”
There are clear double standards and “expectations” in the world of men versus women, which are constantly being promoted and even supported by mainstream culture. These portrayals are constantly feeding the cycle of objectification and harsh steryotypes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)