Samples: Your First Blogging Assignment

Here are two good ones, written by other students:

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.

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.

Some sample rhetorical analyses (brief!) from a few of the essays available for your first paper

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.

Some particulars of general rhetorical analysis

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 we will be watching Killing Us Softly next week, I thought it would be an apt place for us to start. 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.