All sorts of things on the Chipotle ad

Here’s the ad one more time, if you want to watch it again.  A lot has been written about it from both the left and right, both fawning over the creativity and critiquing either the method or message, or both. (Available at sites like The Washington Post, Mother Jones, The Atlantic; Farm Futures has a really nice rebuttal concerning implied farmer motives on the second page of their article).

Today I mentioned one post in particular that explores the vegetarian bait-and-switch move (over at Salon), which might be worth a few minutes of your time. Continue reading

Topic sentence options in two sample essays

This analysis essay, on graffiti artist Banksy’s Bulletproof Dove, uses a traditional five paragraph essay format.  (I don’t encourage the format since it can sound mechanical, but it worked adequately in this instance.)  Its thesis clearly displays both the what and how of the rhetoric’s function.  Paragraphs are driven by clear topic sentences (top-down organization), and although I might like stronger transitional phrases, perhaps tying back to the thesis, it does display strong summaries for the analytical paragraphs.  The importance of context to the piece’s meaning also is clearly addressed in the first two main points.

The Dos Equis ad analysis displays great voice and nicely contextualizes the rhetoric, while highlighting the “news” or “so what?” of the analysis.  It transitions between paragraphs well and effectively uses implicit topic sentences with a culmination organizational pattern (as opposed to top-down organization driven by explicit topic sentences).  Craig’s prose is purposeful, and avoids the sense that the writer is discovering his own conclusions as he writes–there’s a clear sense of direction, which is necessary to make the culmination pattern work.  (He also balances descriptive and analytical paragraphs expertly–the descriptive ones always function as evidence for his analysis.)

Generally, the top-down organization pattern is the norm in academic writing, and is easier to pull off with excellence.  The culmination organization pattern also can work well, and provides more personal options for writing voice, but it takes much more effort on the part of the writer to maintain clarity–so be strategic if you choose to take on this challenge.

Rhetoric of the 9/11 Memorial

I brought this up in the assignment directions based on an editorial I read, a phenomenal piece about the failed rhetoric of the World Trade Center Memorial.  The author argues that the memorial is unlike those commemorating other significant events, like the Vietnam War.  Ultimately it atomizes, rather than individualizes, the deceased.  Its final message is nihilistic rather than transformative, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of the exigence–the needs of the situation.  (That last bit is the contextual connection to the analysis, and why it could work for this assignment.)

A brief excerpt follows, but the whole thing is worth a read.  (It’s an editorial piece, so he moves on to other topics beginning with the heading “America the Pious–and Impious,” so feel free to stop there.)

Men do not erect public monuments and memorials to serve as objective, dispassionate records of historical events. At their best they shape our consciousness of the past for the sake of our common life in the future. Therein lies the failure of the 9/11 Memorial. A quiet, peaceful place of repose amidst a busy city—it will be cherished by future Wall Street workers as a nice place for lunch on a sunny day. But its design serves no future, conjuring instead the blank, perpetual, unchanging power of death, and encouraging the atomizing particularity of personal memory.

Keep Calm and Think Rhetorically

You’ve seen the meme-style remakes, which all stem from the original WWII poster (that was never actually distributed during the war.)

Keep-calm-and-carry-on-scanHere’s a quick rhetorical analysis of the piece by a British media analyst.  The particular form of analysis is called close textual analysis, attending to the specific effect wording has on the reader.  It’s also a contextual analysis, though, considering the difficulties faced by the everyday British citizen during a war.

Not all analyses tend toward the psychological like this, but it’s a great example of the kind of depth available even when something only has five words.  (And I bring it up also because it is not formulaic.  This isn’t simply a quick review of the ethos, pathos, and logos of the artifact, which in itself would not make a strong analysis.)

A source for rhetorical artifacts for analysis

I know it can be challenging to simply “come up with” a rhetorical artifact worth writing about.  We’ll look at a couple of student examples on Thursday, but I do want to offer speeches for your consideration: they have a clear and specific audience (as opposed to a message on, say, the internet, which has a much broader audience), they take place at a particular time and in a particular place, they face unique constraints, and the rhetorical appeals and techniques usually are quickly identifiable.

I’m not at all trying to steer you toward analyzing public addresses, but they can make your task easier, particularly if you’re stumped.  The go-to source for a list of American speeches is American Rhetoric.  While the site design may look a bit dated–it’s run by volunteers–it is the definitive resource for text, audio, and video (when available) for the key addresses delivered in America since its founding.

(My only request would be that you do not pick a speech from a movie.  The audience changes significantly–it’s no longer merely the characters in the film, but also the physical audience of the film viewer.  This is an added layer of complexity that often leads first-time analysts astray, so I’ll ask you to stick with a real world instance.)

Creating passion blogs; plus, presentation rehearsal

For your passion blog you’ll be setting up another blog (site) at sites.psu.edu.  (Click create new site, fill in two boxes, and you’re set.)  If you scroll down to an earlier post, you’ll see some links to directions for setting up new blogs, so if you want a bit more of a walkthrough, or run into trouble, there are resources to help.

Someone also asked about delivery rehearsal.  While I’m happy to discuss ideas with you during office hours, my policy is that I won’t critique delivery beforehand.  (It throws off my grading of the presentation itself, as I’m not coming to it “fresh” like the rest of your audience is.)  However, a new resource just became available, the Undergraduate Speaking Center.  Staffed by trained mentors, the center can help with all stages of message development (invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery). Appointments are recommended–just fill out the form on the center’s website.

Fun with grammar, comic style

So I just sent an email to one of the sections with a grammatical error in it.  I know the difference, sure, but sometimes the fingers don’t do what the brain intends.  (It was a your/you’re mix-up.)  Phonetics won the day, apparently.

What rhetorical effect does this have?  Many people, reading quickly, might not have noticed.  For those who do, an error like this might have a potentially negative effect on ethos, although hopefully a small one.  (Hence this post, to let you know that, yeah–I totally know the difference.)

So to celebrate, and to poke fun at myself a little, here’s a cool link to a comic by The Oatmeal on some of the most commonly misspelled words.  Enjoy!

images

Why academics can’t write

In one of the sections today we discussed tailoring vocabulary to appeal to an audience, and in both sections the Taylor Mali video covered confidence and precision in language.

prospect_magazine_logo

Here’s an article from Prospect Magazine that discusses why some academics (especially in the social sciences, although it applies to some of us in the liberal arts, too) seem to value being awkward with their wording.  (And, whether intentional or not, some of the comments are delightfully ironic.)