Tag Archives: rhet

Converting the essay into a TED talk wasn’t quite as easy as I thought it would be. I realized that my essay had an extensive amount of stats and research and name-dropping. I included all of this to establish ethos. But when you’re presenting, if you present well and confidently you already have established a sense of ethos, so it’s not quite as important to have loads and loads of stats. Also, listing a bunch of stats while presenting is pretty boring. In my essay I focused a lot of what my shift was, why it was a significant and recent shift (exigence and kairos), and why the shift was occurring. I did not focus too much on speculation on what this meant for society, which I wish I had done a little bit better in the essay. So, the TED talk was the perfect opportunity for some speculation and to include more personal opinion. It was extremely difficult to get my essay under the time limit because I felt like everything I wrote in my essay was important (just a little bias because it took so long to write), so I struggled to liberally cut chunks here and there but I eventually had to (even then my speech was 5:20). Also, for the TED talk it is a lot more important to focus on the introduction and conclusion than it is for the paper because you have an audience that you want to make a good first impression on and a really good last impression on. But I have to say having the paradigm shift paper as a basis made the TED talk as pain-free as possible.

I only watched one Madison’s TED talk but it was obvious that she had prepared really well and had coordinated her speech very well with her slideshow. Madison’s speech showed me the importance of a strong beginning. Even though she had to repeat her introduction three times because of technical problems it still got me engaged every time. Also, her speech showed me the difficulties of the TED talk compared to the rhetorical analysis speech. You have to make sure to keep eye contact with your audience as well as eye contact with the camera. Also, the whole room is a little bit intimidating: the advanced technology, the small size, the huge button you push to start the presentation. Overall, there’s really no room for notecards or improvising. Even if your presence is enough to impress your classmates it definitely won’t be to those viewing via the internet. The main contrast between the TED and the paradigm shift is that the TED talk has more room to focus on the cultural implications or speculations because you’d definitely bore your audience with just stats. In other words, it doesn’t take as long to establish that there’s been a shift, so use your time on the fun stuff like why was there a shift? and what does it mean? This is a super cool genre but if Madison’s speech showed me one thing it was that this speech is much harder than the typical high school speech we had and I guess that’s pretty nerve-wrecking.

The post was a bit too intellectual for my taste. The whole time I was reading the article I was just thinking “so what?”. I know the thesis is supposed to answer this question but I didn’t realize understand the whole purpose of the article until the last sentence. And even then, I’m not sure I fully grasped the meaning. I think what Reed is trying to prove is that we as a university need to stop defining ourselves by the same measures such as football, THON, etc. and start doing a lot more on our own. WE need to be individuals rather than a we.  I didn’t quite understand Christopher Reed’s idea of the “ethos of conformity”. Actually, I find him to be quite the drama queen.

“That’s the problem with the Penn State Way – it’s not “Ways” — there is only one. To belong you have to conform. Conforming is belonging – that’s what those words – “We are Penn State” — uttered that way mean.”

What does this have to do with ethos? I mean, I’m sure it does because everything in someway is connected to ethos but seriously writing an analysis of a chant isn’t going to do anything to change the environment of a college campus. Of course the written word is known to raise awareness about issues but I don’t think there is an issue here? I thought the piece would be funny and relatable because of the title, but I confess myself disappointed.

Overall, I think the paper is very well written and is a pretty good narrative but if I was simply given the paper I probably wouldn’t label it as being rhetorical analysis. Of course there are definitely pieces throughout that seem more like rhetorical analysis than others. For example, even when Kyle is describing the physical appearance of the two players and uses the chart it seems as if this is developing credibility for Billie Jean King (ethos) while kind of tearing down Riggs. Moreover, Kyle develops ethos throughout the paper by citing credible sources and having many statistics, facts, and quotes, yet it was hard for me to decipher what he is proving if he’s trying to prove something. I initially thought his thesis was “I propose to view the match as an argument ostensibly about gender which held deeper implications for how the interrelationship of gender, class, and economics could play out in the cultural realm of sports” but the essay was too long and scatterbrained for me to see this fully developed. I still think, however, the essay was well written and well researched throughout but perhaps the reflection/commentary on the research could’ve been more oriented towards one purpose for the paper to be technically considering rhetorical analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TgqenWW0I&feature=player_embedded

I can’t say I was the biggest fan of To Kill A Mockingbird while I was required to read it for 10th grade English but when we watched the movie my appreciation for the book, and especially the character Atticus Finch grew exponentially. His poise and inflection is impeccable and not to mention his incredibly logical argument when defending an innocent black man Tom Robinson.

Atticus establishes ethos from the very beginning. “To begin with, this case should have never come to trial”. The audience is immediately captivated by his confidence. Yet Atticus doesn’t stop at just making a strong statement. He supports it with not only one but several logical arguments. He uses cold, hard facts and smooth transitions to continuously shoot down any credibility that the opposing side may have established.

Atticus’s strong, logical transitions are epitomized when he states, “But, my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man’s life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say “guilt,” gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her”.  He effectively shoots down any pathos argument that the other side has made by stating that Maya is motivated to hurt Robinson.

Atticus’s closing statements are eloquently stated and show the power of combining the three means of persuasion:

“Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review without passion the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision, and restore this man to his family.