Rhetoric and rhetorical choices are immensely important whenever speaking or writing. When the intention of the work, whether it be verbal or written, is meant to sway people to believe in one way composed to another, the significance absolutely sky rockets. Whenever someone is telling the story of a public controversy, there are a few rhetorical choices that are a part of it.
A choice that is definitely a part of it is what, if any, literary devices are going to be used, and how exactly they are going to be used. Using a lot of metaphors could be good or bad, depending how they are used and if they make sense in the context that they are used in. Things like personification, hyperbole, and similes are also something that the author has to decide upon.
The diction is a huge part of a public controversy. The words that are chosen have to be used correctly and powerfully. The author is trying to sway people into viewing things the same way that he/she does. In order to successfully be able to convince people. the words/language chosen needs to be powerful. It needs to drive those that believe to act on their beliefs and it needs to cause those that don’t believe to believe.
Another rhetorical choice that is a part of telling the history of a public controversy is recognizing what the audience is going to be. If you’re talking about the history of gay marriage, the audience of 65 year olds is going to have a lot different opinions than an audience of 25 year olds. Recognizing the fundamental difference that the audience is going to have is key in properly giving a history of the public controversy.
Every rhetorical decision is going to effect the way that the work is given. Making the proper choices is key in a good performance.
What rhetorical choices are part of telling the story of a public controversy?
Something I overlooked when asked this question was the use of figurative language. These elements play a huge role in a public controversy because they can be used effectively to persuade an audience. Diction is important as well. It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Any speaker should fully understand his/her audience. Al Gore for example used 9/11 as a supporting factor in his argument because he was appealing to an American audience. That same example would not be effective outside the United States.
As an English major, I appreciate your analysis of how literary devices are used in rhetoric. Trying to incorporate ethos, logos and pathos into a speech, paper, presentation or documentary would be meaningless if the rhetor doesn’t employ the right words. There’s a difference between saying “abortion is wrong” and “abortion is murder.” Suddenly, when you use the word “murder,” you are implying that people who support abortion are murderers. This may be effective by making people consider the weight of what they are doing, but it will certainly lose any reader or audience member who has had an abortion because they will feel accused. This is just one example of how word choice is critical.