On May 1st 2011, Osama Bin Laden was pronounced dead and America rejoiced. After 10 years, 2 wars, 919,967 deaths and over a trillion dollars later we had managed to capture and kill the most wanted man in the world. As I was rioting on Beaver Ave. with the rest of the Penn State student population, I blamed much of my reaction on mob mentality. I was happy we had finally caught the man who had cost so many American's their lives, but I wondered what type of message our riots sent to the rest of the world. What kind of rhetorical statement were we making? We were rioting over a persons death after all. Or was this situation different because it was seen as an American victory? As I cheered and sang in Beaver canyon, I couldn't allow myself to become comfortable in my rejoicing. I was busy analyzing the moral and rhetorical statements I was making to the rest of the world with my actions. Rhetoric is a tool a learned to use this semester in my LA101H class. I have complied my best rhetorical speeches and and analysis on an e-Portfolio as a cumulative account of the knowledge I have acquired. This is sadly my last post on my Rhetoric and Civic Life blog, but the reality of my civic life is just beginning. Follow this link to see the work I have accomplished in this short semester.
Link to Katie Quinn's e-Portfolio
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Dressing the Part
One of my mom's favorite mottos is "clothes make the man". She reminds me of this saying whenever I have an interview or a public presentation. I always laugh it off as an old adage, but lately I have noticed the effect that a speaker's appearance has on both the speaker's confidence in delivery, and the audience's perception of the speaker and response to their message.
To relate the correlation between a speaker's confidence and their appearance I would like to recall some of the beautiful weather we had Thursday of this week! When I woke up with sun shining and warm air blowing through my dorm window, I was lifted from the gloomy mood the beginning of the week carried, and I couldn't help but feel great about myself. Even though I woke up late for class, I took some time and wore an outfit that I felt good in. On my walk to class I realized I wasn't the only one in this mood. The sidewalks looked like pages from a JCPenny's catalogue. All of the girls were sporting their cutest spring outfits and even some guys were breaking out their polos and cargo shorts. Everyone felt good, so they dressed well.
This relationship works the same way in reverse. We recently held elections in the College of Democrats, and some of the members took it much more seriously than others. About half of the members running for office arrived in suits and the other half arrived in jeans. With the exception of one person, the members who presented their platforms in suits won, and the members that presented their platforms in jeans lost. This is a great example of the effect a speaker's appearance has on both the speaker and the audience's perception of the speaker.
The members that presented their speeches in suits spoke with refined authority, and they dressed the part as a future leader of the organization. The members that presented in jeans may have been equally qualified, but they did not present themselves in that manner. Their speeches were not as coherent and their platforms were not as developed as the members in suits. The members that presented in suits may have done so because they cared more about getting the position and invested more time in their presentation, but isolating all other variables, the members in suits delivered better speeches than the members in jeans.
The audience was much more responsive to the speeches of the candidates in suits. This was compelling evidence of the effect of appearance on the perceptions of the ethos of speakers. It was especially significant because the club is very close and most of the members already know the credibility of the other members of the club. In this case, the audience held more respect for the speaker because the speaker expressed respect for the audience through their formal appearance.
In the end the rhetoric of delivery comes back to what my mom always says, "clothes make the man". Professional appearance is one of the easiest ways that a rhetor can command the audience's attention and respect before they open their mouth to speak. The rest of the speaker's delivery is up to their knowledge and preparation on the subject, but seeming like you care and respect your audience by your appearance is a crucial step to gaining the your audience's respect and conveying your message effectively.
To relate the correlation between a speaker's confidence and their appearance I would like to recall some of the beautiful weather we had Thursday of this week! When I woke up with sun shining and warm air blowing through my dorm window, I was lifted from the gloomy mood the beginning of the week carried, and I couldn't help but feel great about myself. Even though I woke up late for class, I took some time and wore an outfit that I felt good in. On my walk to class I realized I wasn't the only one in this mood. The sidewalks looked like pages from a JCPenny's catalogue. All of the girls were sporting their cutest spring outfits and even some guys were breaking out their polos and cargo shorts. Everyone felt good, so they dressed well.
This relationship works the same way in reverse. We recently held elections in the College of Democrats, and some of the members took it much more seriously than others. About half of the members running for office arrived in suits and the other half arrived in jeans. With the exception of one person, the members who presented their platforms in suits won, and the members that presented their platforms in jeans lost. This is a great example of the effect a speaker's appearance has on both the speaker and the audience's perception of the speaker.
The members that presented their speeches in suits spoke with refined authority, and they dressed the part as a future leader of the organization. The members that presented in jeans may have been equally qualified, but they did not present themselves in that manner. Their speeches were not as coherent and their platforms were not as developed as the members in suits. The members that presented in suits may have done so because they cared more about getting the position and invested more time in their presentation, but isolating all other variables, the members in suits delivered better speeches than the members in jeans.
The audience was much more responsive to the speeches of the candidates in suits. This was compelling evidence of the effect of appearance on the perceptions of the ethos of speakers. It was especially significant because the club is very close and most of the members already know the credibility of the other members of the club. In this case, the audience held more respect for the speaker because the speaker expressed respect for the audience through their formal appearance.
In the end the rhetoric of delivery comes back to what my mom always says, "clothes make the man". Professional appearance is one of the easiest ways that a rhetor can command the audience's attention and respect before they open their mouth to speak. The rest of the speaker's delivery is up to their knowledge and preparation on the subject, but seeming like you care and respect your audience by your appearance is a crucial step to gaining the your audience's respect and conveying your message effectively.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Setting the Mood
As my group members and I were scrolling through the video of our multimedia presentation, we were happy with the way it looked, but we felt something was missing. It was silent.
We had not added the music yet and we could tell the difference. The images were compelling without the music but they didn't the same heart-gripping and mind-engaging effect.
After adding the music and watching the other groups use of music in their projects I decided to devote this blog to the effectiveness of music in creating a tone for the message a rhetor is trying to send through this type of multimedia medium.
The best way I can think of to analyze the changes in moods and tones different types of music can make is to reflect back on the changes of music themes our group went through. The tone of our project went from ironic, to intense, and finally we settled on contemplative.
Originally, our group wanted to use the theme music from "Always Sunny" to set a light mood against a heavy controversy and create a sense of irony in the audience. We loved the music, but we were afraid our infringing on the show's copyrights on the songs, and we felt that a different tone would be more effective in conveying the growing seriousness of the controversy of Adderall use in a college setting.
So next we decided to use alternative rock music to create a more intense mood. We scanned the creative commons far and wide searching for the perfect "I hate the world" song to enhance the intensity of our controversy, but we couldn't seem to find one that fit. We realized that we couldn't find a song that fit because the theme didn't fit the message of our topic.
As we were scanning the creative commons, we stumbled on the piece that would be the main song and the theme behind our music. Everyone in the group knew if fit upon hearing the song. The song was contemplative and plotting and moved forward with repetitive percussion that reminded me of at ticking of a clock. This gave our project the contemplative feel it needed and the message we were trying to send to our audience. We wanted to present the controversy as something still unclear to many people, and with alot of uncertainty surrounding the ethics of its use. This song was most effective because it instilled that same thoughtful mood into our audience.
We knew we had found the right song when the mood it created matched the message we were trying to send, and that is a good guideline to follow when searching for compelling music to set your audiences' mood.
We had not added the music yet and we could tell the difference. The images were compelling without the music but they didn't the same heart-gripping and mind-engaging effect.
After adding the music and watching the other groups use of music in their projects I decided to devote this blog to the effectiveness of music in creating a tone for the message a rhetor is trying to send through this type of multimedia medium.
The best way I can think of to analyze the changes in moods and tones different types of music can make is to reflect back on the changes of music themes our group went through. The tone of our project went from ironic, to intense, and finally we settled on contemplative.
Originally, our group wanted to use the theme music from "Always Sunny" to set a light mood against a heavy controversy and create a sense of irony in the audience. We loved the music, but we were afraid our infringing on the show's copyrights on the songs, and we felt that a different tone would be more effective in conveying the growing seriousness of the controversy of Adderall use in a college setting.
So next we decided to use alternative rock music to create a more intense mood. We scanned the creative commons far and wide searching for the perfect "I hate the world" song to enhance the intensity of our controversy, but we couldn't seem to find one that fit. We realized that we couldn't find a song that fit because the theme didn't fit the message of our topic.
As we were scanning the creative commons, we stumbled on the piece that would be the main song and the theme behind our music. Everyone in the group knew if fit upon hearing the song. The song was contemplative and plotting and moved forward with repetitive percussion that reminded me of at ticking of a clock. This gave our project the contemplative feel it needed and the message we were trying to send to our audience. We wanted to present the controversy as something still unclear to many people, and with alot of uncertainty surrounding the ethics of its use. This song was most effective because it instilled that same thoughtful mood into our audience.
We knew we had found the right song when the mood it created matched the message we were trying to send, and that is a good guideline to follow when searching for compelling music to set your audiences' mood.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Knowing your Audience
My blog group and I entered into a healthy rhetorical debate after class on Thursday about what originally was the scope of our thesis for our multimedia presentation. Ironically, our own discussion's scope broadened and we began to discuss the importance of knowing your audience and the dangers that are associated with assuming to much about your audience. Though by the end of the debate we began to focus back in on discussion on the scope of our thesis, my mind was left pondering the idea of knowing your audience and what that meant to a rhetor when presenting a rhetorical argument.
We have learned from our RCL book [yeah Im citing it :) lol] that the more you know about the audience you are presenting to the better, but where do you draw between knowing your audience, and making assumptions about commonly held beliefs?
I will use the example from our group to explain the question I posed. As we began to discuss our thesis which was originally "The ethics of using adderall in a university setting", I had the assumption that we were only talking about the illegal use of adderall. My thinking was based off of my belief that taking drugs that are prescribed to you by a doctor is ethical. I believed this to be a common belief held by most Americans, and most university students. However, Devron brought up a different viewpoint. He said that he assumed that when we said adderall we were discussing the use of adderall both legally and illegally and discussing the ethics of taking a prescribed drug to make students who are naturally disadvantaged at their ability to focus, perform above their natural levels.
This is the point where the knowledge of our specific audience diverged. I assumed the audience would understand taking prescribed drugs as ethical, and Devron countered saying that some members of the audience may not have this assumption. Sadly, just as our entire group was entering into the debate class ended. However, Devron and I were not done with our discussion about our audience and continued for a few minutes after class. As we both began to head off in different directions towards our next class, we decided that we both needed to do more research on our topic and our audience. This would ensure that we were properly unwrapping our controversy in a way that would not bias our audience by assuming commonly held beliefs. However, we needed to also find a way to limit our thesis to make a direct a strong presentation of our controversy. For today, the conversation will hopefully come to a conclusion as we nail down our thesis and move forward on our multimedia project, but I do not think my personal contemplations of knowing your audience or discussion surrounding this issue is quite over...
(P.S. Shout out to my blog group!! Sophia, Katharine, and Devron!!)
We have learned from our RCL book [yeah Im citing it :) lol] that the more you know about the audience you are presenting to the better, but where do you draw between knowing your audience, and making assumptions about commonly held beliefs?
I will use the example from our group to explain the question I posed. As we began to discuss our thesis which was originally "The ethics of using adderall in a university setting", I had the assumption that we were only talking about the illegal use of adderall. My thinking was based off of my belief that taking drugs that are prescribed to you by a doctor is ethical. I believed this to be a common belief held by most Americans, and most university students. However, Devron brought up a different viewpoint. He said that he assumed that when we said adderall we were discussing the use of adderall both legally and illegally and discussing the ethics of taking a prescribed drug to make students who are naturally disadvantaged at their ability to focus, perform above their natural levels.
This is the point where the knowledge of our specific audience diverged. I assumed the audience would understand taking prescribed drugs as ethical, and Devron countered saying that some members of the audience may not have this assumption. Sadly, just as our entire group was entering into the debate class ended. However, Devron and I were not done with our discussion about our audience and continued for a few minutes after class. As we both began to head off in different directions towards our next class, we decided that we both needed to do more research on our topic and our audience. This would ensure that we were properly unwrapping our controversy in a way that would not bias our audience by assuming commonly held beliefs. However, we needed to also find a way to limit our thesis to make a direct a strong presentation of our controversy. For today, the conversation will hopefully come to a conclusion as we nail down our thesis and move forward on our multimedia project, but I do not think my personal contemplations of knowing your audience or discussion surrounding this issue is quite over...
(P.S. Shout out to my blog group!! Sophia, Katharine, and Devron!!)
Friday, March 25, 2011
Jane Goodall at Penn State!
Tonight I had the opportunity to see Jane Goodall speak. Jane Goodall, yeah that's right, the one who spent 50 years studying and living with the chimpanzees. Her fame and interesting life experiences were what drew me and almost 1,000 other students into Eisenhower auditorium to hear her speak tonight. Her speech was interesting in two ways: first, I went having no idea what she was going to speak about, and, secondly she delivered her speech in a captivating and compelling way that both captivated her audience's attention and conveyed her final message through a series of stories. Jane Goodall is more than just an expert in her field, she is a great communicator and storyteller and her delivery style sends her message to the audience in an effective way.
First, Jane Goodall's name carries a strong ethos appeal of respect and authority in her field. This is evident by the crowd she drew for the event. As I approached Eisenhower, I was confronted by a long line of people hoping to get in to see Jane Goodall who did not obtain a ticket in time. Luckily, I was able to pass by this large line because I had a ticket I recently received from a friend who could not make the event. People without tickets were walking up and down the line willing to pay money to get a ticket to "see Jane Goodall speak". As I stood in line holding my free ticket I wondered why I wasn't selling it for profit. Then I realized that I, like most of the other people in line valued what Jane Goodall had to say even though most of us did not know the topic she was discussing. Jane's pure ethos appeal from her experiences and accomplishments in her field have given her name a strong ethos appeal similar to that of Oprah or Donald Trump. Most of us would try to see them speak if they came to Penn State because we respect their experiences and achievements and would want to hear the perspective of a person at the top of their field. This is also the case for Jane Goodall, I and most other people at Eisenhower had no idea what she was going to say, but valued her speech because of her ethos appeal and respected status.
When Jane Goodall appeared on stage and greeted us with a monkey call, I was glad that I didn't sell my ticket. I was already hooked on this cool, little old lady with sweet British accent. Then she began to tell her audience the story of her life as a series of struggles and opportunities to reach her ultimate dream of living in Africa with the wild animals. She was a great story teller and spoke to her audience of 1,000 people as if she was sitting with just you talking over tea. I found her ability to address a large audience in a captivating and intimate way very impressive and compelling. I was extremely attentive to each story she told as she carried us closer and closer to her ultimate point of hope for humanity throughout each compelling story. She had the ability to make the audience laugh with ease and created a sense of intimacy and optimism in the crowd. She effectively sent her message of hope and a call for action to address the problems of the world to her audience and people left feeling uplifted, and a few made their intention known to actively address the problems of the world through her program Roots and Shoots. The audience's response to Goodall's speech is evidence of her intimate and compelling delivery style. Goodall was able to captivate the audience and deliver her point with good will and an effective call to action. These are all qualities that make a good speaker and an enjoyable night for the audience.
I didn't really have the time last night to stop an hear Jane Goodall speak, but now I'm glad I didn't let my friend's ticket go to waste. It was fun to take a break with friends and go hear a respected person speak, and her ethos appeal was what drew most of her audience. However, after an hour of hearing her stories and her path to success I was truly happy I attended for more than just a study break. I was happy because now I had a blog topic. haha:) However, I was also informed, uplifted, and called to action. These are three evidences of a great speaker and deliverer, and a great investment of time for the audience.
First, Jane Goodall's name carries a strong ethos appeal of respect and authority in her field. This is evident by the crowd she drew for the event. As I approached Eisenhower, I was confronted by a long line of people hoping to get in to see Jane Goodall who did not obtain a ticket in time. Luckily, I was able to pass by this large line because I had a ticket I recently received from a friend who could not make the event. People without tickets were walking up and down the line willing to pay money to get a ticket to "see Jane Goodall speak". As I stood in line holding my free ticket I wondered why I wasn't selling it for profit. Then I realized that I, like most of the other people in line valued what Jane Goodall had to say even though most of us did not know the topic she was discussing. Jane's pure ethos appeal from her experiences and accomplishments in her field have given her name a strong ethos appeal similar to that of Oprah or Donald Trump. Most of us would try to see them speak if they came to Penn State because we respect their experiences and achievements and would want to hear the perspective of a person at the top of their field. This is also the case for Jane Goodall, I and most other people at Eisenhower had no idea what she was going to say, but valued her speech because of her ethos appeal and respected status.
When Jane Goodall appeared on stage and greeted us with a monkey call, I was glad that I didn't sell my ticket. I was already hooked on this cool, little old lady with sweet British accent. Then she began to tell her audience the story of her life as a series of struggles and opportunities to reach her ultimate dream of living in Africa with the wild animals. She was a great story teller and spoke to her audience of 1,000 people as if she was sitting with just you talking over tea. I found her ability to address a large audience in a captivating and intimate way very impressive and compelling. I was extremely attentive to each story she told as she carried us closer and closer to her ultimate point of hope for humanity throughout each compelling story. She had the ability to make the audience laugh with ease and created a sense of intimacy and optimism in the crowd. She effectively sent her message of hope and a call for action to address the problems of the world to her audience and people left feeling uplifted, and a few made their intention known to actively address the problems of the world through her program Roots and Shoots. The audience's response to Goodall's speech is evidence of her intimate and compelling delivery style. Goodall was able to captivate the audience and deliver her point with good will and an effective call to action. These are all qualities that make a good speaker and an enjoyable night for the audience.
I didn't really have the time last night to stop an hear Jane Goodall speak, but now I'm glad I didn't let my friend's ticket go to waste. It was fun to take a break with friends and go hear a respected person speak, and her ethos appeal was what drew most of her audience. However, after an hour of hearing her stories and her path to success I was truly happy I attended for more than just a study break. I was happy because now I had a blog topic. haha:) However, I was also informed, uplifted, and called to action. These are three evidences of a great speaker and deliverer, and a great investment of time for the audience.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Scare Center
Sleeping in was one of my favorite things to do on spring break. However, on Friday March 11, 2011 I slept through some serious seismic activity and a serious natural disaster in Japan. The damage was catastrophic and as I woke up and shuffled past the TV I was confronted with a press conference on the disaster. Trying to catch up on what happened while I slept I read the headline: "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAPAN'S NUKES?"
Oh no. Another person is threatening to use nuclear weapons now!?
I froze in fear and immediately asked my Dad what was going on. He explained to me that Japan experienced as 9.0 earthquake off its coast, and that a tsunami with 33ft waves followed shortly after and damaged their nuclear power facilities. The news was tragic, but my fear slightly subsided. The news agency had grasped my attention by appealing to my fears through the way they displayed their information.
The headline, "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAPAN'S NUKES?" is vague an alarming for a person who has not received the information to put this headline into context. (Not to mention someone who had just woken up 10 minutes before seeing the news.) First, the text is completely capitalized and was written on the screen in an alarming bold yellow color. The text is meant to grab its audiences attention in an alarming nature. Secondly, it is written in the form of a question and creates uncertainty in its audience that can only be dispelled by watching the news and receiving more information on the issue. Finally this question provides no other details placing it into context, and therefore, it is clearly appealing to the audience's pathos, specifically their emotion of fear. The audience will only find comfort after receiving more information and tuning in for the entire press conference.
The context in which this headline is placed also proves that the news station was appealing to the audience's emotion of fear. Many news stations are broadcast on mute in doctor's offices and gyms. Therefore the vague and alarming text would be the only medium available to these viewers, giving them a skewed and fearful understanding of current events. However, the lack of detail would make many viewers want to follow up on the story through that news station. Finally, the headline contained the word "nukes", a word which carries a connotation of fear for most Americans. Ever since the Cold War most Americans have consciously feared the prospect of engaging in a nuclear war or being victim to a nuclear attack. The fear has run so deep in our culture that even the word "nuke" instills fear in its audience. The news station knows this and used this abbreviation to evoke fear in its audience and grasp their attention.
This news headline scared me out of my slippers on Friday morning and I sat down and watched the press conference after seeing that headline. However, the headline scared me for all of the wrong reasons. It was vague providing few details on the issue being discussed. Its text and context appealed to my fear and I was hooked to their station for the next half hour. This was the goal of their alarming message, to scare the audience and appeal to their fear of uncertainty and make them want to acquire more information on the issue from their station.
Oh no. Another person is threatening to use nuclear weapons now!?
I froze in fear and immediately asked my Dad what was going on. He explained to me that Japan experienced as 9.0 earthquake off its coast, and that a tsunami with 33ft waves followed shortly after and damaged their nuclear power facilities. The news was tragic, but my fear slightly subsided. The news agency had grasped my attention by appealing to my fears through the way they displayed their information.
The headline, "WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH JAPAN'S NUKES?" is vague an alarming for a person who has not received the information to put this headline into context. (Not to mention someone who had just woken up 10 minutes before seeing the news.) First, the text is completely capitalized and was written on the screen in an alarming bold yellow color. The text is meant to grab its audiences attention in an alarming nature. Secondly, it is written in the form of a question and creates uncertainty in its audience that can only be dispelled by watching the news and receiving more information on the issue. Finally this question provides no other details placing it into context, and therefore, it is clearly appealing to the audience's pathos, specifically their emotion of fear. The audience will only find comfort after receiving more information and tuning in for the entire press conference.
The context in which this headline is placed also proves that the news station was appealing to the audience's emotion of fear. Many news stations are broadcast on mute in doctor's offices and gyms. Therefore the vague and alarming text would be the only medium available to these viewers, giving them a skewed and fearful understanding of current events. However, the lack of detail would make many viewers want to follow up on the story through that news station. Finally, the headline contained the word "nukes", a word which carries a connotation of fear for most Americans. Ever since the Cold War most Americans have consciously feared the prospect of engaging in a nuclear war or being victim to a nuclear attack. The fear has run so deep in our culture that even the word "nuke" instills fear in its audience. The news station knows this and used this abbreviation to evoke fear in its audience and grasp their attention.
This news headline scared me out of my slippers on Friday morning and I sat down and watched the press conference after seeing that headline. However, the headline scared me for all of the wrong reasons. It was vague providing few details on the issue being discussed. Its text and context appealed to my fear and I was hooked to their station for the next half hour. This was the goal of their alarming message, to scare the audience and appeal to their fear of uncertainty and make them want to acquire more information on the issue from their station.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Analysis of an Aerie Ad
Spring has Sprung! Maybe not quite yet, but it sprung sometime in late January for most clothing companies. As the weather gets warmer, one image of spring portrayed by advertisers sticks in my mind better than any other. It is the Aerie Spring 2011 ad campaign selling the beauty of nature's revival and the revival of natural looking beauty. The ad induces a longing for fresh spring air and the warm spring sun with its outdoor setting and color scheme, and sells an image of natural beauty to young girls by blending their clothing into the background of the ad and bringing to the forefront a motto describing the company's image.
When I first saw this ad I noticed three things immediately. The sun, the balloon, and the grass. Each yellow item drew your eye to the next yellow item and pulled your attention to the focal point of the ad. The pretty brown haired girl blending into her surroundings. The warm yellow color scheme invoked a sense of optimism in the audience, and the girl's upward gaze reinforced this feeling. The big yellow balloon creates hope and desire in the audience for a playful and carefree spring that will lead into an unforgettable summer. The audience is now hooked on aerie's idea of spring and they have created an ethos for their company as natural and carefree, which they will use to sell their clothing.
The audience shifts their attention to the true focus of the ad, the 2011 line of spring apparel. But as we look at the girl, its hard to find her clothing because it blends in with the grass. Aerie employs this strategy to sell the idea of natural prettiness. Aerie's spring line consists of clothes with pale natural hues of grass greens and off whites. Hues that you would find in nature.
They tie this idea together with the slogan "pretty goes with everything" written in pale colors on what looks like a bleached burlap sack. The slogan motivates readers to let their beauty shine through, and to buy clothes that enhance their natural beauty instead of constricting it.
Just as the sun shining through the trees gives extra beauty to an already beautiful sun, aeries clothes will add beauty to an already beautiful you. Aerie conveys this message with a natural setting and an optimistic color scheme. There message is created by displaying their clothes as only an accent to the girl's beauty and the phrase "pretty goes with everything" inspires us all to feel a little more beautiful, and buy into Aerie's image of "natural pretty".
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Ireland: The National Famine Memorial
Two summer's ago my family and I decided it was time to "visit the Motherland", and we took a two-week trip to Ireland. We stayed in a house on the west side of Ireland and traveled all over County Mayo and visited Galway, Ireland: a port city. One day on our trip, my sister, my dad and I decided to hike up Croagh Patrick Moutain (picture above). Legend has it that St. Patrick climbed this mountain as a pilgrimage in forty days, and each year on a day called "Reek Sunday" around 15,000 people make a holy pilgrimage up this mountain...barefoot. It has to be painful! From experience hiking this mountain (with shoes), I can tell you that the path you see is made completely of loose, jagged stones. We did meet some people in our journey up the mountain climbing barefoot but we soon passed them as they moved slowly and deliberately in pain. While I could tell you some interesting stories about our climb up Croagh Patrick mountain, I instead want to focus on a monument my mom discovered back down at sea level.
The first two pictures above are pictures of the National Famine Memorial in County Mayo. ( I had my own pictures, but i bought a new laptop before college and my pictures are saved back home.) Many of you know the "Great Famine", as it is called in Ireland, as the "Irish Potato Famine" which occurred between the years of 1845 and 1852. The famine was caused by a potato blight that left potatoes, the main food source for the impoverished Irish people, inedible. The famine took the lives of over 1 million Irish people and caused the emigration from Ireland of 1 million more. There are memorials across the country for this historic disaster, and each one tells an interesting aspect of the story of the famine through rhetoric. I want to focus on the one I saw personally and discuss how the sculpture conveys a story through its composition.
As you walk towards the structure you see an old, dark ship, and you begin to understand a story of travel. The ship is angled away from the inland and towards the bay which indicates a story of emigration instead of immigration. You notice that the ship is in poor condition, it is dingy, dark and lacks sails. The masts to support the sails remain, and eerily look like crosses that you would find above a grave. You also see what looks like waves rolling along the sides of the ship, but from your viewpoint you can quite make out what they are. The story of the sculpture has enticed you, so you approach the sculpture to examine it closer.
When you reach the sculpture the message finally hits you like a mordant surprise. What you assumed were waves are really skeletons of famine victims. The entire story can now be interpreted. The skeletons seem to make up the ship, much like the famine makes up a large part of Ireland's history. Their bodies are contoured in the shape of waves an many look like they are trying to jump off of the ship. This tells that their emigration was an escape from certain death to a less certain death. Many of the emigrants knew that they may not make it to America, but they were willing to risk the journey to avoid a certain death staying on the starving island.
Finally, the dark color scheme and jagged and spindly composition of the ship and the skeletons convey this event as a grim moment in the history of Ireland. The Great Famine is a major part of the Irish heritage and a source of sadness. Ireland lost close to 25% of its population in the great famine and this monument conveys a story of a struggle up to the point of death for the Irish people. It is a story of sadness in which lucky people would risk death and emigrate from the homeland they loved, while the unlucky people stayed back and faced hardship, starvation and certain death.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Shakespeare's love of Puns
This semester I am taking a course on Shakespeare and we will read nine of his plays throughout the course. We are on the fourth play now, As You Like It, and as I read his plays and am becoming more familiar with Shakespearean style I have noticed his strong use of Rhetoric through puns. I have found his use of homonyms and figures of speech as an interesting and effective way to engage the audience on more than one level of intellectual pleasure, reveal key plot themes and characterization, and of course provide humor.
In the Taming of the Shrew, Gremio, Petruchio's servant, speculates the courting between a forceful and witty Petruchio and Kate the loud, obnoxious and witty shrew. He says, "I'll tell you what sir, and she stand him but a little, he will throw a figure in her face and so disfigure her with that she shall have no more eyes to see withal than cat" (Taming of the Shrew, 1.2.111-115). Gremio employs a figure of speech and plays on the words "figure" and "disfigure" to create humor and reveal elements of character of the recently introduced courtier Petruchio. In this instance the word "figure" means a figure of speech or pun or insult that Petruchio will present Kate with when courting. The word "disfigure" creates symmetry in the sentence and plays on the word figure by using it in a physical sense. He uses disfigure meaning that Petruchio's speech will cause her face to become distorted in confusion, disgust, or anger. Gremio's pun is only noticed by the attentive and educated listener, and creates another level of comedy in the play for them. It also reveals information about the main characters and their future interactions in the play.
Shakespeare loved puns so much that they often speckle his histories, romances, and even tragedies. Because his plays were performed in a oral style, he utilized the effects of homonyms to create humor and reveal plot. In Richard III Shakespeare employs the use of homonyms in the first two lines of Richard's opening soliloquy: "Now is the winter of our discontent / Made glorious summer by this son of York" (Richard III). The homonym used here is "son" and "sun". The parallel structure of the line creates a powerful image in the listener's mind of winter yielding to summer, just as Lancaster yields to York in the play. Just as the sun brings an end to winter, the son of York brought an end to the discontent by bringing peace.
Many of Shakespeare's puns can create bawdy humor when uncovered in his plays, and perhaps I'll focus a future blog on this aspect of Shakespeare's use of puns. However, in this blog I displayed Shakespeare love of puns by means of word play. Classic rhetorers valued the artistic style of the written and spoken word just as much, if not more than its content. Shakespeare's use of puns and word play make it clear that he held these same values. However, his puns often served as another level of intellectual enjoyment for educated members of the audience, and revealed key plot and character developments in the play. Shakespeare's love of puns displays one aspect of his love of rhetoric, and his ability to employ rhetoric to serve many purposes in his plays makes him one of the greatest writers of all time.
In the Taming of the Shrew, Gremio, Petruchio's servant, speculates the courting between a forceful and witty Petruchio and Kate the loud, obnoxious and witty shrew. He says, "I'll tell you what sir, and she stand him but a little, he will throw a figure in her face and so disfigure her with that she shall have no more eyes to see withal than cat" (Taming of the Shrew, 1.2.111-115). Gremio employs a figure of speech and plays on the words "figure" and "disfigure" to create humor and reveal elements of character of the recently introduced courtier Petruchio. In this instance the word "figure" means a figure of speech or pun or insult that Petruchio will present Kate with when courting. The word "disfigure" creates symmetry in the sentence and plays on the word figure by using it in a physical sense. He uses disfigure meaning that Petruchio's speech will cause her face to become distorted in confusion, disgust, or anger. Gremio's pun is only noticed by the attentive and educated listener, and creates another level of comedy in the play for them. It also reveals information about the main characters and their future interactions in the play.
Shakespeare loved puns so much that they often speckle his histories, romances, and even tragedies. Because his plays were performed in a oral style, he utilized the effects of homonyms to create humor and reveal plot. In Richard III Shakespeare employs the use of homonyms in the first two lines of Richard's opening soliloquy: "Now is the winter of our discontent / Made glorious summer by this son of York" (Richard III). The homonym used here is "son" and "sun". The parallel structure of the line creates a powerful image in the listener's mind of winter yielding to summer, just as Lancaster yields to York in the play. Just as the sun brings an end to winter, the son of York brought an end to the discontent by bringing peace.
Many of Shakespeare's puns can create bawdy humor when uncovered in his plays, and perhaps I'll focus a future blog on this aspect of Shakespeare's use of puns. However, in this blog I displayed Shakespeare love of puns by means of word play. Classic rhetorers valued the artistic style of the written and spoken word just as much, if not more than its content. Shakespeare's use of puns and word play make it clear that he held these same values. However, his puns often served as another level of intellectual enjoyment for educated members of the audience, and revealed key plot and character developments in the play. Shakespeare's love of puns displays one aspect of his love of rhetoric, and his ability to employ rhetoric to serve many purposes in his plays makes him one of the greatest writers of all time.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Rhetoric of Super Bowl Commericals
After watching the Super Bowl I found myself in the midst of the perfect kairotic moment to discuss the rhetorical appeals used in Super Bowl commercials. One of my favorite commercials of the night was Bridgestone Tire's commercial in which the conservative driver and the beaver scratch each others' backs. A company will pay millions of dollars for each second of air time during the Super Bowl, so they know their ad sells. I will analyze just what it is that makes their ad sell to the public under the categories of ethos, logos, and pathos, and conclude with the reason why targeting these appeals is so effective in the advertising market.
As the busy beaver precariously meanders into the one lane road we begin to cringe as we see a car zooming to carry him to his certain death. However, just before the messy crash we catch a glimpse of the driver as he swerves swiftly around the beaver. In that two second picture the company has created a foundation of ethos with the audience. The driver is smartly dressed, but nothing too fancy, so we see him as an average business man or office employee. His key characteristics are his glasses, and his "couldn't hurt a fly" build. His glasses give him the persona of a smart consumer. One who doesn't live outside his means, but demands quality from his products. Finally, his non-muscular build makes him an average person who tries not to harm others, even if he had the ability to do so. In the first eight seconds of their ad, Bridgestone has appealed to and leveled with their target audience: average Americans who are smart consumers living within their means, but demanding quality from their products.
The quality of the product, Bridgestone Tires, is displayed in both the opening of the first and second scene. This is a direct appeal to logos, or the logic of the audience. In the first scene, the car is able to dart around the beaver and on to the one lane bridge without a large decrease in speed. In the second scene, the car comes to a dead halt after skidding just a few inches when the driver slams the brakes in a bad rainstorm to avoid hitting a fallen tree. While viewers may question the reality of these conditions, they do not doubt that Bridgestone makes good tires, and the company is effectively selling their product appealing to the audience's logic by demonstrating the quality of their tires.
Logic, however, is not the big seller in this commercial, and it hardly ever is. It is the pathetic story of kindness between the driver and the beaver that wins the audience's hearts. As I watched this commercial, all I could think of as the beaver was about to be pulverized was how cute it was. In the second scene, after the heroic driver saved the beavers life, it was the beaver's turn to return the favor. He gnaws down the tree as he anticipates the arrival of his friend and it falls just in time for the driver to screech to a halt (with good tires) and watch as the bridge he was about to cross gets washed away by the flooding river. As the driver and the audience exhale after his near death experience he looks over and sees his friend the beaver. Then they have a heartwarming moment as the beaver signals "I got your back" to the driver, and the driver responds in shocked amusement. The appeal to the audience's pathos is the product's strongest selling point. Even the most conservative consumers will often think with their heart before their head. As they shop for tires they will remember the honorable and heartwarming tale that comes with the Bridgestone product, and will unconsciously trust the product more.
Advertisers know the formula to connect with their audience and sell their product. Many consumers are more likely to trust a product based solely on recognition with that product from an advertisement. The commercial appealed to the ethos of the smart consumer, the logos of the product's quality, and finally the heartwarming pathetic appeal of the reciprocal kindness of the beaver and the driver. At the end of the commercial the audience was happy and may have even laughed like I did. They were happy that the beaver and the driver were okay. The beaver and the driver were happy that the car had Bridgestone tires, and the advertisers were hoping that you were too.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Facebook and the Rhetoric of a Revolution
2,500 years ago Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given situation the available means of persuasion" This means that any rhetorical situation requires a "call to action" or an exigence, a means of communication, and an audience to be influenced in some way.
Aristotle could never fathom the rhetorical situation we live in today. There are millions of exigences being addressed each day through mediums that reach a world wide audience within seconds. This is the rhetorical situation that is the driving force behind the protest movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and now possibly Sudan.
Social media such as Facebook and Twitter are powerful means of rhetorical exchange. You can keep tabs on old friends by reading your news feed on Facebook or following them on Twitter. You can invite numerous friends to an event in a matter of minutes instead of a few days. You can even start a revolution to oust a long-standing regime in your country...or at least that's what young people in the Middle East are discovering.
The people of Tunisia and Egypt identified their current government as oppressive and demanded change. The dissatisfaction with their government was their exigence, and they utilized social media such as Facebook as the best available means for addressing this problem.
Before Facebook, Twitter, and cellphones, the protesters' audience would have been small, centered around a central figure, and lacking the power to contest the current regime. However, the young group of protesters recognized Facebook as the best available means for delivering their message. Within days the protesters' audience had grown from a few hundred people to tens of thousands of citizens calling for a revolution. Facebook and social media has shifted the Rhetorical situation from a single sender/receiver relationship to a collective conversation and constant exchange of ideas.
This claim is supported by the countries in the Middle East who are participating in this rhetorical conversation. The situation in Tunisia compelled the receptive audience in Egypt to address their own exigence. The audience has become the senders, and the images of organized revolt are rapidly spreading to other countries in the Middle East craving freedom, and has alerted the world of the power of social media in the rhetorical situation.
Facebook and other social media has become the best available means for addressing a broad audience instantaneously. Hundreds of exigencies are addressed each minute and the world has been placed into a constant rhetorical conversation. With the proper purpose and means of persuasion, as exists in the Middle East, this collective conversation can become a cry for freedom, and spread to an audience ripe for revolution.
Aristotle could never fathom the rhetorical situation we live in today. There are millions of exigences being addressed each day through mediums that reach a world wide audience within seconds. This is the rhetorical situation that is the driving force behind the protest movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and now possibly Sudan.
Social media such as Facebook and Twitter are powerful means of rhetorical exchange. You can keep tabs on old friends by reading your news feed on Facebook or following them on Twitter. You can invite numerous friends to an event in a matter of minutes instead of a few days. You can even start a revolution to oust a long-standing regime in your country...or at least that's what young people in the Middle East are discovering.
The people of Tunisia and Egypt identified their current government as oppressive and demanded change. The dissatisfaction with their government was their exigence, and they utilized social media such as Facebook as the best available means for addressing this problem.
Before Facebook, Twitter, and cellphones, the protesters' audience would have been small, centered around a central figure, and lacking the power to contest the current regime. However, the young group of protesters recognized Facebook as the best available means for delivering their message. Within days the protesters' audience had grown from a few hundred people to tens of thousands of citizens calling for a revolution. Facebook and social media has shifted the Rhetorical situation from a single sender/receiver relationship to a collective conversation and constant exchange of ideas.
This claim is supported by the countries in the Middle East who are participating in this rhetorical conversation. The situation in Tunisia compelled the receptive audience in Egypt to address their own exigence. The audience has become the senders, and the images of organized revolt are rapidly spreading to other countries in the Middle East craving freedom, and has alerted the world of the power of social media in the rhetorical situation.
Facebook and other social media has become the best available means for addressing a broad audience instantaneously. Hundreds of exigencies are addressed each minute and the world has been placed into a constant rhetorical conversation. With the proper purpose and means of persuasion, as exists in the Middle East, this collective conversation can become a cry for freedom, and spread to an audience ripe for revolution.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The "American Family"
On Tuesday night President Obama addressed the American public in the State of the Union address for his second time as president. Facing a divided government has always been a challenge for incumbent presidents, even when the Democratic party was the majority last year we heard grumbles from the other party (i.e. Joe Wilson "You Lie!"). However, the congress that gathered in the capitol on Tuesday carried a somber air grieving over the tragedy of the shootings of congress woman Gabby Giffords, and the people of Tucson. Obama observed a broken and divided America, and used his common message of unity and hope to address his course of action for the rest of his presidency. He conveyed the idea collective compromise by creating the structure of his speech for a divided audience in Congress, and appealing to the pathos of the audience of the American people by addressing them as "family members".
Obama opened by addressing his audience as a part of "the American family" this phrase appealed the ethos and pathos of his audience. The word "family" is familiar to all Americans and taps into both their hearts and their minds. A family has divisions, but overcomes them and continues for the betterment of the entire family, they grieve together, and work together. This underlying message of Obama's address was summarized in an opening sentence in the fourth paragraph of the speech. The established theme of compromise continues throughout the rest of his speech.
Obama shifted to business from his opening pathetic appeal, but the structure of his speech conveyed his message even when listeners became lost in the policy talk and numbers. An opinion column in the New York Times featured a conversation between columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins as they provided a review of Obama's State of the Union address. Brooks provided keen insight to the rhetorical structure of Obama's speech as he stated, "the three things that the president emphasized were all worthy, important policies that have significant bipartisan support...the really big tasks were mentioned but not emphasized". Brooks' analysis made me aware of why Obama's speech was so widely accepted across political lines. Brooks described it as "modest", but I would describe it as awareness of his network of interpretation. The president understood he was facing a divided congress and a divided America, and therefore emphasized the topics that few people could dispute.
I watched the State of the Union address with a room full of Penn State Democrats, Republicans, and even a few Tea Party members. As the president discussed research, education reform, and infrastructure spending, there were few scoffs or signs of disagreement. Because these are topics that few Americans disagree on. The lesser emphasized points of tax reform, immigration reform, and entitlement reform are topics that receive much more debate and were purposefully mentioned and moved away from. The rhetorical structure of Obama's speech structured around a divided congress, and his message was for a grieving and broken American public who could needed a message of hope and comfort from their "American Family".
Obama opened by addressing his audience as a part of "the American family" this phrase appealed the ethos and pathos of his audience. The word "family" is familiar to all Americans and taps into both their hearts and their minds. A family has divisions, but overcomes them and continues for the betterment of the entire family, they grieve together, and work together. This underlying message of Obama's address was summarized in an opening sentence in the fourth paragraph of the speech. The established theme of compromise continues throughout the rest of his speech.
Obama shifted to business from his opening pathetic appeal, but the structure of his speech conveyed his message even when listeners became lost in the policy talk and numbers. An opinion column in the New York Times featured a conversation between columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins as they provided a review of Obama's State of the Union address. Brooks provided keen insight to the rhetorical structure of Obama's speech as he stated, "the three things that the president emphasized were all worthy, important policies that have significant bipartisan support...the really big tasks were mentioned but not emphasized". Brooks' analysis made me aware of why Obama's speech was so widely accepted across political lines. Brooks described it as "modest", but I would describe it as awareness of his network of interpretation. The president understood he was facing a divided congress and a divided America, and therefore emphasized the topics that few people could dispute.
I watched the State of the Union address with a room full of Penn State Democrats, Republicans, and even a few Tea Party members. As the president discussed research, education reform, and infrastructure spending, there were few scoffs or signs of disagreement. Because these are topics that few Americans disagree on. The lesser emphasized points of tax reform, immigration reform, and entitlement reform are topics that receive much more debate and were purposefully mentioned and moved away from. The rhetorical structure of Obama's speech structured around a divided congress, and his message was for a grieving and broken American public who could needed a message of hope and comfort from their "American Family".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)