Week 13 Assignments

Week 13 Assignments

1. What’s due this week
2. How to do the Rhetorical Analysis essay
3. New peer review groups for next week
4. Online chat
5. Sample RA essays from former AP students

1. Here’s what’s due this week, Week 13—November 28

Read WWAP pp. 187-221 or 166-198

DQ: Initial response due Wednesday, student response due Friday

Rough draft Rhetorical Analysis essay due Friday

Voice Lessons—Diction 6-10

Multiple Choice (Passages 3 and 4 pp. 143-150) due Friday

Online Classics chat on The Grapes of Wrath

2. This week, you have to write a rhetorical analysis essay. There is no section in your book which deals with this type of essay, so you will just have to trust me and the websites.

First of all, you will need to pick a speech to analyze. I sent you links for speeches (pasted here). Pick one of these speeches to analyze.

Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream"

Ronald Reagan and "The Challenger"

FDR "Pearl Harbor"

John F. Kennedy's"Ich bin ein Berliner"

Bill Clinton's "Oklahoma Bombing"

George Bush's "9/11 Address

The next step is to read through the explanation written here. If you don’t like what I’ve got to say, you can read it put another way at this web address:

Rhetorical analysis is what you have been doing (or supposed to be doing) for the timed essays. You take a text and analyze the author’s purpose and how well he succeeded at that purpose. For the purpose of our speeches, the best way to do this is to look at three areas: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Now the question of the hour must surely be “But what are the rhetorical appeals? What are ethos, pathos, and logos? For a wonderfully-wrought explanation (complete with pictures) go to . This site takes you to the logos page. To see the ethos and pathos pages, click on the hyperlinked words in the first paragraph.

If you would rather hear good ol’ Mrs. Sellers’ explanation, here it is as well.

Logos is (as you may have guessed) the logic or structure of the argument. Why did the author say X before Y? Is the argument built around a single idea or is it a lot of ideas distilled into one point? What argumentative strategies are used?

Ethos refers to ethics. In the case of our analysis, it refers to the speaker himself. Does he present himself as an authority? Does he say things that make people want to trust him? How does he convey his believability and trustworthiness to the audience?

Pathos is awfully pathetic. It is designed to appeal to your emotions. Does the author talk about starving children, homeless animals, fear and terror, cheerful Christmas time memories? All of these things are designed to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

To sum up, logos is the argument structure, ethos is how the speaker establishes his credibility, and pathos is how the emotions are played upon.

The best way to organize your essay is to examine these three areas of rhetorical appeal: ethos, pathos, and logos. There is no set order in which you should attack these three. Some speeches (or whatever) will rely more heavily on one of the three appeals. Some will be a balance of the three. You could organize your essay into distinct paragraphs which discuss the appeals: one section for ethos, one for pathos, and one for logos. You could also go through the text chronologically and pick out examples of the three appeals as you go along. This second approach can often lead to paraphrase, so you should stick to discussing the appeals one at a time.

If you are having some trouble understanding these terms, here’s an example which might help. If you read the following sentences, what would you say the writer's purpose was?

"Sally, I don't want you to play in the back yard. It is too close to that rattlesnake den. Last week, I saw three snakes in the yard. One of them attacked the neighbor's dog, Fluffy Muffin, and he died."

Purpose--to warn Sally to not play in the back yard

Ethos--I saw three snakes

Pathos--a sweetly-named dog dies

Logos--stated the desire first, gave specific reasons why, and appealed to the emotions of fear and pity

Now, you need to do the same sort of analysis for your speech.

When you write a rhetorical analysis, just as when you write any other essay, you need to determine your audience and purpose. Your purpose would be stated in your thesis. For example, if I were to write a rhetorical analysis of The Prince (not something to be attempted in 600 to 800 words, surely!), I would first form an opinion about the text. Then I would formulate this opinion into a thesis.

Machiavelli’s The Prince is a well-crafted text full of pertinent advice for leaders in our modern world.

I would then take the rest of the essay and use the rhetorical appeals to show how Machiavelli, using the logic of his arguments (logos), his own personal authority (ethos), and emotional appeal (pathos) made/ The Prince is a well-crafted text full of pertinent advice for leaders in our modern world.

You can’t just analyze in a vacuum! You need to have some purpose you are trying to achieve. Think of the rhetorical analysis essay like an argument essay or a long timed essay. You want to use the text to prove your opinion about the text. The best phrase to keep in mind while you are writing is this:

“What was the author’s purpose? Did s/he achieve it? Am I proving that he did/did not accomplish his purpose?” If you find you are just pointing out examples of pathos and ethos without tying them to your thesis, then you need to go back and make some changes.

3. Next week, you will be assigned new peer review groups. I’d assign them this week, but I don’t know if it is wiser to assign groups based on which essay was chosen for the RA or not. I’m still mulling over this pedagogical conundrum and will decide by next week.

4. The online chat for The Grapes of Wrath will be this week, if anyone other than Kendra or Hannah read the book. If there isn’t much interest in the chat (i.e., if not many have read the book), then we just won’t have one. I don’t mind a free-ish evening! Email me if you are just dying to chat.

5.

Sample essays from former classes—

Analysis of Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death."

It is March of 1775, and Patrick Henry is addressing the Virginia House of Burgesses. The colonies in America are in a volatile condition: the British government is legislating taxes and regulations without colonial consent and importing soldiers to enforce their legislation. The Virginia representatives are debating opposition and warfare against the oppressive British rule, but their opinions are mixed, and many oppose violent action. Finally, Henry rises to speak. After graciously acknowledging the patriotism, abilities and worthiness of those who had spoken before him, he begins one of the most famous and impassioned speeches in American history. Through the assertation of his ethics and concern, logical reasoning, and a strong emotional appeal, Henry presents his cry for freedom and charges the House with a plea to fight for the liberties of which they are so rapidly being deprived.

Henry's ethos, or ethical appeal, begins in his opening statements. He shows the House that he takes them seriously, and trusts their judgment, asserting, "No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House," and calling them,"wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty."

He then courteously acknowledges his disagreement with his opponents, "different men see the same subject in different lights," and demonstrates his own earnestness by declaring, "Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings." It is clear that Henry loves his country, and that he has faith in their victory. "They tell us, sir, that we are weak...But when shall we be stronger?" "The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

Henry identifies that he has considered the situation, recalling the colonies' long history of frustration with Britain and the recourses that they might consider. He expresses, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience."

From experience, and from the conclusions he has drawn, Henry begins his logical approach. He points out that, "…it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope," yet questions the wisdom of such an action on the part of "wise men." Henry stresses that "whole truth," should be known, despite "whatever anguish of spirit it may cost…."

Basing his arguments on Britain's past actions and relations, he first identifies the danger. "What has there been in the conduct of British ministry for the last ten years to justify these hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has lately been received?" Logically, he sees no basis in Britain's actions for the arguments defending peace and concludes that they will, "prove a snare to your feet." Considering Britain's "martial array," in the colonies, he asks, "Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it?" He states that Britain has no other enemy in that section of the world, and concludes that, "They [Britain's armies and navies] are meant for us."

Next, he questions the colonies' recourses, "Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years." He continues by listing the unsuccessful recourses they have taken. "Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not already been exhausted?" He reminds that everything they have tried, ("We have petitioned... remonstrated... supplicated... prostrated ourselves before the throne,") has failed and led to disgrace, leaving only one option remaining.

Finally, Henry gets to the heart of his logic and to his main argument. It makes no sense to continue with methods that have failed in the past, so he pursues their only chance for liberty. "If we wish to be free...we must fight!" he declares. He adds further encouragement by reminding them of their strength and of the situation's urgency. "They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?" As his fervor mounts, Henry tries desperately to impress the fact that peace is no longer an option, and war will come, regardless. "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!"

Throughout his ethical and logical arguments, Henry uses strong emotional appeal. He arouses indignation by clearly proclaiming the wrongs done to the colonies and laying bold the facts of British occupation, knowing that the spirit of freedom will rebel, and not surrender1 to such atrocities. "I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery," "They are sent over to bind a rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging," "We have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!" He shows the unacceptable alternative, "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!" and as he describes the tyranny, each outcry brings it nearer and raises the outrage of the oppressed.

He also encourages rebellion by honoring the fight for freedom, claiming it is,"A great responsibility which we hold to God and our country...a great and arduous struggle for liberty...the glorious object of our contest." Henry knows he is dealing with men of honor and integrity, so he appeals to their senses of honor and duty, and upholds war as a "noble struggle."

Henry adds the element of holiness and a higher calling and duty by touching the spiritual side, with continual references to God. He awakens a sense of duty by declaring that God must be obeyed before the King, "I should consider myself as guilty of...an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings," and encourages that divine intervention will fall on the colonies' behalf: "We shall not fight out battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us." He also alludes to the betrayal of Christ by Judas, begging the House not to, "be betrayed with a kiss."

Finally, Henry demands action by reminding the House of their compatriots already fighting. "Our brethren are already in the field. Why do we stand here idle?" Again, he calls upon honor; the knowledge that men are already dying for freedom is perhaps the strongest appeal of all.

Henry summarizes with a grand finale: the combination of his ethos, logos, and pathos in one powerful declaration that is remembered, even today. He shows that he is willing to personally and physically fight for the cause of freedom, that there is no logic or reason in submitting to Britain, and stirs the heart to cry for liberation. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Analysis of William Jennings Bryan’s Gold Standard speech:

The masses versus the classes--it is a familiar theme in political rhetoric. Throughout America's existence, many politicians, from Andrew Jackson to Tom Daschle, have capitalized on this perceived struggle between the wealthy and the impoverished. These candidates assert themselves as men of the people, defenders of the working class; the claim is as familiar as politics itself. Yet, once in a while, a politician manages to transcend the triteness of such populist rhetoric, manages to inject true sincerity, eloquence, and passion into his words. Such a man was William Jennings Bryan. In an 1896 speech to the Democratic National Convention, Bryan urged his fellow party members to oppose the gold standard and return to a system of "bimetallism," since such a move would assist indebted farmers and laborers. The overarching theme in Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech, one that transcends mere monetary policy, is his admiration of and compassion for the hardworking "common man," and his passionate belief that it is the government's duty to come to such a man's aid when he falls on hard times.

Bryan's use of pathos, or emotional appeal, buoys his argument and adds a human face to a potentially dry subject such as monetary policy. In the first paragraph, Bryan sets the theme of class struggle: "The humblest citizen in all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error." Thus Bryan effectively communicates that the money question is no bureaucratic debate about fiscal policy; this is an epic struggle between right and wrong,good and evil. The phrase "humblest citizen" contributes to the David-and-Goliath, "common man versus bully" image that Bryan is trying to propagate, calling to mind the meek shepherd challenging the brutish Philistines, with the cause of justice as his only protection.1

And perhaps Bryan intended that this phrase should evoke thoughts of David and Goliath; the speech is indeed rife with references to the Bible, as well as to other historic struggles between good and evil.Nice transition These allusions further enhance the speech's emotional appeal, reinforcing the reader's impression that the gold standard issue is a matter of good-versus-evil, a struggle between the holy and the unholy. Bryan says that his fellow "silver Democrats"--or opponents of the gold standard--have pursued their cause "[w]ith a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the Crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit." He alludes to Cicero, who saved Rome from a corrupt conspiracy, comparing the noble Roman's cause to the Democrats' current struggle. He compares the Republican candidate to a Napoleon about to meet his Waterloo: "…he can hear with ever-increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena." Bryan even refers to the founder of the Democratic party, Andrew Jackson, whose war against the National Bank was considered a classic example of a "People's Champion" defeating corrupt business interests.

Bryan's fervent language and dramatic historical allusions paint his cause in black-and-white, good-versus-evil terms, thus enhancing his argument's pathos. Also enhancing his case's emotional appeal, however, is his careful attention to portraying common laborers in an admirable, sympathetic light. Bryan calls the western settlers "the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose…" The miners, too, are brave souls who "go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade…" Bryan juxtaposes these noble images with unflattering portrayals of corporate businessmen, who "[go] upon the Board of Trade and [bet] upon the price of grain" and are merely a "few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world."