So, today I am doing some reading on Rhetorical Analysis. It was a lot of reading, and it made a lot more sense than my AP English teacher had Junior year. She never gave a straight up answer about what rhetoric is, and how to use it. She was very confusing, and my papers suffered because of it. She kept saying how broad it was and that there is no real definition, if that is so, then why were my paperes not as good? Anyway, so as I am reading, it all started to make sense, and I seriously thought/considered to copy these pages of the book and give them to that teacher I had, or at least to her class...But, as I was saying before, it was a lot of reading, so I am only going to tell you about one section of it: Finding and Developing Materials.
So, now that we know what we want to write about, we have to actually develope the idea and make it useable- that is where this section comes in handy. This section talks about considering the subject matter (does the piece make a point? Is it a novel?), the audience (Is it for a professor? A child?), its author, language, occation, context, and use of rhetorical appeals. Considering these is very important because they all corespond to each other. To make a piece effective to say, your professor, about saving the rainforest, you don't want to write it using childish language, with slang, in a poster format, and neglect to mentions the benfits if we do, and organizations that help protect it. But, most importantly, the main thing about rhetorical analysis is its appeals. This is the part my teacher never really explained to us, and tried to have us figure it out on our own (which failed miserably).
These appeals are categorized into three types: pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos is where the writer "generates emotion in order to move the audiences." Ethos is where "a text may establish the character and credibility of its author." Lastly, logos is where the writers uses "evidence and logic to make its case."
For a persuasive argument, this is great to know. Everyone feeds off of emotions and are motive-drive beings, as my Sociology teacher says. Pathos, forming emotions in the reader, will make the reader more towards your side of the argument. They will feel for your side, root for the underdog, and feel compelled to act. For example, when writing about the need to help the poor, pathos would be telling a story of a weak, baby, who was brown with dirt and lost its baby pink glow, and its family troubles. Seeing how this family is, being poor, plays on our emotions. We want to help this family out. Ethos is good to use because its deals with credibility. The reader is going to believe and act more if the author seems credible- reliable, and with authoity, and clearly knows what they are talking about. As it says inthe reading, audiences are more swayed "by writers or speakers who present themselves as knowledgeable, honest, fair-minded, and even likeable." Moreover, with logos, using evidence only enforces the idea and persuades the reader that they are right and to side with them. If a claim is supported by facts, statistics, quotes, and such, it is mmore believeable and we instantly think that position is right. We are also all logic beings - thinking beings (Homo Sapiens). We find an argument valid, if its facts are true and there is eveidence, since nowadays, seeing is believing. If you can prove it, and show that what you saying is true, then who can disagree with you?
So, basically, that is the most important thing I learned from the reading, which was way more helpful than my high school English teacher. So thank you, reading...
No comments:
Post a Comment