December 3, 2008, 8:25 pm by Arch

Hello all.  My final podcast reflection is up on Itunes.  I will miss you all.  Love you all.  

Arch

, 3:39 pm by Tiana

Here is the link to my capstone review! It says student instead of my name, but this is it!!!!!

https://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/BrowsePrivately/gsu.edu.1659667357.01659667359.1796521417?i=1194727962

, 3:39 pm by Jennifer

If you and not doing the survey or consenting to allowing me to use your work for the assessment part of the research you have two other extra credit options:

1. For the 5 points given for assessment, you can instead do an additional reading response about some topic we covered this semester.
2. For the 15 points given for completing the survey, you can instead do a rhetorical analysis, following the CTW 3 guidelines, on an argument of your choice. The word count should be 800-1000.

These are only available if you are not doing the research.

, 3:35 pm by Jennifer

• Donuts!
• Set up time for presenters while introducing survey & research
• Presentations:

1. Akins, Akilah I.
2. Woodard, Arch E.
3. Johnson, Angela G.
4. Davis, Ashley M.
5. Domit, Brian L.
6. Manfredi, Robert W.

• Class reflection

December 2, 2008, 1:04 am by Brett

Titled, “Reflection.” Artist, Brett Jones. Enjoy.

December 1, 2008, 11:12 pm by AshleyJ

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Ashley Judge

Rhetorina Podcast: Rhetorical Tips to Keep You on Your Toes

Transcript

Episode One: Introduction, Rhetoric

Title Introduction: Welcome to the Rhetorina Podcast: rhetorical tips to keep you on your toes.

Music

Rhetorina here, introducing the first podcast of my series. In my experience, I have found that there is a significant lack of public knowledge in two of my personal fortes: Rhetoric and Dance. If you are a scholar of rhetoric, you may be saying, Finally! Please tell the world what I study so I quit getting asked! And if you’re a dancer, well, good luck. I don’t think anyone will ever truly understand; regardless, I’ll be including a tidbit about the relationship that dance has to the music in this podcast.

Music

This week’s featured music is from George Balanchine’s Serenade. This work is internationally hailed as one that captures the essence of dance. With its indescribable beauty, simple elegance, and dexterous technical movement, Serenade sets the bar high for classical ballet works.

And now on to our podcast. Within the series I will be covering the topics of rhetoric, ethos, logos, and pathos to give you a brief but solid understanding of the concepts. As a guide, I will be referencing Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee’s book “Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students” as it is comprehensive as well as an enjoyable read.

Today’s focus is rhetoric:

What is it?

Where did it come from?

And how do I use it today?

Rhetoric has suffered a horrible reputation during most of its modern life. Often mislabeled as “empty words” or “fancy language used to distort the truth or tell lies”, rhetoric’s status in the public eye is not generous.

However, rhetoric allows people to make important choices without resorting to less palatable means of persuasion: coercion and violence.

Crowley and Hawhee explain that if people didn’t disagree, rhetoric wouldn’t be necessary; but they do, and it is.

Therefore, rhetoric is essentially “the art that helps people compose effective discourse, mainly in disagreement and persuasion.” Though, Crowley and Hawhee also note that argument for argument’s sake of entertainment is also fun.

So where did rhetoric come from?

In the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th centuries BC, The city of Athens, Greece developed the political system of demokratia, today known as democracy. Though its function in today’s society is debatable, in ancient Greece it meant that any citizen could play a direct role in making important decisions that affected the entire community.

But because not everyone could speak at the same time and because not everyone desired to speak publicly, the task to do so fell upon people who were trained in speaking, who had sufficient education to understand the issues, and had the leisure to study the issues. These people were called rhetors.

In order for the rhetors to compose and effective presentation of an argument, they followed what is known as the 5 canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. These elements facilitated a rhetor to speak clearly and persuasively, and not coercive or violently.

Ok, so some old Greek dudes knew how to speak at a forum; but what do I have to do with it all?

Well, let’s apply the five canons to a topic that truly touches most everyone’s lives: dating

Let’s assume that you’re a guy and you want to convince a girl to go one a date with you.

Start with invention: invention is the canon where you seek an available argument or persuasive opportunity. You see this girl at the library and after assessing your potential, you have decided to ask her on a date. Is this an available argument for you? Invention complete.

Next is arrangement: what exactly are you going to say? To ask her out before introducing yourself is likely not going to get the reaction that you want. Congruently, saying farewell before saying hello will also not be an effective argument. Instead, you choose to introduce yourself, converse about some potentially common topics, then proceed to ask her on a date that—based upon your conversation—would seem like an attractive idea to her. Last you will say goodbye and part ways, hopefully, with a date for the weekend.

Now, within the arrangement of your argument you must consider the style in which you think is appropriate to your audience? Does she seem athletic? Professional? Academic? Artsy? These elements are crucial to consider when deciding on the style you use to approach her: be sure to represent yourself in a way that will be an attractive style to her.

Memory: pretty self-explanatory. However, it cannot be stressed enough to you, the rhetor to not forget things like the name of the girl to whom you are speaking, and if successful, when your date is to occur!

Last is delivery. Now that you have all of your canons covered, you must execute the argument that you have constructed in the most appealing and persuasive way. Be confident in your rhetorical choices and hopefully you will win your argument.

I have explained to you what rhetoric is, where it came from and how to use it in a daily situation. But there’s more… to be an esteemed rhetor, be sure to tune in to the rest of this series where I will be covering the three rhetorical proofs of arguments—ethos, logos, and pathos—that build character, credibility, and emotion.

Music

Episode Two: Ethos

Title Intro

Music

Welcome back, new found rhetors! Rhetorina here, ready to bring you the next rhetorical lesson. But first, a bit about today’s musical inspiration:

Music

Fernand Nault’s ballet, Carmina Burana, is a powerful expression of the human condition that explores lust, romantic love, and mortality. Carl Orff’s intense composition interpreted a historical manuscript of latin poems written by oppressed clergy students in the 13^th century who expressed their secular desires. Though O Fortuna is a highly recognizable tune, the entire score as well as the ballet, typically performed with a live choral ensemble, is undeniably moving and evokes strong emotions from the audience and dancers alike.

And now on to our podcast. Last episode, I introduced you to rhetoric: what it is, where it came from, and how to use it today. To review, rhetoric is used to conduct civil discussion between people who disagree and also to effectively present a persuasive argument. You also learned that rhetoric was developed by the ancient Athenians in their early form of today’s democracy. And if you applied your skills that you learned from the last podcast, you probably didn’t spend Saturday night by yourself! If you did, then listen up! Because the rest of this series will reveal rhetoric’s super powers: ethos, logos and pathos.

Today’s topic is Ethos:

What does it mean?

And how do I use it today?

I’ll be using Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee’s book “Ancient Rhetorics for the Contemporary Students” as it is a comprehensive resource and enjoyable read. To expand your rhetorical savvy, be sure to turn to this book for advice.

Quintilian states in his work titled Institutes that “as regards the orator, the qualities which will most commend him are courtesy, kindliness, moderation, and benevolence. But, on the other hand, the opposite of these qualities will sometimes be becoming to a good man. He may hate the bad, be moved to passion in the public interest, seek to avenge crime and wrong… and may follow the promptings of every honorable emotion.”

Essentially what Quintilian was describing is character, which, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is defined as “the pattern of behavior or personality found in an individual or group.”

To the Greeks, however, this was defined as Ethos: character created by a person’s habits and reputation, rather than experience. This is a very important distinction between reputation and experience, because—according to the author of Rhetoric of Alexander— “one’s manner of life contributes to one’s powers of persuasion as well as to the attainment of a good reputation.” This implies that a rhetor’s ability to persuade is connected to his or her moral habits (especially the way it contributes to one’s appearance and reputation).

Now, the Roman rhetorician Aristotle had much to say about the appearance of character; in fact, he identified two types of ethos: invented and situated. Invented ethos is having appropriate character according to a variety of circumstances. Situated ethos concerns a rhetor’s reputation within a community. This is more difficult to achieve and maintain by a rhetor.

In any case, one’s ethos is a strong combination of acting in good character and being regarded in good character.

So what does it all mean today? Today, we call this ethics. We judge individuals’ actions as being ethical or moral. Sound familiar?

Let’s bring ethos more into today’s world with job interviews. And especially now, when acquiring and keeping a job is more challenging than ever, pay attention; because ethos is here to save the day, and your resume.

When anticipating a job interview, you are going to want to give off the most professional impression that you can to your interviewer. He or she will definitely be looking for evidence of strong professional character and habits.

So what do you do? Let’s start with invented ethos, the kind you are most in control of. The first and possibly most important way that you show ethos is in the way you dress; the impression you give about your ethical habits can be expressed by appearing collected and prepared.

While you may think your trendy new haircut or bohemian shag look emotes the current style, your interviewer may see your bed-head tresses as a result of hitting the snooze one too many times, therefore, sacrificing your image of punctuality. This can also be forfeited by an untucked shirt or wrinkled trousers. For women, it is important to be aware of the length of your skirt and cut of your blouse. Revealing too much skin will surely send the wrong message of professionalism. So, invent your ethos by showing that you are prepared and responsible with a crisp, clean, and appropriate image.

Since situational ethos depends on what your community has to say about you, be sure to select the most credible and eloquent candidate to write your letter of recommendation. While you may not be able to control what EVERYONE thinks about you, by choosing a reference that thinks very highly of your character and qualifications, you can control what your ‘community’ says to your interviewer. Submitting a letter of recommendation from and esteemed professor or acquaintance will speak much more of your ethical attributes than, say, your high school ex-girlfriend.

Ok, so now you know that ethos builds you character and ethical reputation. You also know that you can achieve this through invented and situated means, such as the way you present yourself and the people who speak for you.

Got a job interview coming up? Stress less with your new rhetorical skills in ethos and no coffee stains on your shirt.

Tune in next time for logos: the voice of reason.

Music

Episode Three: Logos

Title Intro

Music

Welcome back, rhetors-in-training! Rhetorina here, ready to bring you the next rhetorical lesson. But first, a bit about today’s musical inspiration:

Music

Whoa! Did I just hear rap music? That’s right. Last year, choreographer Lauri Stallings and the Atlanta Ballet broke the fine arts boundaries by collaborating with Antwan Andre Patton, also known as Outkast’s Big Boi. Together, they created an explosive production titled Big. This show was a contemporary chronicle of Patton’s experience as a rap artist as well as a physically and visually provocative dance work. Though Big is unique in its genre, this is not the first time that the Atlanta Ballet or other dance companies have collaborated with musical artists. Musicians such as Prince, the Indigo Girls, Sting, and David Bowie have all shared the stage with dancers to create an explosive theatrical alliance.

And now, on to our podcast. Last episode, I introduced you to ethos: what it is and how to use it. To review, ethos is the element that builds your character in an argument. It is through ethos that you persuade someone of your good habits and ethical choices. I also covered that there are two kinds of ethos—invented and situated—and that using both expresses a strong ethical image and reputation. If you had a recent job interview, hopefully you scored the office with a window; hey, it could happen! So now that you’ve got the image down, let’s talk about your voice of reason.

I’ll be using Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee’s book “Ancient Rhetorics for the Contemporary Students” as it is a comprehensive resource and enjoyable read. To expand your rhetorical savvy, be sure to turn to this book for advice.

Today’s topic is Logos:

What is it?

And how do I use it today?

Aristotle claimed that “a statement is persuasive and credible either because it is self-evident or because it appears to be proved from other statements that are so.” With this he was referring to logos: the logical or rational proofs that can be found by examining issues.

Though the derivative of this Greek word means ‘voice’ or ‘speak’, in rhetoric logos is basically the factor that makes your argument sound reasonable and valid. In plain English, it is simply called logic.

The intent of logos and a logical argument is to generate a rational response from your audience or any appeal to the intellect, says author James Garbarino. He cites ways to execute logos include: theoretical and abstract language, factual data and statistics, definitions, and opinions from credible sources.

In a broader scope, Crowley and Hawhee identify two main structures of logical arguments: deduction and induction. Additionally, the most common way to support your logical argument is through examples. But let’s start from the top with deduction.

Deduction is defined as a method of reasoning wherein a conclusion is derived from a comparison of general to particular premises. A simple argument includes a major premise, followed by a minor premise, then a conclusion. Ever heard of the saying if looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck? Well, this is a prime example of deductive reasoning.

The major premises state that a duck looks like a bird with a slim round beak and webbed feet, and that a duck also makes a quacking sound. The minor premises would state that animal X looks like a bird with a slim round beak and webbed feet and makes a quacking sound. Therefore, the conclusion would state that animal X is in fact a duck, because it satisfies the two premises. We started out with the general premises and progressed to the particulars to deduce a conclusion—there we have deductive reasoning.

Next is inductive reasoning: this differs from deductive reasoning in that a rhetor collects a number of instances and forms a generalization that is meant to apply to all circumstances. Theoretically, inductive reasoning provides certainty to an argument when all the particular instances that exist for an idea are attributed to the argument.

For example, if I was to say that all dancers were ballerinas, I would ideally have to identify all the dancers that exist and assert that they are, in fact, ballerinas; without having to do so, I know this is not true. Some dancers do modern work, some do hip-hop work, tap dancing, Broadway dancing, hula dancing, break dancing… the list could go on an on about how many different types of dancers exist and not all of them are ballerinas. However, if I were to say that all dancers are artists, this would be a true argument since every type of dancer that exists is an artist.

The last logos tactic I have already given away to you. For my explanation of both deduction and induction, I have successively provided you with an example to explain my point. This strengthens your argument by its quality of proof. The more specific the example the more persuasive. Quinitilian states that an example qualifies as “some past action, real or assumed, which may serve to persuade the truth of the point which you are trying to make.”

There are many types of examples that can strengthen many types of arguments, such as historical examples that draw upon the past, to fictional examples like fables that teach a lesson. Again, the more specific and concrete your examples are, the more logical your argument appears to be.

Alright, so you understand logos and a few of its components. There are many more ways to create logos which Crowley and Hawhee’s book explores in more depth; but for now, how can you apply what you have just learned? How about by addressing one of the most current social issues: global warming.

You come across a skeptic who does not believe that the human inhabitants of the earth have impacted the astounding climate fluctuations. You, as a rhetor, seek to convince the skeptic that it is in fact true. Let’s first try a deductive approach.

First you claim that harmful substances such as aerosol contribute to the depletion of the o-zone. This, your major premise, is consequentially supported by scientific facts that are deemed as true by both you and your skeptic. Now, you move on to your minor premise by stating that some brands of hairspray products contain aerosol as their main ingredient. This premise can be supported by the previously discussed use of examples. You can list brands such as AquaNet as aerosol-ingredient hairspray products. Finally, you have your conclusion: hairspray contribute to the depletion of the o-zone. Ta-dah! You have successfully constructed a logical deductive argument. Hold on now, don’t get too proud. We’ve still got to cover induction.

Let’s rewind and say you’ve encountered the same skeptic but want to take an inductive approach. Here you decide to address automotive use as a reason for the abnormal smog in your city. You say that all primarily gasoline-powered cars emit the pollution that subtracts from the air quality. Then, ideally, you would enumerate all types of primarily gasoline-powered cars and confirm that they do, indeed, emit pollutive elements. Typically, you will not have to cite EVERY car; the mere fact that a majority of gasoline-powered automobiles fall in to this category will likely be enough to convince your skeptic. But if necessary, all automobiles that fit into the gasoline-powered genre must be included to assure truth in your argument.

Well, I have illustrated the use of examples through my own argument to teach you about logos. With each new term I have provided you with an example to support it. If I were to provide more examples, you would probably be even more convinced that the use of examples is a successful way to build logos within an argument. How convenient! Regardless, I think that you get the point. On your own or by turning to the “Ancient Rhetorics” book, identify other types of examples that can be used to support your arguments, such as analogies.

Well, I say that listening to the Rhetorina podcast today gives you a better understanding of the rhetorical concept logos. You have listened to the Rhetorina podcast today; therefore, you have a better understanding of the rhetorical concept logos. Next episode, last but not least is pathos, the emotional rollercoaster.

Music

Episode Four: Pathos

Title Intro

Music

Hello, rhetorical cadets. Rhetorina here. You have almost finished your Rhetorina training in becoming a master in the art of persuasion and gaining some unique knowledge about the art of dance performance. I’ve got one last lesson for you today, but first a bit about today’s musical inspiration.

Music

John Alleyne, Artistic Director of Ballet British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, created his version of a ballet to Vivaldi’s Four Seasons. Though this ballet has been created by many choreographers before his time, Alleyne took a unique approach to the work by collaborating with the dancers to create movement from a collection of vocabulary from obscure poems. The dancers took it upon themselves, to word by word create complex phrases of movement that abstractly reflected to given vocabulary. Also in the production, Tiko Kerr, a painter, was a featured on the stage and simultaneously created improvisational pieces inspired by the music and movement on stage. He and the dancers were joined by the presence of what was called the drawing machine, suspended above the stage, that tracked the movements of particular dancers on stage through devices planted on their bodies. The essence of the production, performed with a live quintet, explored the complexity of life and relationships as do natural seasons. Though the work of Alleyne and his dancers garnered monumental acclaim, the unfortunate news arrived just days ago that Ballet BC was forced to close its doors due to current economic constraints. The entire company has been suddenly and indefinitely laid off in hopes for a revival of grants and financial gifts from its supporters.

And now on to our podcast. Last episode, I introduced you to logos, or the logical reasoning of an argument. I discussed methods such as deductive and inductive reasoning to develop your logical argument, and the use of examples to support it. These are just a few components of logical reasoning, but should give you a solid base to explore more.

Today’s final topic is Pathos:

What is it?

And how do I use it today?

I’ll be using Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee’s book “Ancient Rhetorics for the Contemporary Students” as it is a comprehensive resource and enjoyable read. To expand your rhetorical savvy, be sure to turn to this book for advice.

Greek rhetorician Gorgias claimed that “speech is a powerful guide which, by means of the finest and most invisible body, effects the divinest of works: it can stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity…. At the actions and physical sufferings of others in good fortunes and in evil fortunes, through the agency of words, the soul is wont to experience a suffering of its own.”

Sound heavy enough? Gorgias was emotively expressing the notion of pathos or appeals to human emotion. In early Greek thought, however, pathos denoted a passive state that we today might call ‘experience’; later, through the development of the Greek tragedy plays, pathos came to be known more as suffering—perhaps the deepest and most sensitive form of feeling.

According to Crowley and Hawhee, pathos in rhetoric and today’s English refers to any quality in an experience that arouses emotion. The word pathetic, as it is used colloquially, connotes pity or lack of success; however, in rhetoric it can be the key to your audiences’ hearts.

Unfortunately, in a modern society, we have tended to equate emotion with irrationality: reason is associated with the mind where emotion is associated with the body, which is an inconsistent and unreliable source.

However, the ancient Greek rhetors understood what neuro-scientific proof shows now: that we cannot think without having emotions. It is also noted that we, as groups, tend to share emotion collectively at a more intense level, such as grief or excitement.

Crowley and Hawhee state that “emotional appeals are based on the assumption that human beings share similar kinds of emotional responses to events.” They also note that “while this may not be true across wide cultural differences, it certainly is the case that people who live in the same community have similar emotional responses.”

Thus, a rhetor must study and be aware of his or her audience. Plato instructs that “since the function of oratory is in fact to influence men’s souls, the intending orator must know what types of soul there are.” He further attributes “hence a certain type of hearer will be easy to persuade by a certain type of speech to take such and such action for such and such reason, while another type will be hard to persuade.

While the Greeks found concrete examples of pathos in works such as Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, today we find much pathos in advertising: political campaigns, charity organizations, movie trailers; even ads for beauty products to apparel strongly employ pathos to gain your attention and your attraction.

So, unless you’re in the advertising industry, how would you use pathos? Well, it comes handy in an infinite amount of ways, but one that could really save your rear is when you’re handing over your license and registration, because you just got caught speeding.

Aristotle articulated three factors to consider when developing pathos.

1. What state of mind your audience is in? In your case, the officer could be in any state of mind: angry, solemn, jolly, forgiving, if you’re lucky? You may be able to asses this in his or her demeanor; but if not, proceed with tact.

2. What or who can excite emotion in your audience? If you’re going for a night in the slammer, I’ll bet that provocative language and physical gestures would surely excite the police officer; but since you are attempting to appeal to any shred of forgiveness the officer may have, you should focus on what will evoke that emotion in him or her. In this case, being modest, forthcoming, and humble will sincerely help your case.

3. What are the reasons for which your audience would become emotional? A police officer does his or her job to protect the safety of the community. Actions that violate the safety of the community arouse emotions in the officer, but not the ones that you need to focus on. Your focus in getting out of a ticket should be assuring the officer of your commitment to safety in your community, even though at the present time you appear to be a violator.

With these factors in mind, your pathetic appeal may sound something like this:

Hello officer, how are you? Oh, certainly, I have my license and registration right here. Did I know I was speeding? Oh my. You, know, I guess I may have been going a bit faster than the limit. I’m so sorry. It’s just that, well, I was out at the community food bank volunteering since 10:00 this morning and I just got so caught up in helping all of the children get their meals today that I completely lost track of time and now I’m late for the bingo party at the senior center. I know how important it is to those lonely old people to have visitors and I didn’t want to let them down, so I must have just gotten a bit carried away on the road. I’ve never gotten a traffic ticket before, and to think of sweet Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Stromboli sitting there waiting for their favorite game—the only one they can remember how to play—just breaks my heart. I hope you can understand, I’m so sorry, I promise it will never happen again.

Let it be noted that your appeal should be ENTIRELY truthful information; because lying to a layer of the law is NOT going to win you much pathos! Be honest, genuine, and know the audience to which you are speaking, and you should have their hearts in your hands.

Well, this is it! You’ve learned about rhetoric and its five canons—invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery—you’ve learned about ethos and its invented and situated applications, logos and inductive and deductive reasoning with the use of examples, and finally pathos and the arousal of appropriate emotions of your audience. I now deem you rhetors of the modern world; go forth and apply your new skills to the limitless facets of your life and I wish you much success.

Additionally, I hope that I have inspired you to seek out the plethora of opportunities to see new and exciting dance performances. You could make it a date; or you could make it your job; just try not speed on the way to theatre, even if you believe you’re an invincible rhetor.

This is Rhetorina saying farewell and stay on your rhetorical toes.

Music

, 9:04 pm by Tiana

Transcript for Capstone Project

 

[Intro Music]

 

Tiana: Good evening everyone my name is Tiana Clark and I am a senior at Georgia State University and my podcast is concerning my 4320 Advanced Composition and Rhetoric Senior Seminar class. Today’s topic is going to be about the Boondocks, it will be a rhetorical analysis of both the visual and verbal rhetoric involved in the show and its context in society.

 

[Musical Break]

 

Tiana: The first thing I would like to do is to define the meaning of rhetoric. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines rhetoric as: the art of speaking and writing in an effective manner or the skill of effective use of speech. And what is visual rhetoric may you ask? From Wikipedia.org we get that visual rhetoric is how visual images communicate. And these two things are important because being that the Boondocks is an animated series, it is important to understand how these visual and verbal cues work together because we want to assume that they are all done purposely because they have to be drawn and the speeches that the characters give have to be given to them by some sort of author.

Now, with rhetoric seeming as to be such a serious topic you may wonder why I’ve chosen to analyze an animated series. But this animated series is noted that it has been geared towards people of a more mature persuasion exactly.  

A little bit about the Boondocks. The Boondocks was created by Aaron McGruder, he is a graduate student of the University of Maryland in Washington, DC. He started off his animated series as a comic strip that is featured in some Sunday papers called the Boondocks. The Boondocks has been controversial throughout its times, even in the newspapers. And some newspapers have even chosen to not show the strip in its, in its paper. Why might you ask? Because it’s controversial. He uses words such as “nigga” to convey his ideas, which many people find offensive- and if those people don’t find it offensive, they see it as a taboo word to be used in such a light-hearted manner. He originally intended for his cartoon strip to be a show, but networks weren’t willing to pick it up because of the topics and he just decided to go with the full comic strip. And then later on, he was able to produce it as a show for the Cartoon Network shown on AdultSwim. AdultSwim is shown usually after nine o’clock when most of the children have gone to sleep so that people of mature age can enjoy a few more racy things in their cartoon segments.

One of the main characters in the Boondocks is a character named Huey Freeman. Most of the rhetoric comes, well the spoken rhetoric that seems to be important, comes through the character of Huey. Huey is a ten year old African-American child, he sports an afro and he wears a t-shirt and jeans. (3:11)  

In the context that everything is an argument, people would say that his clothes in general are his way of, you know, going against the grain. While it may be common that people may say that many African Americans would wear this, which would be a stereotype, he does so wear this in this cartoon, and actually he is portrayed to be quite intelligent.

Another character that we have emerging is Granddad. Granddad is the grandfather of Huey and his brother Riley and they live in a suburb of Maryland and in this suburb, he’s chosen to live there because it’s basically a mixed community and it’s supposed to be quiet and a place for him to spend the rest of his years before his grandsons, Huey and Riley, came to live with him.

We also have the character of Uncle Ruckus. Uncle Ruckus is the character who is black, but is very concerned with whiteness and what that means to be white. Uncle Ruckus is a character that has been used to denigrate the black race, he is always involved in any type of white event where he can bash a black person, he wants to be white, and he sees no problem with this.

We also have the character Jasmine and she represents the mixed race between black and white. She has a white mother and a black father in the show.

And Huey’s brother Riley seems to be the character that is the rebel. Constantly, he is the one who basically is the stereotypical what people would consider black person.

And what is the rhetoric in all of this? That’s what I intend to show you throughout this podcast. There will be some images shown as well as some um-verbal recordings shown from the actual show itself that will be included in this podcast.  So if you don’t have the ability to look at the video on your iPod itself, you may want to see if you can look at it straight online from your iTunes function.

 

The first episode in the series that I would like to speak about is from season one, episode seven, “A Huey Freeman Christmas.” This episode was first aired December 18, 2005. In this episode Huey has a white teacher, Mr. Uberwitz, who is considered basically a black enthusiast and Huey even calls him “culturally sensitive” and he asks Huey to put on the Christmas play that year. When Huey talks to Mr. Uberwitz about his play, he tells him that he will be fired for being an “irresponsible white person.” In which case, Mr. Uberwitz says that he wants to hear Huey’s vision and here is a clip of Huey Freeman’s vision:

 

            Huey: You want me to direct the Christmas play?

           

            Mr. Uberwitz: Absolutely, I think you’ll do a fantastic job.

           

            Huey: First of all, I don’t give a damn about Christmas.

           

            Mr. Uberwitz: (laughs) You don’t have to do a traditional Christmas play. No, you can                            do whatever you want.

           

            Huey: You’ll be fired.

 

            Mr. Uberwitz: Fired? For what?

 

            Huey: For being an irresponsible white person.

 

            Mr. Uberwitz: I would really love to see you vision.

 

            Huey: Vision? What do you know about my vision? My vision would turn your world                              upside down, tear asunder your illusions and send the sanctuary of your own                               ignorance crashing down around you. Now ask yourself, are you really ready to                   see that vision?

           

            Mr. Uberwitz: We’ll give you complete creative control.

 

This portion of the show demonstrates verbal rhetoric of course, but what is this part saying? Um, I think in his words about his vision he is saying that sometimes the black vision has been known to basically throw America off. In times where the black view wasn’t  (7:19) necessarily accepted, when people would make claims that maybe say, as Huey did that Jesus is black, that seems to bother a lot of people that are not of color. Um, Huey does make the assessment that because of the areas where Jesus was supposedly born that area consists of many Arabic people as well as black people from the African areas around it, and in which case Jesus would be of some sort of color in that context. So I would basically assess that what is rhetorically stated here is that the visions of the black man’s reality is not what the world is ready for, and particularly even the world of white people that are ready to accept what we consider to be the black experience and what the black experience has been over the centuries for maybe not just black people in America, but black people all around the world.

While Mr. Uberwitz does seem to be accepting of Huey’s vision of a black Jesus, some of his um, other counterparts aren’t as accepting. For instance the principal of the school has told him and told Huey that Jesus cannot be black and that is when Huey does go into that explanation about the race of Jesus from the area and things like that. And, um, essentially he is told that he can’t put the play on as he sees fit. Mr. Uberwitz does decide against, you know, the principal to go on ahead and show the play as “The Black Jesus” and actually, the newspaper, the local newspaper, gave it good reviews but he was fired as Huey put it for being that ‘irresponsible white person.”

The rhetoric in this seems to keep going back to, it’s, it’s, there for comedy but it does seem to be a social commentary about white acceptance of the overall, blackness that should be. Um, it seems that there he’s trying to show that black people have a greater contribution sometime than just picking cotton and things like that and he’s trying to show that by showing that Jesus is considered to be a person of color by many people but that mainstream white American cannot accept that fact that Jesus was basically more than 99% likely was a person of color based on the area of his birth. That is the rhetorical, the verbal rhetoric that I got out of that episode for season one, um, that sometimes while it seems to be looking us in the face, that there’s always that one person that’s on our side but there’s always people who are against whatever our belief is, no matter what that belief may be. They almost deem it as being unimportant or just simply ludicrous because it would go against them as a person. And that’s what I think the rhetoric was trying to show in that episode in particular. Season one, episode seven, “A Huey Freeman Christmas.” (10:35)

So how is all of this rhetorical you may ask? What Huey attempts to do is to prove his theory by showing the different types of rhetoric. He mainly uses his ethos and his logos. For ethos, Huey mentions that the different things about the areas where Jesus was born and he talks about the different types of people that were there and the descent of those types of people who live in the area. He also then uses his logic because it would be obvious that if a certain type of people lived in that area a person born in that area would be of that descent as well. Or at least if many if the people in that area were of a certain type of mixed race, then most, more than likely if there was still to be two or three races there, they would be mixed together and you would still have a basic generalization of the people that were in the area. So, that is one sign of rhetoric that Huey uses, or rather that Aaron McGruder uses though Huey.

The point of this segment was to show how Aaron McGruder uses rhetoric through his character Huey to make a social commentary. Again, while the show is supposed to be comedy, it’s mainly a satire and I do intend to show more rhetoric about the author’s thoughts about American society.

 

[Musical Break]

 

The next episode I would like to tackle from the Boondocks is also from season one and it’s entitled “ the Block is Hot.” Um, what basically happens in this episode is Jasmine creates a lemonade stand. It’s the summer it’s really, really hot and she decides a lemonade stand would be a good way for her to save money so that she can earn a pony. And in doing this lemonade stand, she meets Mr. Wuncler he comes over and explains to her he is a rich man with a lot of money and he would like to buy her out and give her that pony that she is trying to work so hard for as a buyout, I guess as a gift to offset the buyout. Jasmine agrees and signs a contract and this clip here shows, well, lets you hear his response to her when she asks when will she get to see her new pony.

 

 

                        Jasmine: So when do I get to see Sammy Davis Jr. the pony?

 

                        Wuncler: When you learn how to run a respectable business.

 

                        Jasmine: Huh?

 

                        Wuncler: What the hell is up with this sign? What’s this crude drawing                                                     supposed to be?

 

                        Jasmine: It’s the magical pony carriage.

 

                        Wuncler: This looks like a kid drew it. Look at this, why are all the “e’s”                                       backwards?

 

                        Jasmine: It’s, it’s supposed to be cute.

 

                        Wuncler: You think ignorance is cute? Well I suppose you think mental                                                   retardation is downright adorable. Lemonade, now. How is anyone                                               supposed to believe that you can make lemonade when you can’t even                                      spell it? How old are you?

 

                        Jasmine: T-t-ten.

 

                        Wuncler: T-too damn old to be writing your “e’s” backwards damnit!

                                         Squirm little worm.

 

 

                        Jasmine: What happened?

 

                        Huey: It’s okay Jasmine, you don’t need him.

 

                        Jasmine: What do you mean I don’t need him?

 

                        Huey: Well you’re not gonna let him treat you like that?

 

                        Jasmine: What, you think ponies grow on trees?

 

                        Huey: What kind of question is that? It’s a large four-legged mammal.

 

                        Jasmine: Or maybe I’m just supposed to wait ‘til I’m an old woman to get my                                          pony. How am I gonna look Huey? A 65-year-old woman riding a pony?

 

                        Huey: Jasmine, he’s a crook.

 

                        Jasmine: You just want everyone to miserable because you’re miserable.

                                     And why are you wearing that stupid coat? I wish you’d go away.                                                (14:34)

 

The issue in this episode is obviously a commentary on big businesses in America versus small business, homegrown businesses, whatever you may like to call those businesses. Um, there is both the visual and verbal metaphorical rhetoric in this episode. I say metaphor because even thought it is still a direct take over from a big business to a little business, we wouldn’t normally consider a big company like Wal-Mart coming to tale over, say, a mom and pop store that sells, maybe coasters. And um, I considered it to be equivalent to that. Um, visually they have a larger male, obviously of rich stature, coming in a nice car and then they have the little girl with the cut little lemonade stand very homemade the sign has “Jasmine’s Lemonade Parade” on the front and you see that he mentions that the “e’s” are backwards and that it doesn’t look professional. When he previously came up to her, he sated how those “e’s” were interesting and I think this is a commentary, like I said about big businesses and how they conduct business here in the states. He showed it to through using ethos, logos, and pathos um from jasmine’s perspective. The ethical appeal from Jasmine was that she was gonna be giving people what they needed which was lemonade and the logical appeal for her with the big business was that well if I get more money I’ll get to buy my pony, and that’s also the same thing Mr. Wuncler used on her. And hen in the end for pathos they show how she’s being taken advantage of and how sad it is for a child to be taken advantage of. And more so seeing this, as I‘ve said, as a social commentary about businesses in America and though using the method of an adult versus a child it shows sometimes the infantile state that a lot of businesses are in. a lot of those people aren’t as knowledgeable as people who run the larger businesses and they come down and tell ‘em thing that sound really good almost like how you can tell a child, and they make decisions that aren’t necessarily the best decisions for their businesses. And a lot of them end of losing their business or keeping the business but having to run it in a way that does not ethically appeal to them. Later on in this episode it would show that Jasmine has to add more water to her lemonade so the product doesn’t taste as good. She has to work more hours because she’s the only person working the stand, and in the end he ends up telling her that she is not going to work the stand at all that he is going to take the stand from her and someone else will be running that lemonade stand. So that was the episode entitled “the Block is Hot.”

 

[Musical Break]

 

                        Preacher: Well you should definitely see the “Passion,” it’s a very important                                             movie.

 

                        Huey: Couldn’t see it, white Jesus.

 

                        Preacher: Excuse me?

 

                        Huey: Come on man. It’s supposed to be all historically accurate and they still                                         have a white man playin’ Jesus? That’s some old bullsh*t.

 

                        Preacher: Young man you speak so well.

 

                        Huey: And all I’m sayin’ is Ronal Reagan was the devil.

           

                        Party Guest: You are such an articulate young man.

 

                        Huey: I’m tryin to explain to you that Ronald Regan was the devil. Ronald                                               Wilson Reagan. Each of his names has six letters. Six, six, six, man,                                             doesn’t that offend you?

 

                        (guests applaud)

 

                        Huey: Stop that! What are you doing? Stop clapping. Tell me this, why was all                                         the video recording of the Pentagon attacks seized by the FBI and never                                       seen again?

 

                        Party Guests: He speaks so well. He’s adorable.

 

 

                        Huey: Are you even listening to what I’m saying?

 

                       

                        Granddad: Nigga if you ruin this party for me I’ll put my foot up your-

 

 

                        Huey: Ruin the party? They love me, these people aren’t worried about us                                                            they not worried about anything, they’re rich. No matter what

                                                happens, these people just keep applaudin’.

 

 

This section is again commenting on the race relations between black and white America. The rhetoric in this situation was more verbal than it was visual.  Visually it just showed the people standing around watching Huey talk and then standing around clapping and smiling. And the verbal was what you heard. Huey, you know, having his own thoughts and then people just kind of looking at him and clapping and just keep on telling him that he is very articulate and that they like that. What I found interesting about this situation was that it reminded me much of Zora Neal Hurston’s writings from the Harlem Renaissance and her calling certain people the “niggarati” and the niggarati was a group of white patrons, uh, that patronized black art, and in this scene from what I got, it seemed to be very reminiscent because it was that they noted that he was a good speaker but no one ever paid attention to what he said. And I do fell like this is a direct commentary between, sometimes, black art and the popular mainstream in such a way where people say “oh it’s really good, I like the colors, I like the pictures” and no one is really trying to understand the deeper meaning that the art is trying to convey. Which also is, um, interesting enough, the same theory for me about the Boondocks, that so many people look at for either being a commentary, I mean a comedy or something that just is terrible, that it is just stereotyping everyone, trying to make fun of people, instead of looking at the deeper meaning which is “these are the problems we have here in America and I’m not giving a way to solve it but I’m just pointing it out to you and  maybe you can solve it.”  And I do think that that’s what is shown in this episode. Um, rhetorically speaking again, Huey mentions that Jesus is black and that certain movies won’t show it that way, but yet the preacher just tells him again “you’re very articulate” and again the rhetoric in this situation is pretty much all verbal. Um, it’s not um, I would say there are pathetic appeals because the pathetic appeals would simply be the appeal that you feel bad for Huey because he is so busy trying to always spread his message and no one is listening. For ethos he always seems to be very knowledgeable about his topic- whether other people listen or not because he always adds the history behind whatever he is saying. And, um, logically it’s just usually a sound argument he uses his common sense to map things together- to make valid arguments. So that was the episode “the Garden Party” and for some, I guess it wasn’t a party at all.

 

[Musical Break]

 

So the main question that I wanted to answer in this project would be how that the images and words together create information about race relations in America as seen through the eyes of the creator Aaron McGruder (23:28). I used the first episode to demonstrate that idea “A Huey Freeman Christmas” when I spoke about the rhetoric between the children and the teacher trying to create the Christmas play about the black Jesus. Um, I saw that the imagery itself was not capable of being separated from the verbal rhetoric in this episode because if you just saw the actions you couldn’t necessarily always figure out what was going on throughout the episode. You might have noticed that the kids were fired from the play because they were dancing and singing but you wouldn’t have known the details in between or why the principal chose to tear up Huey’s contract to do the actual play-which was the principal stating that Jesus just couldn’t be black.

So through the eyes of Aaron McGruder I believe that this social commentary about race is stating, like I said before that it’s almost, I don’t want to say impossible, but it just hasn’t come together yet that black and white America are still on one page with each other. There are still so many differences between the races that we can’t even agree on something as simple as to whether or not Jesus was white or Jesus was colored. And although there has been significant evidence to show people that while Jesus may not have exactly been black, he was from a race of colored people. It’s mainly many mainstream people of non-color that cannot accept that explanation about Jesus (25:07).

Next I decided to cover social commentary in general through the Boondocks and that’s why I used the episode “the Block is Hot.” “The Block is Hot” is the episode that talked about Jasmine opening the lemonade stand and being taken over by a richer person who owned many other corporations. This episode in particular was a stab at America’s big businesses. Even businesses such as Wal-Mart, like I said, um, a lot of big businesses have come to areas and they’ve bought out people’s businesses where they said they could still work there but they’ve completely changed the ethics of the business and a lot of people lose faith in it and they end up either not working there or the company fires them purposely.

So I do think that the Boondocks is something that people should pay attention to. Not just for comedic relief, but to look at for a social commentary. A lot of the problems that have been said about the Boondocks is that it created racial tensions that it doesn’t necessarily point out that there are other races in America. In the Boondocks there is a running notion that there’s black America and there’s white America and I believe there’s rhetoric in that as well. I think that the author is arguing that just maybe, we don’t see America in terms of anything other than black and white. It’s pretty obvious, even in neighborhoods you can see there are some neighborhoods that are Mexican or Vietnamese or something like that, but they’re all separated. But the mixed neighborhoods generally are some black and a lot of white. Or a little bit of white and a lot of black or black or white, There isn’t much mixing inside of the neighborhoods. And I believe that’s what he is trying to show in his series is that, his social commentary on race relations is that in America we are still black and white.

The last segment “the Garden Party” showed that themes that were prevalent throughout early America are still prevalent today in our society. It showed that even in Zora Neal Hurston’s time where there were people who praised the art of minorities, well mainly blacks, and ignored the true commentary that the art was making, it shows that it is still done today when people speak out about anything that they have a feeling about. It doesn’t necessarily have to be about race um, in particular, Huey was yelling out a lot of political things that people- while they said he was articulate as I’ve stated before- chose to ignore. It does show that in America we do still have a problem listening to people. We don’t listen enough to the things that people have to say and maybe if we listened a little bit harder that things may improve for us. I do think that overall, the Boondocks is a great cartoon to look at for social commentary. While some people may not understand how to get there for the social commentary portion, the simplest thing is to watch it and to actually listen to the things that are stated throughout the series. Simply listening to how people peel about whites in the series or blacks or noting that there aren’t very many other races if any shown (maybe in minute roles like maybe in the grocery store in the cartoon series) shows through the eyes of Aaron McGruder, what he sees America as being and maybe America really is that way for many people and maybe some people have chosen to ignore that. So I believe that the Boondocks has done a wonderful job of creating problems for other people simply by just telling the truth. While it may seem a bit over-dramatized and stereotypical in some places some people only learn through stereotypical type narrations or stories or whatever. And I think that this one has sparked a lot of controversy because the verbal and visual rhetoric has been so strong throughout the series visually you see the kids with the baggy clothes, or the people in suits for whatever their situation is and then you hear them using the word “nigga,” they curse a lot or they’re trying to talk proper or they talk about how they really feel about people of the opposite race which is something you don’t hear unless you’re at home or on the phone with a friend. And I think that he’s truing to bring to the light many things that we have a problem with in society and that have been noted before but seem to have gone black in some peoples’ minds.

So, that is my take on the Boondocks.

Well this has been my Capstone Podcast presentation for Rhetoric and Composition Senior Seminar 4320. Hopefully I did get to the rhetoric of the show and I was able to thoroughly demonstrate the rhetoric as a social commentary about America through the eyes of Aaron McGruder in the Boondocks series. Thank you. Oh, and the song featured here on the podcast is called “We Are In Love (’79 Remix)” by K_James at Creative Commons featuring Shannon Hurley. So if you were interested in that it’s file number 16472. Alright hope you enjoyed the song as well as the podcast, thank you.

, 4:30 pm by Akilah

Palin VS Palin Transcript

Good Morning, Good Afternoon, Good Evening, and Good Night.  My name is Akilah Akins and I am your host for this rhetorical analysis.  Today I am conducting a rhetorical analysis that will cover Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska and Joe Bidden.  I will also look at a section of the Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin.  These clips will be juxtaposed with the Saturday Night Live parodies of them. In doing this I will show how comedy can be a profound rhetorical tool. 

I will only be focusing on answers given Sarah Palin in vice presidential debate.  From this point on I will refer to Sarah Plain as Palin when speaking specifically of her actions and words.  In the SNL clips I will refer to Tina Faye as Tina so we are clear whom I am speaking of.

The purpose of this analysis is to show how Saturday used pathos in the form of comedy to highlight the already prevalent holes in Sarah Palin’s ethos, Style, and delivery.  By using comedy they are taking Palins words and actions out of their literal context and adding their own interpretations to them.   By adding extra information about Plain’s personal life as well and statements she has made at other venues that are pertinent to her ethos. 

My target audience will be liberal democratic voters between the ages of eighteen-fifty.  They will be extremely computer literate and familiar with the Internet that way they can quickly reference the clips I am referring to on the Internet if they are already not familiar with them.  They are most likely college educated.  Even if they do not watch SNL on a regular basis they are familiar with the show and the concepts carried out on the show.  To them the presentation of Sarah Palin on SNL will be an accurate one.

Just an interesting piece of information I believe that audience demographics for Saturday Night Live weigh heavily on the way in which they perform the skits.   According to quantcast.com a surveying wed site SNL audience is a good combination of men and women with fifty-two percent of the viewers being male and forty-eight percent being female.   Eight-five percent are Caucasian only five percent are black three percent Asian five percent Hispanic and three percent of others. 

An interesting aspect of the demographic is that its forty-one percent non-college graduates and forty-seven percent college grads with twelve percent having received a professional degree.  Along with education twenty-six percent make less than thirty thousand dollars a year.  Twenty-nine percent makes thirty-sixty thousand, twenty-eight percent make sixty-hundred thousand a year, and seventeen percent make over a hundred thousand dollars a year.

Taking all of these things into analyzing the audience it would be accurate to say that SNL caters to middle class Americans.  Most of who are white with college or higher education and make between thirty thousand and a hundred thousand dollars a year.  While political affiliations were not found I would wager to say that at least fifty percent of their viewers are my target audience as well.

Now taking all this into context lets look at the ways in which SNL represented Sarah Palin in their skits.

It was brought to my attention by a classmate of mine, Ian, that SNL writers have often been quoted stating that they are not bias or trying to make political statements.  However, using the premise of my class that everything is an argument or a rhetorical statement, I would have to disagree with the statements from the SNL writers.  Although I would like to analyze both Joe Bidden and Sarah Palin time will not permit, and personally I think Palins clips are funnier therefore more rhetorically effective. 

I am going to start with the Vice Presidential debate because it is the most elaborate series of clips pieced together.  SNL only had seven to ten minutes to the parody of a debate that was and hour and a half.  Therefore many of the jokes in the SNL skit are clustered together.  So watch the following clip then we will discuss the lack of rhetorical skill that SNL presents in Plain’s style, delivery, and ethos.  I made a video collage so pay close attention because it jumps around a bit. 

                                    (Video clip)

In the opening of the debate and the skit Sarah Palin and Tina Faye ask the respective Joe Bidden’s if they can call them by their first names “Joe”.  This was important because Sarah thought during the debate that she could make it more personal and create a sense of her being an average person bring some humility to herself and the debate by using first name associations.  Normally during a formal event like a debate titles are appropriate signs of respect.  It showed poor taste of her behalf and made it look like she was trying to hard causing damage to her ethos.   

This statement by Tina means two things it implies that SNL thought Palins answers were rehearsed and that helps to poke holes in her ethos because the questions to the debate were not released to the public.  Therefore knowledge of the issues can be rehearsed where as the answers they have to the actual debate questions should not be rehearsed.

Also in an attempt to connect to her audience she used the phrases “hockey moms” and “Joe six pack”.  Palin was trying again to bring herself down to there level but common lets be serious Joe Six Pack isn’t shooting Wolfs from helicopters.  You’re the Governor of Alaska you’re not an everyday individual.  And since you are who you camping with John Macain is a millionaire. 

Another aspect SNL wished to emphasis was the way in which Palin used the word  “maverick” during the debate to describe herself and her running mate senator John McCain. 

SNL is implying that instead of having any type of factual logical answers to the questions she just keep reiterating what “mavericks” her and John McCain are.  Palin acted as if she used the word enough the audience would focus on what a mystical and exciting term it is.  The country was/is in turmoil and change is the main concern for many Americans.  The style of her answers were

With both Campaigns are being run on the idea of changing the country.  Who better to implement these new changes then a bunch of “mavericks”? 

During a segment the moderator Gwen Ifle who is played by Queen Latifah on SNL ask Sarah Palin does she wish to follow up to Joe Bidden a couple of times.  Sarah Palin during the real debate did not wish to respond and instead changed the subjects to basically “stick to what she knows” considering she was only able to rehearse a couple of key issues.  Tina in the SNL skit does the same thing. 

She does this repeatedly signaling once again that her answers are rehearsed. 

During a segment in the SNL debate they stray from the actual interpretation of the debate on focus a little more on Plain’s personal life.  They remark on her shooting wolves from the helicopter and they insinuate that she is forcing her pregnant teenage daughter to get married. 

Throughout the SNL debate Tina is extremely chipper and upbeat at time even oblivious to reality.  In the Parody and the actual debate Palin/Faye refuse to answer the questions on numerous instances. 

The jab at her “shootout to the 3r graders was executed beautifully I believe by the SNL skit stating “who were so helpful in my debate prep”. This is an obvious jab at her ethos questioning her competency. 

In the SNL skit they Tina kept repeating how much of an outsider she was while in the debate Palin was referencing her track record being bi-partisan and working hard to protect her state.  Although Palin was trying to build ethos SNL shot it down presenting Tina giving her segment about what she thinks is constitutional listing completely absurd situations where constitutionality is being brought under scrutiny.  Once again making Palin look like a uncultured ditz.

She blatantly stated that she wasn’t[ going to answer the questions the way they were suppose to be answered all in all she was just unprepared and SNL took advantage of that to attack her style delivery and ethos. 

I want to go into the other clip before we discuss her delivery more as portrayed by SNL. 

                                                clip

In the following clip I only used a small segment from the interview because it was a piece that was the closest to the parody representation. 

            (Video clip) 1…..2…..3…..4

The first part of the clip was the one that most directly attacked Palins style and delivery.   Palin was not very clear in her answer it was choppy and she jumped around a lot.  She had a lot of sentence fragments.  Style mostly referred to written language however if her answer had been written out it would have been stylistically incorrect.  According to Aristotle Palin had a lot of “paratactic’ in her answer.  She “placed utterances somewhat carelessly side by side, just as they occurred to her”

Palin was trying to tie a lot of things together under this one answer, however she failed.  She is guilty of using periphrasis, which is also known as circling speech.  She was trying to hard to make her answer sound good and lost the message in “ornament”. 

The delivery style was the same in all performances Palin has a thick accent and so did Tina.  SNL was kind enough to point out that Palin doesn’t pronounce the “g”s at the end of  her words.

Aristotle  wrote that delivery “was a matter of how the voice should be used in expressing each emotion. 

Theophrastus in his treatise on delivery believed that delivery was the most important o f the five cannons and in the case of Palin this is true.  Presentation is everything in Political rhetoric.  From the way she dressed to how her hair was done the way she looked at the camera during the debate.  She used a lot of facial gestures. All the winking and  head nodding trying to make herself more appealing building ethos. 

Through her attempts at visual rhetoric Palin on both occasions had on suits that were not revealing and she has glasses instead of contacts and her makeup is flawless yet subtle.  All these things brought together made her visually appealing hoping to distract from the things coming out of her mouth. 

In the second part of the interview once again gave Palin opportunity after opportunity to show her knowledge of her running mate John McCain and repeatedly she did not have the answers.  Once again showing how incompetent she is.  Tina had this extraordinary caught in the headlights expression that was filled with confusion and disarray.  It was extremely funny keeping in line with the rhetorical effects of comedy. I especially liked the line about using a lifeline classic.

In conclusion Sarah Palin was never qualified to be Vice President of the United States.  She did not have the first idea what it takes to be in that office. 

I intended to show all the ways that SNL used comedy to proved this exact point.  By mimicking everything about Palin physically they gave themselves credibility or Ethos.

By using some of her same diction and all her same gestures.  They even dressed alike.  They were able to effectively attack her ethos by parodying her style and delivery. 

The advantage of using this media was that a lot of what I have analyzed was self-explanatory. 

What was most entertain for me in doing this project were the stark similarities that SNL had with the actual excerpts of Palin herself.  That only made the sketches funnier and gave them rhetorical effect.

I want to thank you for your time and I hope you enjoyed my presentation.

On a personal note to Dr. Bowie I understand that my project is under the time constraints, but like I had aforementioned this ended up being easy because a lot of it was common sense from the clips I pieced together and I didn’t want to be redundant I am looking forward to feed back from you to where I could have added more.  

, 4:07 pm by AshleyD

https://student.gsu.edu/~adavis51

Check it out

, 1:53 pm by Brett

Hello class. My Capstone Project is available on iTunes.

Track 79 entitled, Capstone Final_A Progymnasmodcast. Enjoy!

Newer Posts »