My name is Claire Greensmith and welcome to my e-portfolio. I am currently an undergraduate student at the Schreyer Honors College at Penn State University studying International Politics and French.
A student at Penn State, I have learned a great deal, both inside and outside of the classroom, including how to speak French proficiently, be assertive and eat on a budget. One of the most important skills I have come to learn is rhetoric, the ability to effectively speak to an audience.
Rhetoric is everywhere. Between music, advertisements, clothing and conversations, arguments are constantly being made to convince an audience. But just because an argument is being made does not necessarily mean that it is successful.
As an observer of the world around me, I have come to notice the successes and failures of rhetoric. In a world swirling with so many arguments, it is essential to find the right recipe of ethos, pathos and logos to effectively convey a message to an audience. Without ethos there is no credibility or reason for the audience to believe the message. The absence of pathos leaves the argument flat and the audience uninterested. Furthermore, one cannot expect the audience to grasp the argument if they cannot follow the argument’s logic in the absence of logos. These three are essential ingredients to the successful use of rhetoric.
It is my goal to become a master of rhetoric, to be able to conjure up an effective argument and leave my audience convinced. In an attempt to do this I have learned about other useful rhetorical tools; a pinch of kairos, or the most effective and opportune moment for rhetoric, and a dash of exigence, or call to action, entice the audience to pay attention and act upon what I am saying.
Like others, my use of rhetoric will not always work. There will continue to be times where the audience will not understand my logic or question my credibility. As a result, my argument will fall flat on its face. But just as it is important for the rhetor to produce a sound argument, so it is that each audience member examines it. It is my opinion that a perceptive audience helps produce a better rhetor.
With this in mind, as I continue to observe the rhetoric around me I hope to improve my own rhetorical skills. Here, in my e-portfolio, I have posted some of my uses of rhetoric. I hope that you may find them effective.
Rhetoric and Civic Life
Claire Greensmith Spring 2012 LA 101H
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Free Hugs
Yesterday I was
leaving class when I spotted a man standing outside of the Thomas Building holding a sign that said “Free
Hugs”.
This man had
chosen a good spot; in between classes, thousands of students walk by this area
of campus. His sign was simple enough to read. The words were short and the
font was large and bold. There he stood, arms up in the air with a sign calling
upon others to give or receive hugs (exigence!). I did not stop to give this
man a hug, here’s why:
1. His failure to consider his audience’s
background: I was raised with the phrase “don’t talk to strangers.” One was not
to get too close to strange people, not to mention hug them. Assuming others were brought up like me, it is likely
that his message is doomed to be ignored because it does not coincide with his
audience’s background. The audience, like me, will not respond to the exigence
and leave him with empty arms.
2. Lack of ethos: Who is this man? Why is he
offering free hugs? Why should I give him a hug? Is he an exceptional hugger?
Perhaps he is conducting a sociology experiment, in which case he
can count out any hug from me – I’m not a lab rat and my hugs are worth more
than experimental results. Or perhaps he is just a good-natured man wanting to
make others’ days better with free hugs. But how would I know? The man neither
identifies himself nor his objective, leaving his audience confused as to his
ethos. As a result, I was unresponsive to his call for free hugs. A little
ethos could have gone a long way.
3. Lack of pathos: ‘Free’ and ‘hugs’ – I
think that these two words are great and together they sound like a nice
concept (though I’ve never heard of anyone charging money for hugs). My trouble
with the concept is the man giving the hugs. I’ve never seen him before
and, absent of personal connection, hence felt no desire to hug him.
There are other things I’d much rather hug than this man: my pillow, my mom, my dog etc. By hugging these I’d get comfort and love unlike
from this stranger where I’d feel clueless and uncomfortable among the
passersby. His hugs mean nothing to me. Perhaps if he had explained that it would make him feel better, his
offer of a free hug would have tugged at my emotions and prompted me to
actually hug him, but such was not the case.
Although I did
not embrace this man, perhaps other students, stressed about exams, breakups
and life, might have been desperate enough to get some comfort from the stranger’s
hugs. But in my opinion, this man failed rhetorically.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Howling Rhetoric
The
Great Hall is filled with students eating breakfast when an owl flies in any
crashes in front of Harry, Ron and Hermione with a special letter for Ron. But
this isn’t just any letter, it’s a Howler, or a magical letter enchanted to
have the author’s voice speak the written message to the recipient when opened.
From the get-go, Mrs. Weasley addresses her audience. This scolding is for Ron and Ron alone. Moreover her tone, for instance referring to her son as ‘Ronald’ rather than ‘Ron’, reflects her displeasure with him.
Again Ron’s mother continues her formal tone by referring to Mr. Weasley rather than ‘dad’. Claiming that her husband’s inquiry is entirely Ron’s fault, Mrs. Weasely aims to give Ron guilt, or involve him emotionally.
Mrs. Weasley’s use of a hyperbole emphasizes her point to Ron. It is not meant to be taken literally as there is no line to be physically crossed, but it is meant to express her great displeasure with Ron and her willingness to further punish him if he misbehaves again.
In the wizarding world of Harry Potter, Howlers are used to deliver a message of anger or great displeasure “in a manner which standard writing cannot adequately convey.”1 In my opinion, if using rhetoric correctly, perhaps such a thing would not be necessary. Mrs. Weasley’s voice, however, sure is effective. Ron was intimidated, as was I!
The
connotation of “howler’ appears to be frightening to the wide-eyed recipient
Ron, and entertaining for his snickering peers. The deep red color of the
howler itself suggests the fury with which Mrs. Weasley, Ron’s mother, wrote
the letter. It’s clear that the delivered message is not going to be pleasant.
“Ronald Weasley!”
From the get-go, Mrs. Weasley addresses her audience. This scolding is for Ron and Ron alone. Moreover her tone, for instance referring to her son as ‘Ronald’ rather than ‘Ron’, reflects her displeasure with him.
“How dare you steal that car?!?”
Here
Mrs. Weasley asks Ron a rhetorical question, using it, rather than to get a
reply, to persuade Ron to consider her viewpoint.
“Your father’s facing an inquiry at work,
and it’s entirely you fault!”
Again Ron’s mother continues her formal tone by referring to Mr. Weasley rather than ‘dad’. Claiming that her husband’s inquiry is entirely Ron’s fault, Mrs. Weasely aims to give Ron guilt, or involve him emotionally.
“If you put another toe out of line,
we’ll bring you straight home!”
Mrs. Weasley’s use of a hyperbole emphasizes her point to Ron. It is not meant to be taken literally as there is no line to be physically crossed, but it is meant to express her great displeasure with Ron and her willingness to further punish him if he misbehaves again.
In the wizarding world of Harry Potter, Howlers are used to deliver a message of anger or great displeasure “in a manner which standard writing cannot adequately convey.”1 In my opinion, if using rhetoric correctly, perhaps such a thing would not be necessary. Mrs. Weasley’s voice, however, sure is effective. Ron was intimidated, as was I!
1http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Howler
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Passing with Flying Colors
I cannot think of one building on Penn State's
campus that doesn’t have at least one bulletin board strewn with flyers and
posters vying for every passerby’s attention. The boards are always busy and,
most of the time, none of the bulletin board itself can be seen.
Each flyer uses its own rhetoric. Some appeal to
the college student's dreams of future success, arguing the advertised
internship of job will lead them to their goal. Others appeal to the audience's
logos by playing on words.
So what makes a flyer stand out in spite of the
fierce and crowded competition? What makes the onlooker stop and read into a
particular flyer's details?
Perhaps it is color. Messages printed on
fluorescent paper seem to radiate off of the board. Looking at this board (pictured
below) I immediately see hot pink, turquoise and neon yellow. As a result, all
others seem to fade into the background.
Perhaps repetition is more effective. Scanning over
the cluttered board, my eyes are drawn to the similarities. Upon further investigation
I can see a particular flyer has been repeatedly stapled to the board. This in
turn makes the leaflet stand out—had it just been another lone white flyer, my
eye would have easily dismissed it while glancing at the board. But, thanks to
the individual who took the time to post the same flyer a half a dozen times on the
board, I took the time to read its message.
The simplicity of the flyer also determines its
effectiveness. As a passerby, I don’t have the time to read every word of the
dozens of flyers posted. As a result, I take the time to read those whose
message I can easily grasp. In this case, the simpler flyers are the better
flyers.
Looking closely, each flyer
has its own font, graphics, colors and layout. No doubt thought went into
making each one but there are those who use visual rhetoric to their advantage.
In my opinion, those with color, repetition (yes, to the point of bombardment)
and simplicity are the most effective. All others, despite efforts, tend to
fade into the background.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Aragorn, King of Rhetoric
A
huge fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy-- I believe they are one of the
most epic trilogies written in the past century.
Written
by J.R.R Tolkein and published in the 1950’s, more than 150 million copies of
the epic high fantasy trilogy have been sold1. In 2001, the trilogy
was adapted for film. The productions became highly successful and won 11
Oscars, including “Best Picture”, “Best Original Score”, and “Best Adapted
Screenplay”.
In
one of the last scenes of the third and final film of the series, Aragorn, King
of Gondor, and his army stand facing the gates of Mordor, from which thousands
of orcs (in this case the bad guys) are marching toward Aragorn and his visibly
frightened army. The sheer size of the enemy is foreboding. With the use of rhetoric,
King Aragorn delivers a compelling speech to counter the intimidating enemy and
encourage his terrified army.
Aragorn
is a king who has fought valiantly at a number of momentous battles, including
the battle of Helm’s Deep and of Minas Tirith, each consisting of thousands of
deaths at the price of defending the world of men. At these Aragorn exhibited
his leadership and bravery. Standing before his men at the gates of Mordor,
King Aragon thus exudes great ethos. If ever there was a perfect man to deliver
an inspiration al speech to these frightened soldiers, Aragorn was certainly
the man.
He
begins his address by saying:
“Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers!”
By
referring to the soldiers as “my brothers”, King Aragorn puts himself, despite
his incredible ethos, on their level. This makes it easier for Aragorn to
relate to his audience. They are all sons, all brothers. He and his army are in
this foreboding battle together, not as King and his soldiers, but as those standing
together to defend the world of men.
Aragorn
continues his efforts to rhetorically gain the army’s approval saying, “I see
in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.” It seems as if
Aragorn is trying to prove that he, like his soldiers, is simply a mortal
scared for his life. Here he conveys that he understands the fears of this army
but is willing to fight despite them. Having related to his audience, Aragorn
implies that, despite initial doubts, they are capable of gathering the courage
to fight valiantly and succeed, just as he has in the past.
Having
related to his audience and instilled in them the idea that they are capable of
doing the far-fetched, Aragorn continues his rhetoric with pathos.
“By all that you hold dear on this good
Earth…”
Aragorn
is reminding them that more than their lives are at stake with this
battle—losing the fight could mean the destruction of the world of men and
everything they hold dear. Here, Aragorn is appealing to their fears,
emotionally engaging his audience.
Finally,
Aragorn uses exigence— calling his army to action.
“I bid you STAND, men of the West!”
King
Aragorn has established himself and related to his audience through ethos,
appealed to their fears and thus involving them emotionally, and finally he
calls them to action, or to fight against the oncoming enemy. In this scene a
problem has been presented and Aragorn is calling upon his audience, the army,
to act upon it.
Quickly
being approached by thousands of orcs, the odds may have seemed unfavorable for
the army, but thanks to King Aragorn’s use of rhetoric, the men recovered their
courage to fight. The ensuing scenes are a testament to Aragorn’s effective use
of rhetoric. And, although Aragon did use rhetoric effectively, in my opinion
it also helped that there was inspirational music playing for him in the
background.
1
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=5007234
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Mocha: To Treat or Not to Treat?
The
other day I was walking down my usual path through Penn State’s HUB.
Nonchalantly looking around, to my left, just outside of Starbucks, my eye
caught poster advertising a Starbucks beverage.
Just
one of perhaps hundreds of advertisements that I read or see every week, this
promotion managed to catch my attention. What first struck me were the ad’s
words:
Treat Yourself to a
handcrafted Mocha.
It’s the perfect balance of rich
cocoa and espresso.
Or try our NEW skinny mocha—
110 calories in a tall.
Treat yourself:
This
implies that I have worked hard or did something significant enough to deserve
a reward. I feel flattered by this comment. It’s not every day that someone
recognizes the hard work I do, and I don’t care if it’s an indirect compliment
coming from an impersonal banner outside of Starbucks, I’ll take what I can
get!
Saying
‘treat’ suggests that Starbucks is selling a treat, something that will give
me, or any other consumer, great pleasure. From the get go, this poster is
telling those who see it that what Starbucks is promoting is special.
Handcrafted:
This
beverage isn’t just made, it’s crafted.
This word implies that the drink was made skillfully by a barista who takes
time and care to create a quality drink for the customer. It detracts from the
fact that it is most likely a college student who is trying to earn some extra
cash at a part-time job that is making the drink. ‘Handcrafted’ thus suggests
that Starbucks takes pride in skillfully making beverages for its customers. The
word also suggests that these drinks are pieces of art.
But
what is a Mocha anyway? Following this train of thought, right below the first
two lines, the advertisers give observers a definition:
It’s the perfect balance of
rich cocoa and espresso.
Perfect:
Of
course, Starbucks would never give its customer anything less than the best. The
customer is worth this cup of ‘handcrafted’ perfection.
Balance:
It’s
interesting that they should use this word rather than blend. Creating balance
requires precise measurement. To me, Starbucks is suggesting that it took great
pains to make this beverage perfect. As a customer, I have the privilege of
benefitting from the fruits of their labor or, perhaps more fittingly,
benefitting from the drink of their labor.
Rich:
This
gives the drink texture. Perhaps the onlooker could smell a Mocha from the
nearby coffee shop or see the final product pictured below on the sign, but now
they can feel the beverage in their mouths. This word also correlates to the
earlier implication that a Mocha is a luxury.
NEW:
The
capitalized ‘NEW’ is important and exciting, calling attention to all those who
read the ad. Starbucks is trying to excite its potential customers and, after feeling
proud and confident from the earlier implied statement, perhaps they will
decide they are feeling spunky enough to try one!
Skinny:
The
Mocha is not just thin, it’s skinny! This word choice is more extreme and thus
more outrageous, calling attention to how low in calories the skinny mocha is. It’s
a much catchier title than ‘low-fat’.
The
overall soft brown look of this ad reflects the warm coffee-shop atmosphere
that Starbucks generally exudes. The white whipped cream on top of the drink
looks fluffy and artistic. Meanwhile I’m fairly certain that I’ve never seen a
customer walk away from Starbucks with a mug like that shown in the
advertisement. All the same, the ad’s look does a good job of emphasizing the
warmth of the drink and what a Mocha is.
In
just 26 words, the ad encapsulates many appeals to the viewer. Seeing this advertisement,
I felt complimented, curious, enlightened and drawn in to the ad’s message. Alas,
although the ad was able to make me think about the product and feel a variety of emotions, it did not
convince me enough to actually try the Mocha. I decided not to treat myself, but what about you?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Big Box Mart
One
of my favorite types of rhetoric is satire. More specifically, I love how it
means using clever humor to get a point across to the audience. JibJab, a
digital entertainment studio, is known for its witty uses of satire. The studio
creates satiric videos criticizing politicians or past events. My personal
favorite JibJab video is “Big Box Mart.”
This
video is drenched with satire. From the smog-filled Beijing to the house
bursting with stuff, JibJab makes use of burlesque, parody and exaggeration.
For
each character, the heads of photographed people have been cut off and pasted
onto disproportional bodies. All of them are the same height and have stiff
movements, making them more comical.
The
characters’ stiff gestures move in tempo to the parody of “Oh Susanna!”, a
classic 19th century American song. This folk ballad, recognizable
to most Americans, reinforces that the clip’s content is criticizing what’s
going on in America.
Rather
than using a tone as serious as the topic, the song has an upbeat tempo that
contrasts to the troubling phenomena being described in the clip. By doing
this, JibJab is using irony. It puts the context of the message in a humorous
light but continues to highlight the dismal truth reflected through the
parodied lyrics.
Along
with the comical-looking people and parodied American classic, JibJab makes use
of exaggeration. Beijing in a smog-filled city of factories, America’s
countryside is filled with billboards, the main character’s shopping cart is
overloaded with stuff, and Big Box Mart has over 90 isles.
The
visual exaggerations play off of stereotypes of American consumerism. The man
claims he has “lots of needs” and proceeds to place a yard gnome in his bright
red cart. He pulls out 7 credit cards while pushing his overloaded cart. His
wife is pressed against a window of their house because there’s simply not
enough room inside because of all of the things they bought from Big Box Mart.
The
exaggeration continues as “American Industries Est. 1776” is shut down as it can’t
compete with cheap foreign labor. The man can now no longer afford retirement
and now must “scrub toilets until they put [him] in the grave.” Not all of
American industries have been shut down and not all those who have lost their
jobs will be forced to scrub toilets for the rest of their lives. To say the
least, these are major exaggerations. Yet, despite the humor found in the
amplifications, JibJab is emphasizing a sad truth—cheap foreign labor is
hurting some Americans, leaving them in sad situations. This man’s however, it
overly pathetic.
To
me, JibJab’s over exaggeration is humorous while still being effective at
delivering its message. I for one
would prefer to not like to work for a place like Big Box Mart, thus:
‘Oh
Big Box Mart, no don’t you cry for me. I come from Happy Valley where I will
get my degree!’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)