Aristotle is da man!

Written by kappa_06 on October 22, 2003 - 21:17

I really like this reading assignment. One, because I like anything haveing to do with ancient Greece(being that this section is on the teaching of Aristotle), but also because it made me acknowledge a part of rhetoric I never noticed before.

I always knew that when writing a paper I was going to use reason, appeal to the audiences emotions,and try to look credible, but until I read what the text had to say I never understood how versitile the rhetorical appeals were.

The first thing I noticed was how the individual writers manipulated and changed the order of the appeals in their writing.

I mostly witnessed this in the individual ads for the american civil liberties union. I give credit to their marketing dept. because eventhough I did not agree completely with each and every issue, they used the appeals in such a way that it automatically grabbed my attention.

For some of their ads they hit you hard with cold facts(logos), other like the ad on religion eased it's way into emotions by drawing parallels(pathos).

I really didn't see to many examples of (ethos), but gaining the trust of your audience is always crucial to any type of writing. The reason being that if you don't have the trust of your readers why say anything,because they would not trust you or your work.

The question I have is does it depend when in the process of your writing you do your rhetorical analysis of logos, pathos,and ethos. The reason I ask is because, I can defintely see myself wasting hours apon hours thinking of what I would say for the analysis. By the time I get completly finished with it, I know I would have forgotten the initial ideas I was going to use for my paper.

Personally I don't think their would be any problem with doing it at the end. I would just be like doing an outline at the end of the paper to see what points you have made and to see if their is anything else you would want to add, but that's just me.

Reading Assignments

kappa_06's blog | Closed discussion: you can't post new comments.

Good analysis

Posted by farmer85sv on October 23, 2003 - 14:27.

You are right the ACLU definitely did an excellent job with their adds. I know this because while I also do not necessarily agree with their opinions, the ads still were enough to encourage some thought on the subject in my head. Imagine how much effect they could have on a person who maybe was not that knowledgeable or was indecisive on these issues, the ads may even be powerful enough so as to create or change their stance on the matter. About your question, I think it all depends on the situation. Writing a narrative could benefit from all three appeals, while I would think if you were writing an argument you would want to stick with facts (logos) and try to stay away from too much emotion.

A.C.L.U.

Posted by rah03c on October 23, 2003 - 14:05.

I agree the marketing department of the American Civil Liberties Unoin did a great job on those adds at the end of the chapter. Each one of them caught my eye, particularly the one with the black and white face of the same man. The way they used the dark bold writing and then the really lite writting made me want to keep reading. I also agree with you when you said you didn't agree with some of the issues they brought up.

Rhetoric analysis

Posted by hardcoresucks on October 23, 2003 - 13:50.

dude i really liked the pictures because they make you really think about whats going on in the world right now. i think they do a really good job making people realize their wrongdoings. though people are hard to change and most likely wont they will probably think twice before they make an assumption. i do want to know why you think it is the same as doing at the end. i would think you could find points to make before you write the paper instead of having to go back and find room for those certain points

Thanks for the response man.

Posted by kappa_06 on October 23, 2003 - 14:16.

Thanks for the response man. The only reason I would do it at the end is so that I don't loose the points I already have in my head.

I'm not ADHD or anything it's just that if I have a really good idea for a paper I'm going to start writing right away.

Just like if you have an idea for a song your not going to sit there analyzing why your doing it. Your just going to write it before someone comes in and disturbs the peace.

I really liked the question y

Posted by adp03f on October 23, 2003 - 13:23.

I really liked the question you posed about when you can start the rhetorical analysis. I like you would probably do the same thing and sit there for hours upon hours trying to figure out what to say. I don't see it as a problem either trying to do it at the end.

ACLU - what a job

Posted by papa smurf on October 23, 2003 - 13:01.

Yeah, the American Civil Liberties Union, did the most important aspect of marketing -- getting the viewer's attention. You can have the most persuasive arguement, a logical veiw on the matter, but if no one notices -- its useless.

I think the simplisity, also adds to the bold, and grabbing effect.

Ads- A - Plenty

Posted by kappa_06 on October 23, 2003 - 14:07.

Yeah, it's pretty cool how they grab your attention with those ads. The thing that is funny is that before I even read the section I flipped through it first just to see what's ahead. Thats where I was gripped by the pictures. I was like "Whoa! pictures" I guess you feel like that with any book you don't expect visuals in,but once they had me with the photos I couldn't help to read.

I didn't even notice the simplicity of the ads until now. The cool thing is that even thought the ad is so consise they still used each aspect of the rhetorical appeals in their ads.

Hopefully You Can Make Sense of This

Posted by p4b10 on October 23, 2003 - 11:09.

I guess that the difference in doing an outline after a paper and doing a guide on using the three appeals in writing would be that an outline is only stating what your paper is about. It is a sort of brief summary of what your paper is about. On the other hand the guide would help you set something up before you even start writing. If you write first and then create a analysis of your three appeals it would kind of be like doing it all unconsciously. Since you wrote the paper without doing the guide first. I guess that is defeating the purpose of the whole idea. I am not sure if this makes sense to you but I think you might see what I am trying to say.

I see where your coming from

Posted by kappa_06 on October 23, 2003 - 13:53.

I see where your coming from and I also agree that the planning session before writing is important. The only problem I have is that when I write I really get into what I'm doing. Then I would find myself wasting valuable time on the prep and analysis part of my paper and would forget the key points I was going to talk about.

When I'm really trying to say something I don't even really think. I try to keep typing so I don't stop the flow of the idea.

What I'm trying to say is that if I have an idea for a paper I better get to writing it quick, cause if I start something else that idea goes out the window.

Thanks for the response

No Problem

Posted by chickpic85 on October 22, 2003 - 23:37.

I usually have the same problem: does it matter? On some things, i will forget the ideas i initially wanted to write on.

I dont see anything wrong with doing it at the end either.

Thanks for the response

Posted by kappa_06 on October 23, 2003 - 13:45.

Thanks for the response. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who wouldn't mind doing the analysis at the end. The name by itself makes me cringe, "rhetoric analysis", it sounds like a test they would do if you had a disease or something. I always felt kind of out there, because most of the time I don't like to follow the conventional rules for writing. I try to get down to heart of the situation and leave the other stuff for later.

ENC 1101-B3 & B4: Writing for Discovery