Essay #2: Rhetorical Criticism—Method, Analysis, and (Re)vision (200 pts.)
Rhetoric: A Time Capsule
Rhetoric, the art of persuasion, was originally defined by Aristotle as public speech, and he divided this discipline from poetics, or the art characterized as imitation. The first line by Aristotle from Rhetoric states it best: “Every rational activity aims at some end or good” (1). The “degeneration” of rhetoric came with a shift of emphasis from a practical (and oral) art of persuasion in social contexts to an art of mere eloquence or even of deceit (dividing itself from stylistics). At present, much more broadly defined, rhetoric may be considered the use of symbols to achieve a particular response from one human being or a group of human beings (the target audience). The aimed end goal of this 4 to 6 page paper is to introduce the new writer to rhetorical method, analysis, and (re)vision that will sequence into a deeper understanding of a current rhetorical argument and a probing of the multimedia advertisement world.
we shall explore the modern phenomenon of multimedia advertisements as arguments, the most purposeful form of communication in the modern age. I am going to limit your scope here to commercial ads that have appeared in the last 5 months. I would encourage to use longer ads (over 30 seconds) for better results. The adforum is a great resource to select the best ads for your rhet crit. I hold firm that the multimedia ad you choose to analyze using Aristotle’s Artistic Proofs (ethos, pathos, logos, and mythos), Burke’s Pentad, or Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm must be from February 15, 2021 or later (with an emphasis on currency and relevance).
Rhetorical Criticism: The Organization of Past and Present
A rhetorical criticism is an interpretive method in which you analyze an artifact (text or multimedia ad) using a rhetorical theory and taking into account its encompassing context. One of the main goals of a “rhet crit” (as it is called in some academic circles) is to show how a particular communication “text” works by using a specific method or rhetorical theory to guide the analysis through wor(l)ds of context.
I. Note: Parts I, II, and III will be likely be 1 to 1and1/2 pages long (double-spaced, 12-point standard font).
The main purpose of the INTRODUCTION is to provide a description of your artifacts, in other words— your multimedia focus for this paper. The questions that should be answered are: where did the artifact(s) come from, when (dates) were they advertised, who advertised them, what (description) and how (process) did each come to be analyzed in your paper? These are basically the explicit facts of your paper. Length will depend on the number, length, and depth of artifact and its surrounding context. This paragraph should end with the summarizing (general) thesis statement that moves into your METHOD.
II.
Now the writer must give a description of the METHOD of analysis chosen and a justification answering why the decided method is best for the artifact(s) selected. The writer may use any of the methods listed below.
Aristotle’s Artistic Proof (ethos, pathos, logos, and [added later] mythos)
Burke’s Pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose, and [added later] attitude)
Walter Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm Theory/ Fantasy Theme Analysis
III.
The writer must pose general and specific questions. The general questions are always the same:
Who is the audience?
What is the multimedia argument trying to get you to do or think or both?
Is the multimedia argument effective for you or the projected target audience or both? If not, why?
Was your method of analysis optimal? If not, why?
The specific questions you ask will depend on your individual artifacts and method. I require a minimum of three additional questions. This paragraph should end with the summarizing thesis statement that moves into your ANALYSIS.
IV.
Now the writer shall apply the method to all the artifacts. The ANALYSIS should be a minimum of 1 1/2 pages in length (double-spaced, 12-point standard font). See additional handouts for the organization tips and specific application.
V.
At this point, the writer must answer all the (rhetorical) questions posed in section III (three) and evaluate the effectiveness of the artifact. This is the (RE)VISION-ing stage. This exposition and then a conclusion should also likely be a minimum of 1 page in length (double-spaced, 12-point standard font).
Rubric for Paper #2: Rhetorical Criticism (100 pts x2= 200 pts)
Person: ___________________________
PROTOCOL [Scale: 1=inferior; 7=average; 10=superior]
et [Scale: 1=inferior; 15=average; 20=superior]
INTRODUCTION (Part I and II):
1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Chaotic Systemic
Does the paper have a description of your artifacts? Yes______ No_______
Does the introduction draw the reader into the essay? Yes_____ No_______
Is the thesis statement clear, concise, and optimal Yes_________ No__________
1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Incoherent Systematic
Is the method of analysis chosen and justified? Yes_____ No_______
Is the method of analysis optimal for ads chosen? Yes_____ No_______
QUESTIONS POSED (Part III):
1—2—3—4—5-—6—7—8—9—10-—11—12—13—14—15-—16—17—18—19—20
Insufficient Optimal
Are the general questions posed for rhetorical criticism? Yes______ No______
Are the specific questions appropriate for rhetorical criticism? Yes______ No______
Are the specific questions optimal for rhetorical criticism? Yes______ No______
ANALYSIS PARAGRAPHS (Part IV):
1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Undeveloped Developed
Generalized Qualified
Are the main points clearly identified? Yes______ No_______
Do the main points correspond to the introduction? Yes_____ No______
Are the main points supported with evidence, examples, etc? Yes____ No_____
1—2—3—4—5-—6—7—8—9—10-—11—12—13—14—15-—16—17—18—19—20
Ambiguous Defined
Abstract Concrete
Are transitions used to move smoothly from point to point? Yes_____ No_____
Does the body have internal consistency? Yes____ No_____
Does the body show progression of ideas, theme, et purpose? Yes_____ No____
QUESTIONS ANSWERED (Part V):
1—2—3—4—5-—6—7—8—9—10-—11—12—13—14—15-—16—17—18—19—20
Stereotypic Significant
Are the general questions answered for this rhetorical criticism? Yes______ No______
Are the specific questions answered for this rhetorical criticism? Yes______ No______
Are the questions answered towards some end or good? Yes______ No____
The question about how effective the artifact turned out to be was fully answered? Yes______ No____
CONCLUSION et FORM (Part V cont.):
1———-2———-3———-4———-5———-6———-7———-8———-9———-10
Chaotic Systemic
Cavalier/ Obtrusive Appropriate
Does the conclusion summarize the overall findings of the paper? Yes___ No____
Does the conclusion return to the thesis? Yes_____ No_____
Does the essay conform to basic college level writing skills? Yes____ No____
STRENGTHS:_______________________________________________________________
WEAKNESSES:______________________________________________________________
The post Essay #2: Rhetorical Criticism—Method, Analysis, and (Re)vision (200 pts.) Rhetoric: A Time appeared first on PapersSpot.