Shakespearian Rhetoric: A Final Project

Brady Jensen

ENG 450

12/9/2012

            Preface:

I must confess that this is my second attempt at this project.  When I first began, I intended to try to reconcile rhetoric and literature, but after a couple hours of attempting to compile and arrange my thoughts, I became aware that that is something which, at the present time, I have not sufficient knowledge to do justice.  While the importance of such a work could be valuable, it will have to wait until a time when I find myself more informed about rhetoric as a whole.  I will not be surprised if that work becomes the focus of some of my later academic research, but for now, I must be content to make do with what I have at my disposal and give the work at hand the attention that it deserves.

 Shakespearian Rhetoric

            “Then rhetoric does not treat of all kinds of discourse?” (Plato 122).  The question seems simple enough; and when Gorgias responds with “no,” I think that most readers (especially rhetoricians) give a slight cringe.  In fact, it seems clear that rhetoric does cover all forms of discourse including literature.  I must, therefore, admit at finding myself quite at a loss when I first thought about the connection between literature and rhetoric.  This thought first occurred to me as I was reading through Harold Bloom’s The Anatomy of Influence: Literature as a Way of Life wherein he says, “Wit is too besieged in the [Shakespearian] Sonnets by a strict restraint of ethos and pathos; logos reigns almost unchallenged” (85).  While this statement contains only some of the most basic rhetorical terms, I found myself caught off-guard.  Thus inspired, I was determined to delve into the topic of rhetoric and literature using the Shakespearian Sonnets as my starting point.  In the research, I came across several points that drove me to consider the sonnets as forms of epideictic rhetoric, and expanding on that principle, I will explore several of the sonnets and their epideictic properties.  Within this analysis, I hope to explore what components of the sonnets most (if not all) readers connect to which helps to make these verses so timeless.

            While the realm of rhetoric is large enough as to create an entire book about Shakespearian sonnets, I intend to focus on one facet of Aristotle’s three types of rhetoric, epideictic rhetoric.  Epideictic rhetoric focusses on topics of praise and blame.  While reading through the sonnets and the criticism around them, I became aware of four focusses within the sonnets.  The first is the collection of sonnets about the fair youth who Bloom suggests is a fusion of the earls of Southampton and Pembroke (46).  The second is the dark lady; the third the rival poet, both the dark lady and the rival poet, Bloom suggests, are composites of multiple individuals; and the fourth, Shakespeare himself.   I will apply a rhetorical analysis to each of these (even though there is some cross over) in an attempt to demonstrate some of Shakespeare’s rhetorical use and complexities.

Not marble nor the gilded monuments

Of princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme,

But you shall shine more bright in these contents

Than unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time.

When wasteful war shall statues overturn,

And broils root out the work of masonry,

Nor Mars his sword, nor war’s quick fire shall burn

The living record of your memory.

Gainst death and all oblivious enmity

Shall you pace forth, your praise shall still find room

Even in the eyes of all posterity

That wear this world to the ending doom.

            So, till the judgement that yourself arise,

            You live in this, and swell in lovers’ eyes.

--55

            This poem, praising both the fair youth and the poet, starts by the poet praising himself.  “This powerful rhyme,” shows the poet’s confidence in himself and his works.  By starting the poem with this ethos, Shakespeare attempts to build trust with the youth, especially since the speakers, who for this kind of analysis, we must assume is the same, or nearly the same, as the poet, addresses the subject directly as “you.”  This second person turns the poem (though many of the poems are structured in this way) into a direct address where there is a special relationship between the poet and the subject.  Shakespeare makes another appeal to self-praise in lines 10-11, “your praise shall still find room/ even in the eyes of all posterity.”  By containing both the praise of the youth and the poem itself in the phrase “your praise,” Shakespeare makes the two inseparable, relying on his own ethos to pass the praise of this friend down to future generations.  Another rhetorical device that continues throughout the sonnet is Shakespeare’s use of the topic of fear.  By continually referring to death, war, burning, and the Apocalypse, Shakespeare uses fear as a way to drive the youth to find comfort in his verses.  This pathos almost forces to the reader to find shelter in the praise of the poet because that is the only thing the poem left on which to hold.  Finally, in the final line “you... swell in lovers’ eyes,” leads me to conclude that this phrase is to function as an enthymeme.  Because the youth is never referred to by anything other than the second person personal pronoun, the reader is able to insert whomever he or she wishes into the poem.  In fact, I believe that the sonnets as a whole would be entirely less successful if they were to address individuals more specifically.  The second person address leaves openings throughout the sonnets which allows for readers to feel included and to be able to move beyond the simple praising of one individual Shakespeare seems to have in mind and instead to substitute infinite combinations.

Whilst I alone did call upon thy aid,

My verse alone had all thy gentle grace,

But now my gracious numbers are decayed

And my sick Muse doth give another place.

I grant, sweet love, thy lovely argument

Deserves the travail of a worthier pen,

Yet what of thee thy poet doth invent

He robs thee of and pays it thee again.

He lends thee virtue and he stole that word

From thy behaviour, beauty doth he give

And found it in thy cheek: he can afford

No praise to thee but what in thee doth live.

            Then thank him not for which he doth say,

            Since what he owes thee thou thyself dost pay.

--79

            In this sonnet, one which addresses the rival poet, there are three distinct attitudes, one towards the rival poet, one towards the muse, and the last towards the poet himself.  Within the poem, we see the poet take both sides of an epideictic speech, both praise and blame.  Throughout the entire poem, he is consistently praising the muse.  Even when the muse abandons him, he cannot help but say that the muse in the right for looking for someone “worthier” than himself.  This leads us to the poet’s attitude regarding himself.  Much different than the preceding, and one of the later poems, the poet humbles himself compared to the muse.  This submission to, what can be interpreted as divine inspiration, or some unexplainable creative drive, appeals to the pathos of the audience in the form of pity.  A reader who sympathizes with the speaker will be more likely to take the poet’s side against the rival especially with the description with which Shakespeare paints the rival poet.  Shakespeare moves towards the opposite end of the spectrum of epideictic rhetoric when describing the rival.  Most apparent is the pecuniary diction.  Starting from line 8 and continuing through the end, we see words such as “robs”, “pays”, “lends”, “stole”, “afford”, and “owes.”  This diction functions in two ways.  The first is that Shakespeare equates the rival poet with being a thief of the muse’s qualities and therefore anyone who supports him or reads his work is aiding and abetting in the theft.  Since no one wants to consider themselves a thief, Shakespeare drives a wedge between this rival poet and his potential, or existing, audience.  Secondly, it introduces the topic of wealth.  It was first used against the rival poet, and now it functions to elevate the gifts of the muse.  The creativity that she can bestow upon the poets is something equivocal to money.  This is something with which more of the poet’s readership will be able to identify compared to trying to quantify creativity.  So by addressing the quality of the muse, the rival poet, and Shakespeare himself, and then introducing monetary terms, the audience is going to want to support the ‘better’ person in this poetic contest.      

When my love swears that she is made of truth,

I do believe her, though I know she lies,

That she might think me some untutored youth,

Unlearned in the world’s false subtleties.

Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,

Although she knows my days are past the best,

Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue:

On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed.

But wherefore says she not she is unjust?

And wherefore say not that I am old?

O, love’s best habit is in seeming trust,

And age in love loves not to have years told.

            Therefore I lie with her and she with me,

            And in our faults by lies we flattered be.

 --138

            This sonnet about the dark lady is different from the other three sonnets because it addresses another individual without a form of a second person personal pronoun.  In fact, there seems to be a great distance in this poem between the poet and the subject.  But instead of distance, the poet and subject are closer than they appear, as Bernard elucidates, “Shakespeare’s sonnets are heavily suffused with [a] neo-Petrachan strain” which “glorifies the poetic act itself” as a form of “self-flattery” (79).  Even in the love poems, “focus shifts from the lady to the poet” (79).  At no point in the process are the readers allowed to forget the poet, but instead, they are constantly reminded of the poet himself.   As the poet can narrate both sides of the poem, his and hers, “we are auditors of a dramatic performance,” this is more clear than in the two previous sonnets (Fraser 418).   This structure allows for the reader to understand that neither side seems to be acting maliciously.  Instead, we see the appeal to “the pathos of the lovers’ plight” from both sides (Bernard 82).  Both the speaker and his love just want to be happy, and that is something with which an audience can sympathize.  Even in their shared delusion that the lies can lead to timeless happiness, they try to find happiness in the imperfections by convincing themselves that neither of them are lying.  It is a very human reaction to attempt to eke out happiness even in the most dire of circumstances. This leads to the topic of love and forces the reader to question under what conditions love can exist, and by proposing answers to the questions, the readers are enthymematically applying their own lives to the situation.  And finally in the couplet, we get the pun on the verb to lie (I know there is a rhetorical term for this, but the BYU website doesn’t work so well when you are trying to go from definition to term).  This pairing leaves us, even at the very end facing the duality between the good and the bad, the reward and the sacrifice.  The poet seems willing to ask the questions but refuses to leave us with any answers. 

Sin of self-love possesseth all mine eye

And all my soul and all my every part,

And for this sin there is no remedy,

It is so grounded inward in my heart.

Methinks no face so gracious is as mine,

No shape so true, no truth of such account,

And for myself mine own worth do define,

As I all other in all worths surmount.

But when my glass shows me myself indeed,

Beated and chopped with tanned antiquity,

Mine own self-love quite contrary I read:

Self so self-loving were iniquity.

            ‘Tis thee, my self, that for myself I praise,

            Painting my age with beauty of thy days.

--62

            In the final sonnet in my selection, Shakespeare takes some time to praise himself.  There is obviously very little in the sonnet besides that; but I think that this is an example of the poet exuding ethos.  When we couple this sonnet with his other works that rely on the confidence that his verses will withstand time, we see some of that vanity that lives inside all of us in Shakespeare.  This conclusion is seconded when you take into account that the poet realizes that this self-love is a sin, he recognizes that this is bad, yet, at the same time, he believes that only his verse will withstand time; he is therefore left with no other choice by to praise himself.  As Perelman describes, “To understand an orator [or poet], we must make the effort required to render his discourse coherent and meaningful.  This effort requires goodwill and respect for the person who speaks and for what he says” (1397).  It seems like self-praise for its own sake, but in the beginning, Shakespeare didn’t have the worldwide reputation that he now possesses, so he was forces to create the “goodwill” and “respect” himself in the verses themselves.

            Perhaps that after this analysis it is obvious that there is very little (if any) distance between the study of rhetoric and poetics.  However, I would suggest that poetics should be viewed as a branch of rhetoric rather than two equivalent forces.  Rhetoric is obviously abundant in the Shakespearian sonnets, and perhaps is Shakespeare was less of a rhetorician, he never would have been capable of writing anything worthy of passing down for hundreds of years.  In fact, it could be argued that the tendency of Shakespeare’s work to be handed down and read so consistently is due to the fact that Shakespeare is one of the greatest rhetoricians that ever lived.  Whether he was aware of the formal application of his rhetoric or if it was just an inherent knowledge of language may never be known.  But despite the complications of being able to know the extent of Shakespeare’s genius, perhaps an in depth examination of Shakespearian rhetoric would be beneficial to academia’s understanding of rhetoric as a whole.

Works Cited

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.

Baldwin, Charles S. Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic: Interpreted from Representative Works.         Gloucester, Mass.: Macmillan, 1959. Print.

Bernard, John D. ""To Constancie Confin'de": The Poetics of Shakespeare's Sonnets." PMLA 94.1 (1979): 77-90. Print.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-14. Print.

Bloom, Harold. The Anatomy of Influence: Literature as a Way of Life. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2011. Print.

Fraser, Russell. "Shakespeare at Sonnets." The Sewanee Review 97.3 (1989): 408-27. Print.

Perelman, Chaim. "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning." Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric (1970): 1384-409. Print.

Plato. Essential Dialogues of Plato. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. New York: Barns & Noble Classics, 2005. Print.

Shakespeare, William. William Shakespeare: Complete Works. Ed. Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen. New York: Modern Library, 2007. Print.

Struever, Nancy S. "Shakespeare and Rhetoric." Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 6.2 (1988): 137-44. University of California Press. Web.

Visual Rhetoric, an Introduction

Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments
Author(s): Mary E. Hocks
Reviewed work(s):
Source: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 54, No. 4 (Jun., 2003), pp. 629-656
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594188 .

Hopefully this will take you to where you need to go:

http://www.jstor.org.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/stable/pdfplus/3594188.pdf?acceptTC=true

This is the abstract from the piece--
This essay illustrates key features of visual rhetoric as they operate in two professional academic hypertexts and student work designed for the World Wide Web. By looking at features like audience stance, transparency, and hybridity, writing teachers can teach visual rhetoric as a transformative process of design. Critiquing and producing writing in digital environments offers a welcome return to rhetorical principles and an impor- tant pedagogy of writing as design.

My Rhetorical Situation

I'm not certain if this constitutes a rhetorical situation, but I'll give it a try:

This past weekend I was diagnosed with Celiacs Disease (don't worry, it's not contagious; it's genetic) which prompts a change in my diet--the elimination of any wheat, rye, and barley products.  No bread, beer, pizza, pasta, cereal, ect...  Naturally, I have been resistant to the change because in case you hadn't noticed, that is a pretty tasty list of things that I am not supposed to eat for the rest of my life.  But my mother, the doctors, and the literature regarding the disease are all determined to get me to change my diet.

Exigence: my eating habits/health
Audience: Me--Brady J.
Constraints: Self interest, I enjoy eating those foods!  Societal constraints, eating gluten-free in our food-based society isn't easy!!

The only logos Romney has are on his shoes.

I cannot stand to listen to Mit Romney speak.  I do not mean to speak as Democrat, for I do not consider myself a Democrat.  I do not speak as an Obama supporter, because I consider myself an Obama supporter on principle.  Romney continually back-tracks, and contradicts himself.  He refuses to take a stand and always seems to hiding his plans.  Do I think that Obama did the best job he possibly could have in the past four years?  No, I do not.  But at least we can say for what Obama stands.  The same cannot be said of Romney and this annoys me to no end.

Almost everything that we find out about Romney's plans comes from Obama!  How does this make sense?  I cannot possibly be the only one who feels this frustration!  If Romney wins the election in November, I will sincerely lose faith in the American people.

A couple more notes on the debate:  Why didn't Obama and Romney just throw down the gloves and have a Battle Royall!  In this situation, each candidate calls the other a liar.  When will we, the American people, get the facts that we need to be able to make an informed vote?

I feel like a lot of questions were asked, and very few answers were given.

If a picture's worth a thousand words, I still barely made the word count.

Note to reader: This didn't transfer very well from Word, so I apologize in advance is any of the pictures aren't exactly where noted in the text (ie, if the picture "at right" is on the left)

Rhetorical Analysis

            During the 2012 Democratic National Convention (DNC), many speakers stepped up in support of the Democratic Party and millions of Americans tuned in to watch the action.  One of the most interesting things regarding these speeches is that the majority of people who watched the speeches were not in the audience at the convention.  Instead, they watched the action through their television or computer.  These mediums open up many rhetorical possibilities.  Assuming that the Democrats are in control of what is broadcasted (which I believe is a fair assumption), it is important to look at some of the images that were displayed along with the speeches that give the audiences at home a different view of the convention than the people sitting in the audience, namely: members of the audiences themselves.  While one of the pictures I will discuss is of a speaker, I want to focus on the fact that these photographs can stand alone as rhetorical units, and how they can be displayed during any speech, even outside of the convention to convey an idea.  In an attempt to keep things interesting, I will not weigh down this paper with filler, but will instead make several concise remarks about each photograph, emphasizing how each can stand alone and still maintain its rhetorical nature.

            The first picture I would like to analyze is shown on the right.  These two gentlemen are sitting above the rest of the crowd, reading the convention pamphlet.  The first thing that this picture brings to mind is a comment on Ethos.  However, instead of adding to the character of an individual speaker, it is a comment about the Democratic platform.  These men, reading the pamphlet, which is obviously marked with the red, white, and blue symbol of the Obama administration, shows just how widely the Democratic party is supported.  I think that this would reach out to other minorities, not just the Muslim or Indian communities, but it would also speak to  other communities such as Asians and African-Americans.  I believe this will happen because this picture shows that they will not be alone if they support the Democratic Party.  Something else that this photo contains is an enthymeme that says: “Voting for/electing the Democratic candidates will help create/ maintain good foreign policies.”  These men may have been United States citizens for their entire lives, yet they seem so ‘exotic’ (I hesitated when writing that word), or so far from the norm of an American citizen that one cannot help but connect the Democratic party with foreign countries.

            The next picture, to the left, shows woman sporting a hat emblazoned with the American flag and democratic glasses.  Similar to the picture above, another minority is displayed.  Here we get into the discussion of Topics and the excessively patriotic nature of the woman’s hat falls into the category of a “necessary good” (Aristotle 62).  While Aristotle doesn’t list patriotism as a necessary good, it is not too much of a leap to think that is should be considered in our list today, especially considering that virtue, happiness, honor, capacity for action, and justice are on the list, and all of these things are components of American patriotism.  This hat, with the pairing of the glasses gives the effect of a visual asyndeton, though instead of pairing words closely without conjunctions, we are getting two images.  In the eyes of the viewer, this will link the Democratic Party and platform closely with patriotism and the values thereof.  This leads to a discussion on Ethos.  When it comes to patriotism, it is easy to stir up emotions.  “The land of the free and the home of the brave” is more than just a motto to some people; this images taps into all of the emotions associated with patriotism: the pride of nationalism and what it means to be American, the happiness that we are allowed personal freedoms that allow us to have happiness.  This list could continue ad infinitum but the point is clear: playing the patriotism card is a sure way to pull at the public’s heart-strings.    

            This next picture is slightly different from the other two because it is actually a picture of a speaker, but I thought this most interesting because this image was continually appearing during my search.  The most important thing here is body language, and not the language itself.  The picture below is another example of someone who is, arguably, one of the greatest speakers in the past couple hundred years.  Perhaps there is something in the universal subconscious which drives humans to relate, or be driven by this demonstration of power, I know not what exactly to call this display, only that is has been demonstrated to be effective and has obviously been repeated throughout history.  By having this picture be so prevalent among campaign images, I think it attempts to add a sense of Pathos to the Party’s stance by showing just how strong the Party really is by tapping into the part of the brain that recognizes this stance as dominant.

            Without any reference to what is going on at the convention, it is apparent that these images can stand alone to help the Democrats convey their message that Obama is the proper choice for the presidency this year.  However, it is important to note that these images were not shown by themselves.  They were accompanied by speeches and by speakers of incredible celebrity.  I think the point here that I find most important is that rhetoric is not simply contained to speech and words.  In the twenty-first century, we have moved beyond that (if that was ever solely the case).  With the advent of mediums such as television and the internet for viewing speeches, the ability to manipulate the images shown can have great rhetorical consequences.  The first two images could have been shown during any or all of the speeches to help persuade the public to vote for the Democrats this November.  Rhetoric is all around us; and it is more than just words.

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Aristotle. On Rhetoric. Trans. George A Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

"That's not my plan, That's not my plan, That's not my plan"

Being fortunate enough to not watch the debate until today, Thursday, I was able to hear various responses to the results of the debate via facebook, word of mouth, ect.  From what I heard, it was a Romney domination, and from hearing that and then watching the debate, I think both candidates need to add more funding to education.  I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but this debate made me want to side with Obama.  Romney's refusal to name any specifics of his plans has become so frustrating that I can't quite find the words to describe it at the moment.  I'm just going to jump into my rhetorical reflection with a little discussion about logos (or lack thereof).

Romney:
My favorite piece of wisdom that came out of Romney's mouth during this debate came in two different sentences that were some space apart.  The first was "I like coal."  The second: "I like green energy."  Pick a side, buddy.  Clean coal is a myth, in order to filter coal exhaust to the point of it being "clean" is not financially viable.  Another dandy of his was: "You can't have a free-market without regulation."  Anyone else see the paradox here?  Things like these run so rampant through all of Romney's platform that I could barely stand it.  An intelligent listener will pick up on these things and the rest of the speech will come across less convincing.

Obama:
While Obama's speech wasn't nearly as rife with logical inaccuracies as Romney's but to be fair, I will make my argument for this side as well.  While there may have been more, the one I noticed from the Commander and Chief was in the sentence: "Let's hire more math and science teacher so we can maintain our technological lead."  The key here is 'maintain.'  The US is currently ranked number 17 in the world for scientific education, that doesn't sound anything like a lead to me.

An interesting point that I thought Obama made was humanizing himself with the comment about his anniversary at the very beginning.  It has nothing to do with the election/debate yet it brings up, perhaps as a way to reach out and show that he is "like everyone else."  I'm not sure what I would call that in rhetorical terms, but it seemed interesting.

Next is the topic of topics.  As we have noted in class, and Obama noted, and the commentator of the debate noted: Romney's plans lack specifics.  Every single one of them.  I had never really seen this first hand until I watched the debate and it is ridiculous.  Romney appeals to general topics, topics of happiness.  He highlights things that would make the most people happy, and I agree that if he could do all the things he says he would like to do (generally) then a lot of people would be happy.  Creating jobs, decreasing the deficit, reforming health care would make people happy, but Romney refuses to let anyone in on his plans and then become exceeding upset because everyone has his plans wrong.  "Economists can't say that my tax cuts will cost 5 trillion dollars."  You're right Mitt, but not because it's not true, but because absolutely no one knows what your plans are.  Obama on the other hand starts out his first reply to Romney's statement with the words: "let me talk specifically about what we need to do." He then proceeds to walk through the steps of his plans (which I can't really name because I had lost a considerable amount of interest by the point they were talking specifics).  Either way, the point of addressing specifics seems to be a very powerful move the Obama's platform, and will help him gain the trust of the audience.

The final point I would like to address is that both speakers make appeals to the Clinton administration.  By attributing parts of their platforms to the Clinton administration, their party becomes more credible by resting on the success of president Clinton.  Just interesting to not that both candidates make the appeal.

My Bouquet

Acryon-- The use of the word repugnant or contrary to what is meant.

"Never could I have hoped for such great woe" Aeneid 4.419

I don't have much to say about this one, just thought it looked cool!




Bdelygmia--  Expressing hatred and abhorrence of a person, word, or deed.

 "I do hate a proud man, as I do hate the
engend'ring of toads." Troilus and Cressida 2.3.158-159

I picked this word because of the delightful consonant clusters.  This seems particularly prevalent in these elections because the political ads seem to express hatred towards the other party and candidates instead of promoting their own platforms.

Diazeugma-- The figure by which a single subject governs several verbs or verbal constructions (usually arranged in parallel fashion and expressing a similar idea); the opposite of zeugma.

"The Romans destroyed Numantia, razed Carthage, obliterated Corinth, overthrew Fregellae." —Ad Herennium

Obama promotes universal health care, support educational equality, and protect the working class.


Pysma--  The asking of multiple question successively (which would together require a complex reply).  A rhetorical use of a question.

This reminded me of the Romney/Ryan tax programs where multiple questions can be asked, but they can't quite seem to give any answers.

(Attempted) Rhetorical Analysis

This is Cory Booker's speech from the DNC.  It is fairly short, but it's not a bad speech by any means.

"Let us not fall prey to the rhetoric that seeks to gut investment and starve our nation of critical common sense building for our future." -- Cory Booker

(Attempted) Rhetorical Analysis:

 

Ethos/Pathos/Logos:

Reading the short description before this video, I had no idea who this guy was.  Some mayor from Newark, NJ; there is no surprise that I hadn't heard of him.  But I suppose that there are some circles where that title or name might mean something.  But when watching the speech, Booker has a way of exuding confidence!  I can't even pin-point it, but something about the way he delivers his speech just makes me want to take his word for it, he is passionate and strongly spoken, and something about that just makes me want to take his side.  As far as pathos goes, I felt like this speech appeals to the Democratic hate of Romney and everything for which he stands.  While striking notes of patriotism and pride about the American way of life.  He also demonstrates a certain amount of sympathy for the middle class Americans.

Topics:

For topics, the first thing that came to mind was Epideictic Rhetoric, but instead of amplifying an individual, Booker is amplifying the Democratic Platform.  Here we can see Aristotle's definition of praise put into action.  Aristotle says, "praise is speech that makes clear the great virtue [of the subject praised]" (80).  Booker points out the high points of the Democratic Platform: leveling taxes, revamping the infrastructure, and supporting education.  He uses these "virtues" to elevate the platform while simultaneously condemning the Republicans'.  These seem like pretty specific topics.  In terms of more general topics, such as happiness, I think these topics are addressed by the collective use of these specific topics.  Happiness will be best achieved when the government is financially responsible which will allow the people to have money and live comfortably, and when everyone has an equal availability of education.

Enthymemes:

"Obama supports small businesses... our troops... education."  While this is only one premise that does not include a spoken conclusion, I assumed for this (suspected) enthymeme, the conclusion is: "vote for Obama."  It is not spoken, I think, because that is the basic conclusion of the entire convention.  With this being said, the unspoken premise is: "if you do not support Obama, you do not support small businesses, the troops, and education."  This is something that will be best if it remains unspoken, because there are, without doubt, republicans who support small business, the troops, and education.  

"This November, with the re-election of President Barack Obama, this generation of Americans will expand upon the hope, dream, the truth, and the promise of America."  This one is a little trickier, but I think that the wording here makes a huge statement.  This states that Obama will be re-elected.  I think what is implied here is "I will vote for Obama because I want to see this generation of Americans expand...."  I think this is interesting because the way the phrasing changes what is implied.  Perhaps this isn't a real enthymeme, but this seems to work backwards from the conclusion to supply a premise, when the initial premise is somewhat hidden in the conclusion. (I may have just made that more complicated by trying to explain it.)

An interesting point on which to write a paper would be about the view that the audience gets from watching on television/online.  This view is highly manipulated and, I suspect, it is much different from the viewing experience of those in the audience.  Instead of being focused solely on the speech, the viewers (as opposed to the audience for our purposes) are given multiple different shots of people in the audience and other people who will be speaking at the convention.  The altered frame through which the majority of voters will watch the speeches could have an important rhetorical effect on the viewers.

Topics

One of the interesting things that I noticed from the piece that I had selected in my previous post was that Clinton applies a considerable amount of topic of praise (Book 1, Chapter 9).  What I thought was interesting about this was that it was a considerable amount of praise, but not so much, albeit there was some, blame.  In the commercial that we watched in class on Friday, the topics of blame were equal if not greater to the topics of praise, but here, it was refreshing to see something different.

Highlights from Clinton's Speech

http://www.bradenton.com/2012/09/06/4187349/highlights-from-bill-clintons.html

These are just some highlights (very concise) from Bill Clinton's speech in favor of re-electing Barack Obama this November.  While I don't usually follow these campaigns very closely (or at all, and don't vote because I am uninformed), I happened to hear part of this speech the other day.  It was after this assignment had been posted so I listened particularly closely, mostly out of laziness and out of the hope that it would fill the requirement of the assignment and indeed, I believe it did.  I thought that this speech was a highlight of the flaw with the polarized bipartisanship election process in this country.  The whole time, Clinton talks only about what his candidate has done correctly and what the other has done wrong.  While this is probably the best way to win an election, I feel that this is so intellectually misdirected as to border upon useless.  It is my experience (as limited as it may be) that most people are dug into their Democratic or Republican corners, and perhaps the reason for this is that the seems to be nothing but corners any more....


An interesting quote I happened to stumble upon:

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

Gorgias Question

I read in a character description that Callicles is an older rhetorician, which I found striking given that, to me at least, he seems to act very juvenile in his argument with Socrates (i.e. his obsession with power, and some of the remarks he makes towards Socrates individual points). Did anyone else recognize this and think that perhaps it is Plato remarking on the methods of the rhetoricians or maybe because Callicles is older, Plato has some sort of problem with the age Callicles is representing?

An Introduction

Well, I have sat here watching the cursor blink for two minutes trying to think of what a proper introduction should be; and as of yet, I have come up with nothing spectacular, so I'll just start at the beginning and ramble until I come up with something worth reading.  My name is Brady Jensen, I graduated from Three Forks High School in Three Forks, MT.  I am a junior, majoring in English Literature with the intention of entering a Ph.D. program after graduating (I've had my eye on the University of Chicago for a while).  An interesting note is that when I was in High School, I hated English.  I loathed it entirely!  And yet, here I am, planning on spending the rest of my life being a scholar of the English language!  Apart from school, some of my favorite things are golfing, fly-fishing, and reading.  When I'm not busy with school I enjoy being able to relax; but because of my nerdy habits, school is the biggest part of my life, and I wouldn't have it any other way!

This introduction took entirely too long to write; there is something interestingly intimidating about having to describe oneself. 

Pre-Writing Experience

Looking back on my past writing instruction, I can recall two distinct recommendations from teachers regarding pre-writing.  The first was outlining, something which I never found useful given that if I didn't any idea what I was going to write, what the heck was I suppose to write in an outline?!  I found that these outlines are useful only at the step directly before writing, and not one second before; the outlines from my writing teachers never proved helpful.  This seems like something that the teacher had found useful in her past and was trying to force onto her students, not all of whom found it nearly as useful as she did.  The second example of pre-writing was brain-storming, a form which I found entirely more helpful.  The forms of brain-storming ranged from simple free writing to elaborate concept maps (the point and format of which I can't quite remember).   I found this method entirely more useful than trying to start with an outline.  Brainstorming was something that allowed the students to pour out all of their ideas and to be able to see where they lead. Though now that I think about it, the methods of brain storming taught by my teachers in the past seem more controlled than my methods of brainstorming that I use now, which generally include an entire white-board and several pages in a note book which, to the inexperienced eye, would seem to be written in code! 

Reflecting on these styles taught by my writing teachers, I have realized how personal the 'pre-writing' step is.  I haven't seen a method that works for everyone, and in fact, such a method might not even exist.  Regardless, I believe that it is important that students be allowed to exercise their own pre-writing processes (or lack thereof) if they are to develop into independent writers, and not the 5-paragraph-essay drones pumped out by the public school system.

Question regarding the Encomium of Helen:  Is rhetoric, or the creation of an argument, as simple as this? It seems that the argument would prove logically invalid due to the fact that, from my point of view, many alternatives could have been left out.  Is the problem not over simplified, and by that reasoning, the conclusion also over simplified?