I found reading this section in Writing Public Lives was actually quite helpful. Breaking down the components of a good rhetorical analysis helped me see the the pieces that go into it and make it successful. For example, there needs to be a solid intro, a thesis, strong body paragraphs, an analytical claim, and a strong conclusion. The introduction should help shape the rest of the writing. It can include some background information but should mostly be limited to the general idea of your reading or text and the argument you will be discussing. The thesis is arguably the most important part of the intro. A strong thesis reflects the opinions and rhetorical strategies that will be looked at more in-depth in your paper. It should also tie into your body paragraphs, which will work to back up your claim. It should support the ideas and purposes you suggested about your author in the intro and thesis. Good body paragraphs will have analysis, commentary, textual support, and boost the thesis. The work as a whole needs a strong conclusion, a summation of all the pieces that should also be persuasive and continue the thoughts of your analysis. Don't be afraid to think about the implications of your analysis for the conclusion!
APPLYING THIS TO MY ARTICLE
I couldn't find an image I liked so here's a cat that supposedly looks like Hitler.
 |
| Puetz, Josh "Farm Cat that Looks like Hitler" August 31st, 2010 Generic license |
Introduction
I will introduce the issue of 'Maus' being banned in Russia due to it's cover. I will add some context and relevant information, such as the history of banned swastikas, and then introduce Spiegelman. I will offer his ideas and present his interview and then lead into the thesis.
Thesis
While I am still in the process of perfecting my thesis, it will generally offer my own opinions/ideas about Spiegelman's use of rhetoric. It will have brief descriptions of what I believe to be his most successful use of rhetoric.
Spiegelman looks intelligent and rational in the discussion of his novel. In his recent interview with NPR, comics advocate and cartoonist Art Spiegelman carefully appeals to his audience's values. His use of personal stories, references of credible sources, humor, and elevated word choice all work to persuade his audience to see the absurdity of his graphic novel being banned in Russia. He manages to negate the credibility of his opposers in a credible and even-handed manner. The predominant use of emotional and credible appeals helps Spiegelman effectively communicate his stance on this issue.
Body Paragraphs
- Personal stories and credibility
- Discusses his past negative history with Maus and how it was handled
- Talks about the controversy from his own stand point
- Tone
- Casual but still professional
- Manages to make jokes-some at his own expense-to seem more likeable
- Discusses the values behind this decision
- Negating opposition
- Calls decision "arbitrary"
- Puts it in terms of other decisions that are considered ridiculous
Main Claim:
Maus should not have been banned in Russian bookstores because of it's cover.
Conclusion
My analysis will wrap up by looking at the implications of my thesis and work to convince my readers of Spiegelman's effectiveness in discussing this controversy.
Reflection
I read Swati's Project 2 outline and was very impressed. Her outline had more depth and specific information than my own. Her main claim read more strongly and the organization of her body paragraphs was very strong. I liked her decision to do "point -> example -> strategy" for her organization. She seems well set up and prepared for this project, and I would like to go back and build more upon my outline.
I also read Isaak's outline. Our outlines were a bit more similar, and more looked at the components of each section rather than begin to actually write, like Swati did. I feel as though both of us could use a little bit more "meat" on the bones of our outline. Being able to recognize the weakness of my own writing through others is an important skill.
Reflection
I read Swati's Project 2 outline and was very impressed. Her outline had more depth and specific information than my own. Her main claim read more strongly and the organization of her body paragraphs was very strong. I liked her decision to do "point -> example -> strategy" for her organization. She seems well set up and prepared for this project, and I would like to go back and build more upon my outline.
I also read Isaak's outline. Our outlines were a bit more similar, and more looked at the components of each section rather than begin to actually write, like Swati did. I feel as though both of us could use a little bit more "meat" on the bones of our outline. Being able to recognize the weakness of my own writing through others is an important skill.
I liked getting to see a preview into your essay. I liked all the context that your provided us with to start. I feel that we have the same takes on the Writing Public Lives article. As well, the picture of the cat is very funny and refreshing!
ReplyDeleteHi Hallye! Our outlines are very alike, as we both did the same format for describing our body paragraphs and claims, and we both want to describe the background of the article. I also feel like many if us had similar interpretations of the Writing Public Lives excerpts. Good job!
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that you had a denser paragraph in your introduction and thesis sections of your outline and a more list-like structure for your body section. Your thoughts seem well composed and the outline conveys that you already have a clear idea of how you want to go about you analysis. I posed this question on another blogs post, but I'm still curious if you had any specific evidence already in mind for the claims in your body?
ReplyDelete