This blog post will have the first draft of this project attached. It has been a while since I have written a rhetorical analysis, so please be critical of the draft. Call attention to any areas that need strengthening, poor word choice, awkward grammar, or any sort of shortcomings. Thank you so much!
You can access my draft HERE
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Practicing Summary and Paraphrase
This post will be a practice exercise for summary and paraphrasing by quoting from the interview with Art Spiegelman by "All Things Considered" on NPR
Original Source
"The whole point of what we're calling "graphic novels" is the melding of visual and verbal information — to sound professorial for a second — and part of that information starts with the first thing you see. ... It's why when, when Pantheon didn't want to give me the right to do the cover — back in 1986 when the first volume was published by them, and there was no such thing as a graphic novel that anybody'd heard of — I was sputtering. Like, how could they do that, if the cover's part of the book, of course?" -Art Spiegelman
My paraphrase of Original Source
The cover art for graphic novels serve a greater purpose than to just look pretty, so that a reader walking by may be struck by some visually pleasing art work. A well designed graphic novel combines visual and textual information. The cover should begin the relay of information, because it's the first thing a reader will see. The cover art is just as much a part of the book as the actual pages.
My Summary of the Original Source
Spiegelman discusses the importance of cover art by linking it as a part of the whole instead of just a cover. It's a critical part of the graphic novel that introduces information about the story, and is more than a flashy gimmick used to draw readers in.
Original Source
"The whole point of what we're calling "graphic novels" is the melding of visual and verbal information — to sound professorial for a second — and part of that information starts with the first thing you see. ... It's why when, when Pantheon didn't want to give me the right to do the cover — back in 1986 when the first volume was published by them, and there was no such thing as a graphic novel that anybody'd heard of — I was sputtering. Like, how could they do that, if the cover's part of the book, of course?" -Art Spiegelman
My paraphrase of Original Source
The cover art for graphic novels serve a greater purpose than to just look pretty, so that a reader walking by may be struck by some visually pleasing art work. A well designed graphic novel combines visual and textual information. The cover should begin the relay of information, because it's the first thing a reader will see. The cover art is just as much a part of the book as the actual pages.
My Summary of the Original Source
Spiegelman discusses the importance of cover art by linking it as a part of the whole instead of just a cover. It's a critical part of the graphic novel that introduces information about the story, and is more than a flashy gimmick used to draw readers in.
Project 2 Outline
This post will show my detailed outline for my rhetorical analysis essay. My outline was guided by the "Sections of the Paper"
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.
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
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.
Draft Thesis Statements
In this blog post, I will share some of my preliminary thesis statements for this project. I will also some reflections and thoughts.
Thesis #1:
In his interview "Maus Banned in Russia for It's Cover", Art Spiegelman addresses the issue of his book's removal from bookshelves. His use of personal narrative and tone appeals to his audience's beliefs about the value of free speech and censorship. His use of appeals to his credibility on speaking about the "arbitrary" decision helps persuade his audience that the removal of 'Maus' was absurd.
Reflection
I worry this thesis is concise but does not do the most effective job at laying what I will be discussing for this essay. The second sentence holds most of the bulk of the argument for this thesis, but I worry about the lack of specifics and word choice. I feel as though it has good ideas, but could be written so that it sounds more professional or less obviously scream "This is a thesis!".
Thesis #2:
In a 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, and elevated word choice all work to persuade his audience to see the absurdity of his graphic novel being banned in Russia. The predominant use of emotional and credible appeals helps Spiegelman effectively communicate his stance on this issue.
Reflection
This thesis is not too different from my first one. However, I do feel as though it is a little big stronger. It has some better word choice while not being too lengthy, and doesn't seem too wordy.I still believe it could use some work, but it feels a little stronger than my first thesis.
Other Posts
After reading over a couple other drafts, I feel simultaneously more and less assured by the strength of my theses.
I read Laurence's drafts first. While he had a good building blocks, they needed to be fleshed out a bit more. Theses for rhetorical analysis seem to be more than just one sentence long, and have a good chunk on information in them. If he just added a little more information to his theses, they would be very well done.
I also read Swati's post, which seemed a little more in-line with mine. They were quite well-developed, and I feel like she did a much better job than I did connecting her ideas. Hers were quite specific and the two theses were more than two different ways to restate the same idea. Mine could use some more work, perhaps from opposing views, so that I may be able to enhance my ideas.
 |
| Beall, Jeffrey. "Draft" April 24th, 2011 Attribution ShareAlike |
Thesis #1:
In his interview "Maus Banned in Russia for It's Cover", Art Spiegelman addresses the issue of his book's removal from bookshelves. His use of personal narrative and tone appeals to his audience's beliefs about the value of free speech and censorship. His use of appeals to his credibility on speaking about the "arbitrary" decision helps persuade his audience that the removal of 'Maus' was absurd.
Reflection
I worry this thesis is concise but does not do the most effective job at laying what I will be discussing for this essay. The second sentence holds most of the bulk of the argument for this thesis, but I worry about the lack of specifics and word choice. I feel as though it has good ideas, but could be written so that it sounds more professional or less obviously scream "This is a thesis!".
Thesis #2:
In a 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, and elevated word choice all work to persuade his audience to see the absurdity of his graphic novel being banned in Russia. The predominant use of emotional and credible appeals helps Spiegelman effectively communicate his stance on this issue.
Reflection
This thesis is not too different from my first one. However, I do feel as though it is a little big stronger. It has some better word choice while not being too lengthy, and doesn't seem too wordy.I still believe it could use some work, but it feels a little stronger than my first thesis.
Other Posts
After reading over a couple other drafts, I feel simultaneously more and less assured by the strength of my theses.
I read Laurence's drafts first. While he had a good building blocks, they needed to be fleshed out a bit more. Theses for rhetorical analysis seem to be more than just one sentence long, and have a good chunk on information in them. If he just added a little more information to his theses, they would be very well done.
I also read Swati's post, which seemed a little more in-line with mine. They were quite well-developed, and I feel like she did a much better job than I did connecting her ideas. Hers were quite specific and the two theses were more than two different ways to restate the same idea. Mine could use some more work, perhaps from opposing views, so that I may be able to enhance my ideas.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Analyzing my Audience
This blog post will address the six bulleted questions found in the Student's Guide to First Year Writing.
 |
| Hunt, Tara "Audience" Septemer 9th, 2013 Attribution ShareAlike Generic |
- Who am I writing for? What are my audience's beliefs and assumptions?
According to our rubric for this project, my audience would be a freshman or entry-level student in my field. They will have a basic knowledge of the topic and field, but nothing in-depth. It's likely we will share similar beliefs in art and and freedom of speech. They may hold the assumption that
- What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?
They will either agree or disagree with Spiegelman. If they're in my field, there is a good chance they will agree with Spiegelman's position disapproving of the removal of "Maus". I will respond with Spiegleman's thoughts and comments as well as adding outside context so they see both sides of the argument. It is not necessarily my job to judge the "correctness" of the author's argument, so I will not go past analysis and information.
- What will they want to know?
Extra general information to gain further understanding of the issue. What are the pros and cons of this? What is the context of the argument and what cultural values may be different? What is the background of this issue? I will need to provide extra context and give both sides of the argument.
- How might they react to my argument?
Assuming my audience are new comers to my field, they may be unfamiliar with how rhetorical analysis works. They are likely to be interested in the topic as it's related to the field and have will require an active debate.
- How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?
My audience and I have the same major, so I am trying to relate to them on a disciplinary level. We have common interests, beliefs, and ideas. That will be the basis of our connection, as I don't know them on a face-to-face level.
- Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help relate to them this way?
Since my audience and I share disciplines, they will have a general knowledge of key terms and phrases that I will be able to use. I'll want to pique their interest in the topic without sounding too verbose or pretentious. My diction should be straight-forward, even, and professional. I want to be able to relate to my audience, without sounding too unprofessional.
Reflection:
I read both Casey and Bri's blog posts. While comparing mine, I feel as though my own analysis lined up fairly well. My blog post is fairly well developed, though some sections in their blogs were stronger than my own and may require a little tinkering. I feel as though I could have done a slightly better job trying to consider the likely interests and traits of Art History students. I should definitely be aware of my audience so that I can tailor my writing to them.
Reflection:
I read both Casey and Bri's blog posts. While comparing mine, I feel as though my own analysis lined up fairly well. My blog post is fairly well developed, though some sections in their blogs were stronger than my own and may require a little tinkering. I feel as though I could have done a slightly better job trying to consider the likely interests and traits of Art History students. I should definitely be aware of my audience so that I can tailor my writing to them.
Cluster of "Maus Banned in Russia for it's Cover"
This blog post will feature a coggle cluster map of my article. I broke it apart by the different rhetorical devices and cultural values. The cultural value side is more about what the what the artist believes, as opposed to the other side which is purely rhetorical.
You can find my coggle map here
You can find my coggle map here
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Analyzing Rhetorical Strategy in : "Graphic Novel 'Maus' Banned in Russia for It's Cover"
This post will look at the rhetorical strategies that appear in my article. It will be guided by our reading in 'A Student's Guide to First Year Writing'
 |
| Decker, Kathryn "Strategy" taken January 14th, 2004 via Flickr Generic License |
- Spiegelman uses personal stories as examples of the topic
- Despite the fact this is based off an interview, there are links to outside sources
- Also references well-known and professional people
- Elevated word choice; speaks professionally with ease
- Author is generally well known and respected as a cartoonist, teacher, and advocate
- Appeals to his audience (listeners on NPR; generally educated)
Spiegelman does fairly subtle appeals to his credibility. He has a famously known book, and knows he is speaking to an educated audience who will have a good chance of knowing who is already. He sprinkles in some names of people in positions of power to look more credible. However he barely acknowledges counter arguments, which takes away from his credibility slightly. Though, to be fair, his interview was less than 5 minutes long, which doesn't allow much time for discussion.
Quote: "The first time this reared its head was way back whenMaus was not a known entity [and]... the head of Rowohlt publishing said, "We have a problem — it's against the law to show swastikas on the covers of books in Germany."
Appeals to Emotion
- Uses personal stories (mentioned before)
- Has formal diction, but still manages to speak with casual ease
- Sense of humor-cracks a couple jokes
- Reads like a QRG almost; short and sweet with external links
- Tone of voice is professional
Spiegelman speaks with a certain ease that makes him easy to read and listen to. His sort of casual concern for this almost screams "Isn't this a bit ridiculous? I've been here before, no real need for alarm, but come on. This is a bit arbitrary don't you think?" His ability to communicate makes him easy to listen to and sympathize with. His humor at his own previous misadventures with his cover art immediately makes him likable, and therefore more people are likely to side with him.
Appeals to logic
- Text is based off an interview with some extra analysis and background
- Reads like a QRG; organization is easily readable
- Clear transitions (Interview questions and subheadings)
- Image of Spiegelman's book for reference
 |
| Becker, Hallye. Screenshot from my computer, October 1st, 2015. Accessed via NPR.org |
Though not a logical strategy is used, Spiegelman manages to come across as very logical. It's more in his tone and word choice than the actual organization of the article, though it is easily broken apart and readable. The image used just serves as an illustration of what the cover looks like, so that nothing is left for the reader to imagine (aka an enormous swastika dominating the page when in actuality is it not the focal point).
REFLECTION
I read Isaak's analysis of his rhetorical strategies. Reading over his, it seems like we're fairly even in terms of depth of analysis. However, he definitely utilized more quotes than I did. Having lots of things to quote off of made it easier to see the exact content he was referring to. We both seemed to have less depth for logical appeals. I'm not sure if it was because it was difficult to pick out the logical rhetoric.
REFLECTION
I read Isaak's analysis of his rhetorical strategies. Reading over his, it seems like we're fairly even in terms of depth of analysis. However, he definitely utilized more quotes than I did. Having lots of things to quote off of made it easier to see the exact content he was referring to. We both seemed to have less depth for logical appeals. I'm not sure if it was because it was difficult to pick out the logical rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
