Rhetorical Analysis Post

            I have decided to analyze the essay “A Government in Thrall to Religion” by Frank R. Zindler.  Although Frank is quite the character, and frankly (ha ha, I’m funny) I don’t like him much, I agree with some of his points.  I think that ignorance is dangerous and I think he is right to be concerned.  A general understanding, or even more important, a lack of misunderstanding, of science is an important quality in a leader in these technologically-abundant times. 

            I think his placement of blame is shoddy, which I will discuss further in my paper.  I also disagree with part of the way he tries to identify with his intended audience.  I think he limits his potential audience on a very important, very universal issue by the way he chooses to portray his argument.

            However, I think he is terribly effective when his intended audience is considered.  He writes well and he intelligently and knowledgably needles Christianity with a few well-placed quips.  He quickly establishes himself and leaves his audience very little question about his beliefs or opinions, which I think is, for the most part, a strength.  He is easily identifiable, but I’m not sure if that makes him more or less of a relatable “rightfully concerned citizen.”

            His logic is sound.  His pathos is inspiring. His ethos leaves somewhat to be desired.   Overall, however, I think this is a well-composed essay, and I look forward to analyzing it.

Response to Faith in America

The purpose of this speech is to gain support for a presidential election.  Specifically by speaking on religion and loyalty.

Ethos:  In this paper, Mitt Romney often refers to history.  He speaks of the founding fathers and their commitment to building a nation under God.  He displays some of the similarities between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other churches, and speaks of the values he learned growing up in the family he did. Doing this, he seeks to establish credibility.  He hopes that showing his respect for the founding fathers will help others respect him (technically an appeal to authority logical fallacy).  He hopes that by showing the similarities between his church and the churches of others, those listening will feel more able to connect with him.  He also hopes to establish himself as a good person based on the values he was taught as a child.

Pathos: Mitt Romney speaks passionately about God, something that many people believe in.  He speaks of how anyone who worships the Almighty is a friend to him.  He speaks of the trouble and hardship our predecessors faced as they struggled to both establish this nation and to maintain it.  There is almost nothing people get more worked up about than their religion.  As Romney appeals to that, he hopes to establish himself as an ally to their passion.  People also tend to feel very strongly about their country.  By referring to our nation’s trials, he hopes to instill a pride and a desire to better the country.

Logos: Mitt Romney clearly outlines how his beliefs will not interfere with his role as president. He broaches topics like keeping God on U.S. currency and in the pledge of allegiance.  He speaks of many of the current challenges that the United States faces. Logically, people want to know that they can trust their president to make the best decisions for them.  Addressing current events also helps people to know that Romney is on top of our country’s problems and prompts them to think about the ways that Romney could help solve those problems.

Op Ed Reflection

            So, first of all, when I first tried to think about a topic for this paper, nothing really came to mind.  So I was actually surprised to discover how easy it was to write three pages on this. 

            I had to really work on not being “whiny.”  Because I was so close to this topic, I wanted to speak in first person all the time.   I had to force myself to be a bit more objective, but I worry that my tone isn’t as . . . steady, maybe? As it could be. 

            I think my paper has quite a lot of pathos.  Maybe too much.  I noticed as I wrote it, and then again as I went back to edit, that my tone got progressively more passionate throughout the paper.  I felt like it sounded almost like I was growing hysterical, which isn’t what I wanted at all.  So I tried to fix that by cutting out some of my first person statements and making it a little less . . . accusing.  I sort of developed an accusing tone in my first draft that I wanted to get rid of.  Hopefully I accomplished that. 

            My paper has either a lot of ethos or very little, depending on the perspective you take.  I’m very close to my topic; I speak with authority there, because I’m an illustration major and people have told me this joke.   But in a way that almost lessens my credibility, because I’m almost too close to the topic.  It diminishes my perceived ability to speak reasonably.  I tried to combat that in my final draft by focusing more on respect in general, rather than respect for art majors, and by including examples of others who I know have been hurt by a lack of respect for their career choices.

            Logically, I feel like my topic is pretty sound.  I don’t feel like it’s too much to ask that we respect each other.  But I felt like my final draft needed some more logos, so I included some statistics on finances and the like.   I don’t feel like logos is my strongest area, but I also don’t feel like it’s weak.

            So, yeah.  I think I need to work on my writing tone a bit more.  I’m not sure how to paper turned out in the end.  I’ll have to give it a few days and then go back and reread it to see what I think. 

Style Academy

I really like Style Academy. :) That sounds a bit funny, because it's an assignment, but I really do.  I think it's interesting and that it could really help my writing.  One of the trickiest bits of writing is varying my sentences.  If they're too short, the paper sounds choppy, but if they're too long, then people get lost. From what I've seen thus far, Style Academy will really help with that issue.

I also think it's cool that they focus just on the sentence aspect of writing.  A lot of what I learned about writing in high school was either structural or grammatical, and I like that Style Academy really picks up where that left off.  It takes skill to create a good sentence and hopefully Style Academy will help me develop that skill.

GASCAP Assignment

Okay, firstly, I hope I’ve done this right. J

A Government in Thrall to Religion

G – Assuming that if religion has triumphed in some areas, it must have triumphed in all areas

A- Likening modern times to the Holy Roman Inquisition

S – If science continues to fail (in a very specific way), we will relapse into the dark ages.

C – The government has not done anything about environmental issues because of religion.  Okay, there’s a lot of this.  Relating a lot of potentially bad choices to one choice that sort of involved religion.

A – Thomas Jefferson has some authority.

P – Ignorance is the worst crime.

Stream of Consciousness for the Opinion-Editorial

What am I passionate about?  The first thing that comes to mind is women’s rights.  I’ve become quite the feminist since I got to college. I was sort of always that way, but I’ve become more passionate about it and more aware of what the word “feminist” means.   But I don’t know how I would write about that.  One of the things I dislike and would like to change the most is rape culture.  I hate that.  But I don’t know that I feel qualified to write about it.  I’ll keep it in mind, though.

What else am I passionate about?  That stupid pizza joke comes to mind.  It goes something like this: “What’s the difference between a pepperoni pizza and an art major?  A pepperoni pizza can feed a family of four.”  If you laughed, I gave you a look.  As an illustration major, that hurts.  It hits way too close to home.  One of the very worst, most terrifying things about being an artist is the idea that I won’t be able to support myself or my family if I have to.  It’s scary to realize that what I love, what I dedicate countless hours of my life to, may not have any financial benefit for me in the end.  Somehow, it seems more pure that way.  But I’d prefer if it didn’t affect the people I love as well as me.  I also struggle with feeling selfish.  If I wanted to, I could be a pretty good doctor.  It would take a different part of myself, but I could handle it.  But I’d never be happy the way I am studying illustration.  It feeds a part of my soul that I can’t live without.  But sometimes I wonder if that’s worth the opportunities I may give up for my family.   Is it selfish to pursue what I love if something else would probably be better for my kids?  And what about my future husband?  He might not feel able to do something he loves, because he feels a need to support a family.  If I were a doctor, or something like that, maybe he wouldn’t have to worry.  I don’t mind confronting these problems.  They’re important and the answers I find will determine a large part of the person I become.  But I don’t feel like it’s anyone else’s place to decide for me and I don’t think it’s anyone else’s place to joke about it.  These are serious issues that have great personal significance for me and that joke trivializes my entire education and all the sacrifices that I make to do what I love.  That really bothers me.

"The Worst Movie (or musical) Ever."

 As a child, I liked adventure stories.  I read about Harry Potter, Frodo, and Percy Jackson so much that my parents began insisting that I read a “real book” between every “potato-chip novel” I devoured.  As I got a bit older and started reading more classic adventure stories, I learned that the journeys of Odysseus and Harry weren’t really all that different.  Both followed something called the “Hero Cycle.”  This is a plot pattern in which a character leaves their home (or the “known”), journeys into the unknown, learns something, and then returns home, applying their new knowledge to their old life. This relatively simple journey is present in almost every form of fictional literature.  It allows a character to grow and change and gives a feeling of catharsis as the adventure resolves.  A book or a movie with an incomplete Hero Cycle leaves the reader/viewer feeling antsy and unsettled.  In Damn Yankees, for instance, which just so happens to be the worst musical ever, the Hero Cycle is completely disregarded, leaving the viewer looking for a conclusion that will never come.

The worst part of Damn Yankees is that, for the most part, the musical is really enjoyable.  Songs like “Heart” provide upbeat comic relief, while the love between elderly Mr. and Mrs. Boyd is sweet and constant.  Joe Boyd learns from his time as Joe Hardy, and returns to his wife a better man.  All of this makes for pretty good entertainment.  Until Lola is considered.

The second she walked in and started to sing, I knew she was my favorite character.  For those unfamiliar with the plot, Lola is enslaved to the devil, forced to do his bidding and seduce men.  Sort of like Meg in the Disney movie Hercules. She doesn’t really mind, until she meets Joe.  Unable to seduce him, she decides to befriend him and proceeds to help him get out of his deal with the devil.  My favorite song, “Two Lost Souls,” comes when it looks like Joe has failed, and lost his soul to Mr. Applegate (the devil’s human incarnation).  Lola and Joe sing about how, although they’ve both lost everything and are “drifting in a boat without a rudder,” at least they have “each-udder.”  It’s silly and cute, and it’s easy to see how they’ve both grown as characters.

Lola then proceeds to betray Applegate and drug him so that Joe can at least help his team win their last game before he becomes completely subject to Applegate’s will.  She risks everything to do this and Applegate threatens her and then forces her to the stadium to watch Joe’s “demise.”  My point in outlining all of this is to show how Lola grows as a character.  She becomes bigger than the place she filled before.  However, as soon as she is dragged back to the stadium, she disappears.  We never hear about her again.  The only clue is Applegate’s threat that she “will regret what [she’s] done.” While Joe Hardy again becomes Joe Boyd (with Lola’s assistance) and returns to his loving wife, a better man, Lola returns to the devil to serve him for the rest of eternity. 

Damn Yankees is a retelling of the Faust legend.  In the original version, the protagonist, Faust, loses.  When his deal is up, he is dragged down to hell by the devil.  Although depressing, the moral of this story makes sense.  Don’t make deals with the devil.  He’s smarter than you are.  The moral of Damn Yankees, however, is unclear.  Don’t make deals with the devil . . . unless you’re the main character.  Love will beat the devil . . . unless it’s platonic love, then it’s no good.  This discrepancy frustrates me endlessly.  Lola was the best character, but because she wasn’t the main character, she got a raw deal.  Joe made the exact same mistakes, but he got off scot-free, and in the euphoria of his triumph, I’m supposed to forget about the rest of Lola’s miserable existence.  It’s like she existed just for the purpose of Joe’s happy ending. I think that’s tragic.  And it really makes for the worst musical ever.