Sorry about neglecting to update yesterday! We took a break from Nixon and discussed some arguments (and issues) that you all brought in. Your passion for the subjects was fantastic! I’m very excited to do it again next week. Presidential rhetoric can be inspiring, but may seem less immediate than the works you brought in.

Today we wrapped up Nixon’s speech and you began writing your first analysis. We are learning by doing here, so don’t worry if it feels a bit unclear. Here’s an excerpt from a previous student’s work to give you an idea of what we are working toward:

The audience—the average, tax-paying American citizen—has a potentially negative view of any person who may be involved in politics. Due to so may examples of politicians whose moral values have been worse than expected, politicians’ ethos have generally crumbled.

To lift this assumption from his own credibility, Nixon makes clear his modest personal life. He speaks of his two (though small) homes, and of the slight financial stress they have caused. Mention of debt immediately “speaks” to the audience, as they can likely relate to his troubles. Their pre-existing feeling of stress translates into empathy for Nixon.

He takes a more positive approach in his use of emotion in mentioning his family—his wife and child. Yet again, relating to the audience with a kindness toward their family, he uses their feelings of love and adoration to make his own situation relatable.

These are small paragraphs, and not supported with the text (please support your points), but this works well. The student begins each paragraph with an overview of Nixon’s actions, follows with paraphrasing from the speech as evidence (please cite yours), follows that with insight into the audience’s feelings about the topic, then concludes with analysis that shows their new vision of the candidate as a relatable man.

Here’s another example with the same elements more tightly united:

The manner in which Nixon displays American virtue gives him a special edge with the audience—primarily patriotic Americans. He uses the repetition of “I’m proud” (Nixon 3) to convey his inherent pride as an American, and pride in the work that he’s done to accomplish his goals, like any normal citizen would. He later quotes Abraham Lincoln, who says, “God must have loved the common people—he made so many of them” (Nixon 5). This may resonate with the audience, as Abraham Lincoln was a truly model American, and for Nixon to appear as virtuous as Lincoln gives him credibility. A bit later in the speech, Nixon admits that he “loves his country” and thinks it’s “in danger” (Nixon 6) and if he is showing concern for the average and everyday American, then what makes him any different from the rest of America?

This one does nicely in tying Nixon’s words to a belief shared by the audience and relating it to their hypothetical view of the candidate within each sentence.

Tonight (as I have your readings and the beginning of your outlines) take a look at the “Rhetoric” handout I gave you—what genre does this speech fit best within? There are several parts to the “Ethos” section—what appeals named within do you recall from the speech?

More tomorrow, then on to Kennedy! As always, send me an email or post a comment if you have a question or idea.

We began reading and annotating Nixon’s “Checkers” speech in class today as an introduction to ethos. We’ll continue in the coming days, but I’m excited for something a bit different tomorrow: you are to bring in an argument of your choosing in any form. It can be a print advertisement, an essay, a commercial, a speech, a blog post, or anything else you find, as long as it is argumentative. We’ll talk about them in class tomorrow.

As always, if you have any questions, please send me an email or comment below.

Great discussions over the past few days. Here are a few sources we’ll get to tomorrow:

The Forest of Rhetoric will be our go-to site for information about rhetorical devices, techniques, and history. A wonderful rabbit hole.

Etymonline should be bookmarked on all of your devices; knowing the etymology of a word can make it more memorable, and a working familiarity with roots and such makes figuring out the meaning of words much more precise.

From the board today:

The following contribute to the tone of a work. Know them. We’ll discuss more tomorrow.

• Diction
• Imagery
• Detail
• Figurative language
• Syntax
• Metonymy
• Synechdoche
• Euphemism/dysphemism

If you lost your copy of David Foster Wallace’s speech to the graduates at Kenyon College, I found another transcript here. ((Please note that his language is occasionally not school appropriate; I edited the copies handed out in class, but (of course) these sources are not so edited. We’ll continue to discuss his language, as it is vital to understanding.))

Audio of the speech:

An interpretation:

Hope your first days are going well. We started this session reading David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water”—a commencement speech  ((The text was pulled in light of a copyright dispute with Little, Brown. Archive.org has our backs, though. More on this here.)) he delivered to Kenyon College students in 2004. Our goal in doing so was to get a sense of how an author’s choices (rhetorical, in this case) can shape the audience’s experience of a particular message.

I asked you to make note of anything that stood out to you as I read. These annotations likely come in three forms: notes about comprehension (words unclear, allusions/references to look up), notes about his message/persona (“He doesn’t have a high view of…,” “He is saying that…,” “He is funny.”) and notes about his delivery. The first is vital to our understanding of the last two, which are the focus of this class.

As we discuss today I’ll ask what stood out to you. (Your response will be anything you marked.) If what you share falls into the first category above, we’ll talk definitions/explanations. If it falls into one of the other two, I’ll ask about the other. If you remark that it is odd that he uses a lot of unsettling diction/imagery, I’ll ask how that helps/detracts from his message. If you note that he wants us to look at our educations differently, I’ll ask how his presentation helps make that appealing.

If you haven’t looked at the overview of my grading system yet, go here. We’ll discuss it today if time permits, or tomorrow.

As always, email me with questions or post a comment below.

This is going to be a great year.

We’ve finished Nixon’s “Checkers”  speech and analyzed his success in renewing his credibility in the eyes of the voters. If you would like to revise that or your DFW analysis for your progress report grade, please turn it in Monday. Of course, you may turn in any revision any time after that, but it won’t be reflected in the report.

We kicked off this section with JFK’s Inaugural Address. I didn’t ask you to analyze this, but if you don’t feel that your current grade in any skill reflects your current ability I encourage you to demonstrate it there.

Currently we’re discussing the LBJ’s address to Congress concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We’ll focus on his use of pathos and logic specifically in our analysis after we finish.

These two speeches are leading into our largest analysis so far this year: MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” This is considered to be one of the US’s greatest rhetorical achievements and will take considerable effort for us to undertake.

Before we begin, make sure you’re comfortable with the arg/means pattern of analysis we’ve been using, as well as any rhetorical devices/appeals/techniques we’ve discussed so far. As I’ve said before, it is a good idea to revise any analysis you feel warrants it.

As always, email with questions or comment below.