We worked Wednesday and Thursday on analyses of Nixon’s credibility; these will be due Monday (16th).

Remember that Google Drive (née Docs) is your friend! I’m happy to look over progress if you share the document and email with questions.

We’ll begin our lexiconic ((Edited from “lexicographic,” which I meant to signify the figurative compilation of your personal dictionaries. Since I spelled “francophile” incorrectly below, I thought it would be best to clarify this one before my remaining credibility melts.)) journey this week with a group of fifteen words that I’ve forgotten to post these past few days:

1. annotated
2. anthropomorphic
3. brobdignagian
4. cash cow
5. coffer
6. dog (v.)
7. exegesis
8. francophile
9. furbellows
10. lollygag
11. roman a clef
12. salmagundi
13. schlock
14. spartan (adj.)
15. white elephant

That is all.

We’ve moved from David Foster Wallace’s great commencement address to a source a bit older: Richard Nixon’s televised plea for his credibility in 1952. The goal in reading this one is to better understand the use of ethos in an argument.

Today was the first essay triage of the year. I gave you a few things (below) to look for in your draft; if you found any, you have the option to revise. If you didn’t wrap up your revision in the computer lab today, the completed analysis is due tomorrow (Wednesday the 4th). We’ll be moving into presidential rhetoric then, and it isn’t a good idea to overlap.

Three things to always avoid in a rhetorical analysis:

• A thesis statement that merely summarizes the author’s argument. You should have two parts to your thesis statement (as you do in each of your major points): a statement of his argument and the means by which he makes it appealing.
• The use of “you,” “me,” “our,” etc. This conflates his audience with your audience. They are different.
• An argument in favor of his position that poses as an analysis. If you find statements that mean effectively “and this point makes sense because” or “we’ve all been in a similar position,” you are bolstering, not analyzing, his argument.

If your analysis contained two or more of these, bookmark this page to remind yourself for next time.

We looked at a few outlines today from students gracious enough to let us learn from their process. A few things to keep in mind as you continue working:

• An outline is complex and organic; it does not come all at once, nor should it be written linearly (that is, top-to-bottom). If you get stuck, move to another point and come back after asking questions or reviewing your notes.
• Each point should contain two elements: the author’s words and the {means by which he or she makes them appealing}.
  • Initially, he demonstrates {decorum} to place himself on the level of his audience.
    • {Informal diction}
      • “bull–y” (Wallace 1)
      • “there are these two guys” (Wallace 2)
    • He {deconstructs} the genre to {demonstrate his awareness of their understanding of how “these things go”}
      • “standard requirement of . . . speeches” (Wallace 1)
      • “not the wise older fish” (Wallace 1)

In draft form this would read something like this:

By using informal diction such as “bull–y,” (Wallace 1) “there are these two guys,” (2) he speaks to his audience as “one of them” rather than a stodgy, learned academic doling out advice. He continues this with a deconstruction of the “standard requirement of . . . speeches” (1) and by assuring the students that he is “not the wise older fish” (1).

Keep up the hard work; we’ll do a run-through of your outlines in groups tomorrow and begin writing on Friday.