Tonight you are to begin writing your outline for a rhetorical analysis of David Foster Wallace’s commencement address to Kenyon College. The goal is not to churn out a perfect example of the form (b/c you’re taking the wrong course if you’re at that point) but to begin collecting your thoughts into a workable flow. Here’s a way to go about it if you’re stuck:

1. Look over your annotations of the speech. ((If you don’t have annotations, remember the small panic you’re feeling now during the next week-long discussion of a work. Now put that aside for now, take a deep breath, and read through the speech again, marking answers to the questions on our first post. Once you’ve annotated the entire speech, make an attempt at briefly summarizing his thesis. Now head to #2 above.))
2. If you notice a pattern (“jokes,” “stories,” “slang,” “syllogisms,” etc.), group them together. These will fall under the main points of your essay.
   2b. If you don’t notice any patterns, look for the three basic appeals: How does he help his audience trust him? How does he make his argument seem reasonable? How does he make his audience care? Group your answers to the last three questions together. These will make up the major points of your essay.
3. Take a step back. Whether you are organizing this by patterns or by appeals, you may have lots of evidence under one major point and little under the others. If so, consider bolstering the little ones by looking back over your annotations or dividing the larger one.
4. Write down what you believe his argument is. It doesn’t have to be worded perfectly, but it should be accurate.
5. Above each group of patterns or appeals write how the group supports the appeal of his argument. In this step you’re writing the gist of your topic sentences while preparing to show your audience how the disparate rhetorical elements of his argument tie together to make it convincing.
6. Stop. Or continue, but that is really all we need for discussion tomorrow. You can fiddle with the bullet symbols if you like. I enjoy hederas, myself.

You guys shared some additional sources in class today, so here’s an updated list:

• Arts & Letters Daily—Brilliant site bringing together articles from all over the Interwebs. Mostly scholarly, but all well-written.
• In These Times—Began as an “Independent Socialist Newspaper,” but is primarily progressive (left of center) in its leanings today. Kurt Vonnegut was a frequent contributor until 2005.
• Slate.com—Online-only news magazine. Gotta love the Explainer (not argumentative, but interesting nonetheless).
• NPR.org—Public Radio’s other online presence.
• The New Republic—Often insightful, this magazine focuses on politics and the arts.
• Time Magazine
• Bad Idea—A British magazine that publishes “young journalism.” Definitely worth checking out, as it brings a fresh face to opinion and editorials. Check out the Butcher’s Shop for an overview of the editing process articles go through before publication.
• AdBusters—Popular amongst my students for the past few years. Worth checking out.
• National Review—Very well-written conservative magazine.
• The New Yorker
• Popmatters—Articles on popular culture; music, video games, the Interwebs, and movies are all topics. Great place to find an article and a new favorite band.
• The Huffington Post
• CNN.com

Advertisements:

• Vintage Ad Browser
• I Believe in Advertising—Please note: not always “school appropriate”; browse carefully.

Video sources:

• Kickstarter.com—The videos are a bit like commercials, but often do not have the credibility ((Brand recognition)) of established companies—this changes their arguments a bit.
• TED.com—The educated person’s YouTube.
• PopTech—Like TED, but mostly devoted to STEM.

How to read online:

There are a number of programs out there that make reading online (and on your phone) a bit more comfortable; I use Pocket, but many others use Instapaper or Readability.

We looked at a number of advertisements today in order to wrap our heads around this “rhetoric” concept. Here’s the slideshow:

We asked a few questions of each piece:

• What does the author want the audience to do/believe?
• How does the author help the audience trust him or her?
• How does the author help the audience to care?

These questions correlate nicely with the three rhetorical appeals we discussed later:

• Logos: an author’s appeal to the audience’s sense of reasonableness or logic
• Ethos: an author’s appeal to the audience’s trust/sense of credibility
• Pathos: an author’s appeal to the audience’s emotions or desires

We’ll discuss these at length throughout this session. If you come across an excellent argument, send me a link in the comments or via email. If you’re looking for written arguments (we’ll begin discussing these next week), here’s a list of places to look.

Unfortunately Google Reader is no longer around, but you can find a list of good alternatives here. I use Feedly, but find one that suits your needs.

The first casualty of the craziness this session was this website, but as we all rise this too will.

We looked at a number of schemes and tropes today from The Forest of Rhetoric as many of you had questions about figurative language and syntax. The latter is often the most difficult for my students to notice, as it can seem quite abstract. Play through the overview of schemes and tropes for a better understanding of how an author can use structure and figurative language to make his or her argument more appealing.

I also printed your grades from the website to give each of you a better look at what you should focus on in your final analyses. Remember that you can turn in as many as you’d like before the end of the session.

• President Obama’s Nobel lecture
• President Obama’s Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Candidate Romney’s speech at the Clinton Global Initiative (note the “bounce” joke at the opening! What’s he doing there?)

[Couldn’t find transcript, so here’s video of President Obama’s speech.]