This week in rhetoric we discussed began to read Nick Flynn’s The Ticking is the Bomb. We also read and discussed the second element of rhetoric from Leith’s Words Like Loaded Pistols, on style. Our following discussions were an introduction to keywords regarding rhetorical figures of amplification, contrast and parallelism, disruption, and reduction. During these discussions we not only defined these terms, but we sought to apply them to The Ticking is the Bomb. We also read on Cicero’s three offices (purposes) of rhetoric, which are to teach, delight, and move (docere, delectare, et movere). Admittedly I was surprised with the emphasis on entertaining the audience. I feel as if the joy should be found in what, you are learning, and now how you are learning it. A prime example of where we are led astray with entertainment is todays news media culture. With the expediency the ability to access and portray information, we have begun to sacrifice accuracy for speed. We also have developed a system where entertainment is valued over accuracy, and arguably importance of information. When we focus too much on delight, we move audiences in the wrong direction. 

After the assigned readings, my initial thoughts are best encapsulated by the title of the introduction to the book, a field guide to getting lost. The bombastic unfocused style that Flynn engages in has no apparent center focus, other than being a brutally honest depiction of his life. However, while this styling is difficult to interpret, his use of rhetorical elements, provide an interesting flow to his syntax. For example, on page 26, he repeats the self-proclamation of “I”. This use of Anaphora provides a reflective cadence and form in his depictions of his experiences. Another example of this would be his use of metaphor on page 41. During this scene, he is describing how is arsenic mom would drive him, following emergency responders, to watch them battle the burning structure. As he describes the emotion he experienced while being dragged away from his weekend cartoons, he evinces his mother’s actions as “twisting the blue from the sky”. This vivid illustration portrays how Flynn felt as his mother sucked away his youthful innocence. One element that I’m hesitant to identify, but I feel is accurately applicable, is his seemingly use of digression. It was mentioned in class that the author can appear ADD at times to his constant use of digression. As I began to each chapter, I felt as if I was diving deeper and deeper into a never-ending digression. 

In the future, I hope to have a further understanding of the purpose of Flynn’s stories. His sporadic style seems to be summed together in a twisted use of hints of a poetic nature. Perhaps his purpose is to write lacking purpose, but I believe he wishes for the reader to search and struggle to identify his intention. The difficulty of his experiences are thrust onto the reader, with his choice of literary organization, and a hoodwinking field guide to getting lost.

This week in Rhetoric we read chapters three and four of The Central Park Five, discussed vocabulary from Words Like Loaded Pistols, and read chapters three and four of Introduction to Documentary. Chapters three and four of The Central Park Five expanded on the details of the criminal case, including an instructor profile of the victim, a highlighting of racial terminology used by media during the case such as the terms wolfpack and wildin’, information about the forensic evidence gathered at the crime scene, attorney representation/ legal processing, and sentencing. Also included were photographs of the crime scene, newspaper front pages, and key people involved with the case. These photographs were significant as they were the first images provided in the book. From Words like Loaded Pistols, we reviewed keywords under the categories figures of address, argumentation, and logical fallacies. This week’s reading from Bill Nicholas’s Introduction to Documentary covered creating a unique “voice” in the documentary and the elements of documentary that make it persuasive and entertaining.

            The introduction of forensic evidence in this week’s reading of The Central Park Five highlighted an area of rhetoric that has been drawing my interest, the distinction between rhetorical and inartistic logic. My understanding of the primary difference between rhetorical and artistic data is that of human interpretation. Rhetorical knowledge focuses more on communicating truth that exists but not yet scientifically certain, while inartistic logic is scientifically certain data, or universal absolutes. For example, the laws of mathematics are considered an inartistic truth while the sociological and psychological observations are rhetorical. The reason this separation of logic is relevant to The Central Park Five, lies in the conclusion that I would suggest is drawn from inartistic data, and that being that inartistic data has a higher probability of being true than rhetorical data. While this conclusion may be true, it potentially leads to people holding true conclusions from inartistic information that is drawn from the inartistic truth rather than being the truth of the inartistic information itself. A good of this in The Central Park Five when reinstating the death penalty is brought into question. The assumption that is made, which juxtaposes American Legal practice, is that the accused are guilty. Conclusions are then made in extension to that false assumption, that the guilty deserve death. It’s an example of if A=B and B=C, then A=C, when the reality is that A does not equal B. 

            In the future classes of rhetoric, I hope to gain more insight on strategy used in documentary and how methods affect information. Entertainment is essential when creating a documentary as to inform the uninformed properly, their attention must be drawn. However, as feared by Aristotle, certain rhetorical practices can manipulate rather than inform, especially when the audience lacks necessary critical thinking skills. As I engage in rhetoric in and out of the classroom I hope to not only personally utilize rhetorical skills in an ethical way, but garner skills to evaluate the rhetorical influence of those around me. 

This week of Rhetoric consisted of four passages of reading; two from Leith’s Words Like Loaded Pistols (WLLP) and two from Burns’ The Central Park Five. The first passage from WLLP, titled “on Invention” focused on the first of the “five parts” of rhetoric, the concept of invention. The idea of invention finds inspiration from Aristotle, who instructed that “the job of the rhetorician was to discover the best available means of inspiration.” The distinction between rhetorical and perhaps the societally defined invention, is that rhetorical invention does not involve creation in the individualistic sense, but rather the process of discovering the depth of a particular subject. Essentially, the rhetorician is not creating something from nothing, not rather uncovering and communicating pre-existing information in their area of focus. Also expressed in this passage, was the three Aristotelian lines of appeal, Ethos, Logos, and Pathos; which are appeal to qualification, appeal with information, and appeal to emotions respectively. The second passage from WLLP was on judicial rhetoric which focuses on the stasis, the issue. In this section, Leith introduced the Greco-Roman division of the questions of stasis, Conjectural, Definitional, Qualitative, and Translative. 

The first two chapters of Burn’s The Central Park Five jumped into unraveling the scene of the controversial case. Chapter one began with a sympathetic description of some of the key characters in the case, while in a contrasting tone, depicted the crime ridden, racially divided state of New York City at the time. Chapter Two introduced details of the arrests, crime scene, and the interrogations of the suspected teens. 

In the first excerpt of the documentary that was watched in class on Thursday, what immediately grabbed my attention was the way in which the directors, Ken Burns, Sarah Burns, and David McMahon; utilized music to create tension. As the voice-overs described the breakdown of societal function and the screen showed decrepit streets with violence, crime and poverty; the music bounced between songs of rock and “gangsta rap”. Both genres of music are high tempo, heart pounding sounds, that not only raise the adrenaline of the listener, but both have historical significance for white and black culture. This music evokes pathological appeal in the listener, communicating to them the high energy, clashing, societal tension that may have influenced certain processes of events in the Central Park Jogger Case.

I am excited to see the judicial rhetoric that will be used in the case against the five teenagers. I anticipate that as we unravel details of the trial, there will be a plethora of logical fallacies in prosecuting argument and a lack of acknowledgment of those by the defense. I also expect to see racial bias and stereotype in the judicial proceedings. To aid in seeing err, I hope in the next classes to develop a more complete understanding of the difference between inartistic and artistic logos, as well as the distinction between certain pathos and logos appeals. I understand that Aristotle did not intend for the three appeals to be unique categorizes, and rather a blending, harmonious, multifaceted approach to appeal, however I currently have a hard time distinguishing between a logical pathological appeal and one that employs logos.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.