We started class today with a rhetorical analysis of the political cartoon about political lies and prevarication...
Next, we moved on to a rhetorical analysis of the Bo-time! Bojangles commercial found here:
Lots of CDW here... including but not limited to the warrant of: Enjoying good food trumps all other matters of obligation.
Your daily notes from 3.10.14 should have a 1-2 sentence analysis of each of these "texts". Remember that the SYNTHESIS prompt will provide you with 8 different texts and require you to synthesize (connect) at least three of the texts. An example of "two-text" synthesis of the above would be:
Example Analysis
In both the political cartoon and the Bojangles commercial, we find a message built around the idea that there are certain obligations that we "ought" to meet that often conflict with the realities of what we actually do. Putin's shirtless chest, tatooed arm, and lie-stretched nose all stand in stark contrast to the reality of what he does (invades a sovereign country). Putin's failure to meet his obligation to allow Ukraine's independence and democracy parallels other partisan-based allegations that "socialist objectives" met by President Obama's socialism-based health care conflicted with his promise that the new healthcare wouldn't jeopardize current plans. The import is a negative one: like the negative feelings we feel when our health care policy is cancelled despite assurances that it wouldn't, we feel the bad feelings of believing that democracy will be allowed to flourish, only to watch it cancelled out by a swift invasion of Russian troops. The same is true with McCreery's narcissistic, gluttonous claim that eating artery-hardening fried chicken is somehow more important than meeting the expectations of screaming, paying fans. We feel this tension between what McCreery says and what we expect him to do because we assume that as a customer, we should "get what we paid for." In other words, if the concert is supposed to start at 7:00 p.m., and it is delayed so that the star can sit back stage and eat Bojangles, we feel somehow cheated. There's a tacit understanding that the transaction between a speaker's speech and the audience should mean something. Thus, both "texts" involve the tension between what people actually do and what they ought to do, and both texts find the power of their arguments in this tension.
NOTE
Clearly, I don't expect you to write something this complex in 5 minutes at the beginning of class everyday. I do, however, expect full concentration and analysis, especially with regards to the components of rhetoric.
HOMEWORK
For tonight, make sure that you are familiar with the first act of Oedipus Rex. View the sparknotes if you want here:
http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/oedipus/section5.rhtml
Your daily notes from 3.10.14 should have a 1-2 sentence analysis of each of these "texts". Remember that the SYNTHESIS prompt will provide you with 8 different texts and require you to synthesize (connect) at least three of the texts. An example of "two-text" synthesis of the above would be:
Example Analysis
In both the political cartoon and the Bojangles commercial, we find a message built around the idea that there are certain obligations that we "ought" to meet that often conflict with the realities of what we actually do. Putin's shirtless chest, tatooed arm, and lie-stretched nose all stand in stark contrast to the reality of what he does (invades a sovereign country). Putin's failure to meet his obligation to allow Ukraine's independence and democracy parallels other partisan-based allegations that "socialist objectives" met by President Obama's socialism-based health care conflicted with his promise that the new healthcare wouldn't jeopardize current plans. The import is a negative one: like the negative feelings we feel when our health care policy is cancelled despite assurances that it wouldn't, we feel the bad feelings of believing that democracy will be allowed to flourish, only to watch it cancelled out by a swift invasion of Russian troops. The same is true with McCreery's narcissistic, gluttonous claim that eating artery-hardening fried chicken is somehow more important than meeting the expectations of screaming, paying fans. We feel this tension between what McCreery says and what we expect him to do because we assume that as a customer, we should "get what we paid for." In other words, if the concert is supposed to start at 7:00 p.m., and it is delayed so that the star can sit back stage and eat Bojangles, we feel somehow cheated. There's a tacit understanding that the transaction between a speaker's speech and the audience should mean something. Thus, both "texts" involve the tension between what people actually do and what they ought to do, and both texts find the power of their arguments in this tension.
NOTE
Clearly, I don't expect you to write something this complex in 5 minutes at the beginning of class everyday. I do, however, expect full concentration and analysis, especially with regards to the components of rhetoric.
HOMEWORK
For tonight, make sure that you are familiar with the first act of Oedipus Rex. View the sparknotes if you want here:
http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/oedipus/section5.rhtml