In the spirit of St. Patrick's Day, I am going to explain the rhetoric of one of my favorite Irish-American rock songs, Devil's Dance Floor by Flogging Molly. The band uses traditional Irish sounds and instruments, lyrics, and religious themes to express it's Irish roots and traditional Irish ideas.
The use of Irish sounds and instruments help to set up the Irish aura that the band is trying to get the listener to feel. The song incorporates the use of traditional Irish instruments including the tin whistle, bagpipe, accordion, and other percussion instruments that are used in most traditional Irish music. Furthermore, the band makes use of traditional Irish melodic patterns. With the incorporation of these things, the listener feels as if they are actually listening to Irish music, not the alternative rock that breaks out shortly into the song.
The song's lyrics and themes, particularly its religious themes, also create the Irish image that Flogging Molly tries to employ. The band uses lyrics such as "We are all just dancers on the devil's dance floor", and "The apple now is sweet, so much sweeter than it ought to be, another little bite, I don't think there is much hope for me" to create the traditional Irish-Catholic image. Christianity plays an extremely important role in Irish culture, and references to the traditional biblical stories about the devil and the apple from the tree of knowledge strengthen this theme of Irish culture. It is clear that Flogging Molly employs Irish cultural themes to create an Irish image.
After listening to "Devil's Dance Floor", the listener can surely understand the Irish image that Flogging Molly tries to create. The use of traditional Irish instruments and melodies clearly contribute to this theme. Furthermore, the use of Irish cultural references, particularly references to Christianity, also create an Irish-sounding environment. "Devil's Dance Floor" clearly attempts to allude to Ireland through its rhetorical usage, and successfully does so.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Rhetorical Analysis: Daily Collegian Cartoon
On Thursday, March 3, 2011, the Daily Collegian published a cartoon that is loaded with rhetoric. The cartoon portrays Muammar Ghadaffi, the dictator of Libya who is recently under the spotlight due to the current revolution that is ongoing in his nation, and the cruelty with which he is putting it down. In the cartoon, Ghadaffi is seated in a chair in front of a TV. He is staring at the TV, and a thought bubble is drawn by his head, which says, "That Charlie Sheen is one wierd dude...". This cartoon appeals to pathos, ethos, and logos to convey the message that Sheen is crazy.
The most obvious rhetorical appeal is to pathos, through the use of humor. It is obviously funny that Ghadaffi, who is considered to be one of the weirdest and craziest people in the world, is calling Sheen weird. Next, logos is used, because it is appealing to the common knowledge that Ghadaffi himself is crazy, due to his treacherous acts as a dictator along with his weird sense of style and personality. Finally, ethos is used, but in the opposite way that it would normally be used. Ethos is a person's credibility, and Ghadaffi has the credibility to call somebody weird, since he himself is weird. Although this may be different than usual, it actual makes a lot of sense. Ghadaffi has the credibility as a crazy person to call someone else crazy. After some thought, it is apparent that ethos, pathos, and logos are all at work in the Daily Collegian's cartoon, and it was able to effectively convey its message to me through the use of these tactics.
The most obvious rhetorical appeal is to pathos, through the use of humor. It is obviously funny that Ghadaffi, who is considered to be one of the weirdest and craziest people in the world, is calling Sheen weird. Next, logos is used, because it is appealing to the common knowledge that Ghadaffi himself is crazy, due to his treacherous acts as a dictator along with his weird sense of style and personality. Finally, ethos is used, but in the opposite way that it would normally be used. Ethos is a person's credibility, and Ghadaffi has the credibility to call somebody weird, since he himself is weird. Although this may be different than usual, it actual makes a lot of sense. Ghadaffi has the credibility as a crazy person to call someone else crazy. After some thought, it is apparent that ethos, pathos, and logos are all at work in the Daily Collegian's cartoon, and it was able to effectively convey its message to me through the use of these tactics.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Natural Light Beer Commercial with Mickey Mantle
So, in the spirit of the rhetorical analyses we have been doing the past week, I decided to give a short rhetorical analysis of a commercial that I came across on YouTube. I think it may be pretty hilarious, but is also a good piece for a rhetorical analysis. First, take a look at the commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwRBqB0MVf4
At first, this is kind of funny. We all know that Natural Light is disgusting, and nobody in their right mind would switch to it "for the flavor". This being said, Natural Light's task is even harder, and makes for a good rhetorical analysis. Natural Light attempts to sell its product through allusions to baseball, logos, and ethos.
Throughout the commercial, allusions to baseball are made. First and foremost, the spokesman is Mickey Mantle. Also, at the beginning, a baseball arcade game is shown with a light that flashes, "Home Run!". Next, Mickey Mantle says that "Natural Light has the kind of flavor that I swing for.", and another guy says to him, "Don't worry Mick, it's a double header.". All of these allusions to baseball keep the audience interested, enabling Natural Light to promote its product.
Next, the advertisement uses logos, when it says, "Taste is why you'll switch.". This simple reasoning is an example of logos because it is a logical claim as to why one would want to drink Natural Light. This simple use of logos strengthens Natural Light's argument.
Finally, ethos is used through the establishment of the promoters credibility. The promoter is Mickey Mantle! His credibility has been established through years of superior baseball play. Just this fact is the use of ethos, and probably the strongest rhetorical technique used by the advertisement.
In conclusion, this advertisement may seem funny, but it is very good material to be analyzed. Natural Light uses allusions to baseball, logos, and ethos to attract its audience to buy it's beer. They better hope that their rhetoric is strong enough, because it is a tall task to get people to buy Natural Light, "for the flavor."
At first, this is kind of funny. We all know that Natural Light is disgusting, and nobody in their right mind would switch to it "for the flavor". This being said, Natural Light's task is even harder, and makes for a good rhetorical analysis. Natural Light attempts to sell its product through allusions to baseball, logos, and ethos.
Throughout the commercial, allusions to baseball are made. First and foremost, the spokesman is Mickey Mantle. Also, at the beginning, a baseball arcade game is shown with a light that flashes, "Home Run!". Next, Mickey Mantle says that "Natural Light has the kind of flavor that I swing for.", and another guy says to him, "Don't worry Mick, it's a double header.". All of these allusions to baseball keep the audience interested, enabling Natural Light to promote its product.
Next, the advertisement uses logos, when it says, "Taste is why you'll switch.". This simple reasoning is an example of logos because it is a logical claim as to why one would want to drink Natural Light. This simple use of logos strengthens Natural Light's argument.
Finally, ethos is used through the establishment of the promoters credibility. The promoter is Mickey Mantle! His credibility has been established through years of superior baseball play. Just this fact is the use of ethos, and probably the strongest rhetorical technique used by the advertisement.
In conclusion, this advertisement may seem funny, but it is very good material to be analyzed. Natural Light uses allusions to baseball, logos, and ethos to attract its audience to buy it's beer. They better hope that their rhetoric is strong enough, because it is a tall task to get people to buy Natural Light, "for the flavor."
Thursday, February 17, 2011
"Staying in Touch With Home, for Better or Worse": New York Times Cover Picture
Thursday, February 17, 2011's edition of the New York Times features an article on the cover called "Staying in Touch With Home, for Better or Worse". The article itself talks about soldiers abroad in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan who are now using technology to keep in touch with their friends and family at home. In particular, soldiers are now using cell phones, the internet, and social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and the like to keep in touch with their loved ones.
In my blog today, I am going to talk about the Rhetoric of the picture that is featured for the article. It was taken by Damon Winter, and features a soldier sitting at his camp, on a laptop, presumably using Facebook, Skype, or something similar. The picture conveys a very powerful message. I was able to find it on Google images.
The rhetoric of the picture is very powerful, even though the reader may not notice it at first glance. The color scheme is the most powerful rhetorical aspect of this picture. Everything in the picture is extremely dark, except for the computer and the light that is shining from it. On the actual newspaper itself, this is even more true, since the picture is in black and white. This contrast in color is portraying a powerful message. When a soldier is overseas at war, their world and feelings may seem very dark and dreary. But the point of the article, which the picture enforces, is that technology illuminates the soldier's darkness by enabling them to communicate with their loved ones at home. It is almost like the "light at the end of the tunnel". When I first picked up the New York Times today, this rhetorical strategy to convey the articles message through the picture is what stood out to me right away, and I believe that it was successfully able to accomplish its goal.
In my blog today, I am going to talk about the Rhetoric of the picture that is featured for the article. It was taken by Damon Winter, and features a soldier sitting at his camp, on a laptop, presumably using Facebook, Skype, or something similar. The picture conveys a very powerful message. I was able to find it on Google images.
The rhetoric of the picture is very powerful, even though the reader may not notice it at first glance. The color scheme is the most powerful rhetorical aspect of this picture. Everything in the picture is extremely dark, except for the computer and the light that is shining from it. On the actual newspaper itself, this is even more true, since the picture is in black and white. This contrast in color is portraying a powerful message. When a soldier is overseas at war, their world and feelings may seem very dark and dreary. But the point of the article, which the picture enforces, is that technology illuminates the soldier's darkness by enabling them to communicate with their loved ones at home. It is almost like the "light at the end of the tunnel". When I first picked up the New York Times today, this rhetorical strategy to convey the articles message through the picture is what stood out to me right away, and I believe that it was successfully able to accomplish its goal.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
"A Debate Bigger Than Reform" New York Times Op-Ed
The Thursday, February 10th, 2011 edition of the New York Times featured an extremely interesting article in its Op-Ed section titled, "A Debate Bigger Than Reform". The article chronicles a recent debate about the health care reform law, or "Obamacare" as some like to call it. Recently, newly elected Republicans in Congress are trying to repeal the law, and some states are banning it, saying that it is unconstitutional. The article takes an important rhetorical approach to expressing its view.
The entire article expresses the views of both Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton employee who supports the law, and Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who denies its constitutionality. The entire article goes back and forth, expressing the views and the arguments that each man makes, and explaining these two views. Throughout the majority of the first half of the article, the writer does not express any bias, but rather increases his credibility by expressing the views and reasoning of both sides.
Eventually, in the second half of the article, speaking for the staff of the New York Times, it says, "We disagree [with Barnett's view], and so do years of judicial precedent." It then goes on to explain the views of the staff. At this point, the article makes a good argument for its views, and has drawn in readers of all political affiliations, since it does not express any affiliation. It is not surprising though at this point, that the New York Times took its traditional, left-leaning stance, but it is good that it was able to draw in all readers by expressing both views of the argument.
This Op-Ed made good use of ethos, by increasing its credibility by expressing both sides of the argument. I think that it was a very interesting approach to drawing in all possible readers to view its ultimate stance that the health care reform is constitutional.
The entire article expresses the views of both Walter Dellinger, a former Clinton employee who supports the law, and Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who denies its constitutionality. The entire article goes back and forth, expressing the views and the arguments that each man makes, and explaining these two views. Throughout the majority of the first half of the article, the writer does not express any bias, but rather increases his credibility by expressing the views and reasoning of both sides.
Eventually, in the second half of the article, speaking for the staff of the New York Times, it says, "We disagree [with Barnett's view], and so do years of judicial precedent." It then goes on to explain the views of the staff. At this point, the article makes a good argument for its views, and has drawn in readers of all political affiliations, since it does not express any affiliation. It is not surprising though at this point, that the New York Times took its traditional, left-leaning stance, but it is good that it was able to draw in all readers by expressing both views of the argument.
This Op-Ed made good use of ethos, by increasing its credibility by expressing both sides of the argument. I think that it was a very interesting approach to drawing in all possible readers to view its ultimate stance that the health care reform is constitutional.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
"Egypt's Bumbling Brotherhood" : New York Times Op-Ed
In today's New York Times Op-Ed section, there is an article titled "Egypt's Bumbling Brotherhood", written by Scott Atran. This article's rhetoric effectively erases any misunderstandings about the Muslim Brotherhood's role in Egypt's turmoil. First and foremost, this is the appropriate time and setting--kairos-- to explain this, with all that is happening in Egypt at this time. But the bulk of the article clears up misconceptions about the Muslim Brotherhood, as opposed to talking just about the Egypt situation. Almost everyone in the media is talking about this extremist, terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, who is going to take over Egypt. Even as I write this article and CNN is on my TV in the background, a news analyst just mentioned the feared Muslim Brotherhood. I turn to Fox News, and who else but Glenn Beck is rambling about the "evil" Muslim Brotherhood. The article makes that point that in reality, they are not violent. In reality, they are enemies of al-Qaeda, and are also very ineffective. Yes, they seek to bring back Islamic rule, but the article shows that they are unable to make any moves, and have the support of as little as 10% of the entire population. Throughout the article, Atran makes good use of facts and verbatim to make it clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is really not the threat that the media is making it out to be. It is sad that our news stations are so close-minded to make anything with the words "Muslim", "Islam", or "Koran" evil. And I believe that this article's rhetoric effectively criticizes this, particularly in the current Egypt situation.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)