Shepard Fairey > Obama Poster "Hope"

Rhetorical Analysis

rhetoric
example, definition, comparison-contrast, classification, process analysis, description, narrative, cause-and-effect, assertion/justification

style
diction, syntax, tone, connotation, figurative language

is diction mostly formal or informal?
polysyllabic? scientific? scholarly? conversational? colloquial? slang?
short or long sentences? meandering/terse?
punctuation?
how does the punctuation establish relationships among ideas within the sentences?
is there cataloguing of information? is the tone mostly serious or mostly playful? what emotions do you sense from the writer? is the language mostly literal or metaphorical? do the metaphors use positive or negative imagery?

rhetorical devices
metonymy, synedoche, apostrophe, anaphora, cataphora, polysyndeton, asyndeton, chiasmus, diacope, allusion, parallel structure, repetition

devices: metaphor, point of view, tone, mood, symbols, irony

ethnic ethics

Middlesex > Jeffrey Eugenides

An attempt at one shlub's rhetorical analysis

• THEME: two opposite or conflicting things combined in one (substance); quite literally in the case of our narrator

Elements that support this theme:
• passages highlighting the "hybrid" in humanity (as opposed to the traditional themes of homogenization)
• the direct comparison of multicultural ethics as brought on by the American "melting pot"
• how Eugenides uses historical realism to emphasize a new culture of shared values
• family epic: references to the mythological, Greek myths and famililial myths "melted" together
• Eugenides's study of the origin of values from shared values > from multiple to universal
• look for institutions, what stands out as Americanly different for Desdemona and Lefty?
• the individual and the more encompassing country (macrocosm)
the microcosm is represented in the world of dna and how our genes mingle at conception
• denouncing of the values now held by right-wing politics
• ethnic and cultural diversity, minority rights, moral conflict, ethical pluralism, pluralism and the limits of the liberal state, moral compromise

purselipsquarejaw

Who's getting my goat?

The trick is in finding the candidate who is most real. By "real" I mean in character, personality, motivation and not the kind concealed by the tactics of campaigning. Some might argue that a few candidates have it easier. It is in fact easier to keep dirt hidden under a rug for a shorter period of time. But I would point out that if there is enough dirt it will eventually spill out from underneath anyway.

There has been one campaign question in particular this year that has become a concern of mine. The question refers to how Hillary Clinton dealt with her husband's very public affair. When the question is inevitably asked, "How do you think she handled that situation? And what does this say about her character?" Joe Voter usually has some polarizing comment about Hillary's loyalty or else her spineless lack of feelings regarding her marriage. But I'd argue that there are further repercussions here if Joe Voter would please take the time.

Hillary is a smart woman. But she is a woman. As such she has come into this campaign (life) prejudged. The fact that she would have to play down her typically feminine decisions and play up her more masculine roles is discussed openly by pundits and Joe Voter alike, so why don't we pay attention to what we are saying? To answer this question we have to go back to 1996, before the general american public really knew what to make of a loyal Hillary. At this time Hillary had not yet held public office. But Hillary being the more intelligent of the two Clintons must have felt that it was only a matter of time before she would run for office. There was planning (see scheming) involved. In order to be president you need to possess many traits not the least of which are experience, leadership qualities, a large voter base, etc. But in order to run for President only the most sound bite-able of these qualities will do. These qualities vary from candidate to candidate, from year to year, and now from sex to sex and race to race. If I am guessing right, Hillary probably had an idea way back in the last decade that she was going to have to play down all the stereotypical traits that make her seem female. Being that there are so many to choose from let's just narrow it down to the typically female traits that would keep a woman from being president. Well for one, women are hormonal and act on feelings, not sound judgment.

So what if a woman, say Hillary, went about her political career with the assumption that showing feelings would keep her from the presidency? And then proceeded to stoically look her husbands' indiscretions straight in the eye without batting an unlacquered lash? Well, I'd say brilliant! what a smart woman?! What I wouldn't say is how real she seemed, or how unconcerned with the tactics of spin she is. But she's smart. She has learned to manipulate the system. As have most presidents, not excluding our wonderful Mr. Bush (however unsmartly he goes about it.)

Being president does not require a candidate to be smart or male. But when a president campaigns to win my vote, I guess I'd rather support someone who didn't trick me to get it.