Writing Which Saves the World

If I were Superman, I’d roam the campus of Penn State University with a sidekick named Merriam-Webster. The misuse of “your” would be the kryptonite that would cripple me. All time spent not saving the world would be spent writing for The Daily Collegian, instead of The Daily Planet and my secret identity would be a recluse who reads books and writes poetry in her dorm room. My Fortress of Solitude would be a coffee shop where I’d protect Happy Valley from the corruption of the illiterate.

Yet, shocking as it may be I’m no super human. I am however an English major who hopes to one day enter the world of Publishing. I stand as a 19 year old wishing to publish books that will ignite a spark in the minds of the public, much like the one that claimed me.

I find solace in reading. It was in reading that I discovered that all of mankind has the same basic desires and feelings. Books always were a way to connect with the world around me, while also escaping it. That paradox enthralled me and as a highly sarcastic person, the ability to use words to enlist feelings and unspoken meanings has always been an art form to me. Whether it was song lyrics or newspaper articles, words always were and always will be my close friend.

My life journey is simply a story of being fascinated with stories. I am, however, more than a reader. I also write for Penn State’s The Daily Collegian. It is a recent endeavor but a joyous one nevertheless. Writing for the newspaper employs my ability to meet deadlines and work hard, balancing both school and the newspaper.

Simply, I enjoy writing. I enjoy reading and I enjoy any form of the collaboration between the two. Yet, there is more to me than English. I enjoy food. I enjoy napping. I find politics interesting (though I know few people who actually enjoy them) and - thanks in large part to a mother who taught me the proper way to observe people, while sitting on a bench in the mall - I enjoy human psychology. A friend to nature, the image shown above I took when I canoed 70 miles through the Algonquin outback of Canada this past summer. I also have maintained employment since I was fifteen years old and played soccer, while also dabbling in a vortex of various arts and things that all started with the proclamation that “I must try this at least once.”

Citing a line from my favorite poem by e.e. cummings, “life is not a paragraph” and with that in mind, I encourage you to read on as I try to save the world.

Link to Kelsey Tamborrino's E-Portfolio

Romney Rhetoric

Throughout this entire process of blogging about rhetoric, I’ve tried not to mention the current political spectrum. Though politics are one of the best displays of both successful and failing rhetoric, I have far too much to say about candidates, so I’ve avoided it.

This week though, I’ve decided to highlight the “civic” part of Rhetoric and Civic Life. Without divulging too deeply into politics, I want to discuss the failed rhetoric of Mitt Romney recently.

In a speech, Romney attacked President Obama as “out of touch” for spending too much time at Harvard, where Obama went to law school.

But Romney himself has twice as many degrees from Harvard, as Obama.

That’s where rhetoric failed.

Any time a person makes a speech or an argument, in order for rhetoric to work well, we need to think about what we are saying before we say it.

Often politicians say things that are later analyzed and then their integrity is placed at risk, when it becomes a topic in the media.  For Romney to criticize Obama on his Harvard education, when he himself has degrees from Harvard – no matter what point he is trying to make – makes him seem hypocritical.

It is crucial to think before we speak. It is crucial to always think about every statement we make, from all angles. Whenever an argument is made, we must always think about how our words can be misconstrued or taken differently.

As a politician, Romney should be more aware of his presence and he should be aware that whenever he makes a statement, there is a whole opposing political party looking for a flaw – looking for a way to expose him and shine a negative light.

This situation is a perfect example of a statement backfiring and though, as rhetorical speakers we aren’t trying to be elected by a nation, it is a great example of how we must try our best to always have a solid argument. 

Rhetoric and Facebook

Rhetoric is essentially communication. Its purpose is to convince and influence other people. In utilizes pathos, ethos, logos, body language, speaking style, audience and many other aspects to draw forth from others a particular idea. The idea is to get the audience to agree with what is being argued; the idea is to be liked.

With that in mind, ninety percent of Facebook status updates are a rhetorical failure.

Statuses on Facebook have great potential to influence others. They have the ability to reach a large audience and warrant the ability to perfect exactly what you want to say. With the help of commenting and “liking” a status, they also allow for discussion and to show support from fellow Facebook friends.

But, few people utilize this.

When scrolling through my Facebook news feed, I often see status updates that show no progression of thought and are essentially a waste of space.

A “successful” status isn’t an inside joke between friends, or a statement like “going out with friends,” and it certainly isn’t someone who takes the prompt question “what are you doing?” far too literally.

Facebook provides potential for great rhetoric with statuses though and it’s time the majority of people realize this.

If there is a cause worth fighting for a status can provide the means to spread the word. If there is a message about yourself you want to get out, Facebook provides the means to do it. Yet people should use it sparingly. No one wants to read about how you are “sad.. :(“ every other day.

What I’m saying is, yes, it’s your Facebook and you can post whatever you want, but if we focus more on what and how we post a status, it has the means to be a real rhetoric force in society today.  

Perspective & Rhetoric

Advertisements, as we have already discussed extensively, use rhetoric a great deal. Rhetoric is essentially the only way an ad can be useful, it must convince the viewer of something. This ad shows this in a great way.

This ad draws on pathos to tell a story with just two images.

Under the sink, chemical products are depicted, in the first image. This is a usual scene in many households. Alone this image means little. The tagline on the bottom states, “Prevent accidents. Read the label.” Most viewers will see this and pay little mind to it. It is almost common sense to most people that chemicals are dangerous.

Yet, by juxtaposing the same image, only slightly altered, the ad takes on a whole other meaning.

Once children are brought into the ad, pathos is drawn out. Safety for our children and today’s youth is an ideal most people can respect and attend to.

The ad shows that children may see such chemical products as toys or, at the very least, something intriguing. Thus, the viewer thinks of a child playing with chemicals, and sympathy and sadness is subconsciously drawn out.

Suddenly, reading the label takes on a whole new meaning. It is no longer about the obvious - it is about protecting children. It is about helping those who can’t help themselves. This ad is effective in creating a message, by switching perspective.

That is a key aspect in rhetoric, in general. Perspective is a crucial element to any and all arguments. Thus, by showing various viewpoints, a more reformed and relatable ad is shown.

Ultimately, rhetoric in ads draws on many things to make an argument. It is all about working with how people see things and what images will draw their attention further.

The safety of children is certainly an applicable one, and I find this ad to be a great example of rhetoric.  

Seeing Is Believing

Rhetoric has many different aspects. This week in one of my classes, a speaker came in to talk about multi-media. As he spoke he noted that videos are crucial to conveying an argument and instantly my mind jumped to this class. This reminded me of rhetoric and the idea that “seeing is believing.”

It is much easier to persuade someone of something when they can see it with their own eyes. That being said, the ability to harness this idea can be a crucial rhetorical tool. There is only so much we can convey with words – often an image or video can say more without ever saying anything at all.

When you think about it, the multimedia age we are in today completely changes how we communicate. When a person watches a video, it is much like reading a story – he/she becomes engulfed – and it is much easier to convince a person of something, when they are fully invested with what you are saying.

Yet, what complicates the idea of multimedia rhetoric is one of design and production. There are various forms of audio, interface, and presentation that all achieve different levels of persuasion. A more elaborate showcase will get the upper hand in a debate, even if their argument lacks support.

This new age form of rhetoric can also present negative images and can easily show lies. When you are only watching a video, there is less contextual evidence. It is more difficult to spot out what is erroneous or untrue, as everything is right before your eyes.

Arguments are made through emotional appeal, often, and thus it is just as easy to persuade against something, as it is to persuade for something.

In the end though, multimedia is a great tool in rhetoric. What we observe plays a key role in what we believe.

A picture is, after all, worth a thousand words.

Rhetorical Barbie

Stalking my Facebook News Feed often leaves me with many things to ponder; normally it ends with disgust for my generation, or at the very least the people I went to high school with. That being said, from time to time, Facebook provides links to inspiration and enlightening things in the world today. Recently, a Facebook friend linked to an image of what Barbie, the popular children’s doll, would look like in real life, given her over-exaggerated proportions. 

The image was shocking to say the least, with Barbie’s waistline being unseeingly skinny and her weight under 100 pounds. Needless to say her body is literally unattainable for the real person.

To me this brought up ideas about rhetoric. What are we convincing our children of? What are we telling our children the definition of beauty is? The consumerist world plays a heavy part in convincing children that “too skinny” is good. Most dolls today are not proportionate and they work to convince children that that is what you should look like when you are older. Thus the toys we buy children are part of a larger spectrum and definately a mark of rhetoric.

That being said, the image I saw was an example of kairos as it came out in time when the “skinny” epidemic is on the rise. Eating disorders today are more prevalent than ever before and this image helps to combat that ideology of young girls.

It’s crucial to pay more attention to everything that is being sold, in terms of rhetoric. Marketing, in the end, is one big mechanism to convince the masses of purchasing a product. In the simplest of terms, it is an rhetorical argument. 

Rhetoric of Rhetorical Questions

Before entering this class and learning the proper way to define “rhetoric,” the word instantly made me think of the phase a “rhetorical question.” In my lifetime, I’ve uttered, “That was a rhetorical question,” when someone answers an obvious question, far too many times. This utterance is commonplace in vocabulary of many people today, but the meaning contrasts the real definition of rhetoric completely. Is it possible to speak rhetorically, but not with rhetoric?

Kind of.

A rhetorical question can be defined as a question that doesn’t need an answer. But how does this relate to rhetoric? I researched a little and I found that there is a relation, which positions rhetorical questions within the ideology of rhetoric itself.

When speeches are made, often questions are posed in order for the audience to answer the question to themselves. Speakers do this to gain appeal and have the audience on their side, as the answer in their mind persuades them subconsciously to agree with the speaker. Thus, the rhetorical question really is meant to be answered - just not aloud. Over time this idea of “answering to oneself” developed into the sarcastic, overstated question that it is today.  But it stems from proper rhetoric…

A rhetorical question really is a form of rhetoric. It is a tool in helping the speaker persuade his/her point. When a person thinks of the answer to a question to himself or herself they become engaged in the speech at hand, whether they are aware of it or no. So, though rhetorical questions have definitions completely contrast to the term rhetoric, the two really do go hand in hand. It is a tool of the trade.

In the commercial below this is demonstrated. Geico states obvious questions, yet in the end it adds to their persuasion, as the viewer attributes the obvious answer to the money-saving qualities of Geico. 

Rhetoric Like You

Recently, I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining why singer and recent Grammy winner, Adele’s song “Someone Like You” has the ability to make people cry. The article talks about how the arrangement of the song forces listeners to feel certain emotions. In compliance with this ideal, the Saturday Night Live cast did a sketch in which various members burst into tears upon hearing the song. Essentially, this song makes you feel.

Personally, I attribute the emotions and connections people have to this song with successful rhetoric. Adele’s voice and lyrics, alongside with the composition of the music creates an unconscious argument that persuades listeners; it captures them.

The song uses classic rhetoric techniques by employing ethos, pathos, and logos.  The lyrics elicit pathos as they draw on emotions common to all people. Heartbreak is universal and because of this all people can relate to the song. The emotions of the song become something that the listener can understand. With that, the song also emphasizes ethos. Ethos is often described as the guiding beliefs of a community. Within this mindset, finding love is a form of ethos, and by Adele telling a story of being in love and the troubles within love, the listener understands the ethics in the song. As the listener understands the song, logos is also seen, as the song is a logical progression of emotions. Without being outwardly forward, ethos, pathos, and logos is all subliminally seen.

Adele is not the only artist to tell a story that makes the masses fall in love with it. Rhetoric in music can constantly be seen. Often, in order for songs to be successful, the artist needs to convince the consumers that their song is something they can relate to, thus the song itself has to make a subtle argument. Adele’s work is a primal example of this, winning six Grammys last weekend, proving that many can relate to her music. Simply, she has the crowds convinced, without them even knowing it.  

Lack of Rhetoric at the Super Bowl

To be completely honest, I watch the Super Bowl primarily for the commercials, this past Super Bowl offering up some interesting ones. Juxtapose this with our class discussions of rhetorical commercials and naturally I began to think of such football-influenced ads in the realm of rhetoric.

That being said, a commercial that utilizes rhetoric should convince the viewer of a meaning within the persuasion. Ethos, logos, and pathos are employed to deliver this goal, with the end result of having convinced the viewer to endorse the product.

Yet, while thinking of the commercials with this in mind, one particular commercial seemed to both fail at this and also achieve greatly. With that, we look to David Beckham and his H&M commercial that all my female friends loved, without question.

The commercial succeeded in making the product known, certainly. It was in black and white and the only words heard were within the music playing. This allowed for the product to speak for itself. The entire commercial panned Beckham’s body, only. This was all the rhetoric at work. No ethos. No logos. The only pathos being that of the jealousy and desire people have for David Beckham. 

Essentially it was selling a product for men, to women. I understand that men want to be David Beckham and girlfriends want their boyfriends to look like him, so they might buy the product. But is society so engulfed to not realize the practicality of this. Do we really think that by purchasing underwear, we will become a star soccer player? Is the “rhetoric” of this commercial really working? I hope not.

Still, I’m sure H&M sales have increased. They succeed in that, but to me, society has fallen victim. There is no emotion behind the ad. It shows how “sex sells” and because of this the so-called rhetoric fails.  

140 Characters or Less

This week, as I read through chapter 5 in the Rhetoric and Civil textbook, I came across the idea that rhetoric is utilized in text messaging. If that is true, I began thinking, in what other condensed diction can rhetoric also be found. With that in mind, I looked to Twitter.

Personally, I am an avid Twitter user. This social media outlet has become a way for many Americans to speak directly to the public, while presenting their own thoughts and ideas. That being said, politicians, celebrities, and the average person alike, all use Twitter to present rhetoric - whether they realize it or not. Though the sentences are shortened to fit the "140 characters or less" constraints, a coherent thought is presented, a side to an issue is proposed, and a way of convincing the masses is opened up. 

People have become citizens of the internet and by "tweeting" one's thoughts, rhetoric is shown. Often, tweets are in response to issues in the world today. This ideal represents "kairos," as Twitter allows for advantageous timing and contributing comments to current issues.

The problem, though, is Twitter is a very, very condensed form of speaking. It can be shorter than a well versed text message, thus rhetoric is limited. It allows for one's opinions to be read, but limits the possibility to expand upon them - the effective argument is weakened. Yet, does that mean rhetoric is not in existence on this website? No. I believe, that the act of putting the idea out there for the world to read, presents rhetoric. Strategically responding and reposting the words of others, allows for a basis of an argument to be established. 

Thus Twitter is a rhetoric tool. It's an online debate, as the public is allowed to respond back, something that is encouraged. It allows for ideas to be formed and new thoughts to reach those who don't follow politics or news. The world and its ideas are right at our fingertips.

Yes, Twitter is limited, but it is a growing way to develop an argument. 

I Believe In Handicapped Parking

Redefining Rhetoric

If you ask Google to define the term “rhetoric,” two very different, very interesting definitions arise. The first meaning discusses rhetoric as the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. Right. This one makes sense. This is what rhetoric should be. This is the idea that the founders of such persuasive speaking wanted – rhetoric as an innovative way to convince the masses.  

The second though takes a starkly different approach, defining rhetoric as language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. The last part strikes me the most…“lacking in sincerity or meaningful content,” as if being rhetorical is essentially the same thing as being dishonest.

That, to me, is what is wrong with speeches, and for that matter, all forms of debate, today.

Last night in Jacksonville, Florida, Republicans Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney debated over illegal immigration. In the debate Gingrich discussed a political ad that suggested an anti-immigrant label for Romney. To this Romney said, “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. It’s simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics for too long.”

I find it almost comical that Romney dislikes the way that American politics are being defined by rhetoric, today, when in reality American politics and other such conglomerates are what have redefined rhetoric in the first place.

Why is it that rhetoric today is becoming synonymous with a lack of sincerity or over-the-top tendencies? Those are not the principles in which rhetoric was based on. We, as a society, should move away from this and towards the effective art that is rhetoric. We must stop convincing ourselves that rhetoric means ridiculousness.

We must redefine the term.

Romance and Rhetoric

The ability to persuade or impress an audience by one’s words is a tactful talent. Given this, I’d say that using rhetoric effectively is an art form and is a skill that most people lack…especially here at Penn State.

It seems to me that wherever I go on campus, I can always hear people talking loudly. Students are always arguing or telling stories; always trying to prove a point – always trying to make themselves the hero of their tale. That being said, college students are horrible at speaking their opinions, persuasively. They could use some rhetoric in their lives. Even if it were just to tell a detailed story about their weekend, they could benefit from the gifts of successful persuasion. 

This thought came to me yesterday when waiting in line for food. The boy in front of me was talking, very loudly I might add, to his friend about how he needed to breakup with what was apparently his very “needy” girlfriend. I tried my hardest to mind my own business as the boy began to reason to his friend why he had no choice but to end his relationship with her, but the ridiculousness of his reasoning took hold of me, and annoyed me to the core.  

To put it concisely, he noted that she was Anglo-Saxon. (This fact bothered him an excruciating amount.) She used Ragu when she made pasta, an apparent bad sign. This poor girl also apparently changed him; he was such a nice boy when he met her. He’s awesome, he said. He’s one of kind. She’s not. She’s annoying. She was the reason for his miserable first semester. His choices had nothing to do with it, of course. Just her. This lovely boy also said that he hated spending money on her, because when he did, he was not spending money on himself. Because of her, he’s not dating for the rest of his college career.

What struck me most about his argument was that he said nothing persuasively. He ultimately pointed out her flaws and blamed her for all his misfortune. He made general statements, and never discussed anything further than his initial jab at her. How is that a valid way to discuss something? How is that a valid way to convince the listener?

This style of speaking can be seen in politics today, too. Insult the opponent. Draw attention away from the self. Degrade the other person until the attention is not on you at all. That’s how people often win over the audience, and that’s not right.

I have a problem with this in all regards of society. So, I remark that rhetoric should be instilled in all the masses of the world. Everyone should embark on the journey of proper persuasion and learn the ways of rhetoric - breakups of the world would be a lot less painful if so. 

Welcome!

Welcome to my Rhetoric and Civic Life blog for the Spring 2012 semester.