Nick Carraway, the narrator in The Great Gatsby, attempts to reach his audience in the first paragraph by using rhetorical strategies. Carraway starts off early by using metaphors; "my own house was an eyesore (page 5)", comparing his house to an eyesore or something that stands out compared to everything around it. Or "frosted wedding cake of the ceiling (page 8)", which compared the ceiling texture to the frosting on a wedding cake. These metaphors allow the reader to connect two objects to one another, the objects that Carraway sees, we don't, so the metaphors help us to visualize. Carraway also uses hyperbole in Chapter One, "I'm paralyzed with happiness (page 8)" even though he isn't exactly paralyzed, he wanted to express his happiness in an extreme measure. Carraway also uses personification as a rhetorical device in chapter one, "the lawn started toward the beach and ran toward the front door... (page 6)" which gives life to the lawn, saying that it physically ran toward the door of the house, which it didn't but it painted a picture of the ocean front home. Carraway also focuses strongly on his syntax in the first chapter. All authors include syntax in their writing, what sets them apart from eachother is the way they use syntax. He uses very many short sentences to create this choppy tone when you read.
Throughout his Jeremiad, How Soccer is Ruining America by Stephen H. Webb, a philosopher uses rhetoric in a strategic process to present his argument. Ironically, he starts his piece by speaking, and presenting facts as if he was against soccer, then goes on to present arguments that people would expect to see if they were reading an article about such a subject. In the first pages, Webb portrays himself as someone who's against soccer, but by the end of his jeremiad, makes it clear that his opinion is the complete opposite.
In the first two pages of How Soccer is Ruining America: A Jeremiad, Webb mimics the arguments of someone that believes the sport of soccer is actually in fact ruining America, but he does so with extreme amounts of detail. Webb introduces all of the negative aspects of soccer, some including: the fact that the sport restricts you to use your feet, a body part that is religiously sacred, the fact that it was brought over by the Europeans, and that it doesn't require or teach any type of skill. Following these details, Webb reveals the truth and although he made those previous arguments, all of his children play the sport, both competitively and as a family activity, and follows that up with the fact that after a full day of soccer, his family always comes home happy. Webb puts himself in the position of his opponents. He attempts to mock the arguments that realistically go against his own beliefs. Through his writing, Webb comes off as irritable to his audience, which is a risky technique, I would say, to address his audience with such a tone. Webb uses specific diction choices to "attack" his audience. The four points he makes, he puts in words that are so ridiculous, it makes it hard to believe that someone would actually believe in such a thing. Authors often don't use topics that could weaken their argument, Webb takes a different approach and takes the topics that could weaken his argument and attacks them head on. More interesting than his actual argument is the fact that he puts all this energy into backing up a claim that he truly doesn't believe in, to only take it apart piece by piece and prove what non-sense it is. It seems strange that such a well educated man would put all his effort into building an argument that opposes the one he's actually trying to make. Webb chooses to see the other sides point of view, and use it to further strengthen his argument, then leaving them with nothing else to build an argument out of. I believe this technique was gone about in a very sly manner, and should be used more often, giving readers both sides of the story. Since a Jeremiad is very opinionated, it gives the reader a chance to take in what the author is dishing out, and give a very strong opinion of their own. https://animoto.com/play/EUMUphTbZMRS2mzaPUPTnQ
Mayor De Blasio of New York City was giving his eulogy for fallen NY police officer Wenjian Liu when many officers viewing turned their backs on him outside of the funeral home. A few months before Liu's service, officer Liu and a few others were accused of murdering a large, african american asthmatic male after putting him in a chokehold because he was refusing to put on handcuffs. This is when De Blasio told his 17 year old bi-racial son that he needed to be cautious when approached by a police officer. There was no issue with De Blasio telling his son this, it was just that fact that he brought it to the attention of the public that enraged some, he should have kept his father duties at home and out of politics. That is until Liu was then 'assasinated' by a male that was previously known to have a mental illness, then fled to a nearby subway station and committed suicide. Mayor De Blasio gave his eulogy speech at Liu's funeral service and stated "Detective Wenjian Liu was a good man. He walked a path of courage, a path of sacrifice, and a path of courage. He uses the strategy of parallelism and anaphora to reach his audience of family and friends of Liu, he refers to Liu's life as a path. Those attending the service could have been touched by De Blasio's speech, but others could say he is a hypocrite and make them dislike him even more than they already do. He spoke all these kind words about Liu at his funeral, but before incident occurred, he was warning his son of people like him. De Blasio has himself in a sticky situation that he needs strategy to get himself out of.
This speech was given on June 16, 1858 in Springfield, Illinois by Abraham Lincoln for the Republican State Convention. Lincoln was chosen to run for the Senate against Democratic candidate Stephen A. Douglas. Although Lincoln did not win the election for Senator, some say this speech did help him become president.
When Lincoln gave his speech " A House Divided," he was addressing an issue that no one had before. Looking back, the United States would not have been able to function if the South was pro slavery, and the North was against slavery because its obvious the slaves would have run to the North to be free, and that wouldn't have helped the South as an economy. Lincoln's speech is divided into three parts; the first part addresses the issue of slavery, the second part addresses the Northern Democratic view on slavery, and the third portion talks about how he is more qualified than Douglas himself. Lincoln uses many rhetorical strategies to capture the attention of the nation. In Lincoln's speech, he states "A house divided against itself shall not stand." When he said this, he was paraphrasing a passage from the Bible, Matthew 12:25; "And Jesus knew their [the Pharisees'] thoughts, and said unto them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." By speaking from the Bible, Lincoln was able to appeal to emotions, or also known as ethos. He hoped to use this well known speech to help people recognize the ongoing debate over slavery. Lincoln also refers to the Union as a "House", which makes it more realistic to people, that their home could perhaps be in danger if the issue over slavery was not resolved. |