The title seems not to tell audiences that you're doing analysis of rhetoric. One could think that you yourself intend to answer the question posed. A more specific title should communicate to audiences what they're getting into.
Why are the sections out of order from the recommended version? Mostly the order is inconsequential (for example, it's not a big deal that you place style before substance), but the audience near the end? Why? I can imagine your audiences would appreciate knowing that first so that all the other analytical points stick to something in particular--the targeted audience. I'm not sure the significance of the word "Issue" for a title, and this is relatively vague anyway. Also, get rid of colons after headings. The visual principles of color, size, hierarchy, and proximity communicate to audiences what that colon is also trying to communicate. Generally in technical documents as well, colons have gone out of practice in the manner you've used them. Colons only apply when you have a complete sentence like this one and the following one:
My comments address each section as follows:
Introduction You introduction rightly summarizes Katz's argument, but no thesis of your own, no roadmap, and no leading comment toward your recommendations section keeps this introduction from being more effective.
Context You speak of the author correctly and precisely, and you discuss the intended audience very well also (though placing this near the end is again questionable). But what about the occasion. Perhaps members of this group should study Foss's discussion of that component of complete rhetorical analyses. Yes the analysis portion has negotiable points to include or exclude, but the occasion of this speech (the culture/history surrounding it) is important for rhetorical analysis, whatever points you later include or exclude. Though you mention that somewhat in your closing sentences, it gets buried there, and I think knowing this upfront would give your audience more context to nail this analysis to.
Substance Accurate points, but it's not complete. Why no examples of places in the speech where "explains his position as an ethical problem and supports it with an emotional appeal"? You use one example to support your assertion that he's targeting both audiences (male and female) by his use of sources. good! But no example for how he appeals to emotion? Like a geometrical proof, audiences want to see how you arrived at the conclusions you state. So show your reasoning (what I used to hear as "show your work").
Organization Good work showing how the problem solution format is used in a way to engage and not offend both intended audiences. This was well done here. Good focus.
Style Very well done. Talking about "apologetic" style, expanding on that to talk about defense, and his use of inclusive pronouns is very smart. But use a more direct term for what you say he does in your second paragraph of this section. He calls them "protectors of women" you say. perhaps there's room here to talk about his use of metaphors. Something else like that would give this section (since you chose to discuss it) more substance and development. Again not a big deal to include this first, but why do so? Audiences of yours familiar with the rhetorical canon might wonder this.
Conclusion Since it's last and broader than your analysis, I'm going to assume that this "Issue" section is your closing statements. It's good that (if your essay was in the shape of something) you format your analysis like an an hour-glass (broad-->narrow analysis-->broad again), but you repeat yourself by restating (like another summary) what Katz said. If you're trying to point how important this speech is, then good, but it's not clear how that fits with what you just showed us in your analysis. This section in a rhetorical analysis can definitely comment on the speech's content and it's relationship to important issues, but it should do so from a certain perspective. It should talk about the speech IN TERMS OF rhetoric. That is, after analyzing this speech, what does it show about how we should make arguments when talking about male abuse? Well, if you believe this, than your Katz artifact is a good example for how people should make arguments about this. For example, you include that in your second paragraph of your "issue" section, but it doesn't sound like it's functioning the way I'm talking about here. It needs more "framing" to make it sound like that. So adding some framing to what you have here's what I'd add:
[Policymakers and activists should take note of how Katz argues.]
He argues that when men sit back and stay silent is a form of consent and suggests that part of the solution is men breaking the silence and stepping up in their role as leaders and protectors of the women and children. When women speak out about these issues they are called “male bashers” and “male haters” and their message goes unheard. He declares that we need more courageous men, walking in moral integrity, who are willing to speak out and stand up for what is right.
[By paying attention of how current arguments overly focus on the role women have in their abuse, he positions better argumentation as that which acknowledges the roles both genders play in this important issue. By using a professional two-sided tone, by organizing his speech as a clear problem that needs a solution where both audiences could be met, and by acknowledging that this is a emotionally-charged issue, Katz successfully argues within this controversy.]
Benjamin D., Ben H. Kinze G., Katey S.
ReplyDeleteThe title seems not to tell audiences that you're doing analysis of rhetoric. One could think that you yourself intend to answer the question posed. A more specific title should communicate to audiences what they're getting into.
Why are the sections out of order from the recommended version? Mostly the order is inconsequential (for example, it's not a big deal that you place style before substance), but the audience near the end? Why? I can imagine your audiences would appreciate knowing that first so that all the other analytical points stick to something in particular--the targeted audience. I'm not sure the significance of the word "Issue" for a title, and this is relatively vague anyway. Also, get rid of colons after headings. The visual principles of color, size, hierarchy, and proximity communicate to audiences what that colon is also trying to communicate. Generally in technical documents as well, colons have gone out of practice in the manner you've used them. Colons only apply when you have a complete sentence like this one and the following one:
My comments address each section as follows:
Introduction
You introduction rightly summarizes Katz's argument, but no thesis of your own, no roadmap, and no leading comment toward your recommendations section keeps this introduction from being more effective.
Context
You speak of the author correctly and precisely, and you discuss the intended audience very well also (though placing this near the end is again questionable). But what about the occasion. Perhaps members of this group should study Foss's discussion of that component of complete rhetorical analyses. Yes the analysis portion has negotiable points to include or exclude, but the occasion of this speech (the culture/history surrounding it) is important for rhetorical analysis, whatever points you later include or exclude. Though you mention that somewhat in your closing sentences, it gets buried there, and I think knowing this upfront would give your audience more context to nail this analysis to.
Substance
ReplyDeleteAccurate points, but it's not complete. Why no examples of places in the speech where "explains his position as an ethical problem and supports it with an emotional appeal"? You use one example to support your assertion that he's targeting both audiences (male and female) by his use of sources. good! But no example for how he appeals to emotion? Like a geometrical proof, audiences want to see how you arrived at the conclusions you state. So show your reasoning (what I used to hear as "show your work").
Organization
Good work showing how the problem solution format is used in a way to engage and not offend both intended audiences. This was well done here. Good focus.
Style
Very well done. Talking about "apologetic" style, expanding on that to talk about defense, and his use of inclusive pronouns is very smart. But use a more direct term for what you say he does in your second paragraph of this section. He calls them "protectors of women" you say. perhaps there's room here to talk about his use of metaphors. Something else like that would give this section (since you chose to discuss it) more substance and development. Again not a big deal to include this first, but why do so? Audiences of yours familiar with the rhetorical canon might wonder this.
Conclusion
Since it's last and broader than your analysis, I'm going to assume that this "Issue" section is your closing statements. It's good that (if your essay was in the shape of something) you format your analysis like an an hour-glass (broad-->narrow analysis-->broad again), but you repeat yourself by restating (like another summary) what Katz said. If you're trying to point how important this speech is, then good, but it's not clear how that fits with what you just showed us in your analysis. This section in a rhetorical analysis can definitely comment on the speech's content and it's relationship to important issues, but it should do so from a certain perspective. It should talk about the speech IN TERMS OF rhetoric. That is, after analyzing this speech, what does it show about how we should make arguments when talking about male abuse? Well, if you believe this, than your Katz artifact is a good example for how people should make arguments about this. For example, you include that in your second paragraph of your "issue" section, but it doesn't sound like it's functioning the way I'm talking about here. It needs more "framing" to make it sound like that. So adding some framing to what you have here's what I'd add:
[Policymakers and activists should take note of how Katz argues.]
He argues that when men sit back and stay silent is a form of consent and suggests that part of the solution is men breaking the silence and stepping up in their role as leaders and protectors of the women and children. When women speak out about these issues they are called “male bashers” and “male haters” and their message goes unheard. He declares that we need more courageous men, walking in moral integrity, who are willing to speak out and stand up for what is right.
[By paying attention of how current arguments overly focus on the role women have in their abuse, he positions better argumentation as that which acknowledges the roles both genders play in this important issue. By using a professional two-sided tone, by organizing his speech as a clear problem that needs a solution where both audiences could be met, and by acknowledging that this is a emotionally-charged issue, Katz successfully argues within this controversy.]