In his article, How to
Save the Music Business, Paul McGuinness argues against the idea of “free”
music from two main directions – the illegality of piracy and how “free” music
is hurting the music industry. He starts this article with a story about Ernest
Bourget and his great influence in the area of copyright music. After making us
somewhat vulnerable by telling us a story that appeals to our emotion, he
briefly mentions that the sharing of music for “free” is illegal. This is a
minor point. He spends the majority of the time talking about the need for
artists, labeling companies, and recording companies to get paid. In this
piece, you can almost hear McGuinness say, "People that play and compose
music deserve to get paid too, right?" This is an appeal to rational thought. He opens the article by
telling us that Bourget is his hero for all he did in the area of music and
copyright laws. He then spends the rest of the time telling us how he became
just like his hero, fighting the same battles against “free” illegal music and
people making the money they deserve.
Reflection:
While I appreciate the practice writing reading summaries,
writing this summary was by no means easy. I am struggling with putting my thoughts about how
the author is arguing into a good, working summary.
You can click here to view mind map.
In your short reflection there, do you mean rhetorical analyses? Because your mindmap especially is looking at rhetoric. So with that said, I can sense this is NOT easy, nor is it meant to be. IF it was easy, we wouldn't spend 2 and half weeks on it (or 5 weeks in the 16 week version).
ReplyDeleteIf it's hard NOW to put these ideas into "a good, working [analysis]" it would definitely be hard if your first try at this genre was your single first draft (due in week 4) and then tried to retroactively change it to do something more accurate and better, when you got feedback from me and others that basically, your draft is wrong and also, by the way, the final version is due the next day. Not helpful.
This is the reason for all of these practices. Then you have four different early drafts to push on and form into something more complete. So yes, it can take quite a bit of time to work on these drafts, but perhaps you should take the time. Students in a three hour course should realistically devote six hour out of class for every 3 hours of class meeting (this is standard undergraduate work). In summer this is no different, and that breaks down 2 hours of out of class work for every 1 hour of class meeting. http://catalog.iastate.edu/informationaboutcourses/ (i.e. 2 hours a week day devoted to your summer engl250 course).
Summer courses are not easier, and I've not so far pushed you guys to use all that time. This is the unit in which we use that time the most, and you may in fact be using this time that wasn't used last week.
With that said, I want to address your work here, which is showing the author's rhetorical strategies well. You have lots of early information that could realistically form into your first draft of your rhetorical analysis. Your thoughts on the appeals expand (rightly) on the substance (or what may be also called invention) of the piece. Your substance bubble, by itself, doesn't always list the effects McGuinness's rhetorical decisions are having on the audience, but I think you do show that in the appeals bubble. So in that way, they rightly work together (just like Foss suggests that appeals are in the substance or invention category). The next step to expand on that to show why this audience in particular would find those logical appeals persuasive. Is there something about this audience who would find these kinds of proofs convincing? That's how you expand on that.
You do mention that that audience may find the early story of Bourget emotionally moving in some way. I'm not sure about that (but you could definitely expand on that to better make the case); the story may in fact simply show the way a certain artist followed a certain line of logical thought--just like the statement you keep bringing up. "People that play and compose music deserve to get paid too, right?" I think that's dead on.
So in sum, keep thinking about these ideas. Maybe your RR4 could show that kind of focus. You may find for example that delivery, which while helpful in considering to some extent, wouldn't have (for RR4) anything about it that suggests an emotional appeal. Sometimes, especially in some speeches (the way the speaker uses voice or even sheds a tear), it does, though. But for the assigned article, probably not. However, since I won't be working (in class) with the written article, you may consider choosing the speech this time.
Best,
Vincent Robles