Context:
It appears that this book was published to give students at
the University of Colorado and students around the United States a better
understanding of Rhetorical Criticism and analysis. The immediate context for
the book would have been the students of the University of Colorado. In
addition to these students, other rhetoricians in training would be a greater
and broader context.
Style:
Sonja Foss very much styled the chapter of her book, "Neo-Aristotelian Criticism," like an
Essay while at the same time incorporating an outline type format that allowed
her readers to take notes and understand each individual topic. This was very
helpful in her explanation and easy to follow.
Delivery:
Foss used paper to reach her audience by publishing this
chapter in her book on Rhetorical
Criticism. This was most likely the best way to reach her audience being
that she was seeking to reach students and those that wanted to learn
rhetorical analysis and criticism. It appears that she was an academic and thus
chose the most effective means of reaching her audience, the students.
Substance:
The chapter of Sonja Foss’ book on rhetorical criticism was
very helpful. She was very effective in telling us how to analyze data and
material and following up her explanation with an example. Not only did I feel
that I could understand the mindset of Suddam Hussein’s war rhetoric, but it
was helpful to see the material broken down in the same way as we have been
being taught in class. Foss taught the material by rule or suggestions of how
to think about rhetorical material and later gave an example of how to follow
those guidelines.
Organization:
Foss introduces neo-Aristotelian criticism. However, she
explains that Herbert A. Whichelns “detailed
the central features of neo-Aristotelian method by giving topics that must be
discussed when analyzing something rhetorically. These topics fall into general
analytical thought – style, substance, memory, invention, and delivery. To
Whichelns and to Foss these elements make up well rounded rhetorically analyzed
data. Foss then goes through the history of neo-Aristotelian Criticism, and represents
both sides by giving views of critics of neo-Aristotelian Criticism as well as
supporters of it. She then goes through every point of good rhetorical analysis
that one should consider – style, substance, organization, memory, invention
and delivery – by explaining them in detail. After this detailed explanation of
how to analyze material rhetorically, she provides the reader with a piece by
Gary W. Brown in which he rhetorically analyzes Suddam Hussein’s war rhetoric.
Foss does this to help solidify the concepts she just taught.
Summary:
Foss was very effective in arguing neo-Aristotelian
criticism. By using history to support the use of this type of rhetorical analysis,
Foss shows that this is not something she just came up with, but rather the
history validates her use of neo-Aristotelian Criticism. She then, as a
teacher, explains how an individual implements this type of rhetorical analysis
by going through each point carefully explaining each one. In conclusion, she
gives a well, written example by Gary Brown on how to implement
neo-Aristotelian Criticism. By doing this, she gives an example of what she
taught us to help us better understand the topic. This was very helpful for
convincing us that neo-Aristotelian Criticism is effective and useful.
Yes, you did the wrong piece. But at least you're applying the same lenses here, which is good. At many points you use adjectives (good, effective, well-written, helpful, useful) or adverbs (very) that may at times be used as crutches or replacements for examples of the text. It's telling and not showing us that it's good, effective, well-written, or helpful. You don't do this in every place. At many points, you're showing us, but as you move toward your draft of the rhetorical analysis, you want do much more showing rather than telling of HOW the piece is persuasive.
ReplyDelete