4 -- Rhetorical Strategies

Frequently, tales of Rapunzel include typical characters or archetypes such as the distressed damsel, the wicked captor, and the gallant savior striving for freedom. These familiar archetypes add to the genre's essence and lay a basis for investigating dynamics between characters.

4 -- Rhetorical Strategies

Rapunzel as a type of literature often incorporates opposing elements to generate a sense of unease and emphasize important messages. This is shown through the juxtaposition of the cramped tower and the vastness of the world outside, the purity of Rapunzel in contrast with the wickedness of her captor, or even in how her vulnerability transforms into resilience. Vulnerability becoming resilience is perfectly portrayed in this portion here and in many other retellings where Rapunzel's tears are used to heal the prince.

4 -- Rhetorical Structure

The storytelling framework for Rapunzel narratives is often predictable, with a standard narrative structure comprising of an initial period of imprisonment followed by the appearance of either a prince or another character seeking liberation. The climax comes with overcoming obstacles to achieve ultimate victory. This model offers an overarching design for the genre and its characteristic rhetorical effects.

4 -- Analyze Rhetoric

An indispensable aspect of fairy tale storytelling is the conspicuous tower in which Rapunzel is held captive. Its iconography and allegorical significance- evoking separation, desire, and an unwavering aspiration towards autonomy-remains specific to the story and genre of Rapunzel.

Very circumspect way of putting this.

Often a chapter ends with a rhetorical and formulaic address to the reader, now doubt a feature of older British fiction. This one is a bit humorous. What can Python tell us about these passages' typical length and how they create rhythm, "intonation," and simulated interaction in a chapter ? How is this rhetorical address now repurposed to get readers interested in the new genre of detective fiction? is the reader somehow changing into one of the characters?

Rhetorical questions asking what the future generations will think of them, and how will they be remembered. Will they have a legacy of being indifferent or helping others.

Rhetorical Question

Four consecutive rhetorical questions.

Anaphora using "Let...(to)"

Anaphora is a rhetorical device that features repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive sentences, phrases, or clauses. Anaphora works as a literary device to allow writers to convey, emphasize, and reinforce meaning.

Source: https://literarydevices.net/anaphora/

This entire preface to the introduction acts as an abstract to the article, giving the purpose as to why the research was conducted. The reason for research was to examine whether congressional staff recognize the preferences of their members.

Classic understatement as rhetorical..

The author is asking a rhetorical question and answering it immediately. He is doing this not only to clear one of the audience's questions regarding the consequences of Texas situations, but also to make the government officials more guilty for leaving Texas in this situation.

This is lalala...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_mH9hgPO2Q

I can't remember who said this (maybe Stephen King?), but they described writing as a form of telepathy for exactly this reason: transferring ideas from one person to another. This idea is dramatized in Black Robe, a film about Jesuit missionaries in Canada during the 17th century. Worth a watch.

Agreed. While most of the other texts/excerpts can stand alone to have the reader make of it what they will, I feel that these plates alone don't convey enough sense of their context or significance.

No wonder Whately preferred Sheridan.

It's often more than just the words themselves or the way they are delivered that make such a difference, though. The first example that came to mind is Thersites's and Achilles's speeches in Book 2 of The Illiad, where Thersites (a lowly, uncouth, and ugly soldier) says essentially the same speech (in mostly the same words) as Achilles--one is well received and the other is not, but the difference wasn't strictly in charm.

Here Astell seems to be saying that if her audience is prejudiced against her, has already set in their minds that her task is impossible, then she'll get nowhere. Nice insight into the nature of the audience and their receptivity. Sometimes a fight is lost before it's ever begun, though that doesn't mean to stop trying. There's always another audience, one brought on by another exigence, context, or cultural technique (although below, she seems to be insisting that there's some kernel of perwasive opportunity left to her, can she but root it out).

Interesting call for the reader to put themselves into this perspective, to immerse themselves in this context; the following list is a map of the journey she plans on taking the reader through with her orations, the diversity of which illustrate the breadth and scope of rhetoric and persuasion.

What is, "another definition of rhetoric?"

This wording makes it seem as though persuasion and rhetorical persuasion is a graceful act.

Instead of a tool, could rhetoric ever be seen as a lens in which to view or interpret other technologies?

Ethos, Logos, Pathos, Numus($)

The "time" represented by Aion is unbounded, in contrast to Chronos as empirical time divided into past, present, and future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_(deity)

Unlike both Aion or Chronos, kairos is a particular moment of time, a timely or opportune moment. It is situated in a particular context or need (a rhetorical situation).

Cf. Biesecker's "Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of Difference"

Rhetorical context shapes meaning, much like context shapes rhetorics.

Noting

I am reminded of Lloyd Bitzer's Rhetorical Situation.

https://commstudies.utexas.edu/research/rhetorical-tradition

Muckelbauer again uses the term "divergent." although here, I believe the author is suggesting that rhetoric can be used as a tool to find similarities between differing subjects or areas.

Muckelbauer's language use and word choice here is similar to Lanham describing rhetoric as a cosmetic.

Here, is the author suggesting that the different forms or structures of rhetoric compete or can be at odds with each another?

This is one aspect of the exigence of this piece (re: Casey Boyle's "Step One: Exigence"). What are some of the other nuances of that exigence?

http://caseyboyle.net/2016/01/16/something-like-a-reading-ethics/

The author utilized rhetorical questions to arouse interest of his readers, to make them think deeply with his idea and stand by his argument at the same time. With these three questions, audience will pay more attention in this article and have more interest to continue reading. Thus, the tool that the author employed is a good example which is worth to be used in our own essay.

Amazing!

Rhetorical Reading

Is this still present today. Witness this essay

This language is ripe for studying.

"Meaning is related to context."

This sounds a lot like Edbauer--everything bleeds into each other to create an ever-expanding, active rhetorical situation.

Hypothesis was not cooperating with me, but I was trying to highlight "perceives" because I think this word complicates his idea of rhetorical situations. The criticism from Vatz is that he denies the rhetor's agency and gives the situation too much power over rhetoric, but this instance does seem to suggest some sort of agency on the part of the rhetor.

This is obviously key, but I feel like some examples would help.

Can we think up some good examples of this difference?

I suspect it's the difference between situational factors which are not directly relevant/impactful to the rhetoric (such as whether the speech was delivered on a Wednesday, whether there was a light rain the night before, the size of the room in which the rhetor is speaking) and the factors which contribute to some urgency that demands a rhetorical response (recent political actions, a sudden death, impending threats from an outside force, etc.)

I like this example; the moment was so urgent that it demanded a rhetorical response, but a particular kind of rhetorical response that could be predicted before it was ever written out. It could be predicted so easily that hundreds of reporters performed it almost at once. There are certain types of rhetorical performances that we expect, and certain people from whom we expect those responses, to the point that they become comforting and predictable, regardless of the drama of the context:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ou1RG38Pc

This is of course easier said than done. I think this video is an interesting experiment of this idea in action, though. It includes 40 "inspirational moments" from different films. In context, each is the climax of the film, and is meant to be a persuasive rhetorical moment, but pulled from their contexts and strung together, many of the moments lose their emotional impact unless perhaps you are already so familiar with that particular film that the context floods back to you all at once:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wRkzCW5qI

What implications does this have for all the weeks we were worrying about a hostile audience? If you can't address that problem, then why go through such lengths? What has this all been about?

This is particularly evident when examining American policies aimed at "civilizing" native peoples and remaking tribal worlds in the image of America (and by extension, England and Western civilization). A central piece of the violence the American government perpetrated against Native peoples of North America was forcing them to abandon their own languages in favor of English. In other words, "taming" the native populations of North America inherently involved the "taming" of a "wild tongue."

Not to belittle anything that people did for rhetoric during the 20th century, but weren't these the same ideas present in rhetorical form during the height of the Greek philosophers? Is the difference in the theory rather than the practice?

It reminds me of earlier point Raj made about the difference between rediscovery and reinventing; was this the rediscovery aspect?

There are two sets of oxymorons here. What are their effects?

This is an interesting moment as we think the rhetorical tradition as a series of annotations, and as we recognize our own historical embeddedness.

This section is jumping out at me this time around. Keep it mind later on when we turn to discuss the elements of the rhetorical situation. Campbell opens up for discussing the material dimensions of rhetoric: not simply rhetoric as the discursive activity of humans, but as an emergent aspect of human and nonhuman relations. Also, recall here Rickert on the role of the caves themselves in the making of cave art.

Note how the brackets are used for editorial clarification; to make the quote make sense.

Again, note the use of parentheticals here.

Note the use of the parentheticals here to further clarify the author's point.

Note how Scott uses/introduces another thinker's (in this case Brecht's) terminology.

Note how Scott restates her point here; clarification is always important.

Obama uses a rhetorical question here to show the stark difference between the present and the 1950s in America. He calls people to reflect on the past and therefore to draw conclusions about the progress and change that has occurred since then. By reflecting on the past, he calls his audience to consider the future. He uses this strategy to engage his audience and invite them to participate.

Bitzer="discovers" exigence. Vatz="created" exigence.

a nice summation of work on chora and choric invention. I wonder, though, how mobility might be added to this list. Thomas Rickert makes an interesting case for the ongoing attunement to ambient environments via a choric mode of thinking.

A rhetorical question to which the answer is clearly "No!" But phrasing it as a question forces the audience to momentarily consider the truth of the statement and thus more emphatically agree with Obama's alternative statement that follows.

A rhetorical question to which the answer is clearly "No!" But phrasing it as a question forces the audience to momentarily consider the truth of the statement and thus more emphatically agree with Obama's alternative statement that follows.