Principles of Rhetoric Syllabus 2013

RHE 321 • Principles Of Rhetoric
44810 • Roberts-Miller, Patricia
Meets MWF 1100am-1200pm PAR 304
Office Hours: W 1:30-3:00; F 1:30-4:00, and by appointment
Parlin 21 (Basement of Parlin)
471-8378 redball@mindspring.com
Microthemes should be sent to: redball@mindspring.com
http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller
To access UT webspace: https://webspace.utexas.edu/xythoswfs/webui
(If you don’t know about webspace, ask in class.)

COURSE GOALS

At the end of the term, students should have improved their ability to

1. write a “theory/application” paper;
2. write an effective and responsible interpretive argument;
3. support interpretive claims with close rhetorical analysis;
4. apply major concepts in rhetorical analysis;
5. manage rhetorical issues of foreground and background in their own writing.

This course is intended for rhetoric majors, as a bridge course between the first and second year courses (such as 306 and 309) and the upper division major courses. It is not a good choice for students simply looking for an upper division writing flag. If you want to learn a lot more about writing and rhetorical analysis, and don’t need the course, you might think about taking it pass/not pass. Students generally recommend that you not take two courses with me in the same semester (since the papers in both classes are due on the same day).

This is a demanding course; make sure you read the advice to students from other students. Also, read the assignment prompts—you may find that you have no interest in the paper topics. If you decide to drop the class, please formally drop the class ASAP, as there are other students waiting to add it.

Because rhetorical analysis is harder when you’re in the intended audience, I’ve emphasized texts for which you are not the audience. I’ve selected a lot of texts that are initially surprising—that will strike you as offensive, stupid, and possibly even insane, but that were (or even are) seen as persuasive and effective by some audience. A large part of the point of rhetorical analysis is to be able to understand those situations, ideally so that you can learn how to explain to someone who finds such texts “effective” what is wrong with them. So, be forewarned: some of the reading will make you want to scream.

REQUIRED BOOKS

Jasinski, Sourcebook on Rhetoric

Available in e-book form from the UT Library (make sure you understand my instructions as to how to find it in the catalog—it’s oddly complicated)

Coursepack at Jenn’s

COURSE GRADING

PAPER 1.3 = 20%
PAPER 2.1 = 10%
PAPER 2.2 = 20%
PAPER 3.1 = 10%
PAPER 3.2 = 20%
MICROTHEMES =10% (up to 10.2)
QUIZ =10%

If you do not turn in a good faith first version of a paper (1.1, 2.1, or 3.1) on time, you may not revise the paper. (“Good faith” is defined later in this material—a “good faith” first submission is not the same as a draft.) Furthermore, you will receive a 0 (which is below an ‘F’) on that paper, so 30% of your final grade will be 0. Thus, if you fail to turn in 1.1, 2.1, or 3.1 on time without having gotten an extension from me ahead of time, expect a note from me telling you to drop the class.

If a single piece of student work violates the academic honor policy, including microthemes or drafts, you will receive an ‘F’ in the course, and there may be additional penalties.

Getting a “No Grade” is not the same as getting a 0. A “No Grade” on a paper does NOT mean ‘F’ or ‘0.’ It’s a grade I use under certain circumstances (especially paper 1.1) to mean that the paper will not count toward the final grade, and the majority of the class usually gets a “No Grade” on 1.1; quite a few get it on 1.2 as well.

Students do badly in my classes for one of two reasons: they just don’t have (or don’t take) the time; they don’t pay attention to the instructions in the course material (particularly the details and warnings in the assignment prompts). You need to read this material carefully, and repeatedly. If you don’t have time for the course, including time to go to the Writing Center, come to student conferences, and meet with other students, this is a bad section for you to take.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

PAPERS. There will be three major paper projects. For each project, you’ll submit two versions (a third one for the first paper) each of which is graded as though it were the final submission. Hence, don’t look on that first submission as a draft–it isn’t graded as one. Papers are typically between eight and 25 pages, with most of the ones getting a B or better falling in the 8-12 page range. There are 8-12 page papers that get very low grades. Every paper requires research using scholarly sources (and neither general interest encyclopedias nor dictionaries count as scholarly sources.)

You have what rhetorical theorists call a “composite audience” for your papers. You have to write to two sorts of readers—other members of class who are familiar with your primary texts and have an alternative interpretation (an intelligent and informed opposition reader), and other members of class who are not familiar with your primary text. Writing to such an audience (not to me) means that you are not just announcing and supporting your position, but that you are trying to move someone who disagrees with you (the informed intelligent opposition) and explain the text well enough that someone unfamiliar with it can understand.

If there is no reasonable opposition, or intelligent alternative interpretation, then you don’t really have an argument—you probably just have summary. (You should be able to phrase your argument as “At first glance, it might look like this, but when you look more closely you see that.”)

You will submit each paper twice, but the first submission is not a draft. You must turn in a good faith first submission on time in order to have the opportunity to revise the paper (unless you have received an extension from me ahead of time). In other words, if you do not turn in a good faith effort at a first submission on time, you will receive a 0 for 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 or 2.1 and 2.2, and so on.

Every semester, at least one student misunderstands why I insist on a full submission and not a draft, so I’ll try to be clear–you learn an extraordinary amount about writing by coming to see how much it is possible to improve a paper that you thought was perfect. Thus, the first submission of the paper should be one that you think is the best that you can do. Every once in a while, students turn in a nearly perfect first submission, in which case, the next two weeks are very sweet for them. For most students and most of the time, however, there is a lot of work between the first and second submission. So, don’t make the mistake of making minimal revisions between versions and expecting major grade changes: minimal changes to the paper will earn minimal changes to the grade. (For the most part, minimal revisions are what are called “lexical”–when the writer changes words and phrases here and there. Major revisions usually require dropping and adding entire sections and often require additional research.)

Make sure to include a Works Cited and Works Consulted on any paper for which you use outside sources (which should be every one). While you should not use a general interest encyclopedia or dictionary for your Works Cited, they’re find in the Works Consulted. Use MLA or APA citation method (which may not be what you have learned or what you use in other classes). For every assertion that is not common knowledge—or, in other words, that you learned in the course of doing the research for the paper—you need to give a citation. That includes information from the introductory material, from class, from google searches, from friends or consultants. (If you do secondary research on the microthemes, you need to tell me where you got your information.)

MICROTHEMES. A microtheme is a short piece of writing (usually 200-500 words is plenty) graded primarily on effort. You will get almost no feedback from me on them—they are “writing to learn.” You will hear back if you get a checkplus, plus, or checkminus, not if you get a check or minus. If you’re nervous about the lack of feedback, use a “return receipt” for the email.

I am not asking you for a formal essay, but for your reaction to the text, and for you to try out the concepts. The class calendar gives you prompts, but you should understand those are questions to pursue in addition to your posing questions. That is, you are always welcome to write about your reaction to the reading (if you liked or disliked it, agreed or disagreed, would like to read more things like it). Students find the microthemes most productive if you use the microtheme to pose any questions you have–whether for me, or for the other students. They’re crucial for me for class preparation. So, for instance, you might ask what a certain word, phrase, or passage from the reading means, or who some of the names are that the author drops, or what the historical references are. Or, you might pose an abstract question on which you’d like class discussion to focus. I’m using these to try to get a sense whether students understand the rhetorical concepts, so if you don’t, just say so.

Generally, what happens is that you read the Jasinski (or whatever explains the rhetorical concept) and it pretty much makes sense. If it doesn’t, or if there are parts that don’t, then ask about them in the microtheme. Then, when you try to apply to concept to the primary, your understanding will get muddled and you’ll get confused. That’s my goal. So, be open about what doesn’t make sense, or how the concept only sort of applies, or it could apply in various ways, or you don’t see it applying at all.

You get – (minus) if you send me an email saying you didn’t do the reading; you get some points for that and none for not turning one in at all. So failure to do a bunch of the microthemes will bring your overall grade down. If you do all the microthemes, and do a few of them well, you can bring your overall grade up. (Note that it is mathematically possible to get more than 100% on the microthemes—that’s why I don’t accept late microthemes; you can “make up” a microtheme by doing especially well on another few.)

Microthemes are very useful for letting me know where students stand on the reading–what your thinking is, what is confusing you, and what material might need more explanation in class (that’s why they’re due before class). In addition, students often discover possible paper topics in the course of writing the microthemes. Most important, good microthemes lead to good class discussions. That means that you won’t always get them back (I start to feel really guilty about all the paper I’m using); the default “grade” is √, except for ones in which you say that didn’t do the reading. (So, if you don’t get it back, and it wasn’t one saying you hadn’t done the reading, assume it got a √.)

If you get a plus or check plus (or a check minus because of lack of effort), I’ll send you email back to that effect. (I won’t send email back if it’s a minus because you said you didn’t do the reading—I assume you know what the microtheme got.) If you’re uncomfortable getting your “grade” back in email, that’s perfectly fine—just let me know. You’ll have to come to office hours to get your microtheme grade.

The microthemes should be sent to redball@mindspring.com. If you lose your internet connection and can’t email it, then send a text to that effect by the class time, and bring a hard copy to class.

There are five possible “grades” for the microthemes:

“grade” | points | explanation

+ | 6 | I give this for an extraordinarily good microtheme, one that demonstrates a clear understanding of the concept and applies it in an insightful way. These are very rare.

√+ | 5 | I give this for a microtheme that demonstrates a strong attempt to connect the concept to the text with some close analysis. This doesn’t mean you were right.

√ | 4 | I give this for a good faith effort at the prompt. Getting a √ doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve appropriately described or applied the concept. Note that if you get a √ on every microtheme, you will have over 100% for that portion of the grade.

√- | 3 | I give this for something that was minimal effort.. If you get a √- on every microtheme, you will get 75% on the microtheme grade.

– | 2 | A microtheme that was on time, and says that you didn’t do the reading or you didn’t do the microtheme. Notice that this will get you 50%.

0 | 0 | No microtheme, or one that is cut and pasted from another source (which might get you an ‘F’ in the class). Note that 0 is below 50%, so a low microtheme grade can bring down your overall grade substantially.

Please, do not send your microthemes to me as email attachments–just cut and paste them into a message. Cutting and pasting them from Word into the email means that they’ll have weird symbols and look pretty messy, but, as long as I can figure out what you’re saying, I don’t really worry about that on the microthemes. (I do worry about it on the major projects, though.) Also, please make sure to keep a copy for yourself. Either ensure that you save outgoing mail, or that you cc yourself any microtheme you send me (but don’t bcc yourself, or your microtheme will end up in my spam folder). Please put “microtheme” in the subject line. I can’t accept microthemes late (for obvious reasons); if you have computer problems, let me know. (Also, you can set your mail so that you get a receipt when I open your mail.) Please put “microtheme” in the subject line.

You’ll rarely hear back from me on them (although I’ll talk about them in class); they’re “writing to learn” and so the important aspect is what you learn in the course of writing them. You should assume that you got a check unless you sent one that said you didn’t do the reading or you hear back from me.

If you get a check-plus or plus on a microtheme, print it up (the email from me saying that it’s a check plus) and make sure to put it in your folder so you can get the credit. You are responsible for keeping track of your microtheme grade. If you get a + or √+, I’ll either pass hard copies out in class or send you email back to that effect (unless you feel that that is sending you grades in email; if you do, just let me know). In addition to using the microthemes for class preparation, I find them really helpful for noticing recurrent issues in your writing, and I also use them for letters of recommendation.

LATE PAPERS. I have a stringent (even Draconian) late paper policy for two reasons. First, our schedule is packed, and getting thrown off even slightly will make both our lives miserable. Second, in my experience, students have trouble completing the work in a writing class because they’ve mis-defined the task. If I get involved, I can help. So, papers and work are due at the beginning of class. They will be dropped one-third grade if they are turned in during class, and a full grade for every day late unless you contact me ahead of time. If you do contact me ahead of time (which includes sending email any time before class starts), then the late paper policy will apply to whatever the extension is.

In addition, if you turn a paper in late (even with an extension), chances are that you will not get it back before the next submission is due, and you may not be able to have a student conference.

ATTENDANCE. When I first started teaching, I distinguished between excused and unexcused absences, and I found myself getting entangled in all sorts of ways. More important, I discovered that, even with the best of intentions, students just couldn’t make up the work–students who missed a lot of class did poorly. Poor attendance and poor grades are probably associated in this kind of class because one cannot “make up” the class work (in the way that one can with a lecture course).

Thus, I don’t distinguish between “excused” and “unexcused” absences. It is none of my business why you miss class. It is your business to contact me ahead of time if there is any work due on the day you miss (the late paper policy applies whether or not you are present in class), and also your business to find out from other students what happened in class.

In short, official DRW policy is that if you miss over six classes, you will receive an ‘F’ in the course. If there are medical reasons for your absences, please talk to me so that we can arrange a medical withdrawal. If you miss close to six classes, you can expect that it will negatively affect your grade–not because I will punitively lower your grade, but just because you will have missed the discussions and information that would help you write better papers and exam answers.

In addition, coming to class more than ten minutes late, leaving class more than ten minutes early, or engaging in egregious forms of mental non-attendance (sleeping, not paying attention) constitute absences.

Finally, I don’t want to have a tardy policy, but I will mention that students who continually show up a few minutes late also tend to do poorly in writing courses. My personal crank hypothesis is that students do poorly because important announcements are made in those first few minutes, so those students keep missing important information. It’s also very rude to your classmates to show up late (as there’s always a disruption when someone comes in late). So, please show up on time. If there is some reason that you have trouble getting to class on time (e.g., a physical disability that slows you down, a prof who tends to keep you late), please, please let me know. If you have an issue with getting to class late, or with attendance, I will not write a letter of recommendation for you.

I’m sorry to have to do it, but I have to ban laptops, iphones, and all such devices. I’ve had too many students who spent their class time facebooking, texting, working on things for other classes, or generally not paying attention who then came to my office hours because they were lost in class (or complained in teaching evaluations that I hadn’t explained things). Also, those technologies distract students behind you (which is one of the ways that teachers know when you’re messing around and not just taking notes).

Just as a general piece of advice, don’t underestimate the intelligence of your teachers. If you are really struggling in a class, and you look like you’re paying attention, most teachers will try to work with you as best they can. But you can imagine that it’s a little weird if a student doesn’t pay attention in class and then wants all sorts of extra time outside of class.

RECORDING CLASS. You are not allowed to audio or video record the class without my written permission. I generally don’t give that permission unless it is necessary for an ADA accommodation. Students are more hesitant to participate in class discussion if it’s being recording, so it has a chilling effect on class discussion.

OFFICE HOURS. Office hours are your time–you can come by just to chat about the class, talk about things only minimally related to the class, go over course material that’s especially interesting or confusing, brainstorm your papers, go over paper comments, or even just shoot the breeze. Students sometimes come to me for help on writing statements of purpose, appeal letters, or papers for other courses–that’s fine (and you’re welcome to do that long after you take a course from me). Some students prefer to get help through email, which is perfectly fine by me (and can be especially convenient on weekends), but I can’t guarantee I’ll get back to you immediately.

You will be required to have one conference with me, and I strongly recommend more than that. (One class day is canceled, so I’m not requiring additional time from you.)

PLAGIARISM. Plagiarism is the unattributed borrowing of ideas or language. It does not matter if the original source is a published book or article, something from the web, something written (or told to you) by a student, or even work for another course. Changing a few words here and there does not solve the problem–correctly citing the source does. Any plagiarized coursework will receive a 0 (that is below an ‘F’). Even a single instance of plagiarism may result in an ‘F’ in the course.

There’s a handout in the coursepack on plagiarism, and most handbooks have good explanations of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it. But, if you ever have any questions about how to cite, or if you are concerned that you have a borderline situation, just put a note in the margin of your paper saying that you are unsure.

Part of what I hope you will learn in this course is that citation of your sources is not something one does to please obsessive teachers, but a basic ethical responsibility of anyone participating in public discourse. You should always try to be clear where you have gotten your information from, and you should always insist that others tell you where they got their information from. And you should know how to judge the basic credibility of those sources.

DISABILITY STATEMENT. Students With Disabilities: The University of Texas at Austin provides upon request appropriate academic adjustments for qualified students with disabilities. For more information, contact the Office of the Dean of Students at 471-6259, 471-4641 TDD. If you have a disability, please let me know immediately, so that we can make appropriate accommodations.

If you have a disability that is temporary, or not quite in the realm of ADA recognized (e.g., you sprain an ankle, and are having trouble getting to class on time, or you need to be near the board to read it), let me know, and we can easily work something out.

EMAIL NOTIFICATION. The official policy of UT is:

Electronic mail (e-mail), like postal mail, is a mechanism for official University communication to students. The University will exercise the right to send e-mail communications to all students, and the University will expect that e-mail communications will be received and read in a timely manner.

UT uses whatever email you have listed on your UT Direct page, so make sure to keep that updated. Blackboard will send notices to that address, so, if your email address is incorrect, you won’t get notices when I clarify or change assignments.

Remember that UT retired the “mail.utexas.edu” server, so if you’ve been using that for UT notices, all that mail is bouncing.

CLASS CALENDAR. Following is the preliminary class calendar–as I learn more about your interests, strengths, and needs, I’ll make some changes to the reading. I’ll announce changes in class, and send email using blackboard (so, see the notice above about the correct address). Work is due on the day shown on the calendar. I need you to look over this calendar and compare the due dates of the papers with the due dates of major projects in your other classes. I don’t want to have papers due on days when several students have exams or projects due in other classes, so please let me know ASAP if there are problems with any of the dates. (As time passes, it will become increasingly difficult for us to make changes.) Notice that sometimes the assignment for a particular day goes on to the next page.

If you ever have a question about a prompt (microtheme or paper), email me. Just as it is at work, lack of clarity in instructions means you need to get the instructions clarified; it doesn’t mean you’re free from having to do the assignment.

Also, note the “necessary but not sufficient” requirements at various moments. Don’t let them sneak up on you. If you try to do those at the last minute, you won’t be able to, and that’ll hurt your overall grade.

Finally, notice that the way Word displays tables (it always puts a line at the bottom of the page) means that the assignment for the day sometimes goes onto the next page!
Calendar PDF

PAPERS. A “good faith” submission is at least 1250 words, responds appropriately to the assignment, does not violate the academic honor policy, has a substantial number of quotes from the relevant primary material, and makes an interpretive argument. It does not have asides (e.g., “In the next version, I’ll…”) You should expect that it will take you ten to twelve hours to do a good faith submission, not including the time for reading and research. If a single piece of student work violates the academic honor policy, you will receive an ‘F’ in the course; there may be additional penalties.

Papers 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, and 3.2 must be substantially revised. Substantially revising a paper means, at a minimum, you respond to every comment the teacher makes (teachers get really irritated if they remark on a misspelling in one version that remains in the next). But simply changing things at points with a margin comment is rarely enough to change a grade. Research on paper commenting shows that it doesn’t help students if teachers remark on every single error—what is more effective is for the teacher to note an example of a recurrent problem, and for the student then to try to find all the other cases of that problem. (Since, after all, to become a good writer you need to become a critical reader of your own writing.) If you don’t understand (or can’t read) a comment, or you understand it, but don’t have great ideas as to how to respond to the criticism, please come see me; that’s what office hours are for.

The most common problem for the first paper is that students have far too many assertions and very little evidence from the texts to support their assertions. Students often have enough claims in the first paper for two or three papers. For the second paper, students have often narrowed their topic, but still fail to provide adequate evidence.

PAPER TOPICS. Notice that the students recommend that you look over all the paper topics now, and get started well before the paper is due. The prompts are designed to get more complicated and more time-consuming as the semester progresses—you’ll need a lot of time just for research for the final paper. Much of the research cannot be done just from your computer; you’ll have to go to the library. I’ve made an effort to come up with topics that are comparable in terms of work and difficulty. Sometimes we can work out other topics, but only if you come talk to me well before the paper is due.

You need to use a different concept in your second paper from your first, and in your third paper from your second or first. (This is so you don’t end up only learning one concept in the whole class!)

When you use a concept, you can just use one or two of the criteria, but only if those are the crucial criteria. Squirrels have fur, and Chester has fur, but that doesn’t mean Chester is a squirrel.

In each paper, you are asking more or less the same question: does rhetorical analysis help us understand this puzzling aspect of the text(s) or its reception? Each one of the texts you can analyze has many puzzling characteristics, so you should try to pick one that is manageable in the amount of time you have.

Also, you aren’t restricted to the concepts we’ve already read—you can (and sometimes should) use concepts from the Jasinski that we haven’t gone over in class. I do require that you stick with concepts in the Jasinski and/or coursepack, though. If you do choose to use something we haven’t gone over in class, you might want to come to office hours to make sure you understand the concept. Do NOT use “ethos,” “pathos,” or “logos.”

There are lots of “right” answers for these prompts—I’m not looking for any particular answer. But there are also lots of inadequate answers, that I’ll push you away from. Most of those involve really broad generalizations about audience (“Chester was writing to dogs” as opposed to “Chester was writing to animals who shared his basic assumption that squirrels are evil”).

Unit I. Use a concept from Jasinski or the coursepack in order to write a rhetorical analysis of one of the following texts. Focus on one or two specific strategies in order to argue for your interpretation of the relationship between rhetorical strategies and authorial intention, historical context, intended audience, or impact. Make sure that you acknowledge an informed and intelligent alternative interpretation. These are all very long texts, and you will need to do some historical research for the background, so you won’t be able to read them and write your paper in the same night.

Each of these texts is complicated in terms of actual and intended audience—do not make the mistake of conflating the two. Also, do not identify audience in socioeconomic terms (profession, gender, region) but shared values that you infer from the text. Students have a tendency to essentialize and homogenize other groups (including groups from other eras); don’t assume that everyone of a particular ethnicity, gender, region, or era all had the same values. Finally, you need to do close analysis of the text, so the bulk of your evidence will be quotes from your primary text. Do NOT use “ethos,” “pathos,” or “logos.”

• David Walker’s Appeal To the Coloured Citizens of the World. Walker was a black abolitionist who wrote a text condemning slavery and arguing for self-defense. People in the South were terrified of this text, and called out the militia simply because copies of it were found. Several state legislatures passed laws banning it (you could be hanged for just having a copy on you). But, most of my students find it kind of boring, a little on the purple side, and are bothered by his criticism of other African Americans. While most commentary on the text focuses on the question of whether Walker’s text was calling for violent insurrection, that isn’t a question you have the time to settle. A more productive route that students have found is to pursue the question of audience(s?). Some students find paired terms really helpful, especially if they have read some pro-slavery rhetoric.
• Ida B. Wells’ The Red Record. The Wikipedia entry on this book uses terms like “irrefutable” and says the way she constructed her argument “prevented members of the audience from dismissing her claims as biased or untrue” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_B._Wells#Writings_.28Southern_Horrors_a…). And, in fact, you’re likely to find it an extraordinarily powerful and persuasive argument, but people diddismiss her claims as biased and untrue, and lots of people weren’t persuaded (you’ll see the myth that lynching was necessary to keep black men from raping white women asserted as though it’s a fact in the 1935 and 1938 debate over anti-lynching laws—it continued to be a topos in opposition to the Civil Rights movement through the 60s). This is a case when you do have strong evidence about effectiveness (it was effective with some audiences, but not others); what rhetorical concepts explain the difference in outcome? You might find the concept of “decorum” useful for this text.
• Ruth Benedict, Races of Mankind. Benedict wrote this initially as a pamphlet for soldiers explaining what was wrong with Nazism (it’s common for troops to be given such material). It was outrageously controversial, and pulled from circulation by southern Senators and members of Congress who objected to its criticism of racism. Yet, by modern standards, it feels fairly racist. What rhetorical concept explains Benedict’s strategies and the outcome?
• James Arthur Ray’s Harmonic Wealth (this one is harder than it might look at first, as you are fairly close to the audience). Ray bills himself as a “motivational speaker” (he’s featured in The Secret), and was charging a lot of money for day- and weekend-long workshops on success (which is more than a little ironic, as being a motivational speaker is the only thing at which he’s succeeded—he actually has a history of failing badly at making money any other way). He’s now famous for having been held responsible for the deaths of people during his sweat lodge ceremony.During the trial, it came out that Ray’s syncretic workshops consisted of things he’d lifted from other motivational speakers, all of whom themselves were borrowing randomly from various traditions. And, of course, except for being a motivational speaker, he wasn’t a particular successful person. How does he persuade people to overlook the very serious and obvious problems with his message? Students have found it helpful to look at his use of “science”—those of you with some knowledge of physics will find this a bizarre but kind of fun book (it’s very bad science). Why invoke science at all?
• A similar puzzle is presented by the success of David Lereah’s book Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust—And How You Can Profit from It, which was rereleased in 2008 (immediately prior to the housing market crash). Lereah had already published a book with a similar argument—that this booming economy is not a bubble, although every reasonable assessment says it is—in regard to the dotcom bubble (The Rules for Growing Rich: Making Money in the New Information Economy) immediately prior to that bubble popping. Despite that track record, Lereah’s book was tremendously popular. Is Lereah’s success explained rhetorically? (This is a particularly good choice for students who are strong in economics.)
• Closing arguments for the OJ Simpson trial. It’s conventional to complain about the jury, and blame all sorts of factors other than the rhetoric of the attorneys. Is the jury decision explained by rhetorical analysis of the closing arguments? Available here:
  http://simpson.walraven.org/
• This one is especially intended for students also taking Deliberating War with me (although other students are welcome to it as well). Andrew Bacevich, politically conservative (not neo-con) retired Army officer and political scientist, says of NSC 68, “to read NSC 68 today is to enter a hothouse of apprehension, and panic” and calls it “an exercise in fear-mongering” (Limits 112). Yet, as he says, it shaped American Foreign Policy through much of the Cold War (he says until today). Can you explain its appeal rhetorically? (It doesn’t matter when you agree with Bacevich or Nitze—you can write the whole paper without indicating whether you agree with the document.) http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm

Unit II. Use a rhetorical concept from Jasinski or the other course material in order to write a rhetorical analysis of one of the following pairs of texts. Focus on one or two specific strategies in order to argue for your interpretation of the relationship between rhetorical strategies and authorial intention, historical context, intended audience, or impact. Use a different concept (or set of concepts) from what you used in 1.1. Make sure that you acknowledge an informed and intelligent alternative interpretation. These are all very long texts, and you will need to do some historical research for the background, so you won’t be able to read them and write your paper in the same night.

This set of prompts all involve texts that at least claim to be in relation to one another. You aren’t being asked to evaluate the two texts (which is better) but instead to talk about how their rhetorical strategies are (or are not) responses to one another. You don’t have to explain effectiveness, but you might want to, if you have good evidence to that effect.

These texts are long. You’ll want to figure out some way to focus your paper, and you will probably either look at how one specific topos functions in both arguments, or some specific set of paired terms, or metaphor. Or, you might look at how one text tries to refute the other (which would mean most of your paper would be about one of these, and not equally about each). Do NOT use “ethos,” “pathos,” or “logos.”

• “Declaration of Independence” and John Lind’s Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress (available as an electronic text through the UT library). Students find it especially helpful to focus on one specific topos (e.g., one or two claims from the “Declaration” and how Lind responds) or on one metaphor (such as tyranny) or a strategy (such as blaming/defending the King).
• The debate over either the 1935 (Costigan-Wagner) or 1938 (Wagner-Van Nuys) antilynching bills. You must pick a speech or speeches not included in the coursepack. You’ll need to get to the debate through the heinonline site (go through UT library databases). Pick at least one rhetor in favor of the legislation and at least two that are opposed to it. You should pick at least two figures who have long speeches, or several figures with short speeches but similar rhetorical strategies.I find both of these debates really strange. The people trying to pass federal anti-lynching legislation didn’t have the votes (and that became clear early on), so I don’t understand why the people opposed to the legislation didn’t just call the question and vote it down. Instead, they filibustered (and that means there are lots of speeches about completely irrelevant topics). I don’t understand why.

  In addition, the opposition arguments seem to me internally contradictory (what is sometimes called “pot logic”)—rhetors say “there is no lynching, and lynching is necessary to protect women, and if we didn’t have lynching white women would be raped.” Not only do those arguments contradict each other (if there isn’t any lynching going on, then why worry about outlawing it?), but they rely on precisely the topos Wells had already shown was false—that lynchings had anything to do with accusations of rape. So, this is weird stuff—can you argue that rhetorical concepts help us understand it better?

• Brown v. Board and Kilpatrick’s The Southern Case for School Segregation (with emphasis on the “Evidence” section of the second book). Brown v. Board was 1954; The Southern Case was 1962, yet it argues against the SCOTUS decision. That ship had sailed (the decision had been reasserted several times) so the apparent rhetorical exigency and intent cannot be the case. What is Kilpatrick doing? What concept(s) from rhetoric help us understand his argument?
• Media coverage of science, starting with this argument:http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/through_looking_glass_what_… Olson explains what is wrong with the two different media reports on her research (and media coverage of science), but not using rhetorical concepts. What rhetorical concept helps explain the phenomenon she notes—the wildly different, but equally distorting, coverage of her same argument?You’ll need to find an original study and at least two (ideally more) articles about the study. That may take you some time to find (you might start with PLoS, which has given this some coverage, or Ben Goldacre’s work). Don’t argue which article is better, let alone take a stance on video game violence, but focus on whether rhetoric helps us understand issues in media presentations of science.

  Or, you could do the same with this article:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/01/15/blinded-by-sci…

  You will probably find Ceccarelli’s piece (in the coursepack) very helpful, but you will not want to stop just with her discussion. You’ll need to apply it, and probably use at least one other concept as well.

Unit III. As with the previous prompts, these prompts are asking you for close rhetorical analysis, explicitly using the concepts discussed in this class and the readings. These prompts take a lot of research, and invite you to be critical of aspects of rhetorical analysis. That is, you are invited to reflect on the role of rhetorical analysis in understanding these texts and their impacts, and you can argue that rhetoric doesn’t really help us.

These are weird texts in many ways, and even I am not convinced I understand what’s going on with them. Do NOT use “ethos,” “pathos,” or “logos.”

• Rod Blagojevich and Richard Nixon (“Checker’s speech”) both found themselves in strikingly similar positions—having used their political power to get money out of people. Both engaged in apologia; but Nixon’s worked and Blagojevich’s didn’t. Does rhetorical analysis enable you to explain those different outcomes? Was it a question of Nixon having used savvier rhetorical strategies? Or was the audience different? To what extent is the difference in outcome explained by rhetorical concepts (it has been argued that the difference in media was more important–with outlets like Fox News and various pundits much more explicitly after Blagojevich than the media had been in regard to Nixon)? For this paper, you’d need to look at their apologia and the immediate response (for Nixon, you’ll need newspaper coverage of the speech)—that almost certainly means using the microfilms in the library.Students who’ve done this paper in the past have had two major problems. First, you have to decide what is Blago’s “apologia,” as he did a bunch, and some of them are hard to find. You’ll have to make a case for the one you choose, or look at strategies he used throughout them. Second, you have to look at the apologia in light of historical context—that means looking at things that Blago (and Nixon) had recently said.

  Do NOT do Nixon’s “Watergate” speeches. I strongly recommend against Blago’s speeches in any of his trials.

• Do a rhetorical analysis of David Duke’s My Awakening. (Yes, you’ll have to read—or at least skim–the book, and it’s long and tedious and really, really offensive.) If you’d like, you can focus on the reviews of it on amazon. The book is awful, yet is ranked an average of 4.5 stars. (If you want to experiment, try writing a negative review of the book and then see what happens.) How do the reviews violate what one might expect them to be? What can one infer about their own understanding of their audience? To what extent are the reviews rhetorically savvy?If you look at the Duke book, you’ll see that it’s profoundly dumb. It has a bunch of racist assertions in it, while constantly asserting, “I’m not racist.” He has thousands of footnotes, most of which are irrelevant or just silly (he’ll say something like “Marxism is communist,” and then have a footnote that says, “Communist Manifesto.” The positive reviewers similarly assert that they aren’t racist, and that the book isn’t, and they highly praise how well-researched it is.

  You can think about this question in two main ways: first, if you write a negative review of the book, it gets bombed off. So, is this really not a rhetorical issue at all (they don’t even vaguely mean what they say), but just a technical issue, having to do with how amazon reviews work? Second, you’ll see that the reviews don’t fit the stereotypical image of neo-Nazis. They work hard to maintain a rational tone, and eschew bigotry. Who is their audience? To pursue this line, you’d look at secondary on racists (such as Ezekiel’s Racist Mind) and on neo-Nazis.

• The Leonard Peltier trial (especially the summations).http://nativenewsonline.org/~ishgooda/peltier/trial.htm. I’m not asking you to come to a conclusion as to whether Peltier was guilty (you’d need to read more than just the trial evidence to do that), but simply to look at the arguments of the defense and prosecution in light of each other. Is there something rhetorically interesting about their relationship to each other? (Although I’m suggesting you focus on the closing arguments, you’ll need to do so in light of the strong and weak points in each side’s case, and that will mean you’ll probably discuss parts of the testimony.)
• The Communist Manifesto was a tremendously effective book; the 1970 New Program of the CPUSA was not. Is the difference in outcome best explained by rhetorical concepts? If so, which ones and how? If not, what other factors are more important? For this paper, you’ll need to look into the historical circumstances of each text in some detail. (Last semester, many students tried to write this paper based on broad historical generalizations; it didn’t go well.) For this paper, you must discuss more of the New Program than is in the coursepack.
• Opening arguments for the trial of Susan B. Anthony, especially Anthony’s. She had an extremely difficult argument, and a very hostile audience; what rhetorical concept(s) explains her strategies. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/trialrecord.html (Some background information here might be useful:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbahome.html)

HOW THE PAPERS GO WRONG

1. Students write a history paper rather than close rhetorical analysis;
2. Students write about “effectiveness” of the text with no evidence to support their claim about effectiveness other than their own reaction (and you usually aren’t the intended audience);
3. Students discuss one or two characteristics of a concept that has multiple criteria;
4. Students rely on assertion rather than close analysis;
5. Students universalize claims about audience (see below), meaning that they attribute a single reaction to “men,” “women,” “whites,” or other categories of very disparate people;
6. Students start the paper the night before.

A few pieces of advice about the concept of audience:

• Some students find the Jasinski is a little hard to read as, like a lot of scholarly dictionaries, he doesn’t just give you one definition—his goal is to describe the scholarly debate over various concepts. Rather than blame him, it’s good to learn how to read that kind of material. Notice that he does often give you a good and clear definition—it’s just that he puts that definition in the context of the debate. Look for cues like “in sum” or “what is shared in all the definitions” or other instances of metadiscourse.
• The single most important distinction is between actual and intended audience. Just because you can read a text doesn’t mean you’re in the intended audience. The actual audience is the group of people who experience the text; the intended audience is the group(s) of people the rhetor(s) assumed in the course of creating the text.
• Students have a lot of trouble with the concept of “composite” audience—that the audience may be mixed up of different kinds.
• Many discussions of audience in our culture use marketing categories; they don’t help with rhetorical analysis. Don’t assume that everyone in a particular marketing category (e.g., “college students”) have the same values. Instead, try to identify an audience by the values the rhetor seems to assume they have. For instance, what values does Kim Possible think her readers have?
• Keep in mind that authors often interpellate an audience, meaning that they create the audience they want by claiming it already exists. Salespeople do a version of this by praising you for having the values that will enable them to sell the product they want to sell. Epideictic speeches also do this by praising a culture for having values, sometimes the values the rhetor wishes the culture had.
• Rhetors aren’t always trying to please an audience. Think about the different audiences that the secretaries have in their exchange about the ham sandwich. Or, for a more noble example, think about a speech that a leader might give just before going to war—s/he may want to rouse their troops, but, if it’s a widely broadcast speech, s/he might also be trying to intimidate the leaders of other countries.

SOME RULES OF THUMB ABOUT THE THESIS QUESTION As I keep saying in class (and in the course material), I don’t want you to put your thesis statement in your introduction. But you need something to communicate clearly with the reader what your paper will be about, and why it will be interesting. In other words, your introduction should set up the question. There are a few rules of thumb about the question:

• It doesn’t have to be a question per se. An introduction that describes an interpretive problem might have a “contract” that says something like, “Thus, one might wonder why Chester Burnette spends half his speech talking about something that might appear irrelevant.”
• On the days when you should turn in a thesis question, however, it would be easier on all of us if you did word it as a question. Your question should be more specific than the prompt—it needs to be specific enough that you can answer it in the relatively short space you have. So, for instance, “What rhetorical strategies does Chester Burnette use?” is too broad a question.
• Introductions are most interesting if they set up a contradiction, puzzle, or paradox. If, for instance, something about a text surprised or puzzled you, it would probably surprise or puzzle your classmates. So, try to describe that puzzle.
• Sometimes the puzzle is provided by the historical situation. In this class, for instance, interlocutors are puzzled by what they should do. Your question should be a specific way of formulating that puzzle: “Should we execute all the Mytileneans?” is a good question, but it would be even better to pose, “How will our other allies respond to our following the policy that Kleon advocates?” There may have been a controversy in class, or you may find that there is a controversy among scholars—some people argue for one interpretation, and others for a different one. In that case, the puzzle is pretty straightforward: which group is right? (Or are they both wrong?)
• When I encourage students to write a thesis question, they have a tendency to formulate a false dilemma—“Was Chester using antimetabole in order to persuade dogs to attack squirrels, or was he an ineffective rhetor?” “Is this speech epideictic, or do bunnies eat steak?” It’s quite possible that the answer is, “Neither.” Anytime your thesis question has an “or” in it, make sure you don’t have a false dilemma.
• Because you are so trained to put your thesis in your introduction, students have a tendency to answer the question before they pose it.
  

  On January 3, 1996, Chester Burnette gave his famous speech “Little Dogs are Evil.” Hubert Sumlin, whose tendency to befriend little dogs was notorious among Chesterians, was sitting on the platform with Chester, listening to Chester say things like, “Anyone who likes little dogs is providing aid and comfort to squirrels.” Obviously, Chester was trying to provoke Hubert. He explicitly and implicitly called him a traitor. Was he trying to provoke Hubert?

  That last question, “Was he trying to provoke Hubert,” isn’t really a question—it was already asserted that Chester was doing exactly that.

QUIZ. In November, you’ll get a quiz with the following terms. You will receive two points for every good definition (which can be a quote) and two points for an apt example (which should be your own). I’m not wild about hypothetical examples, or examples from your own life, as I don’t always know what you mean. You’re welcome to ask about these in class, or to run by examples with me.

the “canons” of rhetoric (all five, with examples of at least two, for a total of eight possible points)
condensation symbol
apologia
prophetic ethos
identification
needs case
paired terms
manifesto
subjectivity
the “no true Scotsman” fallacy
persona
jeremiad
epideictic
rhetorical triangle
figures/figuration
phronesis
intended audience
actual audience
fallacy of the false dilemma
straw man fallacy
interpellation
argumentum ad misercordiam
solvency
scapegoating