Font Snob

Your weekend blog post assignment is open topic. Due at the decided upon time: Sunday 4:00.
What follows is NOT an assignment (but it could be).

I want you to write something of interest, something of substance. I want you to work on including images, links, videos, etc. Blogs have that capability -- make use of it! Also, I want you to spend a little time (I know, you don't have any time. Poppycock.) tweaking your blog and getting to know it better and looking for blogs that you like to read so you can link them and study them and copy certain features of them. Assignment: write something worth reading. Brownie points: become a blogophile like me.

What follows could lead you to your weekend blog post but it could also be fodder to a rip-roarin' good time and/or insightful rhetorical analysis, you know, for fun . Remember, I didn't share this piece with all of you because it is what school and most of society would consider inappropriate, obscene, and offensive. But, hey. It's a stellar example of rhetoric. 

See below for more.

Your little font-argument assignment mentioned a piece of writing by a title with a naughty word in it. It also contains approximately 512 more naughty words, but it's dripping with rhetorical technique so take a look at it if your sensibilities are not easily offended by the kind of language you hear in the hallway every day. It's found at McSweeney's  one of the greatest websites on the planet. They have a iPhone app...just sayin'.

Specifics to consider so this reading has an academic purpose:
Tone and how it is created
Devices and things (metaphor, hyperbole, allusion, etc.)
Syntax and punctuation
Diction choices (swearing, unusual uses of language, words that stand out, etc.)

Browse fonts so you're, at least, vaguely familiar with them and how they look. Otherwise some of what he says won't make sense. He names "Helvetica", "Eurotrash Swish", "Bauhaus", "Gotham", "Avenir", "Univers", and "Papyrus"-- I think that's all of them that he mentions. Does his depiction of these "characters" make sense? Are they (stereotypically, at least) accurate?


He uses language that you may or may not be familiar with from time to time. For instance, do you know what a Stratocaster is? Look it up. Know Johannes Gutenberg? Did you take Euro? What's a fascist and why does he use this word? What does fascism have to do with black turtlenecks? Do you know what "sans serif" means? Check this out. What does it mean? What is a typographer?


Okay. Why did you laugh when you read it?

"Is This Right?"

Many of you have asked me this very question about any number of things -- usually your assignment. You do this because you are conscientious students, grade grubbers, people pleasers, or any combination thereof. With rhetoric, and specifically rhetorical analysis, there really is no one "right" way to do something, no "right" answer. There are, however, many wrong ones and I know you are simply trying to avoid them. So, here:

Rhetorical analysis is just listing what rhetorical strategies an author or speaker uses. FALSE.
Rhetorical analysis is about finding three exactly perfect examples of exactly three devices the speaker or author uses. Again, FALSE. Rhetorical analysis is some mystical process whereby the analysisyzer uncovers the hidden key of rhetoric buried in the work. FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. (epizeuxis)

Rhetorical analysis involves exploring and explaining (read: analyzing) how the author or speaker presents his or her argument and persuades the audience to accept it. It includes what he or she does -- the bending, tweaking, and manipulating of language, images, and ideas -- but it goes beyond this. Far, far beyond this. Analysis means to make an argument about an argument. Analysis means to prove how a certain device, technique, strategy, or tactic does what you say it does in the text at hand. What the effect of a given rhetorical thingy is, and why it is effective in this particular circumstance. So JFK uses antimetabole when he delivers the famous "ask not what your country can do for you..." line, so what? Given the circumstances, the occasion for this argument (EAA Ch1) and the purpose of the speaker, why might he have selected to deliver this line, using these words in this way? Why is it effective? How does that do anything for the audience? How does that do anything to propel his argument? Exploring and answering these questions is analysis.

Don't misunderstand me here, I'm certainly not suggesting that you list a bunch of questions. That isn't the assignment. That isn't analysis, though it is an internal (usually) process of it. You should arrive at statements: conclusions. You, an "analysisyzer", to repeat the faux word I used above, are tasked with making claims about the text in question. Explaining how.

HOW. It's all about the how.

Also, I get an F for FORGETTING vocab again this week. Still, I maintain that learning 5 words is a simple task and learning the definitions (officially) on Thursday still provides enough time to prepare for a quiz the following Monday.  So it's on like Donkey Kong.

Obama Speech

Here's a link to the speech. It begins at 3:30. Or try THIS ONE.

Apparently he gave his speech at 1:30 this afternoon. Sorry about that. Still, watch it (it should be posted/made public and/or replayed soon) and the assignment stands as is. HERE is a transcript of his speech for your reference, but you still need to watch it. Also, I tweeted a Washington Post article and a Huffington Post article that respond to Obama's student address (it's over on the right in that Twitter box that's usually empty) and HERE is another article about it just for good measure.

Do I need to read those? You're wondering. Well, no I guess not. You don't need to read them if you don't want to be informed about the world and don't care about your education and thus your life. (Logical fallacies of sentimental appeal and non sequitur and probably ten others.) But in all seriousness, I do think these are valuable to read, look at, and take up in some way, but no part of the assignment it particularly tied to any of them. They're just informative and thought-provoking.

Your assignment is this: Watch Obama's address sometime when you can (so, when it is made public and repeated, and You Tubed, and archived on news websites like CNN.com) and perform an informal, yet substantive and thoughtful rhetorical analysis. Post said analysis on your blog by Sunday __:00 (time to be determined, see poll). You may post it sooner if you wish.

Whaaaaaa? You say. No worries, you have the resources you need. You were given a "Rhetorical Analysis" sheet not too long ago and you are reading through the chapter in EAA all about speeches (Chapter 17: Spoken Arguments) and it literally walks you through how to do this. Speech analysis = rhetorical analysis of a speech. Make sure you comment on the following: tone, intonation, cadence, posture, gestures, general appearance, use of appeals, argument, diction -- okay, so that's like everything. But because this is spoken, you need to comment on how it sounds and how he looks while speaking, in addition to the usual stuff.

Don't freak out, this isn't huge. Your usual blog posts are 5 points, this one is 10 points. Use this as practice for those cryptic "things to come" that matter a whole lot. 

If you have questions, email me. It's way easier than commenting on my blog. It's also private so people can't see your questions. You also should ask those questions sooner rather than later. If you wait until Sunday, I will be crabby with you. This weekend is Homecoming. Just to it tonight if at all humanly possible. If you cannot, do it tomorrow night. I know that on Friday you will be all busy with the parade and the football game and then on Saturday you have to go get a spray tan and get your nails and hair done and get all gussied up for the dance -- oh, wait, it's a blacklight dance so you'll all probably just come in jeans.

In any case, it's a busy weekend. Don't wait.