Homework #1


Was the text you examined, in fact, rhetoric? Justify your answer using what we've read so far.
  • The artifact that I chose to analyze for this paper was the film Kill Bill. However, looking back I have to admit that this artifact was in no way rhetoric. As both Bryant and Natanson state rhetoric is at its core spoken discourse and while a movie does utilize speech in its narrative, this film is primarily entertainment and in no way was intended to create a dialogue between itself and its audience as some films do. This is not to say that I believe that film cannot be rhetoric, but, at least this film was not.

What does your study teach someone about how the message studied worked as rhetoric? (If it didn't, freely admit that and explain what it did do.)
  • As I stated above I do not believe that my artifact was rhetoric and at some level I believe that I realized this as I was writing this paper. I utilized the Fantasy theme form of analysis for this paper but while I feel that I gave a decent overview of this form of analysis I do not feel that I adequately applied it to this paper. As I previously stated I feel that I knew that this artifact did not work as rhetoric so I made no attempt to convince my audience of this. Instead I got wrapped up in the history of one of the major fantasy themes in this artifact and explored that to the exclusion of all else.