TOW #16 - How to Read and Why (IRB 2.2)

The second half of my IRB, How to Read and Why, is much similar to the first – the only difference was that this half focused on novels and plays. Unfortunately, that means that I was not a big fan of the book. But regardless of my opinion of the book, the author, Harold Bloom, still uses rhetorical strategies in order to achieve his purpose. In his piece, How to Read and Why, Bloom uses the exemplification mode of writing to attempt to teach the reader what to look for in a book – more specifically, why we read at all.

For each section (e.g. novels and plays), Bloom introduces famous examples to serve as good books for the audience to read. For example, when discussing novels, Bloom goes into detail about In Search of Lost Time, by Marcel Proust, The Magic Mountain, by Thomas Mann, and Emma, by James Austin. I have never read any of the pieces of work that Bloom explained in the entire book, and for that reason, it was very difficult to follow. After giving each example, he essentially summarized and analyzed it. While this seems effective if I were actually reading the books he was discussing, I’m not reading the books he was discussing. Because of this, I don’t think his exemplification contributes to his purpose (and exemplification was the most prominent strategy used in the book).

In the end, I don’t think that Harold Bloom did a sufficient job in teaching his reader exactly how to analyze, or even why we analyze. I think that he did give the audience some examples of good books to read, and from there the audience can analyze some famous works. But his purpose was to teach, not to guide. So, if there was anything to take from this book, it was that I now have tens of new IRB options.

TOW #15- Beard Hunk (SNL)

Saturday Night Live is well-known – and, in fact, only known – for its live, humorous skits. The writers often write satirical pieces to mock real-world events. For example, at the beginning of each show, there is a political skit (and over the last few months, they have all been about Trump). Last Saturday, SNL put on a skit that was clearly an attempted parody of The Bachelor. In the skit, the writers use repetition and parody to poke fun at ABC’s The Bachelor.

            Repetition is used to highlight the uniformity of the female contestants on the show. During each conversation that the “beard hunk” is having, a new girl interrupts and asks, “Can I steal him for a sec?” The girls proceed to sit down, turn to the beard hunk, and announce, “I like this.” Then, they go into their scripts. Through every girl saying the same thing, SNL claims that all the girls on The Bachelor are the same. They all have the same voices, make the same motions, and say the same things. In the skit, there are so many girls over just a few minutes who say the same thing, and by doing this, the writers get the idea of similarity stuck into the audience’s head.

            Mocking parody is used to mock the portrayed terrible lives of the contestants. On reality shows like The Bachelor and America’s Got Talent, the characters always make sure to very descriptively describe their life’s history. It seems that they always have had something horrible happen to them – a loved one has passed away, they recently lost a job – something along these lines. One of the contestants on SNL’s skit claimed, “I’m so lucky to be here – in fact, I’m lucky to be here at all. I was born eight months early. I was in an incubator for five years. The doctors spent millions of dollars to keep me alive and I survived.” This is obviously a preposterous scenario that I don’t think anyone has ever come close to. By making such a ridiculous claim to parody the contestants from The Bachelor, SNL calls out the characters from the real show, and reality TV in general.

            The writers are successful in making their argument: the contestants on The Bachelor always seem to be the same. Repetition of the girls’ opening lines introduces the idea of uniformity to the audience, while their absurd claims throughout the rest of the skit mock the general character of the real-life contestants.

TOW #14 - The Dangers of Safety Equipment

While football may just be the symbol of American sports, it has some incredibly clear risks. The only way to defend an offense is to tackle them. The issue that has become worse and worse over the years is the fact that as more and more equipment is introduced, players feel safer when they make more dangerous tackles. This leads to more concussions, more injuries, and more ended careers. Meanwhile, rugby, a seemingly more dangerous sport, is responsible for less concussions. This is due to the way in which the players make tackles. In his piece, “The Dangers of Safety Equipment,” Michael Munger uses Rogerian argumentation and references to famous football figures and teams to persuade his audience that football tackling has become more and more dangerous and that it needs to be replaced by rugby tackling.

Munger uses Rogerian argumentation to acknowledge (and refute) the opposing point of view. While he is all in favor of safer tackling, he recognizes the reasons for the current tackling methods. He proclaims that “almost everyone believes that the helmet-first tackling style is more effective […] Anyone who avoids delivering a blow to avoid ringing the guy’s bell is a wimp, and he also risks missing the tackle.” Based on purely these statements, head-on tackling seems like the way to go. However, Munger goes on to counter this point, explaining that there are alternatives to such dangerous methods (I’ll get into those alternatives in a bit). By addressing (and shutting down) the opposition, the author shows that he has considered current tackling, and even still disagrees with it. In this sense, he establishes ethos as well, in that he proves he isn’t going in stuck on one side of the argument.

            Munger references famous football figures and teams in order to establish credibility in his argument. He introduces the idea of rugby tackling – a much safer way of tackling – and that it should be incorporated into the NFL. For example, he brings up the Seattle Seahawks, and the fact that “Pete Carroll (the coach) […] has used rugby principles for football tackling, as is demonstrated in a video.” In the video, Carroll shares his own opinion on tackling, and he agrees with Munger. They both feel that rugby-like tackling can be very effective, while at the same time reduce the risk of concussion. In referencing Pete Carroll, Munger shows that his ideas aren’t just coming from some random person – they are supported by many, including the head coach of a Super Bowl-winning team. If Munger were not to incorporate these mentions, the reader would have a much tougher time accepting his proposal.

            Ultimately, Michael Munger makes a very strong argument. As just the average writer, he may not have been quite reliable in arguing well-established rules. However, through his Rogerian argumentation and football-based allusions, he makes a powerful appeal to ethos and successfully substantiates his argument.