In
his political cartoon depicting the 2017 presidential inaugural address during
which president elect Donald Trump will be sworn into office next January,
author Mike Luckovich uses humorous irony to make a powerful statement about
the man which American has decided to run this country. Mike Luckovich created
this image for the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, which he has been creating
similar political cartons for since 1989. He has won a Pulitzer Prize for
editorial cartooning and the Reuben Award for Most Outstanding Cartoonist of
the Year. The image shows the United States Presidential Inauguration, set to
take place on Friday, January 20th 2017 in which Donald Trump, who
was elected president this year, is drawn swearing on the bible. In the image,
Donald Trump is drawn saying, “For a limited time, you too can own one of these
fabulous Trump Bibles.” (Luckovich). There is irony in how Donald Trump is
using the most esteemed honor in American history as a ploy to make more money
by selling the Holy Book for profit. By using this rhetorical strategy,
Luckovich is making a powerful statement about how Donald Trump is more a
business man than political figure, and that he will treat this high-ranking
position as such. He is also making a statement about how Donald Trump plans to
use his position in office to benefit himself and his business and that he does
not respect the honor that has been placed upon him. It is clear that this
image was created in spite of Trump, to undermine his political agenda and reason
for running for office. Mike Luckovich used his skills as a political
cartoonist to convey such thoughts of his and to show his audience the real man
which they have voted for and placed in office. I believe that his use of
rhetoric, specifically irony, convey a strong and pronounced message about this
year’s president elect. Luckovich strategically employed the irony in his
cartoon and it helped him effectively achieve his purpose.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Sunday, November 13, 2016
TOW #9
Jesse Wegman employed
subtle symbolism in his editorial piece, ‘The Doll in the Blue Pantsuit’ to
convey how Hillary Clinton supporters showed such interest and commitment soon
after she announced she would be running for her chance to become the 45th
president of the United States, although not long after that her supports lost
interested which ultimately cost her the election. This piece was thoughtfully
composed by Jesse Wegman, editorial writer on law and the Supreme Court for the
New York Times and previously the
managing editor of The New York Observer,
days after Donald Trump was announced the president elect in the 2016
presidential election. In his article, Wegman talks about how his daughter once
idolized a doll depicting Hillary Clinton, then discarded it until the day of
the election. The doll was used by the author as a symbol of Hillary Clinton
and his daughter’s ephemeral amusement was used to depict that of Hillary’s
supporters. Wegman writes about his young daughter’s time spent playing with
the doll, stating, “For a while, Sami loved the doll; she called it Blue Baby,
and when her language got better, Hilly Kinton. Then she lost interest” (Wegman
3). Many people, mostly democratic voters in support of Clinton, blamed poor
voter turnout on the account of liberal youth as the reason she lost to her
seemingly incompetent opponent. In this text, Wegman uses the symbolism of his
daughter’s doll to express to his readers how many people supported Hillary in
the beginning of her campaign, then forgot about the ongoing election for a few
months in between, only to regain interest in the last minute. Wegman later
reveals in the article that he and his wife were devastated by the result of
the election thus Wegman used his writing and employed various rhetorical
devices to subtly intertwine his thoughts into his work. I found this symbolism
to be powerful, although very hidden. If it was more pronounced, I feel like it
would be much more effective in achieving the author’s purpose.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
TOW #8
In
Prozac Nation by Elizabeth Wurtzel,
the author employs the rhetorical strategies of allusion and metaphor to convey
how sad and hopeless she felt in order to make her audience understand what it
is like to have chronic depression. In this book, Wurtzel reminisced on the
true story of how she came to realize that she was depressed and bipolar at a
young age. She was a published author prior to the release of Prozac Nation and
this book made her a national bestselling author. The rhetoric is evident when Wurtzel
writes, “Just like Gregor Samsa waking up to find he’d become a six-foot-long
roach, only in my case, I had invented the monster and now it was overtaking
me.” (Wurtzel 46). By alluding to The
Metamorphosis, a 1915 novel about a man who transforms into a giant
cockroach, Elizabeth Wurtzel is able to support her metaphor that follows. She
does so by relating a possibly confusing statement to something that is more
commonly known and understood. Wurtzel’s mention of creating and becoming a
monster is a metaphor for how she created and became a victim to her own
sadness. By comparing the depression to a monster, Wurtzel is able to show her
audience how terrifying and violent the illness is for most people and that it
is often inescapable. She also states that she created the monster or the
depression as a way of saying that she felt as though the depression was her
own fault, which is a common and often misunderstood feeling for depressed
people. Overall, Elizabeth Wurtzel strategically employs various rhetorical
devices to further support her purpose of the book. I believe that she is very
successful in doing so since I found that, as someone who has suffered from
both bipolar and depression, what she said was very relatable and true. I can
imagine that for people who have never experienced either disorder, reading
this book would help them understand the common feelings associated with them.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
TOW #7
In
“Getting In” by Malcolm Gladwell, the author employs the rhetorical strategy of
repetition to support his idea that the pressure to get into top colleges is
constant and repetitive for students in the United States. Malcolm Gladwell is
a well-known writer, speaker, and journalist for the New Yorker. He attended
college at the University of Toronto in Canada, as he recalls in his essay, and
first heard of the competitive nature of U.S. college admissions soon after
arriving in the country. Gladwell writes about how this surprised him and
varied quite a bit from his experience with college admissions in Canada. He
explores the purpose and reasoning for the prominence of this idea of getting
into the best of the best schools. In the essay, Gladwell discusses the competitiveness
revolving around college admissions in the United States and the pressure to
get into a top university. He makes a point about this by writing, “the
precocious and sensitive protagonist always went to Harvard; if he was
troubled, he dropped out of Harvard; in the end he returned to Harvard to
complete his senior thesis” (Gladwell 4). By repeating the name Harvard three
times in one sentence, Gladwell makes a bold statement about how prevalent
these prestigious Ivy League schools are in American society and that the proud,
outspoken nature of the colleges creates stress for applicants to want to get
in. The repetition of the prominent university name shows how Malcolm Gladwell
believes that it is talked about far too often in the ambitious United States
society, making the name almost seem redundant for people and students. I found
that this device greatly aided in Gladwell’s strive to achieve his purpose throughout
his essay. It made me think about and question the stress that society puts on
students and that students put on themselves as well to get accepted into
schools like Harvard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)