Dryden is one of the greatest English satirists. He is the first practitioner of classical satire which after him was to remain in vogue for about one hundred and fifty years. From the very beginning of his literary career Dryden evinced a sharp satiric bent. He translated some of the satires of the Roman writer Persius when he was only a pupil at Westminster.
However, the speech is important for the study of rhetoric as well, because the particular context, content, and intention of the speech almost demand that it be approached from a Neo-Aristotelian perspective in order to determine how effectively Fonda used the various tools available in her attempt to call her audience to action so that they might be "an army of love," confronting long-held paradigms of gender and power.
Ultimately, while Fonda is successful in her use of ethos, pathos, and symbolic language, the effectiveness of her rhetoric is undermined by what can only be called failed appeals to logos, as she includes two examples of supposed sympathetic power near the end of her speech that undermine the rhetorical force.
Formally trained as an actress, and frequently seen agitating and protesting, Fonda is well trained in the delivery of lines, if not public speaking more specifically.
As she notes in her speech, she has been active as a self-described feminist for many years, although in her speech she claims that for much of that time, she "thought [she] had it in [her] heart and [her] body," when really her work was nominal at best Fonda Nonetheless, Fonda has ample previous experience with both the subject matter of her speech and the medium itself, and she claims to be motivated by a genuinely felt desire to effect a kind of balance that might distribute power more equitably among the sexes and in turn, among all people regardless of demographic classification.
Due to her long history of feminist activism, Fonda likely enjoyed a good reputation with the audience, which would likely would have been extremely receptive to both her and her message. On the one hand, it was sponsored by V-Day, an organization solely dedicated to stopping violence against women and girls across the world.
The Omega Institute, on the other hand, feels somewhat arbitrary, as there is not an obvious dovetail between holistic studies and feminism other than a general desire for wellness overall. As mentioned above, however, it seems entirely reasonable to presume that these logical failures did not reflect poorly on Fonda or her speech in the eyes of the audience, because that audience very likely included a number of people willing to believe in these unverified, alternative therapies.
While the latter two are somewhat less important in an age when few rhetors recite their speeches from memory, Neo-Aristotelian theory remains particularly effective for analyzing speech because it builds on classical studies of rhetoric while remaining flexible enough for widespread application and adaptation.
After addressing the context of the rhetorical artifact under discussion, Neo-Aristotelian criticism proceeds by applying the five canons to the speech, with each canon corresponding to a number of different questions that might be asked of the artifact. The first canon, invention, is perhaps the most well-known in the study of rhetoric, as it involves actual content of the speech, divided between the use of logos, ethos, and pathos.
Fonda notes that she "brought gender issues into [her] movies roles," and also "helped women make their bodies strong" in her role as a fitness guru, thus establishing some credibility both with audience members associated with V-Day and those more closely aligned with the interests of the Omega Institute Fonda After discussing her film career again in the context of the Norwegian healthcare system, Fonda brings up the subject for which she is perhaps most famous aside from her acting career, which is her time spent in Vietnam during the s.
While both anecdotes are the basis for a larger point Fonda is making, they serve to subtly establish her credibility and reputation with the audience by reminding them of why she is famous in the first place.
Put another way, the same arguments could be made with any other generally suitable anecdote, but because these anecdotes are being told by Jane Fonda about her life, they are imbued with some extra layer of meaning in the eyes of the audience.
More than anything else, Fonda relies on pathos in order to persuade the audience, meaning that she appeals to their emotions in order to lend her arguments extra weight.
She literally begins her speech by stating that: This has been an emotional three days. They are tears of joy. When our bodies become tuning forks, vibrating with words spoken by sisters that enter us and hum with truth.Neo-Aristotelian Speech Analysis Introduction The purpose of this paper is to analyze the speech of former U.S.
president, Bill Clinton by using neo-Aristotelian criticism. Mentions of the Harry Potter Bibliography "Since , Cornelia Rémi has maintained an up-to-date and marvelously informative website of international scholarship, symposia, sources, [ ] which attests to the ever-growing, worldwide attention being given to this literature and the vast sea of literary productions emerging from that attention.".
In his essay, "The New Criticism", Cleanth Brooks notes that "The New Critic, like the Snark, is a very elusive beast", meaning that there was no clearly defined "New Critical" manifesto, Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in .
Below is an essay on "Neo-Aristotelian Criticism" from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples. Rhetoric of Religion Crash Course in Rhetorical Criticism and Analysis.
The Chicago School of literary criticism was a form of criticism of English literature begun at the University of Chicago in the s, which lasted until the s.
It was also called Neo-Aristotelianism, due to its strong emphasis on Aristotle ’s concepts of plot, character and genre. “Aristotelian,” or, more accurately, “Neo-Aristotelian,” because of their concern with form and genre. Their approach emphasized an evaluation of the author’s solutions to specific problems in the construction of a text.