batmanrhetoric

[batmanrhetoric]

The Joker trailer & Burkean Rhetoric

For today’s post I decided to analyze the new trailer for new Joker movie coming out. More specifically, the repetitive form used with the trailer.  As chapter four illustrates in its discussion of cluster criticism and identifying key terms, notes: “Significance of terms is determined on the basis of frequency or intensity. A term that a rhetor uses over and over again is likely to be a key term in that person’s thought and rhetoric.”  

“It is a term whose removal would change the nature of the text significantly.” (Page 64, Foss.)

Throughout the trailer the key terms would be: “To smile and put on a happy face”, the words smile, and the concept of laughter are also pretty important and prevalent throughout the trailer. Possibly more importantly, is the concept of a comedy and the intensity attached to it. The trailer uses the common cluster of laughter, smiling, and comedy to create a dichotomy to what is usually associated with those terms, to portray something much darker and sinister. 

Without these things, the trailer would be drastically altered as would how the audience perceives the movie would also be altered.  On pages 61 to 62 of the text Rhetorical Criticism, by Sonja K. Foss, she notes that, “Rhetoric performs many functions for individuals, but one that Burke sees as particularly significant is how rhetoric functions to name or define situations.” (Foss, 61/62).  

Through this trailer’s use of the way the audience defines comedy, rhetoric is coming into play at full force. The Joker is a dark character, a sinister villain in the DC universe. However, he can also come across as quite funny to the audience. (Hence, his fanbase. People love a good villain.) The creators of this trailer are taking a widely known character and getting down to what he is at his core: something sinister and comedic. But our trailer here for the newest Joker movie, doesn’t truly portray The Joker in a comedic light. They choose to depict him in a more depressive, and driven-to-insanity light. The way the nice, up-beat music plays over darker more dramatic scenes, especially ones where physical violence is concerned, is an intentional choice to help establish the dichotomy. The creators are showing us a tragedy, but as a comedy. They are taking the word “comedy” and are distorting it’s associations.

This is where I’ll end my little analysis for today. The Joker trailer is a very interesting piece to examine. It certainly gave me chills.

[batmanrhetoric]

Feminist Rhetorical Act

For my “feminist rhetorical act” I decided to post on tumblr, inviting the community to join in a discussion on Feminism. (What they think of it, the history behind feminism, etc.) I legit asked for any kind of discussion to take place. (Do they - the community of tumblr users - see feminism as something bad? Is there a good version of feminism and a bad version? Etc.)

Obviously, the audience to whom my act is addressed are that of the (mostly) woke members of tumblr. More specifically, the people who follow tags like : Feminism, radical feminism, history, science, rhetoric, gotham, dc comics, marvel; and etc. I did this to create a more inclusive opportunity (especially among the comic community as my blog is built around the rhetoric of batman) for people to share their views and ideals.

How this went for me: it did not go anywhere at all. I got one reblog but no comments and no discussion. So, what does this mean? This means there are more cowards on tumblr than what I originally thought. 

This was what I posted:

“For my rhetoric class I need to blog about feminism. So come at me Tumblr! Tell me YOUR thoughts! What do YOU think? Hit me up science side, history side, etc.

I WANT to know YOUR views. (It can be anything from how it’s portrayed in comics to movies to mass media. Is there such a thing as bad feminism? Etc.)”

Maybe I did not wait the optimal amount of time for discussion to blossom. Either way, it was quite the disappointment. 

However, tumblr is not a platform that just pauses after I post. The discussion that hasn’t happened may always pop up and begin in the future. This blog post analyzing the experience does not mean that the experience or that the discussion is ever truly over, which is something that I find true for all concepts and ideas. The discussion and growth for them is something that will never truly end or that will be over. It’s circular and continuous. So, in total honesty, I am glad that I got to create a forum for discussion, even if nothing came from it.

[batmanrhetoric]

Feminism

For my rhetoric class I need to blog about feminism. So come at me Tumblr! Tell me YOUR thoughts! What do YOU think? Hit me up science side, history side, etc. 

I WANT to know YOUR views. (It can be anything from how it’s portrayed in comics to movies to mass media. Is there such a thing as bad feminism? Etc.)

[batmanrhetoric]

Under The Red Hood: Cicero’s Fallacies.

In Today’s post I will be looking at Cicero’s Topica and Argumentative Fallacies - the more specifically by examining the ones used in Jason Todd’s Under the Red Hood monologue.

Cicero took Aristotle's list of twenty-eight topoi (lines of arguments), and his nine fallacies, to a reduced list of sixteen categories. We will be examining some of these categories below.

First, the rhetorical artifact:

(We took a brief look at this in an earlier post. This time, I will list the entire monologue Jason provided, and we will be only looking at Jason’s parts, specifically.)

The monologue (as provided by wikiquotes): https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Batman:_Under_the_Red_Hood

Jason Todd: Is that what you think this is about? You letting me die? I don't know what clouds your judgement worse, your guilt or your antiquated sense of morality. Bruce, I forgive you for not saving me. But why... why on God's earth... [smashes closet door open to reveal the Joker, bloodied and tied to a chair] ...is he still alive?!

Jason Todd: [to Batman] Ignoring what he's done in the past. Blindly, stupidly disregarding the entire graveyards he's filled, the thousands who have suffered, the friends he's crippled. You know, I thought... I thought I'd be the last person you'd ever let him hurt. If it had been you that he beat to a bloody pulp, if he had taken you from this world, I would've done nothing but search the planet for this pathetic pile of evil, death-worshiping garbage and then send him off to hell!

Jason Todd: What? What, your moral code just won't allow for that? It's too hard to cross that line?

Jason Todd: Why? I'm not talking about killing Penguin or Scarecrow or Dent. I'm talking about him. Just him. And doing it because... Because he took me away from you.

Jason: Well, you won't have any choice. [Throws Batman a second gun]

Jason: This is what it's all been about. This! You, me, him! Now is the time you decide! If you won't kill this psychotic piece of filth, I will! If you want to stop me, you're going to have to kill me!

Jason: I'm going to blow his deranged brains out! And if you want to stop it, you are going to have to shoot me, right in my face!

[Batman drops the gun]

Jason: It's him, or me! You have to decide! Decide, NOW! DO IT! HIM, OR ME! DECIDE! [points a gun at Batman]

-------End of Speech------------------

One of the fallacies Jason uses in his argument with Batman is the fallacy of Ad baculum.

Craig R. Smith in his book: Rhetoric and The Human Consciousness states that, “Ad baculum is the fallacy often used by children and parents.”  (Smith, p.117)

It, “Substitutes a threat for a legitimate argument.” (p.117)

Jason uses this fallacy at the very end of his argument when he threatens Batman by saying, “If you want to stop me, you’re going to have to kill me.”  In this kind of argument, either Batman does what Jason asks him to - or he’ll do something bad.

Another fallacy Jason uses is Petitio principii - or “circular reasoning.”  He states that the Joker deserves to die because he killed him, he killed Jason. He then provides examples of criminals not as bad as the joker is, and brings the argument back to himself: “because he took me from you”

A third fallacy Jason employs is Plurium interrogationum, “the trick of demanding a simple answer to a complex question.” (Smith, p. 118)

He applies this fallacy when he demands a simple yes or no answer to the concept of killing or taking out the Joker. For Batman, taking another’s life is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. It is much more complex than that. But this is a fact Jason disregards in his argument, going back to his circular reasoning and Ad baculum fallacies by stating that it’s either, “Him, or me!”

His “him or me” argument is another fallacy: False dichotomy which “refers to portraying two alternatives as the only options.” (Smith, p. 118.)

For Jason, these are the only two options. Either the Joker dies, or he dies. But to Batman, there has to be other options available.

All of the above are just some of Cicero’s fallacies that Jason Todd implements into his famous Under the Red Hood speech.

[batmanrhetoric]

Dark Knight (2008) Trailer is effective Pathos.

Today I will be utilizing one of the three Aristotelian artistic appeals. Now, what are the Aristotelian appeals you ask? They are the appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos.

But today, I’m only going to focus on the artistic appeal of Pathos.

Aristotle believed that their was a relationship between pathos and the human psyche. He stated that a good orator would be able to bring the audience to the right state, or frame of mind.

Written in Craig R. Smith’s text “Rhetoric & the Human Consciousness” in Chapter 4 is the following two sentences: “Aristotle understood that the human condition is contingent; humans must often make decision without conclusive evidence. These decision are made when humans are in one state of mind or another, and these states of mind affect decision making.” (p.75. Smith.)

But, what does this mean?

To get to the basics of this quote, what Smith is saying is that when we do not have enough evidence to make a decision, the way a speaker can persuade an audience is by affecting the state of mind they are in.

Now, how do they do THAT? (You ask.)

Thanks for asking.

The way the speaker, creater, orator, can do this is by doing a couple of things.

Things like making the problem or the message closer in proximity to the audience, or by using the audience’s imagination to persuade them.

An artifact I will be examining to better explain this concept is the movie trailer for the Dark Knight (2008) Christopher Nolan Movie.

Link to the trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXeTwQWrcwY

The trailer opens to a city in darkness, with dramatic music playing - thumping in the background. (This darkness and music help indicate to the audience that something serious is either going on or will be happening within the next few seconds. It’s like a warning and a call to attention.)

Then we see a person jump off from a high-scale building.

Who is this person? Why did they jump? This scene evokes emotional curiosity.

A voice appear to the audience - husky and foreboding. It appears before we even know who is speaking. “Where do we begin.”

The disembodied voice rasps, and then we get a look at the speaker - dark green hair, strange facial makeup.

Our imagination and interest has already been peaked at this point.

The message or purpose of this trailer is to get people to come and see the movie. To do that, they must convince us that the movie is worth seeing - hence by showing us a hodgepodge clip of what the movie will be like.

They are trying to convince us to go and see this movie.

The dark imagery, intense music, raspy narration and foreboding quotes are all used to help do that. It makes us feel like we are there. They we are in Gotham with the Batman.

It uses quotes like, “Die as a hero, or live long enough to become a villain” to incite feelings of anticipation and excitement. (Maybe even fear - what does this quote allude to? Does Batman become a villain in this move? Etc.)

This wonder and excitement and curiosity and fear placed in the audience is an example of the pathos artistic appeal. 

[batmanrhetoric]

Plato’s Conception of Truth

Engage Plato's Conception of Truth

Plato argued that the idea is more real than the material, “which decays and changes.” (Smith 54)

He believed that, in life, one of the greatest tensions is the battle between reason and the senses. Reason carries the soul back to the ideal, while senses only distract. (Smith 54)

Important things to note:

Inquiry is preferred to persuasion

Reason is preferred to emotion

One of one communication is preferred to mass persuasion.

One of Plato’s beliefs was that the truth in and of itself is persuasive. Because of this fact, it needs no emotional or credibility appeals, or any ornamental watering down.

Socrates convinces Meno of these things:

They are both ignorant and so they must seek the truth outside of themselves

They are capable of learning something they do not already know

How we learn determines what we learn

Wisdom is the only good - ignorance the only evil. (Smith 55)

Today I will be looking at Plato’s conceptions of truth to some observations I’ve made. My observations will be on a Batman advertisement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPRscxQZs8E

The first ad, titled on youtube, “Batman snickers ad,” is exactly as the title reads. The commercial begins with a football player getting a head injury and the coach asking him questions.

Coach: “Who are you?”

Football Player: “I’m Batman.”

From this response, the Coach knows immediately that his player has a concussion and needs to take a time out to “eat a snickers.”

Watching this commercial I am reminded of several modern day snicker commercials such as their slogan, “You are not you, when you are hungry.” It seems, this ad was made before the conception of that slogan.

Plato believed that in life, there are universal truths. This ad tries to convince people of several different truths. The first thing is to buy a snickers. That is their main goal and everyone knows this. It is a fact.

But, how do they go about trying to convince you of this? In this ad, they show a person that people normally link to someone successful or entertaining to watch in society - a football player. (Of course, this is for American society.)

It then goes on to show that when someone like that is injured, what helps him? What aids him when he’s down and not himself or in the right state of mind? Why, a snickers of course!

This ad also employs a joke that is popular around this time, the “I’m Batman” joke. A joke that has become rooted in modern-day culture. It is this joke that makes the ad popular and memorable.

But, what does this ad teach us about rhetoric? I believe that this ad is meant to attack our senses. Plato argues that our senses are what distract us in life. Well, humor and pop culture is built on the way we experience something we find cool, engaging, or notable. Batman, being one such thing.

Taking this fact, the rhetors - or the creators of the ad - were using it to promote their brand of candy bar. Something I believe they were successful in doing.

[batmanrhetoric]

Post 3: Sophistic Thinking

In this post we are going to be looking at Sophistic Thinking. The questions to answer are: What is a Sophist? Who were they? What did they think? Etc.

On pg 35 of Craig R. Smith’s text: “Rhetoric And Human Consciousness” he states that a group of people called the “mystics” in a pushback against the naturalists established an “internal basis for the discovery of transcendent truth” which eventually became mystical philosophy which equals Sophistry.

You got that right?

Mystics VS. Naturalist → transcendent truth → Mystical philosophy = Sophistry.

On the same page, Smith writes “The Sophists began their quest by doubting what was common wisdom.”

Now that we have established what Sophistic thinking and Sophists are, we will focus on one specific Sophist that I happen to find interesting: Protagoras.

Protagoras wanted to take humans and establish them as the main act when it came to philosophical questions. He believed that because humans are incapable of knowing the absolute truth that only relative truth exists. But, what does this mean? This means that my main man Protagoras believed that humans “were the measure of all things.”  He also believed that the best way to do that measurement is through education, and fathered debate.

Sophists (as a category) shared fundamental beliefs. One of these beliefs is the “‘man-measure’ doctrine.” This is the belief that man is the measure of all things, and that truth is subjective and relative to the situation.

When truth is subjective that means it’s up to the interpreter. Which does not mean that facts do not exist, but rather that we only know facts by the sensations we experience of them. (A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Page 37.)

The truth being subjective is what leads me to my next point: The Sophists were arguers and debaters. Similar to modern-day lawyers. For every belief and idea, there is an equal and opposite idea.

In a blog post titled “Devil’s advocate - Rise of the modern Sophist!” By Ashutosh Jain, he goes into a much deeper analysis of Sophism and what is looks like in our current world. Sophism is still very big today.

https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/devils-advocate-the-new-age-sophists-bf25c928eefd

The best way he describes a sophist-esque argument is: “Heads I win, tails you lose!”

Even if a brillant argument is made, the idea of it or behind it is still somewhat fallacious. (Basically, based on flawed thinking.) They are arguers. (Imagine ad agents, lawyers, prosecutors, etc.) They need to be persuasive to convince you of their argument.

Speaking of persuasive arguments, the rhetoric artifact I will be examining today in regards to Sophists, their beliefs and arguments, is BATMAN and even more specifically, Jason Todd. The batman comics, tv shows, and movies are all chocked full of sophism. Batman, for example, believes that what he is doing as a vigilante with morals is the right thing.

Jason Todd, his adopted son who was murdered by the Joker and brought back to life, would argue differently. Jason, argues that the best thing that Batman could do is to take the people like the Joker out of this world.

His argument can be broken down into three simple ideas:

Some criminals are less than human and should not exist.

Keeping them alive and giving them to the police to be put back in Arkham doesn’t work because they’ll just get out again and hurt more people.

The Joker murdered him, and continues to hurt and terrorize civilians. Therefore, he should die and the world would be better.

Jason creates a valid argument here. He’s speaking not only as a vigilante, but as a kid that has lived on the streets AND who is, himself, a victim of the Joker.

Every time he meets and fights with Batman he argues this idea.

For his argument, is Batman’s opposite argument. Batman believes that killing would be too easy. He states that even if people like the Joker and the Penguin and the Riddler are scum that deserve death, they also deserve a second chance to reform themselves. They reserve a chance at redemption.  

Both arguments are equally valid and true. I believe this is because not only are the arguments appealing towards the audience, but because we can see where both of the characters are coming from.

In this way, DC Comics for Batman have some really appealing sophistic thinking and arguments. Even if the arguments don’t persuade the characters, I do believe they persuade the audience watching.

Like the Sophists believed, rhetoric is an art. Not just a philosophy or specific way of thinking or speaking.

[batmanrhetoric]

snail as old as slime

[batmanrhetoric]

no offence but do i look like i understand anything

[batmanrhetoric]

How has nobody settled for me yet I’m a solid 3

[batmanrhetoric]

“wyd after work”

sleeping for work tomorrow

[batmanrhetoric]

[batmanrhetoric]

In shitty but unsurprising news, men leaving their wives who have been diagnosed with cancer is 5x more common than women leaving their husbands who have been diagnosed with cancer.

[batmanrhetoric]

Bitzer’s Metatheory

For today’s post, I decided to look over at some other Batman Blogs and examine their content. While examining their content I will be critiquing the blog using one element from Bitzer’s Metatheory.

Bitzer’s Metatheory has three basic elements (for those of you that don’t know this). The elements are: exigence, audience, and constraints. Out of these three things, I will be taking a look at audience and how that shapes the blog that I chose.

Speaking of, the blog I’ve chosen is https://numberonebatfan.wordpress.com/.

Looking at the posts done by John Sorensen, the blogger, the beginning of each post will usually be a picture, nine times out of ten, relating to batman. (Whether it’s an image from the comics, the movies, an action-figure, or just John wearing or holding up Batman stuff.)

Right under the image, he has a one-sentence paragraph that reads: “One of the things I love about Batman is his attitude.”

After the image comes the writing about whatever topic John has chosen for the moment. But that doesn’t mean there are no more images. Throughout the text, usually after a couple of paragraphs, there will be another image that relates to the message of the post or an image that helps strengthen whatever argument or point John is making.

In John’s blog post titled, “Batitude - I can and I Will, I Do and I Dare!” posted on June 10th, 2015, John begins with a picture of Batman and the Joker.  (https://numberonebatfan.wordpress.com/2015/06/10/batitude-i-can-and-i-will-i-do-and-i-dare/)

Right under the image, he has a one-sentence paragraph that reads: “One of the things I love about Batman is his attitude.”

This sentence is straight to the point, it’s simple, and it sets up what the rest of his post is going to be about.

In this post, specifically, he uses a lot of short-sentence paragraphs, even adding a quote by Publilius Syrus to strengthen his post, and at the very end - an image of Batman.

These are very nice visual elements to his blog. When needed, he enlarges text or italicizes it both of which help the audience. This blog is also written in first person and will, at times, have some coarse words interspersed.

Obviously, this is a casual blog. (As it is not all that formal.) The main audience for his posts can be easily categorized as: “People who like Batman.” First and foremost.

His posts are about Batman, whether it’s his attitude or the specific ways he did certain things in the comics.

Because of the casual aspect of the blog, you know that this is not something that would be put in an academic journal or article. It’s not for that kind of audience. (Which is fine.)

My total critique? I think that John has a very nice blogging format that is rather motivational at times. Who better to learn life lessons from than Batman? Am I right?

When it comes to Metatheory, John’s audience is casual batman fans. This provides him with a certain amount of freedom as he goes about his blogging business. For his audience he does plenty of things to make his posts easy to read and understand, while still being fun to look at.

10/10 great blog! Hopefully you’ll go and check him out at: https://numberonebatfan.wordpress.com/about/

[batmanrhetoric]

Rhetoric

What is Rhetoric? 

When I was asked this question, all of my previous years of schooling came rushing to the forefront of my mind, like a war flashback. I felt myself perspire at the question. What if I answer it wrong? 

With nothing but my wits, memories, and a pen I started to chart out what I view Rhetoric to be. My list consisted of thus: 

Fancy words, literary devices, ideas or an argument, etc. 

Basically, a smart way to use language. (As taught by all of my English High School teachers.) 

Rhetoric is a way to use words or to structure our ideas and arguments in a persuasive and manipulative way. We do this through using certain figures of speech, using logic (or logos as Aristotle would say), and by employing the principles of Rhetoric. 

In a piece of writing by Doug Downs about Rhetoric, “Rhetoric: Making Sense of Human Interaction and Meaning Making” Downs states that the term “rhetoric” is similar to gravity, because both of these items have sets of principles that can explain and predict how different matters interact. 

For rhetoric, the matters interacting are people and language. 

Language is a concept that has more than one meanings. It can be spoken language, sign language, symbols, drawings, pictures. Everything speaks. 

According to my Intro to Rhetoric teacher, “Rhetoric is a discipline that interrelates with other disciplines, like communications, law, English, etc”

Rhetoric also has its own theoretical constructs that help shape the way it is used and seen today. It is also something that can be seen and described in many different ways. Some think it’s all a bunch of conspiracy theories Without any facts. 

One thing is certain though, the way we shape language - our rhetoric - or rhetoric in general, can be defined and seen as an art form. To be able to convince someone of something is not an easy task. Characters like Loki from the Marvel universe, or Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones are noteworthy speakers. 

But why or what makes them noteworthy? They both seem to be “silver-tongued” aka they have a way with words. Both of these characters are masters of rhetoric. They are smart, they are witty, and can be viewed as rhetorical symbols of the modern (albeit, fantasy) generation. 

But these characters aren’t the only things I’ll be looking at going forward. 

In this blog I will be exploring rhetoric and how it is used in comics. More specifically, Batman.