This coming Tuesday's class is looking at Neo-Aristotelian criticism, and those whose names appear on the schedule for that class are expected to present an artifact they felt was best suited for this method of criticism. As you might expect, this is pretty subjective.
What I'm looking to assess is your ability to discern or identify an artifact for Neo-Aristotelian analysis. This mode suggests a rubric that might look like this:
- Who is speaking (the persona)?
- What's the occasion (justification)?
- Who is the audience?
- What is the rhetor's claim?
- What is the logical appeal (logos)?
- Inductive, deductive reasoning?
- What is it's credible appeal (ethos)?
- What is it's emotional appeal (pathos)?
- What is the artifact's structure?
- How does language impact the goal of meaning?
- If spoken, how is the artifact delivered?
- Was the intended effect met?
Hope this helps. Not all of these may apply given the nature of our artifact. Speeches work well here, and given the plethora of content coming from the GOP race, not to mention some incredibly failing rhetoric begging for scrutiny, you might find something worthy of analysis there. Think Santorum.
If you're presenting this Tuesday, make sure your artifact is posted to your blog. Lead a discussion using the above criteria to critique your artifact.
Capiche?
