A rhetorical analysis of language is not a summary or an interpretation of what the author meant. Rather, it is a treatise on how the author presents his or her material (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 16). At issue are the rhetorical features of the text-the author's purpose, the intended audience, what kinds of claims he makes, and the way he uses evidence (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 16). That evidence is used to show how an author attempts to persuade whatever audience he has chosen. The rhetorical plan is to analyze the text in terms of with the grain reading, that is, the belief that everything the author says is believed without question, and against the grain reading, that is, wherein the analyst erects challenges to whatever claims and techniques the author uses (Ramage, Bean and Johnson 16).
The text selected for this exercise is "When It Changed," by Joanna Russ. The primary analysis will be concerned with the author's literary technique, or the style, in this case, of her writing (formal or informal, whether the author revealed any hidden beliefs or assumptions, whether or not she appealed to her readers' emotions, or whether she used mostly visual references. The author's decision about audiences will be explored, along with whether the piece fits that audience. Finally, an effort will be made to grade the piece overall to determine its effectiveness.
Audience
One of the first things children are taught when writing is to identify the audience to whom they are writing. This is not as easy as it sounds. Usually, when we are speaking to someone, and we can see their faces, we generally know who they are, and so we can adjust our speaking so that it will match their expectation of communication. If we were speaking to a group of deep sea fisherman, for example, we wouldn't use Shakespearean English. We would use their common language, probably an informal tone and informal vocabulary and grammar. Then we could be reasonably sure they got the message. Writers, however, sometimes don't think about, or cannot imagine, what their primary audience might be.
Whatever we want to say has to be adjusted so that our audience, or presumed audience, has the best chance to understand what we are saying and mean to say (Colorado State University Writing Center). Rust's article is seemingly intended for an audience that is yuppyish, and enjoys an informal story told well. But it is also limited to those who prefer science fiction to, say, historical fiction. That changes things because the two audiences are not the same at all. Again, it is not Shakespearean English. The sentences are longish ('My birthplace on Whileaway was largely given to farm machinery and I refuse to wrestle with a five-gear shift at unholy speeds, not having been brought up to it, but even on those turns in the middle of the night, on a country road as bad as only our district can make them, Katy's driving didn't scare me.') But she also mixes in some dialog, and sentences of varying lengths, which is a mark of narrative writing (Siegel). As Siegel says,
[o]ne short sentence after another makes your prose sound choppy, childish or like a bad imitation of Hemingway. Conversely, all long sentences can make your writing hard to read. However, using medium-length sentences doesn't work either. Sentences that are about the same length (and often follow the same grammatical pattern) create monotony.
Rust does an outstanding job with varying her sentence lengths, so we know that her audience is an educated one, albeit one that likes science fiction.
Katy and I have three children between us, one of hers and two of mine. Yuriko, my eldest, was asleep in the back seat, dreaming twelve-year-old dreams of love and war: running away to sea, hunting in the North, dreams of strangely beautiful people in strangely beautiful places, all the wonderful guff you think up when you are turning twelve and the glands start going.
This piece is obviously not of a formal type; it is not a report or an academic treatise or article. The author intends that we experience this, not with our heads (at least completely), but with our hearts and funny bones. And that is exactly what we do.
Note the visual referents--'asleep in the back seat,' or 'strangely beautiful people in strangely beautiful places.' Or this, from later on: 'I cannot stand local beer, which the farmers swill as if their stomachs had iridium linings, but I took it anyway, from Amalia (it was her bicycle we had seen outside as we parked), and swallowed it all.The piece, which spans seven pages, is littered with such visual referents. Interestingly, all of them have been had by all of us at one time or another, or at least something reasonably close, if you take away the science-fiction aspect of the story, making for an immediate connection with the narrative, another clue that the writing style and the audience are like hand and glove. But there is more.
I don't think that there is anything hidden there. At least, it isn't obvious. It isn't a recruiting story, nor is it a newsworthy item. It is a simple narrative about a simple family experience, even though that family experience occurs within a fantasy sort of science fiction narrative in which things are either muted to lend credibility, or outlandish, which lends the piece its 'otherworldly' character, literally.
As far as an appeal to emotions goes, the presence of children in fiction is usually designed to appeal positively to people because of children's presumed innocence. That innocence, by the way, is a direct connection to us that children experience for the first time, or in an unfamiliar situation, reminds us, not necessarily of those same experiences, but of the times we have been experiencing something new, with all of the nerves, the unknown, the trepidation, the joy, the boredom, perhaps. We identify and are intensely interested in that. Anything about children has the pull of an emotional appeal. And interestingly, the more normal the child, the stronger the appeal seems to be.
Rhetorical Strategies Used by The Author
Russ makes primary use of two rhetorical strategies for telling her story. The first, not unsurprisingly, is the strategy most storytellers use: description. Russ uses description to move the reader along in accord with a time sequence (The Norton Company). We are not told directly what the time sequence is. It might have been a few day, a week, or longer. But that isn't the point. The descriptive time sequence is a framework through which we view the action that takes place. Walker (Harvard Writing Center) describes a frame of reference by saying that a frame of reference as the context within which you place two things you plan to compare and contrast; it is the umbrella under which you have grouped them. But the description does more. By describing, Russ shows us an idea, theme, question, problema group of similar things from which you extract two for special attention(Walker), and she proceeds to do just that by using comparison and contrast to make the story both realistic and also new. Russ brilliantly uses description to fashion her paragraphs with visual imagery and to tell a story that has lasting images.
The second rhetorical device has already been alluded to--it the use of comparison and contrast to both show a sense of normalcy surrounding the story, but also highlight the differences between characters (The Norton Company). I read once in an appendix to The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien understood that in order for readers to feel comfortable with his creation, he had to fashion much of Middle Earth just like what we know of the Earth. Too bizarre, he thought, and no one would understand the story he was telling. Too much like our own world, without elves and dwarves and dragons, would make an uninspiring insipid tale that wouldn't be worth the publishing. It is a fine line, or finer, depending on the type of writing the author is doing. Science fiction writers, especially, must use comparison and contrast to make their worlds both familiar and at the same time utterly new. For fantasy writers, it is much the same. The reader has to be snagged, but once snagged, has to be entertained, or the author will lose them. Russ fashions a world that is both cozily familiar, but is also utterly new. She has chosen well.
An Overall Grade
Some readers will find Russ' fictional entry not worth a read. Others will find it okay, but nothing to write home about. Some, to the contrary, will find the story to be interesting, worth reading again, maybe even recommending to a friend. But that is pretty much true of all written works opinion is variegated because people are all different and have different ideas of what they personally like. That's to be expected. But that's also based on opinion, and so it doesn't really count, at least in a rhetorical analysis. Because a rhetorical analysis is just about as opinion-free as anyone can get about any type of language.
Based on this analysis, it was determined that the audience she chose was an appropriate one--a yuppyish, educated one, probably people with children or access to children, like nieces and nephews. The style is informal, even familiar, as in assuming an air of familiarity with someone. She uses, like Siegel recommended, sentences of differing length in order to get and hold interest. The description is highly visual, also a trait of science fiction, unless visual clues are given, science fiction does not hold much interest, because the setting is so much different than we are used to. There also doesn't seem to be anything hidden or assumed, but there would really be no reason for Russ to do those things. There is a strong emotional appeal. In fact it is the children, or child, who both sets the ordinary stage, but who's own childhood provides the most significant comparisons to be made.
The use of description is the way in which Russ is able to carry off the strong comparisons and contrasts that make the story what it is. Description is the frame of reference in which the comparison and contrasts appear, mostly to good effect. The comparisons and contrasts are what fuel the story, anchoring the reader while enabling the reader to soar into he world that Russ has created. It's a perfect marriage, and a perfect blending of strategies that work. So for this piece by Russ, it earns an A. Certainly there is better writing in the world, but most assuredly, there certainly is worse.
Works Cited
Colorado State University Writing Center. "Adapting to Your Audience." 2016. Accessed 16 June, 2016. Web.
Ramage, John, John Bean and June Johnson. Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing. New York: Pearson Publishers. 2011. Print.
Siegel, Kristi. "Varying Sentence Length." Mount Mary College. n.d. Accessed 17 June, 2016. Web.
W. W. Norton and Company. "Rhetorical Strategies." 2016. Accessed 17 June, 2016. Web.
Walker, Kerry. "How to Write a Comparative Analysis." Harvard College Writing Center. 1998. Web.
Annotated Bibliography
Colorado State University Writing Center. "Adapting to Your Audience." 2016. Accessed 16 June, 2016. Web.
This article is one in a series on writing techniques, and this one includes writing for an audience, types of audiences, awareness, and readers vs audiences, among others. Offers good advice on the writing process.
Ramage, John, John Bean and June Johnson. Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing. New York: Pearson Publishers. 2011. Print.
A basic textbook on the process of writing. In this part, the book tells how one should go about performing a rhetorical analysis. Very detailed.
Siegel, Kristi. "Varying Sentence Length." Mount Mary College. n.d. Accessed 17 June, 2016. Web.
Siegel, a college writing professor, devotes a whole webpage to the idea of varying sentence length to enhance and hold interest. She succinctly points out the differences by providing examples that anyone can understand.
W. W. Norton and Company. "Rhetorical Strategies." 2016. Accessed 17 June, 2016. Web.
Basic list of rhetorical strategies, from analyzing cause and effect, description, comparing and contrasting, and more. Goes into detail on all of them, with links to associated material. It is a good resource to have when doing a rhetorical analysis.
Walker, Kerry. "How to Write a Comparative Analysis." Harvard College Writing Center. 1998. Web.
This one is a bit dated, but it remains true as a part of the writing process. Writing a comparative analysis is not only good for writers to know, but for those analyzing rhetoric to know, too. In this case, the comparative analysis "cracked" the analysis wide open.
