Telling America s Story Essay -- William F. Lewis Essays

Telling America 's Story The three essays of rhetorical criticism, Telling America 's Story: Narrative Form and the Regan Presidency by William F. Lewis, The "Promiscuous Audience" Controversy and the Emergence of the Early Woman 's Rights Movement by Susan Zaeske, and Medicine, Rhetoric, and Euthanasia: A Case Study in the Workings of a Postmodern Discourse by Michael J. Hyde each employ a variety of strategies to examine the rhetoric of three distinct situations. This paper will attempt to dissect each of the essays in a comparative manner. Specifically, it will evaluate the introductions, how effectively they are constructed, and how the essays follow according to the expectations set forth in the introductions. In Telling America 's Story, Lewis starts by providing a quick explanation of the country's status as Regan entered office. The reader is instantly introduced to "the Western world's most gifted communicator." Lewis does not leave the reader with that viewpoint for long as he goes on to explain the views of Regan's critics. Arguments of Regan's "ideology without ideas" and the New Republic editor's comment that "Ronald Regan has never let the facts get in the way of a good story" begin to steer the reader toward a more objective state of mind. A fair balance of the two viewpoints is maintained throughout the piece, but the overall feel of it seems to be geared toward the latter. It is not until half way down the second page of his essay that Lewis clearly states his purpose, to "account for the distinctive reputation, style, and effect of Ronald Regan's discourse". He even lists the two objectives that his essay will accomplish, which are explained later under headings that bear the same name as the stated ... ...ike Lewis's topic. The question/answer method is effective in this essay because it gives the reader something to prepare for. The reader knows what to look for in the rest of essay and will be more attentive when reading. She does not leave the reader hanging; the rest of the essay is distinctly laid out and easily answers all questions. The review of these essays showed that while rhetorical criticism does need to have formal structure, there are many ways for a critic to accomplish their objectives within the confines that basic structure. Although it is not always best choice for every situation, I feel that a shorter, more direct approach to an introduction, as in Hyde's piece, is the most effective. I also thought that the question/answer format worked well for Zaske. It may have been the topic, but I found that the Hyde essay was the most engaging overall. Telling America 's Story Essay -- William F. Lewis Essays Telling America 's Story The three essays of rhetorical criticism, Telling America 's Story: Narrative Form and the Regan Presidency by William F. Lewis, The "Promiscuous Audience" Controversy and the Emergence of the Early Woman 's Rights Movement by Susan Zaeske, and Medicine, Rhetoric, and Euthanasia: A Case Study in the Workings of a Postmodern Discourse by Michael J. Hyde each employ a variety of strategies to examine the rhetoric of three distinct situations. This paper will attempt to dissect each of the essays in a comparative manner. Specifically, it will evaluate the introductions, how effectively they are constructed, and how the essays follow according to the expectations set forth in the introductions. In Telling America 's Story, Lewis starts by providing a quick explanation of the country's status as Regan entered office. The reader is instantly introduced to "the Western world's most gifted communicator." Lewis does not leave the reader with that viewpoint for long as he goes on to explain the views of Regan's critics. Arguments of Regan's "ideology without ideas" and the New Republic editor's comment that "Ronald Regan has never let the facts get in the way of a good story" begin to steer the reader toward a more objective state of mind. A fair balance of the two viewpoints is maintained throughout the piece, but the overall feel of it seems to be geared toward the latter. It is not until half way down the second page of his essay that Lewis clearly states his purpose, to "account for the distinctive reputation, style, and effect of Ronald Regan's discourse". He even lists the two objectives that his essay will accomplish, which are explained later under headings that bear the same name as the stated ... ...ike Lewis's topic. The question/answer method is effective in this essay because it gives the reader something to prepare for. The reader knows what to look for in the rest of essay and will be more attentive when reading. She does not leave the reader hanging; the rest of the essay is distinctly laid out and easily answers all questions. The review of these essays showed that while rhetorical criticism does need to have formal structure, there are many ways for a critic to accomplish their objectives within the confines that basic structure. Although it is not always best choice for every situation, I feel that a shorter, more direct approach to an introduction, as in Hyde's piece, is the most effective. I also thought that the question/answer format worked well for Zaske. It may have been the topic, but I found that the Hyde essay was the most engaging overall.