Rouch Draft

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Patrick Suskind’s Perfume, both display the major characters as having evil intentions. However in The Crucibles , each character having a good or bad intention often switch from good to evil.

The traditional “Good vs. Evil” plot lines are usually centered on the struggle of the protagonist against the villain. However both in Perfume and The Crucibles, the antagonist is the main focus and his or her quest to fulfill “evil” ambitions. In Arthur Miller’s The Crucible John Proctor, the main character, struggles with guilt. Mary denying any witchcraft then saying that John Proctor was the devil himself or people seeing Elisabeth Proctor as a good woman, then evil because they think she made a compact with the devil. The good side is usually victorious. However, in this novel the "evil” side wins the struggle. For instance, in Perfume, Grenouille ends up having power over the society. Grenouille is the evil character and the majority of main characters all display evil tendencies. In general, both of the novels had characters that had an evil side to them.

In both of the novels, the majority of the evil acts resulted from the character’s desires and ambitions. The villain is portrayed as “pure evil” like many other conventional films, novels, and comics. In perfume, the villain Jean Grenouille shows no remorse for his actions and kills countless people but does not feel the slightest sympathy for their murder. The main characters displayed characteristics that were “evil” but not to the extent of Grenouille. For instance Madam Guillard and Baldini were not necessarily “pure evil” characters in the novel however their actions were not “good” either. Baldini used Grenouille’s talent in order to become rich and did not give him a portion of the earnings, recognition or treat him with respect. Good characters were young female virgins that Grenouille killed like Laure. However, none of these characters were described in detail which could indicate that these characters may display evil characteristics as well. In the Crucibles, the town sees the girls who actually dance, chant and get caught running naked in the woods at the start as good, not evil for doing so. John Proctor, his wife and others convicted of witchcraft are seen as the evil people by the public and punished if they do not confess to compacting with the devil. So if they confessed to compacting with the devil, they would be lying. Instead they were hung for saying they were innocent to witchcraft charges. Every character in the play could either be placed in the intentions under good or bad intentions. Almost every character has mixed feelings of evil or good actions. The fight between the centre of evil and the centre of good is the foremost important of the points.



One of the differences from both novels is that in The Crucibles, people who are good and people who are evil have switched identities evil is seen as good and good seen as evil. In the play, the center of evil is Abigail Williams the niece of Parris. She has an affair with John Proctor while working for the Proctors, and also she committed many acts against the Puritan religion. She lies many times and seems to like it when people are sent to hang. From lying she is given power and the more power she gets the more confident she becomes. But when her own friend starts to destroy her control she turns against her. She uses evil actions disguised as good to get attention. Therefore, the viewers see Abigail as the evil character in the play but what the characters in the play think is different

In conclusion, both Perfume and The Crucibles novels have characters that have evil intentions. The authors had many similarities in portraying the evil character however there was a difference of switching roles from good to evil.

How do films deal with these questions?

Films deal with these questions similar to how literature does. The way film portrays good and evil characters in every movie is different from each other. In some movies, they show the evil character as the “good” in the beginning then reveal the evil side by the end of the movie. For example in the movie “Bloody Valentine”, there is a certain fascination in the irony of the show which twists the idea of a pristine, lovey-dovey valentine into a disturbing pornographic gore fest of fear and dread. In the movie, it was shown that Tom is a good person, but at the end of the movie, we find out how he is the murderer that killed a lot of people and that was the horrid truth.

The term one-dimensional is frequently applied to characters that show little variation in their actions and little depth in their personalities. Classic examples of one-dimensional are the characters in the Dudley Do-Right series that played during The Bullwinkle Show, namely, Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties, the evil Snidely Whiplash, and sweet Nell Fenwick. Dudley always did good; Snidely always did evil; and Nell was always sweet. This is the typical setup of many mellerdrammers with good versus evil scenarios. In films, they create characters with depth, so that the audience can identify characters that elicit sympathy because then the audience can relate and say, "I know that person," or "I met a person like that once," or "I am that person."

Films create different types of mood when someone is doing an evil or a good act. For example in the movie Dark Knight, whenever the good character showed up, the use of light was brighter, the music sounded like a heroic theme, the camera angles to show good characters are always different. However, when they show an evil character, the evil character usually talks with a lower tone of voice, or uses more exaggerated facial expressions and the setting seems more dull and darker. It’s a universal subject when it comes to portraying good and evil in films. In essence it is made clear who is the evil character or the good character in films just like in literature.

How does literature deal with these questions?

Good versus evil is a very common theme in many different types of literature. The conflict between good and evil is one of the most common conventional themes in literature, and is sometimes considered to be a universal part of the human condition. There are several variations on this conflict, one being the battle between individuals or ideologies, with one side good, the other evil. While certainly not as widely seen as the direct good vs. evil conflict, the concept of "individual vs. self" is often much more compelling to a reader/watcher, especially if it is the protagonist. In literature it requires well-written character development in order to truly succeed. The most of the novels, the main character is the “good” one and the protagonist is the evil one. It depends on what kind of conflict it is for example a person versus another person or a person versus the society and etc.

In literature the characters are clearly portrayed as evil or good, usually by the end of the story the reader knows which character is evil or not. For instance the Harry Potter books’ dramatic portray of a fight between good and evil gives general outline of what evil is, particularly moral evil. The books portray evil by using three main concepts, evil is privation or a deformity parasitic on something good, evil due to this weakness, must accordingly mask itself by deceit; and moral evil can only really exist as the result of free choice. However many people might view it differently for example they might think that potter books show that evil doesn’t really exist. Evil does not really exist in itself, but is a privation, a lacking in what something is supposed to be. It is a lacking of what is good.

Many people believe simply believe evil characters are the ones that makes the story interesting. Unlike much of modern literature and media, Tolkien attempts, and succeeds, in portraying goodness as interesting, and evil as boring. Many young people in modern society have a tendency to view evil as interesting and exciting, and good as dull and boring. All that many young people know about evil is what they see on TV and in the movies, or read in novels. Tolkien, however, has captured the minds and hearts of many modern youth, and has succeeded in making them see the interesting side of goodness. How Tolkien accomplishes this is essentially very simple. Tolkien portrays good and evil accurately rather than how they are often portrayed in the movies. In modern movies, even heroes have a "Bad side". It is the portrayal of evil as "cool" in the media that leaves many youth with that false impression. For example, the most recent star wars movies create this view of evil. Darth Vader is evil, but he has "cool" powers such as lightning bolts that the good Jedi's do not have. Tolkien, however, exposes evil for what it truly is, boring, repetitive, and miserable.

How do various religions/philosophies deal with these questions?

Good and evil are based on people’s opinion and what type of environment they grew up in. Every religion and philosophers have their own views with many differences and similarities. Some philosophers believe that there is no such thing as good and evil. Plato believed that in reincarnation there were no eternal rewards or punishments except for an evil few who were not allowed out of Hades. All the others had to face the prospect of their next life, and they were given the opportunity to choose the character of their next life from a variety of alternatives. Also another philosopher, John Locke said people were born as good. However Thomas Hobbes was against that idea and said that people were born evil.

In my limited studies of religion, I have discovered that the Eastern religions have a similar view of evil and view it as a duality of good. Evil has no real existence, being part of the illusory world of phenomena. Hinduism sees evil in a light similar to that of Taoism, that it is part of the continuity of life. It is understood that all that is created, including life and this earth, must inevitably be destroyed. In Buddhism, there is no particular dealing with evil. Rather it is just another aspect of suffering. Once one is aware of oneself then one will recognize that one is capable of evil only in ignorance. Suffering and pain can be ended through the pursuit of truth and self knowledge. Like Hinduism, Buddhism sees evil in light of the whole of creation. We are not individuals, but rather a part of a whole and as such it does behoove us to understand evil and to attempt to eliminate it from our lives and that of others in general.

Similar to the eastern religions, the monotheistic religions share a common view of evil as they are borne of a common history. A main tenant of Islam, Judaism and Christianity is that of God’s gift to man of free will. God is understood to be all benevolence and any evil that may arise on earth is a manifestation of humans’ wrong decisions. The problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is used as the basis for atheism. Because God and evil are incompatible, and evil surely exists, there must be no God. Overall, though different religions and philosophers deal with good and evil differently, they also have many similarities.

Can good characters engender judgment?

Yes, good characters can definitely engender judgment. Anybody can be judged for their evil behavior. The word evil refers to the idea some people entertain that there is some extra-human type of force that guides humanity to act in a manner that harms other people. All our "good" motivations are based on carnality, materialism, selfishness and therefore rely on evil.

If a “good” person is doing wrong, then people will definitely judge their evil behaviors. Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist, conducted an experiment at Stanford University during 1971 to offer a setting where good individuals become bad, as described in the quotation, “Zimbardo conducted a now-famous experiment at Stanford University in 1971, involving students who posed as prisoners and guards. Five days into the experiment, Zimbardo halted the study when the student guards began abusing the prisoners, forcing them to strip naked and simulate sex acts”.

Overall we must recognize and accept that we have some evilness in us for example being selfish or greedy. When we accept this and understand how this works then the good within us can become all the more greater and expressible. Without this embrace of our evil sides we are imbalanced and not capable of fully realizing our "good" potential. More worryingly without accepting our evil side we will not perceive accurately what good itself is and stray.

Can evil characters engender sympathy?

Every individual can engender sympathy, even if they are the most evil person in the world. B.F Skinner believed that people are the way they are because of positive and negative reinforcement. For example if Max says hi to Mike and Mike gives Max a friendly smile, Max will likely to say hi the next time he sees Mike. However if Mike ignored Max and walked away, Max would act differently. An evil person can engender sympathy if he/she gets positive reinforcement and will realize what he has done wrong.

Every person has their good and bad side in them. For example in the game Fallout 3 it’s possible for an evil character to turn good. To turn the evil characters into good character, you just have to gain back good karma for instance by giving purified water to those who ask for it outside of large cities like megaton and rivet city, and just in general doing the right thing when you complete quests. Like what Buddha said, if you do good and give out positive energy then automatically you are considered ads good.

When an environment is negative enough, people try to seek for the good which is why many individuals are considered as evil. There are many cases when an evil character realizes what he/she is doing is wrong and changes his/her behaviour. For example in the movie Troy, Achilles falls in love with the virgin girl and realizes that he wants to live and have a family instead of dying as the greatest war hero that will be remembered timelessly even though Hector kills his cousin which leads him back into the war. Also in Iron man, the main character stops making war weapons because he realized what they do when they are in the wrong hands.

Are there clearly defined roles?

There are no cleared defined roles of the good and evil. Nobody is 100% evil and 100% good. Every individual has its good and the evil side. Every individual has their own view of how they look at doing good or evil as.

There is no conscious knowledge of good and evil and of the difference between them and their behaviour is like that of their primitive ancestors. Their behaviour is stated and condemned as evil. For example the comic books we read about watchmen and the batman book, there weren’t the evil or the good characters. It was hard to portray which characters were evil. Every character can be looked at as an evil person or a good person. For instance when Rorschach was searching around to find out who killed the comedian, it seemed as if he was doing the good. However the scene when he went into a bar, he overheard a guy talking about him so he twisted his index finger. This scene could be seen as evil because he harmed another person, but it can also be seen as “watch out what you are saying” which is good because he is teaching that man a lesson.

Overall, there are no clearly defined roles of good and evil. Good can be seen as evil and evil can be seen as the good. It’s really up to how an individual portrays the character or a situation. For example if a person grew up in an hostile environment when he has been tortured and beaten all his life by a group of people, and he takes revenge later on when he is grown up. This can be seen as the good because it is karma and the group of people deserve the punishment but it can be also looked as the “evil” since he is harming that group.

The nature of evil

Evil is the opposite of the nature of good. It’s a subjective matter when it comes to the nature of evil. Everyone thinks and looks at things in different ways. To some people, what might be “evil”, to another person it might be the good. Freud believed, we have three parts to our mind, the ego, the Id and the superego. Ego is what we are aware of such as what’s possible and what’s impossible to do. The id is an important part of our personality because as newborns, it allows us to get our basic needs met. In other words, the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. When a person is hungry, he/she will get food as soon as possible in any way. For example when it comes to a poor person trying to steal something, it’s the id that controls his actions. It can be seen as “evil” by others, but for that individual it’s a need (something that will make him feel good).

In psychological terms, evil is an aberration of the ego. An evil ego has a strong desire to control other egos. An evil person knows that fear is the most effective way to rule other people because terror induces unbearable fear. People who are stricken with fear cannot take effective action to defend themselves and while they are in that state, an evil person can do anything they want to do to them. This aberration of the ego can be termed "sick" because the ego will inflict pain and suffering in order to experience the joy and thrill of being in total control. When someone is doing something “evil”, they are fully aware of what’s going on and very careful so they don’t get fail to do a bad deed. For example in 911, when Osama Bin Laden planned the terrorist act, he planned it very carefully and trained numbers of people to make sure the plan is successful.


Evil can be also defined as having a harmful intent. Knowing an action is wrong but wanting to do it anyway is also evil. In law, people still get charged if they have the intention to kill someone or to steal something. Having the motivation to do something and doing it, is the same. Sometimes if one particular thing of a group is evil, the whole group is “evil” as well. Germany can be considered "evil" because of Hitler. America can be considered "evil" because of bush helping with wars etc. England and France can be considered "evil" because of their many wars in the past.
Evil is a subjective term. It means different things to different people. China thinks the west is 'evil' because to them, individuality and even individual needs should take a back seat to the needs of the community and society. In china, conformity is prized while individuality is not very important. The West finds this strange and could not imagine living that way so we look down on them and when we examine the more dramatic examples of this way of thinking; we are shocked and call them an 'evil country.' It goes both ways.

In the end, we each define what we consider to be evil and who we think is evil. In most cases, we share most if not all of our ideas of what is evil with our peers and that is how we get a social understanding of evil, but regardless of if you are talking about individual ideas and concepts of evil or 'evil' countries and groups, the term itself is subjective and open for interpretation. In my personal opinion, evil should be defined as: Actions and inactions resulting from intentional and unrepentant ignorance, indolence, gluttony, bigotry, profligacy and cowardice.

What is the nature of good?

There have been debates over this topic for years and years. Everyone thinks differently and have a different opinion on the nature of good. However to me the nature of good is to not harm anyone in any way. The nature of good is to simply when you make another individual happy. Also, if an individual does something fairly, or that’s justified, it’s considered as good. Many views value unity as a good: to go beyond eudemonia by saying that an individual person's flourishing is valuable only as a means to the flourishing of society as a whole. In other words, a single person's life is, ultimately, not important or worthwhile in itself, but is good only as a means to the success of society as a whole.

In some cases, good is when you don’t go against something. For example not going against the law is a good thing. If you ask anybody is helping a good thing or bad. The answer would be a yes simply because it’s a cause that won’t harm but make the other individual happy. Good in other words to make someone else happy by doing the “right” thing.

Subjective or universal

It’s mainly subjective that constitutes evil and good simply because everyone thinks differently on this planet. Good and evil are quality judgments, just like hot and cold, light and dark, and near and far are quality judgments. Quality judgments are evaluations that we humans make relative to our own experience as human beings. Hot is what is hot to us. Far is what is far to us. Good is what is good to us. Evil is what is bad to us. Good and evil are quality judgments that we make relative to ourselves and our experiences here on Earth.

In some cases something that may seem good to us, may be wrong to someone else. For example, in western countries it’s seen as a good friendly relationship if a girl were to hug a guy. However in the Middle East if a girl was to give a guy a hug, the society would look at it the wrong way. It depends on how a society has been brought up and how their culture view good and evil as.

Debunking Media Violence (formal tone)

I liked the opening of this persuasive piece, the author used to introduce the topic violence in the media by using the example of “Tom and Jerry” to catch the reader’s attention. The essay was well structured and used effective diction yet the essay wasn’t as strong as I expected it to be. The author tried to support both sides. At first the author starts off by presenting how media violence has an influence on youth which makes them violent but the author carried on how the media doesn’t have an influence the youth and that it’s the parent’s responsibility so the media shouldn’t get blamed for. I felt that the author wasn’t clear with what he was trying to prove since he was trying to point out facts for both sides.

The essay needed stronger facts to support his points. Although the author used opinions from professionals, they weren’t facts; they were opinions so the author didn’t research the right facts to support his/her argument. Therefore, the author used base rate fallacy just like one of the previous persuasive pieces because he/she used weak evidence to make a judgement. The author should have gotten information from various different experts to see if there is any difference in their opinions.

I found some errors which didn't make this piece very efficient, for example "Even if you don't believe the argument that violence in the media doesn't cause any problems with our children, you need to take matters into your own hands. Watch what your children are watching". Henceforth the author didn't take his/her time to edit and use the right techniques to make it formal than informal.

The editorial could have had combination of long and short sentences to make it more interesting. Even though this editorial was written in a formal tone, the author still used abbreviations. Instead of writing the full word of a number, it used numbers for example, “This is just one incident that has occurred over the past 10 years that groups are concerned about”. What made this article somewhat effective was because it had couple of rhetoric questions which made the reader think about the issue. Overall, the author organized the essay well as it flowed nicely, used appropriate vocabularies, and few techniques but it was lacking facts.

Adolescents and the media

This particular piece was very unique compared to other persuasive pieces. I liked the fact how it was well structured and organized, it included subtitles and bolded important terms. The author made sure to use facts, statistics, and studies to support his/her point. As an informal tone, the author included techniques like reader’s inclusion, abbreviations and rhetoric questions which made the persuasive piece quite efficient. The author branched off from one topic to other topics such as drugs, sex, eating disorders and so forth. As a reader, I thought about how one thing can lead to many things which made it remarkable than most of the other persuasive pieces. It states all the affects as well as how it can lead to many other things.

The author was clear about his point and readers can find it easier to understand what the author’s opinion was. The author believed that the media does have an influence on adolescence therefore parent’s presence is really important in a child’s life. The author used various facts to support his argument which made it convincing. For example, “the connection between media violence and real-life aggression is nearly as strong as the link between smoking and lung cancer, and stronger than the connections between lead and IQ, homework and achievement, calcium and bone mass, and exposure to asbestos and cancer. Although much of the research has been done in the United States, an Australian Psychological Association position paper in 2000 and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in 2004 acknowledged the significance of media violence”. As you can see this author uses studies by doctors and pediatricians to prove his point.

I found the editorial much easier to understand than the other three persuasive pieces because of the way it was structured. He uses his own theories and compares with other people's theories which also made it effective. This piece was very straight forward, informative and easier to note down facts. It was somewhat like presenting a PowerPoint by using bullets, subtitles and etc.

Media violene (formal tone)

As a reader, I didn’t find this persuasive piece of writing very strong. In fact it sounded more informal than formal simply because it didn’t use suitable techniques, high-quality vocabulary and tone. Though it used some rhetoric questions, the author could have still used more techniques and devices to make it more effective. The main idea of this piece was that violence is an issue that our society has been facing for years. In addition, there were errors such as at times the author would use the word “television” but at other times the author would use the short term “t.v.” , “Violence on t.v. is very common today as it was 30 years ago”. Also the author wrote numbers instead of writing them as words, “For example, boys ages 10-14, who saw "parental discretion" advisories”. Although the author provides supporting evidence that television can cause violent behavior for children, then it focuses on the idea that “for the most part, most television is neither helpful nor harmful”. Thus, it was very puzzling and it confuses the reader and doesn’t make this piece very convincing since the bias gets taken away.

This piece could have been better if the author used better facts, evidences, example, and structured the essay properly. It shows that the author doesn’t know what he/she is talking about because the facts used weren’t in-depth, he/she could have gotten into it more details and explained it more. The reason why I find this piece more informal than formal because the author used this sentence, "As you can see this conclusion is quiet vague, and does not give a lot of crucial information for us to correct and improve” and “There are also a number of other factors that influence the way television affects people such as: attitudes, knowledge, interests, how much t.v. you watch, etc”. As a reader, you can tell that the author did not edit his/her work properly or put much effort into this writing.

The author could have used combination of short and long sentences like the editorial on media which was informal. The main idea of the essay wasn’t clear which means that the author failed to get his/her point across to the reader. What I found really irritating was that first the author states an evidence that supports the idea of media violence influencing teenagers but ended up by stating that there are other factors that lead to violence other than the media. Thus this editorial includes hasty conclusion and base rate fallacy (uses weak evidence to make a judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). It confuses the reader about which side of the argument the author is trying to support. The author also used red herring (an argument that is not related to the central discussion) for example, “boys ages 10-14, who saw "parental discretion" advisories, PG-13, and R ratings on programs found these more attractive”. It is not a relevant point, because it doesn’t support the author’s central point on media influencing the youth.

This persuasive piece lacked many techniques, contractions, reader’s inclusion, and use of proper vocabulary which could have made this piece much clearer. The way the essay was structured was poor as well, it didn’t flow adequately. Although it had an introduction, body paragraph, and a conclusion, because of the lack of various techniques and elements of writing, the whole essay sounded weak.

Media Violence (Informal tone)

The editorial, “A Few thoughts on Media violence” by Henry Jenkins was overall extremely well written. The author managed to get his main idea across to the readers. The editorial included convincing and significant points as well as important facts which made the persuasive piece very efficient. The author used evidences that proved every point he made by using facts from other articles, research studies and statistics. For example, when he used a news story from the New York Times, “...Old Boy as an obscure cult film which appeals primarily to those who are interested in excessive violence. While the film includes some of the most disturbing violence I've seen on screen in some time, that's precisely the point: the violence is meant to be disturbing”. One of the techniques the author used to make the editorial effective was by supporting all his arguments with proofs that are confirmed by reference he includes. Henceforth this is what makes the essay well-organized and efficient.

The author states many examples of various countries such as Japan, England, Singapore, and the U.S with different time periods which helps to make the argument very well proven and convincing. The editorial is written in an informal tone, yet it doesn’t address the audience much. Compared to other informal editorials, the author didn’t use the word “you” a lot, the only sentence he used “you” was in “Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't!”. The tone used in the editorial was very effective because he used few rhetoric questions like “Why is violence so persistent in our popular culture?” which allows the readers to connect with the write and relate to it. In addition he used comparisons, contractions, and reader’s inclusion. The way the author structured the editorial really flowed well which was very effectual.

We discussed in class how too many repetition or short sentences can get irritating for the reader when analyzing Obama’s speeches. In this case the author managed to use number of short and long sentences effectively. The use of vocabulary was very brilliant which helps the reader understand the author’s point of view. On the whole, with the combination of amazing evidence, facts, use of vocabulary, the tone, literary and rhetoric devices is what made this persuasive writing competent. The variety of techniques and devices used to get the reader into thinking about the issue was fantastic. The conclusion had a very strong meaning as well, and the author stated few solutions in regards to his thesis. For example, “What we need is more meaningful violence -- representations of violence which incite and provoke us to think more deeply about the nature of aggression, trauma, and loss, representations which get under our skin and make it hard for us to simply sit back and relax in front of the screen”. Overall this piece of writing is very brilliant and it shows that the author knew what he was talking about because of the number of evidences he included continuously to prove every point he made. The main point was that he believes violence in the media does not take control over teenagers to the point where it should get blamed for violent behaviors.

Reflection

A persuasive piece is complicated to write because it takes a lot of effort to prove a point of an issue. It’s quite difficult to support your point of view and find strong facts. It’s always important to know what you are talking about thoroughly. Sometimes students just mention the general stuff about a certain topic and don’t mention the actual background information. Also when students research on their topic, they usually get biased facts or opinions from the internet, so it’s always good to research on the topic you are doing on with different types of sources. A persuasive piece can be well written if the writer knows everything about their topic and get the right facts to support their thesis.

There are many things that can be done to improve in writing persuasive pieces. First of all reading different types of books, articles, editorials, newspaper, or just reading in general will help to gain knowledge. By reading, students can gain different kinds of writing skills which can help them write such as a persuasive piece, a research essay and etc. It’s important to brainstorm ideas and to look for the right facts (not opinions) that are strong and used from various sources. By having an outline before you write a persuasive writing can help just like how people draw a sketch before they make the final piece of cake. It’s all about how you follow the steps, and if you follow them correctly, you will certainly write a great persuasive piece. Writing is all about organization and the type of techniques you use so it’s important to study all the logical fallacies, rhetorical devices, literary devices and etc.

The only way to improve these skills are by reading various types of writing and mostly persuasive writing since that’s what we are focusing on right now. Since our school has semesters, we don’t have the whole year to learn everything little by little. It’s important to just write blogs or journals or do any kinds of writing on a daily basis. Also by writing by hand and typing on a computer can make a difference, so if we do both, students tend to gain more skills. For example I think I am more creative when I write by hand because I think more and also my brain works differently. However when writing on the computer such as blogs, we have the ability to use spell check so we don’t use our brain as much since the computer does everything for us. I’m afraid that since people are relying on technology so much that they won’t even bother to use their brain and think their own just like when we calculate, we tend to use calculators rather than doing it in our heads.

Obama's Speech Analysis 3

Because it was an Inauguration speech, this speech seemed different than the previous two speeches that I analyzed. He was basically stating all the issues that the United States faced in the past, and stated all the solutions to them. As usual the techniques that Obama uses when giving a speech such as by pausing, and using a strong tone of voice makes every speech he does very remarkable. The use of vocabulary, rhetorical devices were very efficient and well-organized. I also noticed that the audience didn’t applause after every time he said a phrase or a sentence. However, since it was an inauguration speech, people didn’t cheer as much and gave him lots of respect as the new president of the United States.

There were some differences between the two previous speeches and the Inauguration speech such as he states for facts and statistics and as usual they were very strong facts. The speech included many examples when it talked about the economy, and the high unemployment rate, the issues in the atmosphere. He used many similarities with rhetorical devices such as rhetorical climax, anecdote, reader’s inclusion, repetition, and chiasmus. One of the most effective rhetorical techniques that he uses is reader’s inclusion; it always creates a bond between him and the audience. Another similarity is that Obama mentions reasonable situations that have been happening in the American economy so the audience can relate to what he talks about.

Taken as a whole, all his speeches are effective because of the rhetoric devices used in the speech. In addition by the tone and attitude of voice he uses. This speech was more serious than the previous speeches because it was an inauguration. This speech was different to the U.S especially because he is the first black president.

Barack Obama's Speech Analysis 2

I really enjoyed watching this video and I am starting to notice several patterns that he uses that makes his speeches very efficient. This speech uses a lot of reader's inclusion, which creates a special bond between him and the audience. Usually repetitions can get annoying in a speech but the way he uses them makes it very effective. When he gives a speech, he uses rhythm and the timing very effectively which is why it’s interesting when you hear it rather than reading it. Lots of cause and effect are also used in his speech to indicate what his main idea is. I really like how he uses lots of facts, stories, and background history to prove a point. The pattern that he uses in both of the speeches has to be reader's inclusion; it's almost in every paragraph. When I read the speech and listened to it, I noticed how the tone of his voice and the way I read it made such a big difference.

The vocabulary he uses also makes every speech he does very effective. He doesn't use long words that are hard to understand but something that will make it effective for example "tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope". His speeches include anecdotes as well which draws the audience to pay close attention. He says "yes we can" a lot, it's a saying that gives Americans hope. The major techniques he uses are reader’s inclusion to create a bond with the audience uses excellent vocabulary, uses repetition, and rhetoric questions. I am starting to learn a lot from watching his speeches. I wish to gain more skills in how to make my writing creative and effective especially with speeches. I am looking forward to analyze more of his speeches in class.

Barack Obama's speech

The video is almost an hour long yet I did not get bored listening to his speech. The way Obama gave his speech sounded very strong, clear and the tone he used was so brilliant that as an audience I wouldn't mind listening to him for another hour. Everything he said had a purpose and a meaning behind to the message he was trying to send to America. He used effective vocabulary such as compassionate and every time he wanted to emphasize a word, he would say the word louder. Also for example "eight in enough" even though he didn't explain too much of what he meant, the audience knew it right away because of the tone of voice he used. He used metaphors for example " ...John McCain, has worn the iniform of our country with bravery and distinction..".

Everything Obama had said was very meaningful and something people won't forget so easily. Watching the video was a lot more interesting than reading the speech simply because when I read it, I didn't use the same kind of tone of voice he used. When reading, it's very important to read with a certain tone that goes along with the written piece or else it wouldn't be interesting. He uses lots of rhetoric questions which makes his speech very effective because he gets the audience thinking for example "a nation of whiners?". People get into a speech more when the author uses anecdote simply because they can relate to an issue or think about it. Another thing that makes his speech very effective is that throughout the whole speech, he kept the same style and tone of voice. Everything he said, he made sure to prove his point by giving examples of his past experiences and current issues that the economy is facing.

The way Obama described what is a promise was absolutely miracullous, he stated the definition of it and how a promise should be kept. Obama's speech was also well structured, he used the phrase "Now is the time.." a lot which made the speech sound stronger. I really liked his conclusion, he stated his points and wrapped it up very proffessionally. Overall, I don't like listening to political speeches much but when it comes to Obama it's a different story, simply because of the choice of words he uses and all rhetoric devices which makes it effective.