Rhetorical Analysis Outline of Mo Yan’s Speech

Purpose: The purpose of this speech was to remind the public and audience that he is simply a storyteller—nothing more and nothing less. Mo Yan also wanted to convince his audience that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of what other people want. This speech—an acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Literature—also serves as a tribute to his mother.

Audience: Members of the Swedish Academy; members of the community who were and are critical of Mo Yan’s actions

Context: Receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature, December 2012. The speech was given following the arrest of fellow Chinese Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo, and Yan’s refusal to sign a petition to free him.

Section 1: Stories of His Mother

Purpose: to prove that his true calling and profession is to tell stories; to show the major role his mother played in shaping him as a writer and also in influencing his values.

Appeals: Establishes ethos—implicit assumption that the good values (fairness, kindness, etc.) of his mother translated over to him. He uses pathos and makes the audience feel sympathetic towards his mother over some stories, but he also makes the audience feel awe over what a terrific person she was.

Technique: Uses many anecdotes about his mother (“My earliest memory…” “My most painful memory…” “My clearest memory…” “My most remorseful memory…”) He also uses anaphora in this case. His mother can also be seen as a metaphor for a certain part of himself that he lost sight of when his mother died. This “lost” side contained core values that he learned from his mother.

Effectiveness: he is very effective in proving his storytelling abilities. Whether he was aware of it or not, he was also effective in portraying the values of his mother.

Section 2: Becoming a Writer and Storyteller

Purpose: to show his unlikely journey to winning the Noble Prize and to discuss his work, and people and things that influenced it over the years.

·      The name “Mo Yan”

o   Techniques: uses irony because “Mo Yan” is actually a translation for “don’t speak.” Not only is this ironic because he was a very talkative child and is now a novelist, but now as an adult, Yan refuses to speak out against the arrest of Liu Xiaobo.

·      Foreign inspirations

o   Appeals: Builds ethos: shows that he was inspired by people like William Faulkner and Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

o   Techniques:

§  Supports overall purpose by saying he learned from them that every author needs “a place that belongs to him alone.”

§  Metaphor, foreign authors= “blazing furnaces,” he= “block of ice.” He would dissolve if he got too close

§  Overall voice comes through—“write my own stories in my own way.”

·      Nonfiction vs. Fiction

o   Appeals: uses logos in saying “a person can experience only so much.” Also increases ethos because it shows he is recognizing that he can only write about so much from personal experience before he starts making things up.

o   Techniques:

§  Uses example of aunt in the novel Frogs as a way to apologize to her for portraying her fictional character as the opposite of who she really was.

§  Explains the paradox of the combination of fiction vs. nonfiction. Technically, it doesn’t make sense for fiction to also be nonfiction. But, he explains that fiction can be written for someone or a group of people, which means there is some truth and realism in the writing.

§  Politics allow literature to be “suppressed” and turn it into “reportage of a social event.” He says literature must “be greater than politics.” This is an indirect reference to critics of his actions regarding Liu.

Section 3: Metaphors

Purpose: The purpose of this end portion was to defend his Noble Prize and his actions regarding not signing the petition. It can also be used to convince others to think the same way as he does regarding not giving into public pressure.

Techniques:

·      Metaphor & Analogy—“when everyone around you is crying, you deserve to be allowed not to cry, and when the ears are all for show, your right to not cry is greater still.” Uses this anecdote about visiting an exhibit of suffering as a child as both an analogy and a metaphor.

o   Analogy—to help the audience better understand the inner feelings, opinions, and emotions of people with different opinions. Used to make it easier for the audience to sympathize with Yan.

·      Metaphor—the child who did not cry, but was punished, is a metaphor for Mo Yan in the situation regarding the petition.

·      Another metaphor about karma also expresses his opinions on how individuals should not be ganged up on or outcaste because karma will come back and haunt the majority.

General Evaluation:

Mo Yan’s overall message for the speech was that his job and goal is not to be a social activist—it is merely to tell stories. He uses anaphora and repeats throughout the speech that he is “a storyteller.” Yan uses this speech as a response to all of the critics who don’t support his actions and believe that he is undeserving of the Nobel Prize for Literature. This is why Yan spends most of his speech defending himself using the art of storytelling and metaphors all throughout. The use of these rhetorical devices is effective, but they also create a feeling of self-absorbance. His defensive tone makes him seem semi-arrogant. It is also ironic that he seems to be arguing for individual opinion and expression, yet he refuses to support Liu Xiaobo—an activist who stands for freedom of expression. Overall, this portrays Yan as inconstant and confused. He relies most on his ability to tell a good story to convince the audience of his credibility and motives, and to mask the contradiction he presents. 

Voices for the Oppressed

            Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X are two figures that certainly have different styles. Aung San Suu Kyi is a native of the country of Burma and is a modern activist for the rights of people everywhere. Malcolm X, on the other hand, was a voice for the colored race during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Both the speeches “Freedom from Fear” (Suu Kyi) and “The Ballet of the Bullet” (Malcolm X) leave a strong impression the listeners, but in different ways. Although Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X have very different styles of speech deliver, both leaders believe in a necessary change regarding the unjust relationship between politics and ethics.

            Both speakers have different methods of conveying their message, but both are speaking to a similar audience. Aung San Suu Kyi takes a much less accusatory tone in her speech. She is not pointing fingers at a particular group as the cause of all oppression in the world. Instead, she addresses the much larger audience of all people willing to listen. She uses a lot of ethos through referencing great leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru, along with making logical arguments such as how courage comes from a person consistently refusing to let fear dictate her actions. Malcolm X, on the other hand, has a much more forceful tone. Rather than presenting a philosophical argument surrounding fear and courage, Malcolm X boils the possible solutions to end oppression down to two—the ballet or the bullet. He uses a lot of phrases that conjure up strong emotions such as, “you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.” Despite the fact that Suu Kyi uses more logos and Malcolm X relies on pathos, both look to inspire a government-oppressed group of people.

Aung San Suu Kyi explains in her speech how it is fear that corrupts the government. It is this “fear of losing power” that causes groups of people to be oppressed and treated extremely unfairly. She also calls for the people to take action because “it is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights.” The people must have a revolutionary spirit coming from an “intellectual conviction” in order to create change in society. Similarly, Malcolm X sees the value in a revolution against the “political con game” going on in 1964 America. He said it “was the black man’s vote that put the present administration in Washington, D.C.,” which implies that ultimately the makeup of the government depends on the black vote. At the end of his speech, Malcolm X stresses that “if it’s not a country of freedom, change it.” It is not acceptable for people to sit back and allow unfair treatment continue. On a similar note, Suu Kyi mentions how “there is a compelling need for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and international levels.” Clearly, both see a strong disconnect between politics and the natural rights of all people.

Even though Suu Kyi has a much more general audience, she still effectively conveys her message of rising above fear. Malcolm X is equally as successful in using his emotional argument to inspire the black people to rise up against the government and the “corrupt white man.” Together, they reflect two different delivery styles, but also represent a combined force demanding government change.  

The Unlikely Similarities

            Thoreau and Machiavelli initially seem to be polar opposites in regard to their respective philosophies. Thoreau discusses his idea that the people must rebel against the government if they feel that they are being treated unjustly, while Machiavelli explores the philosophy that the government or person in power must do anything to stay in power. Although Thoreau speaks to the masses and Machiavelli aims his philosophy at the ruling government, both stress that every person must stand up for what they think is right and not be taken advantage of by anyone.

            Thoreau and Machiavelli clearly have very different audiences. In his essay, Civil Disobedience, Thoreau is speaking directly to the public. Machiavelli, on the other hand, aims his philosophy in The Prince towards the government or person in power. Another difference between the two writers can be seen in their opinions on violence and when it is appropriate. Machiavelli says that executions are an acceptable way to punish subjects. On the contrary, Thoreau’s philosophy is all about nonviolent methods of rebellion. He provides an example in telling his story of being thrown in jail for a night for refusing to pay the poll tax. While Thoreau provides reasoning to practice “civil disobedience” in times of injustice, Machiavelli sees no problem in using violence if it is necessary to staying in power.

            Despite the different audiences and opinions on violence, Thoreau and Machiavelli do share common ground. Both philosophers emphasis that one cannot let anyone take advantage of him. Who that “one” refers to differs from Thoreau to Machiavelli, but the idea is more or less the same. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau writes, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.”  Similarly, in The Prince, Machiavelli says, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others.” Both writers imply that it is imperative for their respective audience to stand up for themselves and do what they think is right, regardless of what other people think. In Machiavelli’s case, the prince cannot be taken advantage of, and he must do whatever is necessary to stay in power. In Thoreau’s case, the people must stand up for themselves and not allow injustice to continue. He argues that it is the obligation of the people to rebel against these injustices. Although the overall messages of both writers seem contradictory, they are relaying the same idea to both of their audiences. A combination of both philosophies could actually result in a more balanced government where neither the public nor the government lets the other become too powerful.

            Both Thoreau and Machiavelli introduce very absolute philosophies. Both men feel it is the duty of their audience to act a certain way. For the prince, he must stay in power regardless of the circumstances. For the people, they must rise up against injustice.  Neither philosophy is perfect, but they share certain ideas. 

The True Meaning of Thanksgiving

          A time for family and a time to appreciate everything one has. Thanksgiving has evolved from a shared meal between colonists and Native American, to a reason to bring loved ones together and have a feast. Turkey and all. It is a shame that this holiday is often overshadowed by the early Christmas commercials and holiday lights; people just can't contain their Christmas cheer. For some, Thanksgiving is just a day to prepare their Black Friday battle gear. By Thanksgiving, or even before, many have already started decorating, caroling, and shopping. Despite the lack of "hype," most take the day of Thanksgiving to be—well—thankful. 

          I find it somewhat ironic that I will not be spending Thanksgiving with my family this year. Instead of my dad's famous deep fried turkey and prime rib, I will be enjoying a mediocre hotel meal. I can't wait! But, is food really the focus of Thanksgiving? Not at all. Even though I won't be with my family for this holiday, I will still spend the day with a group of people I love and appreciate. That's what matters.

Small Part, Big Influence

Pablo Neruda—although only mentioned briefly—plays a pivotal role in Changez’s life. It is the moment that Changez explores Neruda’s house, while on a business trip in Chile, that he realizes what his priorites truly are. Pablo Neruda was a famous Chilean poet, and later an active politician in his country. Although Neruda doesn’t seem influential at first, looking at The Reluctant Fundamentalist in terms of comparing Changez and Neruda provides an extremely comprehensive and in depth analysis of the novel, along with a better understanding of the reasoning behind Changez’s ultimate decision to leave his American life and identity behind.

Neruda was born in the early twentieth century in his native country of Chile. He is best known for his love poetry, but he was also very involved in Chilean politics. As an adult, Neruda was sent as a consulate to many countries. Just like Changez, he traveled the world. After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, Neruda returned home to Chile in order to become involved with the Republican movement. Later in his career, he was even exiled for his Communist beliefs and for protesting against the repressive policies of the then president, González Videla. After realizing his anti-capitalism beliefs, Neruda returned home and fought for what he believed in in his own country. It is for this reason that Hamid selected Neruda as such a crucial character in the book. Even though his life in Chile may not have been as luxurious as it was abroad, Neruda went home to his roots and his “compact and beautiful” (Hamid 147) house to express his beliefs. Changez was  able to relate to Neruda over their common opposition to capitalism. Internalizing Neruda’s home and life caused him to realize that he had nothing left to offer to America and that he was betraying Pakistan by remaining in “enemy” territory (America).

Neruda is well known for his poems about love and nature, but many also reflect his outspoken personality on many social and economic issues. After reading his poem, “The Dictators,” I have a much greater understanding of Neruda’s revolutionary spirit and how Changez was able to connect with them. The poem reveals Neruda's dislike for the constant overthrow and installment of dictators in Chile. Neruda describes the feelings of the people with the line, "Hatred has grown scale on scale." Clearly, he is making a case against the "delicate dictators," and is expressing a need to eliminate the inconsistent government and the creation of more "graves full of rattled bones."  Neruda describes the environment in which the dictators create as, “a mixture of blood and body, a penetrating petal that brings nausea,” which clearly relays his hatred. Unlike Neruda, Changez does not feel hatred towards his own country. Instead, he is able to relate to Neruda's feelings in terms of America and her capitalistic principles. This poem helps strengthen the connection that Changez made with Neruda when in his house through revealing their common dislike for a certain government. 

Pablo Neruda returned home to Chile in order to spark a revolution regarding issues that he believed were right and important. Changez also returned home to Pakistan in order to find himself. While doing this, he discovers his scorn for America and everything she stands for. This causes him to become an active participant in protests—similar to something Neruda might have done. It is not my place to judge whether Neruda and Changez did the right thing for themselves and their countries—that is not the purpose of this paper. Rather, what should be taken away is the immense importance of Neruda’s life in Changez’s decisions. Knowledge of Neruda and his similarities to Changez makes it simpler to decode how Changez was feeling and why he made the decision to return home and join the revolution occurring. 

Sources: 

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-dictators/  

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1971/neruda-bio.html