Sunday, December 16, 2012

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. 

Thursday, December 6, 2012

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.