Agenda:

-(re)introduce critical reading and rhetorical analysis skills using a worksheet (posted below and distributed in class)

-analyze 27 minutes of Rip!

-individually prepare an outline and draft a thesis for an analysis

Worksheet for rhetorically ANALYSING RiP!: A Remix Manifesto

PRE-VIEWING NOTES: 

Figure out the rhetorical situation of the documentary?

• Author/rhetor (who is it? what do they do? what are they known for?): 

• Text (what type of text is it? What genre or style is it? What Issue(s) does it takes up? What is the exigence or underlying reasons the issue is taken up?):

• Audience (likely not “everyone” and you may have to read/view the text to get a better sense of the audience): 

• Context (related to exigence above, but may include more issues or events than what is taken up in the text):

VIEWING/READING NOTES:

1) Tracking and Mapping Claims...   Here is one enthymeme done for you:

• Claim:  Rip! Argues that the definition of copyright needs to change (therefore the author is making a definition argument)
• Stated Reasons: there are several stated reasons in the doc: because of the internet has changed the way we share and ‘remix’ information, because the old copyright law is dated and unfair, because “consumers are now creators”
• Unstated assumptions: consumers are creators? copyright law is actually this dated
• Grounds:
• Rebuttal: not sure: I could make some form of the argument that remixing is pirating and pirating is stealing(?)

Below, take notes on different (and basic) 'claims' that the documentary is making in the argument.  You can always combine the claims you identify later to make more sophisticated claims.  Or you can use this to map out primary claims and supporting claims.  Or you can sometimes find competing or contradictory claims in an argument.  By keeping track you can identify relationships between claims.

• Claim:                                                                                                    Claim:
• Stated Reasons:                                                                               Stated Reasons:
• Unstated Assumptions?                                                               Unstated Assumptions?
• Grounds:                                                                                             Grounds:
• Rebuttal:                                                                                             Rebuttal:

• Claim:                                                                                                    Claim:
• Stated Reasons:                                                                               Stated Reasons:
• Unstated Assumptions?                                                               Unstated Assumptions?
• Grounds:                                                                                             Grounds:
• Rebuttal:                                                                                             Rebuttal:

Questions to ask taking notes: should any of these simpler claims be combined into more complex claims?  Should some stand on their own as key claims the author is making? What are the relationships between claims?

2) Tracking and Mapping Rhetorical Techniques/tools being used...

Ways the author is creating an ETHOS...

Ways that pathos is created/leveraged...

Forms of logos at work...

Stasis used (related to claims above):

• resemblance arguments:
• definitions:
• cause/consequence arguments:
• evaluations:
• proposals: 

3) Other tools: there are dozens of other tools you might find in an argument (linked here is a nice list) like:

• irony:
• kairos
• metaphor
• synecdoche
• trope
• understatement

POST-VIEWING Shaping of an analysis using our (power) tools:

On a separate page:

1) Draft a skeletal structure thesis

2) Create an outline for a (hypothetical) 4 page analysis of Rip! A Remix Manifesto:  Come up with four to five paragraph ideas and arrange them.

3) Before you leave, share your outline and thesis with two classmates and with me.

Paragraphing ideas: 

• One can be a summary of the overall argument 
• several should be (at least 3 or 4) structured around techniques -- come up with at least two for now
• several can be structured around individual claims the text makes -- come up with one for now

To reiterate: Your outline should suggest that you will begin to DRAFT paragraphs around techniques as the core of your analysis, but also (if you want) around one or two claims.  For now pick one claim that you think you'd like to analyze as particularly persuasive and well supported, or one claim that you'd like to attack as particularly unpersuasive, and poorly supported (and therefore disputable)

Special Note: How Not to Mess up Project Two!

REMEMBER, this is NOT A BOOK REVIEW or a SUMMARY. IT IS A FOCUSED ANALYSIS ON THE RHETORICAL MOVES MADE IN YOUR BOOK. 

You might summarize as you go...or provide a short (less than a page) summary to start...but focus on HOW the book is put together. 

So, in this light, here are the principal ways we could *%#$ up project two! 

I. By not having a thesis following the skeletal structure we've been discussing

II. By not having a solid arrangement of support, with topic sentences that show purposeful paragraphs and refer back to the thesis

III. By treating the analysis like a review (a pro/con evaluation) rather than an analysis

IV. By not having adequate proof or drawing specifically on the text through quotations, paraphrases, etc.

V. By not taking into account the context and exigence of the piece (why is it being written? In response to what issue or concern? Is it for or against other ideas, writers?)

VI. By not taking audience into consideration (who is the target audience? how will they respond?, etc.)

Good luck!