Response to "In Defense of Talk Shows"
In this response, I will be analyzing the argument with the help of the Tuliman argument outline.
While reading this essay, I found that while there was plenty of evidence and support, most of the warrants and reasons, what little there were, were implied. Most of their evidence relied on the reader already having some base assumptions or knowledge about the topic that would eventually lead the reader back to the author's main argument and claim. The author uses quite a bit of good reasoning, which also goes hand in hand with her implied warrants. Considering the topic, talk shows, it would be more difficult to generate warrants that wouldn't sound too obvious or too naive, which is most likely why the essay relies on previous assumptions. Nevertheless, the author's argument was very structured, containing a claim, a warrant/good reason, and evidence. In the conclusion, the author made a personal response to the topic. This essay seemed to contain a bit of everything from the list of elements in a Tuliman argument.
Now for a more in-depth analysis.
The author followed a classical oration format when she wrote her introduction, or in this case exordium. She introduced the situation, provided background information, and established her position, though she did not establish her credibility, which might have not been needed anyway since this essay would have been printed with her name and credentials somewhere near it regardless. In the next two paragraphs, she provided evidence for her initial claim in the form of a narrative, which depicted a classic example of a talk show "victim". She then goes on to make another claim that the plot is repetitive in talk shows. She provides several smaller examples that go to prove her point, with a small warrant near the end of the paragraph. Contrary to classical oration, the author states conditions of rebuttal, acknowledging some of her argument's faults. Then, for the next few paragraphs, she makes a few more narrative-style examples that are supported by a "good reason" and a heavily implied warrant. As stated above, most of the author's warrants are implied in the penultimate paragraph. As with the bulk of the essay, the paragraph is dotted with smaller examples and evidence that lead back to the claim, which leads back to the original thesis.Towards the end of the essay, the author states her own personal response to the topic, describing what she would do. She even injects some humor into the last part, ending the essay on a happy note. Case closed.
The entire essay is a strong, well-organized neatly-packaged piece of writing. It contains a large amount of logos, which an essay such as this requires. Although it lacks on the side of ethos and pathos, mostly ethos, the essay can stand strong with just the evidence. Overall, it was a good essay.
I don’t really understand what you mean when you write about how it’s difficult to generate warrants about talk shows. Why does the specific topic of talk shows do that? I definitely think that what you say can be true in certain instances. For example, if you were writing about something that your audience definitely knows about like cake. Everyone knows that cake tastes good but is fattening. If your evidence was about how cake is a guilty pleasure, you could have the implied warrant that cake is yummy and makes you fat, but you wouldn’t have to say it because it’s already a well-known fact. That’s just a simple example of when what you’re saying can be true.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with you, however, when you say that this argument is structured. Well, it’s not structured in a classical way is what I mean, with a classical way being the way we learned to write all throughout sophomore year. You start with a claim, back it up with evidence, and link the two together with an interpretation. Ehrenreich has two claims that you have to do a little bit of digging to find. The first one is found nestled in the middle of its paragraph, and the second is at the top of its paragraph in the second half of the essay. This arrangement differs from how we would have been instructed to write because we would have put our thesis at the beginning of our paper. She has no such thesis that covers both her claims. But she incorporates a heavy amount of evidence into her paper to support her claims. She names several talk shows and quotes them several times to prove her point. This part is similar to how we would normally write, except all of our evidence would likely be concentrated directly after the claim which it was meant to prove. Lastly, she provides warrants (or interpretations, as we called them) to link her claim and evidence. But some of her warrants were implied. Since we were young students and not expert writers like we are now, Ms. Sikes told us to state every warrant. That is not what Ehrenreich did; she knew her audience could easily figure out most of the connections. In all, the author’s essay was structured but not in the way that we are accustomed to.
This appears to be an analysis of the essay "In Defense of Talk Shows", so I will respond accordingly. Instead of taking a stance for a side in her argument, you thoroughly examined her argument and pointed out each stance. Nice. Let's work from the bottom up.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the author didn't evenly weigh her argument with ethos, logos and pathos. Though they are all present, logos predominates. I did, however, find a dash here and there of ethos and pathos. For example, on a grand scale, the author established ethos by citing many real life talk shows. Since she could not have a strong argument based solely on opinion, she had to cite evidence and that strengthened her credibility in the long haul. Next, I found a bit of pathos in the two ending paragraphs. When the author stated that she was awaiting talk shows that involved the wealthy and powerful, she was generating an emotional response to her whole argument, which was the churning back and forth of the morality of talk shows, as if she intends to say "Lets change the game and throw in some people whose problems really matter, then we wil see a true chance at morality." The audience would be able to react accordingly with this as well. Nevertheless, it was her own emotion response and therefore it evoked pathos.
I will have to disagree with you in one place in your analysis. The reader did not have to rely on base assumptions to get the gist of her argument. If what you mean by "base assumption" is the dictionary definition of "morality" then I will agree with you but just in case I will further explain. The author did establish in the reader a good and fair understanding of talk shows. Now this gets tricks: the author had two claims. The first was that talk shows are moralistic-the participant will realize that they are a sinner and will be shamed and reform. The second was that talk shows are morally repulsive-they exploit the lower class. The first is the one that we are having trouble with and the second is, quite simply, arguable through evidence that proves that they are repulsive. Lets address the first then. If one views talk shows as moralistic shows then they already have the expectation that they cause the participant to become ashamed and turn from their evil ways. The only evidence that could be further provided would be the definition of "moralistic" because moralistic things cause people to become ASHAMED and REFORM. Peace out.