Rhetorical Techniques in Literature
EssayChat / Feb 21, 2019
Rhetorical techniques are the process by which authors make meaning of their particular works in an effort to convey their respective meanings to the reader. Like subjective, there are a variety of rhetorical techniques that can and have been employed by authors and these styles can be employed alone or they can be blended for maximum effect. Rhetorical techniques include but are not limited to argument/persuasion, narration and description, comparison/contrast, analogies, quotations/allusions, types of evidence, humor/irony, point of view and stylistic devices. In an effort to examine rhetorical techniques of famous literary figures, this work will draw from "The Hanging" by George Orwell and "What is Intelligence, Anyway?" by Isaac Asimov to demonstrate effective use and blending of rhetorical techniques.
George Orwell, perhaps best known for his novels 1984 and Animal Farm, employs the rhetorical technique known as point of view in his short story titled, "The Hanging." The point of view expressed by the author is that of a member of the Indian Imperial Police. The officer, who is aiding in the process of walking condemned prisoners to their death, actually encompasses two holistically different point of views by the same person. The overall experience is entirely human in that the narrator is a human being with emotion, fallibility and personal beliefs. On a humanist level, however, the narrator demonstrates the ability to look at the situation from multiple analyses of the same same event. In this regard, Orwell's narrator shifts between a removed observer without any connection to the situation to that of an individual who fully begins to empathize with the condemned.
On the level of a removed participant observational point of view, the narrator explains details in a matter of fact manner. In the second paragraph, Orwell's narrator reports on the scene in an unbiased almost journalistic approach, "One prisoner had been brought out of his cell. He was a Hindu, a puny whip of a man, with a shaven head and vague liquid eyes....Six tall Indian warders were guarding him and getting him ready for the gallows" (Orwell 1). This observation takes "5 W's" perspective demonstrating to the reader who, what, where, when and why. It is removed from opinion or humanism. As the narrative continues, however, Orwell switches the way in which his point of view proliferates to the reader. The author shifts the point of view, "It was curious, but till that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide" (Orwell 2).
No longer a criminal or condemned individual, the switched perspective demonstrates to the reader a human is going to die. The humanistic point of view of the narrator now takes a position about the events in which he is participating. No longer disinterested in the phenomena, the narrator begins to see more similarities in the condemned man and himself than differences. In this shift of point of view, the author makes meaning to the reader. Had the point of view remained that of a participating observer only reporting what was scene, the story would be sterile and void of meaning beyond a reiteration of an events sequence. Similarly, if the entire point of view were only that of a connection with the condemned, the story would be less complete and read more like propaganda. The blending of the two perspectives from the narrator's point of view, however, sets the tone and makes this Orwell short story a strong example of how point of view rhetorical technique does not have to be equitable with a singular perspective by the narrator.
Taking another popular thinker and author, Isaac Asimov, another rhetorical technique can also be illustrated. In an essay titled, "What is Intelligence, Anyway?" Asimov uses argument and persuasion to challenge the conventionally accepted definition of intelligence. For Asimov, rather than accepting a standard intelligence test like the Intelligent Quotient (IQ), Asimov challenges the reader to consider the relativity of intelligence. To establish the common understanding of intelligence, Asimov uses his own aptitude test scores from the Army to demonstrate his argument. He explains that how a score of 100 is average and that his score of 160 was the highest in which his base had ever seen (Asimov 1). Though he scored high and it was the subject of much conversation, he said that the next day he "Was still a buck private with KP- kitchen police - as my highest duty" (1). Though he designated as being the most intelligent solider they had ever had take the test, even the military made no distinction that this should change how he was treated or the type of work in which he would do in the military.
Asimov explains this as being logical in that his score does not mean he is intelligent, but that his able to answer the type of questions being asked. He states, "Actually, thought, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests- people with intellectual bents similar to mine?" (Asimov 1). To further this point, he argues a counter example that demonstrates his own "intelligence" related weakness. He contrasts himself with his auto mechanic who also regards him as being intelligent. When a problem went wrong with his car, he explains that the mechanic "explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car" (1). The mechanic, though probably would not have scored higher than an 80 on the same test that designated Asimov smart, routinely used his brain to accomplish feats that Asimov could not replicate. To this phenomenon, Asimov asks, "Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test" (1). He continues with the same thought "Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too" (1). Using a logical argument and persuasion, Asimov's rhetorical technique challenges the reader to examine intelligence beyond the conventionally accepted academic protocols that designate Asimov as being smart.
The rhetorical techniques employed by Orwell are done through narration and point of view. The point of view and descriptions provided by the narrator begin as a casual participant observation with no particular opinion to a more humanistic point of view where the author starts empathizing with the condemned man. This narrative description with multiple points of view provide the most efficacious means of conveying the moral problems of capital punishment to the reader. In another different but equally as skillfully employed example, Asimov uses the rhetorical technique of argument and persuasion to convince the reader that the conventionally accepted definitions of academic intelligence are relative and therefore narrow. Also blending some use of analogies, comparison/contrast and humor to build upon his base technique, Asimov provides a strong argument for his perspective that would require equally skilled used of rhetorical devices to counter.
Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. "What is Intelligence, Anyway?"
Orwell, George. "The Hanging."
George Orwell, perhaps best known for his novels 1984 and Animal Farm, employs the rhetorical technique known as point of view in his short story titled, "The Hanging." The point of view expressed by the author is that of a member of the Indian Imperial Police. The officer, who is aiding in the process of walking condemned prisoners to their death, actually encompasses two holistically different point of views by the same person. The overall experience is entirely human in that the narrator is a human being with emotion, fallibility and personal beliefs. On a humanist level, however, the narrator demonstrates the ability to look at the situation from multiple analyses of the same same event. In this regard, Orwell's narrator shifts between a removed observer without any connection to the situation to that of an individual who fully begins to empathize with the condemned.
On the level of a removed participant observational point of view, the narrator explains details in a matter of fact manner. In the second paragraph, Orwell's narrator reports on the scene in an unbiased almost journalistic approach, "One prisoner had been brought out of his cell. He was a Hindu, a puny whip of a man, with a shaven head and vague liquid eyes....Six tall Indian warders were guarding him and getting him ready for the gallows" (Orwell 1). This observation takes "5 W's" perspective demonstrating to the reader who, what, where, when and why. It is removed from opinion or humanism. As the narrative continues, however, Orwell switches the way in which his point of view proliferates to the reader. The author shifts the point of view, "It was curious, but till that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide" (Orwell 2).
No longer a criminal or condemned individual, the switched perspective demonstrates to the reader a human is going to die. The humanistic point of view of the narrator now takes a position about the events in which he is participating. No longer disinterested in the phenomena, the narrator begins to see more similarities in the condemned man and himself than differences. In this shift of point of view, the author makes meaning to the reader. Had the point of view remained that of a participating observer only reporting what was scene, the story would be sterile and void of meaning beyond a reiteration of an events sequence. Similarly, if the entire point of view were only that of a connection with the condemned, the story would be less complete and read more like propaganda. The blending of the two perspectives from the narrator's point of view, however, sets the tone and makes this Orwell short story a strong example of how point of view rhetorical technique does not have to be equitable with a singular perspective by the narrator.
Taking another popular thinker and author, Isaac Asimov, another rhetorical technique can also be illustrated. In an essay titled, "What is Intelligence, Anyway?" Asimov uses argument and persuasion to challenge the conventionally accepted definition of intelligence. For Asimov, rather than accepting a standard intelligence test like the Intelligent Quotient (IQ), Asimov challenges the reader to consider the relativity of intelligence. To establish the common understanding of intelligence, Asimov uses his own aptitude test scores from the Army to demonstrate his argument. He explains that how a score of 100 is average and that his score of 160 was the highest in which his base had ever seen (Asimov 1). Though he scored high and it was the subject of much conversation, he said that the next day he "Was still a buck private with KP- kitchen police - as my highest duty" (1). Though he designated as being the most intelligent solider they had ever had take the test, even the military made no distinction that this should change how he was treated or the type of work in which he would do in the military.
Asimov explains this as being logical in that his score does not mean he is intelligent, but that his able to answer the type of questions being asked. He states, "Actually, thought, don't such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests- people with intellectual bents similar to mine?" (Asimov 1). To further this point, he argues a counter example that demonstrates his own "intelligence" related weakness. He contrasts himself with his auto mechanic who also regards him as being intelligent. When a problem went wrong with his car, he explains that the mechanic "explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles - and he always fixed my car" (1). The mechanic, though probably would not have scored higher than an 80 on the same test that designated Asimov smart, routinely used his brain to accomplish feats that Asimov could not replicate. To this phenomenon, Asimov asks, "Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test" (1). He continues with the same thought "Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I'd prove myself a moron, and I'd be a moron, too" (1). Using a logical argument and persuasion, Asimov's rhetorical technique challenges the reader to examine intelligence beyond the conventionally accepted academic protocols that designate Asimov as being smart.
The rhetorical techniques employed by Orwell are done through narration and point of view. The point of view and descriptions provided by the narrator begin as a casual participant observation with no particular opinion to a more humanistic point of view where the author starts empathizing with the condemned man. This narrative description with multiple points of view provide the most efficacious means of conveying the moral problems of capital punishment to the reader. In another different but equally as skillfully employed example, Asimov uses the rhetorical technique of argument and persuasion to convince the reader that the conventionally accepted definitions of academic intelligence are relative and therefore narrow. Also blending some use of analogies, comparison/contrast and humor to build upon his base technique, Asimov provides a strong argument for his perspective that would require equally skilled used of rhetorical devices to counter.
Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. "What is Intelligence, Anyway?"
Orwell, George. "The Hanging."