2H: Rhetorical Analysis

Bryan West is responding to Gabriel McVey’s article on the Clinton administration, which from West’s essay, seems to be a political commentary that tried discredit the Clinton name in the election. West states clearly that his aim is to analyze the rhetoric of McVey, who penned an article clearly against any sort of “continuation of the previous Clinton tenure.” He intends to examine how McVey employed certain tactics to persuade the reader of McVey’s article, in order to inform the reader of his analysis that McVey was “unsuccessful at persuading his audience to believe what he wrote.” Though this seems to be directed at a professor, it could easily apply to anyone who may have wanted to search the credibility of authors and the logic behind their rhetoric, which was especially important in the time leading up to the election. When presidential candidates were running for nomination, it was vital that one who was unsure of whom to lend their support to gather information about candidates to hopefully make a well-read decision. It could also apply to McVey, who may have wanted to hear criticism about his editorial, though as West points out, “it is hard to persuade someone over such a divisive issue like politics.”

This seems to be an analytical piece, as West attempts to explain the processes that McVey used to tell readers of the highs and lows of the Clinton administration. Personally, I have written several analytical papers, picking apart the diction of works of fiction and nonfiction alike in order to discover the author’s underlying message. There is also a note of persuasion in this text as West attempts to explain to his audience that McVey was not successful in reaching his audience, who West believes have already made up their mind about the politics of the situation. I read persuasive texts regularly in the editorial sections of several publications like The Washington Post though I am not a master at it myself.

West could have written a more personal narrative to explain how he was personally affected by McVey’s piece so that his intended audience could better relate to him. However, many people do not adapt well to a personal narrative as it is more of a story that people have their own personal favorite forms of, while an analytical piece has a purpose clear and early on. Some however, may also grow tired of the formulaic style of analytical writing.

If he wanted to be really creative, West could have written some form of rap in order to appeal to younger audiences who tend to have shorter attention spans and less of an interest in politics. This would still serve a purpose to inform though he would need to use a more colloquial style of language.

Teachers, social workers and scientists are all required to have an eye for analyzing pieces and for writing their own statements. Teachers have to consider technical things, such as grammar and sentence structure, while also catering to their own personal voice and style of writing. They must also be persuasive if they are to prove a point to their students or colleagues. Social workers will probably attempt to find the reasoning behind certain actions, being analytical about cases to explain how events transpired. Scientists are apt to be more formal and factual in their writings, as they are more often than not, trying to prove something with hard evidence that affords little literary flexibility. When statistics come into play, being persuaded by the data is much simpler to grasp right away as opposed to figures of speech.