Journal 2: Bonds vs. Evolution

Every time I remember I have to present a persuasive speech for my speech class in the upcoming weeks, I think about student is surrounded by rhetorical situations, having to write essays, speeches, and presentations in response to the rhetorical situations (or projects) professors assign throughout the semester. My challenge is to give a speech about factory farming that college kids will find enjoyable, digestible, and so applicable to their daily life that it discourages them from living a lifestyle that supports that cruel industry (thus fulfilling Bitzer’s need for rhetoric to impact the audience).

Meanwhile, any book that has been translated into a visual entertainment franchise, such as The 100, Harry Potter, Twilight, Game of Thrones, The Magicians, etc. could be considered an example of Edbauer’s rhetorical ecology. Any time I ask someone if they’re a fan of Harry Potter, I clarify if they’re a fan of the movies or books. J.K. Rowling’s rhetor not only built a fictional and charming world for young readers, but casted a spell through her 7 books, constructing a tremendous universe of magical movies, fictional textbooks, theme parks, fan-fiction, and so much more. Compared to other book-to-screen adaptations, Rowling’s world stayed relatively put together. In contrast, the rhetorical ecology’s basis on “aparallel evolution” could be observed more clearly in The Magicians’ book-to-screen transition, as the book and the television show took on lives of their own. For example, the book follows the life of high school senior Quentin Clearwater through four years of magical college as well as his life after graduating. The Magicians television show, however, follows Quentin Clearwater as he applies to the magic school as a graduate student along with most of the characters straight from the book, except for those who had been gender-swapped or removed completely.

Both Edbauer and Bitzer regard exigence as a component of rhetoric, however Bitzer sees rhetoric and exigence inseparable to one another whereas Edbauer sees it more as a combination of elements that can divide in half and create two different components of “rhetoric” and “situation.” Both components having the ability to develop in their own ways, separately, together or separately while near one another. The authors also both see rhetoric as a way of prompting change and affecting an audience, although Bitzer sees this as a must for rhetoric while Bitzer’s rhetorical ecology doesn’t hold rhetoric to that responsibility. I like Edbauer’s take on rhetoric, her theory makes me view rhetor as a small ecosystem, where the removal or addition of any influence or experience can create a whole new message.