Rhetorical Analysis

As part of an assignment for Digital Technology and Culture 355, we were instructed to create two versions of the same story through different mediums. This story was a detail of what would technically be the third version of the story, our oral presentation to the class. Students were instructed to pick an embarrassing story from their past, and present it in a short speech. This was then converted into text in the form of a blog. After that, the story was converted again into a comic via a program called Comic Life. Focusing on the latter two outlets and dissecting them rhetorically, my personal opinion is that my written form of the story is more persuasive to the overall point; don't go to crystal mountain. The main argument would be getting the reader or viewer to believe that statement in an efficient manner.

Verbal arguments make powerful statements in a society that has most of its communication based on written words and spoken language. While visual images can make both strong statements and powerful arguments, our communication is founded on a verbal structure. This also shows how I was trained as a communicator through our learning process. Just by reading back through the blog posted online, there are fairly clear undertones of wit, sarcasm, and humor. All of these I originally tried to display in my comic, and do not feel like I was completely successful in doing so.

Over the course of the comic, I attempted to adhere to the four basic principles that Robin Williams presents in The Non-Designer's Design Book on page thirteen. I tried to show fast motion and action by a large series of very small frames one after the other taking place right after a large scene of a meadow. These small frames change the pace via proximity, and also contrast dramatically in color and focus, which instantly changes the pace of the reader, much like falling down a very steep hill. I also tried to align frames so that conversation could happen between them, but the reader saw two people engaged in what looks like face to face conversation. I believe all these principles help move the story along, and without them no visual argument could even be presented, as it would just be a mess.

J. Anthony Blair would note that visual arguments "are not distinct in essence from verbal arguments" (Blair, 362). This statement explains a lot about why I, as well as many others, think that verbal arguments are more powerful; any visual argument would have to be explainable, the only way to do that would be through a verbal form. Birdsell and Groarke also note some of the flaws in visual arguments when they say that "one might fail to understand the visual vocabulary" (Birdsell/Groarke, 313) of a given image or situation. When someone is presented with an argument that is only or mostly visual they might fail to see the point entirely, or make one up of their own. This would defeat the original intended purpose of the work, if there was one present. Our comics create a slightly different situation though, as they include both words and pictures.

Another issue that can create a strong difference in the way each argument presents itself is how each argument is actually presented. We're told to be wary of Photoshop and its effects on digital images, but few will warn readers of the undertones or guided influence in words alone. To take my written story as an example, the reader has no way to prove that the hill was as steep as I said it was, or the rock was as big as explained. Much manipulation can be done just by cleverly setting a scene with text alone. The hill was steep, but perhaps the way the sentence is constructed makes it seem even bigger than it was. It is for this reason that I would argue the visual outlets a more "true" outlet, and the verbal presentations stronger and more effective. Weak word choice or sentence structure can destroy this theory in a heartbeat, and seeing is believing, but what the mind is told to see can be far more powerful.

Part of the differences between the two stories I retold could be due to the fact that I'm very used to writing as opposed to creating blurbs for visual images. With a background in sales, management, and even actual paid writing online, I've grown to enjoy and take pride in stringing together prose. I've not had much experience in creating stories with still images. In fact in every time I've created a video or animation with moving images I've skipped the storyboard part of the process. In my writing history I've only ever had to match an image or two to a story, and generally they were previously existing images in related subject matter. This could be reasoning for any differences in argument, but I still believe all of the above holds true. Overall, I would say that the verbal story I created was far more effective at recreating and embarrassing story from my past, and using it to fuel the main point of the story, my deep rooted hatred for Crystal Mountain.

Works Cited:
Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2004. 313.
Blair, J. Anthony. Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2004. 362.
Williams, Robin. The Non-Designer's Design Book. 3rd ed. Berkeley: Peachpit P, 2008. 13-80.