Fluent Essays

The guideline and requirement is attached, and also the readings. First essay is about The Rhetoric Of Rocky and the second essay is The Future Of Work. Each essay is 2 pages long. Due on Friday 19th mar 8pm pst.The Rhetoric of Rocky: Part Two THOMAS S . FEENTZ AND J A N I C E HOCKER R U S H I N G * IN P A R T O N E of tbis essay, we observed tbat the film Rocky was an oddity. It combined dements tbat should bave led to cinematic disaster, but in fact, it captured tbe inragination and pocketbooks of tbe American public.^ To explain tbe rhetorical appeal of Rocky, we tmdertook tbree tasks. First, we argued tbat film and social processes are interdependent. Second, we noted that a crudal dimension of that interdependence was tbat film and social processes manifest similar patterns of value change. Third, we created a model of value cbange tbat can account for the rbetorical force underlying botb film and more general social processes. Tbe sodal value model bas five dimensions. First, societal values exist in dialectical opposition. Second, symbolic conflict is tbe dominant form for value change. Tbird, this symbolic conflict may assume the pattern of either dialectical transformation, involving an inversion of power between dominant value systems, or dialectical synthesis, demanding a conceptual integration between existing value systems. Fourth, each pattern requires spedfic psy- chological conditions within the cbange agents; dialectical trzmsformation requires only knowledge of tbe value systems in question, wbile dialectical synthesis necessitates both knowledge of the existing value systems and an internal capadty to i n t ^ r a t e tbem into a unified wbole. Finally, since there is greater identification by an audience in a change process that is cooperative and integ^ative, a more intensified sense of involvement is found in tbe pattern of dialectical syntbesis than in dialectical transformation. We will use tbis model as tbe basis of our critidsm of Rocky. W e begin by considering tbe pattern of value cbange in tbe rbetorical context of the film—namely, the state of mind reflected by tbe 1976 Presidential cam- paign. We^tben examine how tbe piattern of value cbange in Rocky extends the pattern begun in that campaign. Finally, we ofier implications for future studies of value change in rbetorical events. T H E RHETORICAL CONTEXT OF R O C K Y Because of its relevance to tbe contemporary American political scene. * Mr. Frentz is Associate Professor and Ms. Rushing is Visiting Assistant Professes- of Cammtmication at the University of Colorado. 1 Janice H. Rushing and Thomas S. Frentz, The Rhetoric of Rocky: A Social Value Model, Western Jowmal of Speech Communication, 42 (1978), 63-72. [231] WESTERN JOURNAL OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION F A L L 1978 we shall use Fishers distinction between the moralistic and nmterialistic myths as our dominant value terms.* At the outset of 1972, it was obvious that the American value system was badly fractionated and that massive public disillusionment had formed concerning materialism as the dominant purveyor of social action. For example, if Nixon embodied the values under- lying materiaThe Rhetoric of Rocky: A Social Value Model of Criticism JANICE HOCKER RUSHING AND THOMAS S . FEENTZ* T.HE F I L M R O C K Y is a genuine enigma. It has all the sure-fire mgre- dients of cinematic failure. The t h a n e of a local, mediocre club fighters acd- dentai shot at the World Heavjrweight Boxing title is both implausible and potentially maudlin. The cast of characters—^with the possible exception of Burgess Meredith—^reads like a Whos-Not-Who in Hollywood. The screen- pky was written by someone wlu>se scripts had never been filmed and who withheld the film rights until he could play the leading role. When that was finally affirmed, the writer/actor all but converted the final product into a home movie by using virtually his entire family in some capacity (even the writer/actors dog, Butkus Stallone, has a supportii^ role). If we were to document how to guarantee a film disaster, we could do worse than recomr mend the ingredients that went into the making of Rocky. But the film is not a failure. Incredibly, Rocky has charmed critic and public alike. Seldom has a low-budget, personally-produced, no-star film so captured the imagination of the American people.^ Its universal appeal stems in large part from the unusual way in which Rocky deals with American values. Unlike other popular films which announce, predict, or reflect the deterioration of American morality (e.g., The Exorcist, One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest, All the Presidents Men, and Network, to name a few), Rocky both celebrates the American Dream and implies an innova- tive psycho-social process for identifying with its mythology. On the most basic level, it is idealistic optimism tempered by experiential reality tbat sets Rocky apart f rc«n other fihns making rhetorical statements about values.- The importance of Rocky, however, is that the film need not be experi- enced only on this baac level. When examined carefully, Rocky manifests a particular pattern of value change. Moreover, that pattern—-while having specific symbolic import in the film itself—reflects a more general social value * Ms. Rushiog is a Lecturer in the D^iartment of Craamunication Studies at tbe Umversity erf California, Los Angeles. Mr. Frexttz is an Associate Prcrfessor in the De- partment of Commtmicaticn at the University of Colorado, Boidder. ^ C3iartctff-Win4der PnxiucticHis report d o i ^ s t k box office recdpts, as of November, 1977, at $ta}^00,000. =F a MBiilar view erf Rodcy, see: Newsweek, April 11,1977, p. 71. [63] WESTERK JOURNAL OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION SPRING 1978 modd (rf rtetoHcal critidan. To realize Rwiys i n ^ r t , we need to do more than sinq)ly evaluate a film, we must develop an^q)rt^wiate modd ior its investigation. Thus in Jhis initial es^y, wt will (1) discuss the reiationship betweei societal values and film* and (2) outline a five-part sodjd value modd oi rhetorical criddsm. In the second essay (to ^ i p ^ r in the Fall issue oReview of Scholarly Work assignment requirements and information Purpose The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that you understand  the thesis of a scholarly article and the arguments the authors used  to prove their thesis.    Subject The Rhetoric of Rocky: A Social Value Model part 1  Format Essay, outline, or whatever you feel best demonstrates to the reader (me) that you have deconstructed this article and fully understand its thesis and the arguments used to prove that thesis. TAKE NOTE More than 4 errors in the fundamentals of writing (grammar, punctuation, word usage, and mechanics) will result in 0 as a grade. I will mark the first 5 errors that I notice with the teardrop shape. You may RESUBMIT your essay as many times as you need to eliminate basic errors.  Length No more than 2 typed pages, double spaced [Note: Do not put your name on the paper, course information, date. That information shows up on Canvas. Just start the essay with the first line.]  Submit Online  Points 25 points Further explanation about the assignment The purpose of your essay/outline/writing is not to argue whether you agree or disagree with the authors, but to show that you understand the arguments made by the authors to prove their thesis. Typically, we do not read the writings of others very closely. The purpose of this assignment is to show that you have read and thought about Rushing and Frentzs arguments closely. By studying and understanding how other people construct their arguments, we learn how to better construct our own arguments. In this essay, you will need to identify the authors thesis and purpose for this article because that is the foundation for their arguments. Then you explain the arguments the authors use to prove that thesis. For some people, the best way to do this assignment is to outline the article. Others may find an essay format easier.  Whichever approach you choose, please remember that you are explaining this article to a reader, who needs to understand what you write. Assume the reader has not read the article. Therefore, phrases and incomplete sentences may be useful to you (the writer), but are likely to confuse a reader. Dont forget that when discussing what is said in the article, refer to the authors, not to the term the article or its title (The Rhetoric of Rocky ). The article is the tool by which people share their arguments. So you should introduce quotes or other references to the content  with the authors said or Rushing and Frentz state. Previous NextSynthesis “The Future of Work” COMS 321 To do for Module 6 & 7 (March 1-15) 1. Prepare to write an essay on “The Future of Work” ◦ 1.1 Review the assignment requirements ◦ 1.2 Review the research provided in Module 6 ◦ 1.3 Research and locate sources (scholarly and non-scholarly) explore the future of work. Post summaries & correct MLA citation of 2 sources (1 must be scholarly). ◦ 1.4 Consult, brainstorm, discuss, or hash out the future of work with your writing partner To do for Module 6 & 7 (March 1-15) 2. Write your essay on “The Future of Work” ◦ 2.1 Give yourself permission to be creative ◦ 2.2 Take a position—narrowly drawn vs. broad concepts ◦ 2.3 Write a draft ◦ 2.4 Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite, . . . ◦ 2.5 Exchange drafts with writing partner. ◦ 2.6 Revise and finalize paper. Make an argument about the future of work Generate your idea by 1.Developed from considering various articles/books/works from current research 2.Have an idea that you explore and refine through your research Limit your argument’s scope Depth over breadth Build your argument by using sources Synthesis of research, of ideasSynthesis Essay assignment requirements and information Purpose Synthesize the arguments that other authors make to reconcile those arguments and present your own perspective.  Subject Use the readings and supporting videos to develop your own perspective. Part of your task is to reconcile the differences in those arguments or to explain why one argument prevails over another. You can use any other evidence from the readings or elsewhere as long as you properly identify the source of that evidence in your essay.   Format Essay Cite to at least three sources in your essay. Use a combination of the research I provided and what you or other students find and post in the discussion.    TAKE NOTE More than 4 errors in the fundamentals of writing (grammar, punctuation, word usage, and mechanics) will result in 0 as a grade. I will mark the first 5 errors that I notice with the teardrop shape. You may RESUBMIT your essay as many times as you need to eliminate basic errors.  Length No more than 2 typed pages, double spaced Include a Works Cited page as a third page using MLA citation format. [Note: Do not put your name on the paper, course information, date. That information shows up on Canvas. Just start the essay with the first line.]  Submit Online  Points 25 points Related Activities 1. Research and find two articles (one scholarly and the second either scholarly or non-scholarly) relevant to this assignment. Summarize and post the summaries along with MLA citations at DISCUSS: Scholarly research about the future of work  2. Exchange your draft of essay with your writing partner (and vice versa). In addition to generally reviewing and editing the essay, make sure to review your partners use of sources and in-text citations as well as the Works Cited page. Further explanation about the assignment The primary purpose of your essay is not to argue whether you agree or disagree with the authors, but to show that you understand the arguments made in the readings by developing your own argument about future of work based on a synthesis of the readings. Additionally, you take on the role of a futurist ( one who studies and predicts the future especially on the basis of current trends Merriam-Webster Dictionary, online) by examining how work, employment, or careers in the future will be different than our current experience.  Id like you to develop a perspective/argument that is unique in the sense that your argument departs from what is usual or to be expected. The readings explain to you what has been said about this subject. Your goal is to identify and develop a thesis that brings the resources provided together (reconciles them) and that would would make people think, I never thought of it that way. Of course, you are not developing a entire explanation about the future of work; my suggestion is that you focus on one aspect of that issue. You want to present your perspective/argument (or thesi