Rhetorical Analysis: The Death Of The Funeral Business

At the beginning of the course I wasn’t sure what to expect. It was my first year in college and my first English class of the year. In High school, English classes worshiped the 5 paragraph essay format, and this format spontaneously disappeared in English 101. Instead of the 5 paragraph format, we were introduced to writing about the text instead of the topic. Our papers weren’t structured as 5 paragraphs as much as length in pages. The texts we were introduced to were focused on rhetorical analysis. Rhetorical analysis is an essay that breaks down a work into pieces and explains how these pieces fit together to give off a certain effect, such as persuasion. The papers we were doing were are interpretative but based on rhetorical analysis.
An interpretative essay is one that requires your opinion on what you thought the author was trying to say. When I got my first assignment I was surprised at how fast paced the class was. Some concerns I had about the class was, what happens if I fall behind in the class? Why is the course so fast paced? Will I Pass the class? The last one is still up for debate. My professor focused a lot on rhetorical analysis. We also worked on identifying strategies in text and explaining how they worked towards what the author wants his audience to do or act on.
After our first essay on rhetorical analysis, which was on “The Death of the Funeral Business”, by Sandy Hingston, it was clear I was still falling into the same trap of the 5 paragraph essay format and summarizing too much.
“Hingston opens up with getting a letter from one of her relatives discussing the cost of reserving plots. One thing that could be motivating Hingston to write the essay the way she did was how death is effecting her life and how she is planning on being cremated when she dies. Hingston states, “A traditional American funeral cost $8,300 vs. $1,400 for cremation” (38). Money is a big motivator in our society and unless you’re rich, no one wants to spend a lot of money especially on a funeral.” When I read it now it just looks like a summary of a part of the text with a quote in it. The background information is important but discussing the text and talking about the strategies is even more so. During the revision period I focused a lot more on the strategies and the text itself. “Hingston talks about how people value money so much that they have to show their status even after death. “where models range from a $650 bare bones casket to a $17,950 bronze number so gorgeous that I’m tempted to climb in” (Hingston 40). Hingston uses sarcasm to show how much we values money and status even after death.” Hingston uses sarcasm in her text to emphasize her point on how ridiculous it is that humans value money so highly. I went into the text and explained a
little, but not enough, Rushkoff’s essay was more in depth than my Hingston essay.
My ideas started to change when I stared the second interpretative essay.
The second interpretative essay was based of Douglas Rushkoff’s manifesto, “Time Aint Money”.
One activity that helped me understand interpretation was assignment 8. Assignment 8 was titled “Making Observations about a Manifesto. This assignment helped me understand what a manifesto is about and how to interpretate text that is given to me. The assignment also helped me work on talking about the text and in my papers and not just summarize the article. In this assignment I focused more on writing styles and key terminology. For example in assignment 8 I talked about how Rushkofff uses fear to galvanize his audience into acting and changing there ways. “Rushkoff clearly talks about what he does not like about CEO’s and how they run their companies. Rushkoff uses insults to prove his points. “Good CEO’s reading this manifesto should already be making the connection between presentism and their operations, and considering the implications of the culture of “now” on their workforces, customers, and even shareholders” (Rushkoff 116). “Good CEO’s…” he talks to them as if they are stupid, and have not realized what they need to change.” In my second interpretative essay I worked on having my controlling purpose more noticeable, without bolding it and having arrows pointing at it saying, this is my controlling purpose. Rushkoffs manifesto, “Time Aint Money”, was an interesting article to read. Rushkoff uses key terms to empathize his point. I focused on this and made it my
controlling purpose. “Throughout these ideas Rushkoff creates a key term to further express his idea. In the essay, Rushkoff uses a word, “presentism”, which he made up to describe the process of how, “society is focused on the now over the past, and even the future” (Rushkoff 114). In the essay, “Time Ain’t Money”, Rushkoff uses examples to show presentisms authority on culture change. Rushkoff uses examples of presentism to show authority on culture change.” In my first draft my controlling purpose was not noticeable, and was difficult to see it in my paper. In my second draft I was focused on fixing that and showing how presentism influences culture. I connected to my audience when I talked about how Rushkoff talked about time playing its part in history and society. “Again Rushkoff talks about time in our culture, Rushkoff claims, “Without time, without any history, how do you tell a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end?” (Rushkoff 115). Without time stories don’t exist, there is no past or future, just right now. In today’s culture, presentism dictates how we do anything, and we can personalize everything. You can get a specific thing without having to buy other things to get what you want. We can buy a single song without buying the whole album. We are no longer hindered with having to buy everything in order to get the one thing.” Everyone can relate to just wanting to buying one thing instead of buying the whole package. What matters to me in this essay is showing how Rushkoff uses examples of presentism to show authority on culture change and why, to my audience. This has not changed but I have done a better job at making this happen.
The third and final interpretative essay was based off David Levy’s article, “No Time to Think”. My final interpretative essay was about Rushkoff manifesto through the eyes of Levy. My controlling purpose is to show how Rushkoff and Levy differ in their context and to show what they think there audiences should deem important. “Rushkoff and Levy both call for change, Rushkoff’s piece is an urgent call for his audience to accelerate and change with society while Levy’s piece is subtle and is calling his audience to install a new mind set, slow down and reflect in your work. Rushkoff states, “Every company must be responsive, lean, and agile” (Rushkoff 115). Being fast improves production and increases revenue. Levy says there needs to be a change, but it does not have to be a drastic one. Levy claims, “The problem of information overload may well be amenable to a combination of social and technological solutions” (Levy 73). There is too much information, and we cannot keep up with all of the new information. Levy would fight Rushkoff’s statement you do not think right when you are rushed and you are more prone to mistakes. Levy would want people to focus on what is in front of them and worry about the next thing when it get there.” My Controlling purpose is to get my audience to reflect on their work. What I want my audience to know is how the authors communicate how they both want change how they do it and why. Things that matter to my audience would be a controlling purpose, interpretation, and academic conventions. I could address these by incorporating them into my essays and topics. While showing how they fit and work in the essay. I connected to my audience by showing that everyone needs to slow down and think. “Levy is talking to the academic community asking them to change, “By enmeshing scholars in the endless practical details of managing the record, including the selection of relevant materials, a surfeit of information would leave them less time to think” (Levy 65). Levy wants his audience to slow down take their time, so they can gain a better understanding of their work. Levy would agree with Rushkoff about the need for CEOs to contemplate the connections between presentism and there operations. Levy would also agree with Rushkoff’s goal because it is to instill in his audience the idea of slowing down and really think about what you are doing. Rushkoff want his audience to think about what he said and that is exactly what Levy wants.” What matters to me is to my audience to know is how the authors communicate how they both want change how they do it and why. This did change from planning to drafting, my essay was still somewhat of a summary in my first draft. My final draft was stronger and my purpose was clear.
I have seen my writing come a long way. I have changed from the high school 5-paragraph essay format, to writing interpretive essays on rhetorical analysis. My writing has changed by being able to form a controlling purpose, interpret text, and use academic conventions. As for writing in English 102, I enjoy research papers and will use he skills I have learned in English 101. I have seen my problems like summarizing, “in the wild”, in my other classes. It is necessary for me to think this way because it makes sure you think ethically and compose your thoughts to make the most logical and appropriate decisions.