Queen Gorgo Address to the Spartan Council: A Rhetorical Analysis

Queen Gorgo Address the Spartan Council, from the movie, "300"

     Zack Snyder’s screenplay, "300" was produced in 2006 based on a T.V. series in 1998. In the movie Zack wrote a scene where Queen Gorgo addressed the Spartan Council to convince them to send the rest of the Spartan troops to aide the King in the war he had started. He wrote, "We must send the entire Spartan army to aide our King in the preservation of not just ourselves, but of our children." Stating authority, establishing an emotional bond, and logic are the techniques Zack skillfully used to create a strong convincing scene for Queen Gorgo’s address to the Council.
     Zack began the speech with the Queen being presented by a Spartan Council Loyalist yo state the Queen’s authority to the Council. This technique immediately establishes that this is a formal speech. He wrote, " May I give the floor now to the wife of Leonidas [The King] and Queen of Sparta." I thought this was a great way to capture the Council’s attention. In order to make the Queen’s point to convince the Council and establish an emotional bond between the Queen and the people for whom she addressed. He wrote, "Councilmen, I stand before you today not only as your Queen: I come to you as a mother; I come to you as a wife; I come to you as a Spartan Woman; I come to you with great humility." This was a great way for the screenwriter to make the Queen’s point to the Council by showing her vulnerability as a person when she stated her humility and concern for the people of Sparta as a Spartan woman. There was another emotional appeal that the Queen stated in the speech, Zack wrote, "We must send the entire Spartan army to aid our King in the preservation of not just ourselves, but of our children." This was a very good way to let the Council know there is a responsibility for all of the people of Sparta that ways on there shoulders. He also wrote the Queen’s speech with appeal based on feelings, beliefs, and values. He scribed, "I am here for all those voices which cannot be heard: mothers, daughters, fathers, sons [and] 300 families that bleed for our rights, and for the very principles this room was built." I think this was an excellent way for the Queen to appeal to the Council in order to make her point.
     There is a turning point in the speech where logic is presented with claims of facts and current events that are happening in the movie. Zack wrote,"[The Queen addressed] We are at war, gentlemen." This was something that put a sort of realization on the Council of what had really happened so they could be persuaded by the Queen to send the army to aide the King. Queen of Sparta tried to appeal to the Council with a logical claim. The Queen claimed, "I am not here to represent Leonidas [The King]; his actions speak louder than my words ever could." I think stating that actions do speak louder than words is a very logical claim and is very obvious but cleaver on her part to keep the attention of the Council.
     Shortly after the Council’s attention would be captured the screen writer then attempts to use reasoning by forcing claims that do not hold enough evidence for the Council to continue to listen to the speech. Zack wrote, "Send our army for hope–hope that a king and his men have not been wasted to the pages of history..." There was no clear evidence that suggests that the King and his men are in real danger other than the Queen claiming that they are at war. This suggestion will probably not help the Queen convince the Council of her argument. There was also another point in the speech where there was a terrible attempt to appeal based on the process of reasoning. Near the end of the speech, the Queen is giving to the council, he wrote, " Send the army for the preservation of liberty." he also wrote, "Send it for Justice." These statements do not hold enough supporting evidence and credibility in them to be convincing of the urgency that the speech has for the Council.
     Overall, I feel that as long as the Council was not biased by who gave a speech, meaning because she was a woman, then I think that this speech was very convincing for the intended purpose of the Spartan army to be sent to aid the King that was at war. The speech that was wrote by Zack is very beneficial to the character in the movie to state her place and concerns in the movie. To be honest if I did not know that this was in a movie I would have believed it to real. The writer uses all three forms of rhetoric to make a convincing speech for the Queen in the movie. Stating authority, establishing an emotional bond, and logic are very good techniques that Zack skillfully brought to keep the attention of the intended audience and me as well.

Snyder, Zack. "Queen Gorgo Address the Spartan Council." from screenplay 300
        Michael E. Eidenmuller: American Rhetoric, Movie Speech, 2007. 01-11　

Why Eatting Dinner as a Family is Important

Introducing Huffpost Family Dinner Downloads: Eat, Talk, Love

      Arianna Huffington writes in the HuffPost Food, "The Internet Newspaper: News Blogs Video Community" about the importance of eating as a family. Arianna introduces her claim by recounting a book written by Laurie David, The Family Dinner, that talks about the importance of families making it a ritual of sitting together to have dinner and meaningful conversations. Laurie David claims, "Dinner is as much about digestible conversation as it is about delicious food." Arianna goes on to claim the importance that sitting as a family has on the emotional and sociological part of the human relationship.
      Huffington structures her argument by an extended comparison by defining how important dinner talk is to the opposite of our fast food culture. She goes on to explain how her family would sit and talk about everything from, girlfriends, schoolwork, to of course boys. She states that they would even have debates versus the fast food culture where meals were short (there was homework to be done, after all!), Blackberries to check, and the TV blaring in the background (or hypnotizing them in the foreground). She also claims that her mother would get upset if they ever said that they were "grabbing something to eat." "Food is not something to grab," her mother would say. "It is something to savor."
       The author, Arianna Huffington’s, most powerful proof comes in the form of her talking about her childhood and saying how her parents were divorced by the time she was 9 yrs old, where she claims that spending time at the table was even more important to them since they had a broken family. The emotionally charged approach was appropriate and effective, showing how eating together can bring people together for meaningful conversation and relaxation even. In order to make a point, Huffington constructs this magical world and food by saying that food has a truth serum effect, and things come up and are dealt with that wouldn’t have come up anywhere else.
       More Important than the techniques Huffington uses to explain how important eating at a table is the way she uses them together. For example, if she would of just said right off that you should eat together and not explained why eating together is important I don’t think it would have been as effective to her intended audience. Her audience would have just shrugged off the statement and been done with it. I think that approach would have prevented the article from being convincing. It is obvious that Huffington specifically designed this article in a beneficial way to help her present her ideas.

Huffington, Arianna. "Arianna Huffington: Introducing HuffPost Family Dinner Downloads: Eat, Talk, Love." 
         Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 09 Oct. 2011.
         <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/introducing-huffpost-fami_b_779610.html>.

American Rhetoric: A Movie Speech

Queen Elizabeth Addresses Rival Clergy on a Unified Church of England

           

  I watched a movie clip from American Rhetoric Movie Speeches, transcription by Michael E. Eidenmuller, was about an address Queen Elizabeth made to a rival Clergy. She is trying to convince this rival Clergy to vote and pass an Act of Uniformity. The rival Clergy asked to marry first then they may consider her words. She replied with, "Aye, but marry who, Your Grace? Would you give me some suggestions?" Then she goes on to say, "For some say "France" and others "Spain" and some cannot abide foreigners at all. So, I'm not sure how best to please you, unless I marry one of each." The Clergy asked if she was mocking the sanctity of marriage, and she lashed back with the fact a couple of the Clergy had been married a few times. She was trying to convey how being married or not being married had nothing to do with what she was talking about. She was trying to persuade the rival Clergy how a unity would be the best thing for her people and not for herself.

  I like how clever she was in her speech with the Rival Clergy. Her place is stated several times, the first was without her saying anything because she was the Queen of England. She also states her place by saying she is a woman. She shows a connection in her address by stating that this Act of Uniformity is for her people and not for herself. She also says, near the end of her address, "Each of you must vote according to your conscience. But remember this: In your hands, upon this moment lies the future happiness of my people and the peace of this realm...." She used logic when saying that common sense is an English Virtue, and when she said to a Clergy, "How can I force you, Your Grace? I am a woman I have no desire to make windows into men's souls. I simply ask, can any man, in truth, serve two masters and be faithful to both?" In my opinion her mentioning that she was a woman and could never make them do anything was a very clever thing to do to help her win over the attention of the Clergy. Her address is very manipulative but necessary in that age of time.  She made their comments work to her advantage, basically convincing them with; modesty, humor, knowledge and logic. Queen Elizabeth used all three forms of Rhetoric in her address; Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

How Findings of Human Ancestor Bones Still Does Not Change How We Veiw Human Evolution?

Closest Human Ancestor May Rewrite Steps in Our Evolution

Two key specimens were accidentally discovered by a 9 year old son of a scientist in a cave in South Africa in 2008. A juvenile male as developed as a 10 to 13-year-old human and an adult female maybe in her late 20s or early 30s. The species is both a hominid and a hominin. Hominids include humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and their extinct ancestors, while hominins include those species after Homo, the human lineage, split from that of chimpanzees. Lee Berger a researcher says, "The fossils demonstrate a surprisingly advanced but small brain, a very evolved hand with a long thumb like a humans, a very modern pelvis, but a foot and ankle shape never seen in any hominin species that combines features of both apes and humans in one anatomical package". Scientists had thought the human-like pelvis evolved to accommodate larger-brained offspring. The new findings of human like hips in Au. sediba, the specimen, despite small-brained offspring suggests these pelvises may have instead initially evolved to help this hominin better wander across the landscape, perhaps as grasslands began to expand across its habitat. When it came to walking, investigating the feet and ankles of the fossils revealed surprises about how Au. sediba, the specimen, might have walked across the world. No hominin ankle has ever been described with so many primitive and advanced features. Researcher Bernhard Zipfel says, "If the bones had not been found stuck together, the team may have described them as belonging to different species". The researchers discovered that its ankle joint is mostly like a humans, with some evidence for a human like arch and a well defined Achilles tendon, but its heel and shin bones appear to be mostly ape-like. This suggested the hominid probably climbed trees yet also halkid in a unique way not exactly like that of humans. Finally, an analysis of Au. sediba's, the specimen, hands suggests it might have been a toolmaker. The fossils showed its hand was capable of the strong grasping needed for tree-climbing, but that it also had a long thumb and short fingers. These would have allowed it a precision grip useful for tools, one involving just the thumb and fingers, where the palm does not play an active part. The researchers do caution that although they suggest that Au. sediba, the specimen, was ancestral to the human lineage, all these apparent resemblances between it and us could just be coincidences, with this extinct species evolving similar traits to our lineages due, perhaps, to similar circumstances. Carlson said, "Whether or not it's on the same lineage as leading to Homo, I think there are interesting questions and implications". It might be just as interesting to imagine that Au. sediba was not directly ancestral to Homo, because it opens up the possibility "of independent evolution of the same sorts of features."

I think that is apparent that people do not want to believe in evolution. I think that if scientists find enough evidence and facts that eventually there will be nothing left to run from except fact. There are just so many things already that suggest that we evolved to what we are now I just don't understand why there is so much doubt. I really can not grasp why the scientists can't say that the fossils fall under both species and why do they say that it could just be coincidences. I don't think that it is a coincidence at all. I believe it is a clear view of what it was like during evolution during that time period. I wonder how many other findings there are out there and when we will hear about them. I understand that there is a lot of extensive research that is evolved with fossils and they have to make sure all of the research is thorough before it is presented to the public. I am just curious as to know how many other findings there are and when we will be able to hear about them.

How you can make out-of-office e-mails work for you

Tasha Cooper

English 1301: Cooper

The best out-of-office e-mail ever written

According to Piper Weiss, Shine Staff, in this particular column they talk about how when you go on vacation you have to write your out-of-office email message. It's always one of the last things on the to-do list. They found a vacation auto-reply of a guy named Josh Kopelman, that will now serve as their model for all future away messages—give or take a few key details. They call it a stroke of genius. Well they also talked about how this man is a psychological mastermind in creating such an e-mail. Lets take a look at it:

I am currently out of the office on vacation.
I know I’m supposed to say that I’ll have limited access to email and won’t be able to respond until I return — but that’s not true. My blackberry will be with me and I can respond if I need to. And I recognize that I’ll probably need to interrupt my vacation from time to time to deal with something urgent.
That said, I promised my wife that I am going to try to disconnect, get away and enjoy our vacation as much as possible. So, I’m going to experiment with something new. I’m going to leave the decision in your hands:

• If your email truly is urgent and you need a response while I’m on vacation, please resend it to interruptyourvacation@[redacted].com and I’ll try to respond to it promptly.
• If you think someone else at [the company] might be able to help you, feel free to email my assistant, and she’ll try to point you in the right direction.

· Otherwise, I’ll respond when I return…
Warm regards,
Josh

I think that an e-mail like this will probably make people think twice before sending him a message while on vacation. I couldn't agree more with the critics on this that if I had to ever write an out of town e-mail that I would probably use this as my guideline. I almost can't believe that this is a real e-mail but on the other hand I think that people are getting feed up with the working environment where even when you are on vacation it really doesn't feel like it. I think this may be the very first step to a revolution of people saying we are not robots we are people who sometimes need a break. I think this a perfect example of how disconnected we are with how people feel and how we don't think about the fact that others need a break even though we have a question that need to be answered, and with that I will have to say that maybe the guy is not a mastermind but maybe he is on to something bigger than we can imagine.