For this week’s posting, I will reexamine the Nicholas Sparks film posters and perform a metaphoric criticism.

The rhetor of these six films is a range of white actors and actresses or (more broadly) Nicholas Sparks, who wrote the film scripts and the novels that the films are based on. In my experience, the targeted audience is often straight white women who can identify with the relationships portrayed in the films. Each film emerges from a slightly different context, but the overarching context is one of contemporary heterosexual relationships in the southern United States. The posters each argue for the beauty of these relationships and, through the exclusion of other groups, seem to reject other types of love (between individuals of other races, the same sex, non-binary, etc.). The posters’ collective purpose is to promote the film franchise through the presentation of a similar and recognizable image.

The main metaphor expressed by these posters is that “two white heterosexuals gazing happily into each other’s eyes is love.” One could also infer a more implicit metaphor which states that “anything outside of these depictions of relationships is NOT love” given that each poster looks largely the same. In both cases, the portrayals of relationships would be the tenor and love would be the vehicle. The replicating nature of each poster creates a level of frequency which implies that repeatedly excluding other groups from these films is acceptable (and, perhaps, encouraged).

I have chosen to perform an ideological criticism on six Nicholas Sparks film posters. These advertisements are for The Notebook, Nights in Rodanthe, The Last Song, The Lucky One, Safe Haven, and The Best of Me.

Presented elements in these posters include heterosexual, Caucasian couples kissing outdoors, the short introductory sentences that indicate the basic ideas behind the films, and the complementary nature of their clothing colors to the backgrounds behind them. Suggested elements include conforming to stereotypes about gender and sexuality,  focus on style and aesthetic even in intimate moments, exclusion of people of color/other sexualities from plots (and thus, a lack of importance regarding their relationships), and over-the-top depictions of love.

These artifacts each suggest that love between opposite-sex couples of the same race is a good thing. By excluding people of color and other sexualities, the film posters imply that these relationships do not deserve equal representation in popular media. Additionally, the centered focus on the couples in near-kissing poses ask audiences not to question the films’ lack of representation. These qualities present a problematic ideology that focuses on the hegemony of one type of couple over all others.

I have chosen to criticize Persepolis and Fun Home, two popular contemporary graphic novels, using generic description. Rhetorical scholar Sonja K. Foss defines generic description when “a critic examines various artifacts to see if a genre exists” (184). Persepolis and Fun Home comprise the genre known as “feminist graphic novels” through their shared characteristics and themes.

The genre of graphic novels involves situational requirements, defined by Foss as “the perception of conditions in a situation that call for particular kinds of rhetoric.” Additionally, Foss explains the different kinds of characteristics within these requirements, stating that “substantive characteristics are those that constitute the content of the rhetoric, while stylistic characteristics constitute its form” (179). With regard to graphic novels, accordance with the following situational requirements satisfies acceptance into the genre: 1) picture-dominant pages with accompanying text and 2) an emphasis on the thoroughly-conveyed visual appearance of characters and scenery. The primary substantive characteristic of the genre is the multilayered stories found within the work while its main stylistic characteristic is the successful use of visual and textual elements. Both Persepolis and Fun Home exhibit these traits in their response to storytelling from the perspective of marginalized young women.

Persepolis and Fun Home are both told from the first-person point of view of a young woman as she matures from childhood to adulthood. In each work, the main character faces marginalization, whether it be Marji’s religion and ethnicity in Persepolis or Alison’s sexuality in Fun Home. Both works illustrate the female protagonist undergoing a variety of trauma (terrorism and state-based concerns, suicide of a parent, etc.) and finding coping methods throughout her life. Additionally, through their use of visual elements, readers gain access to how the female protagonists view other characters (particularly those in positions of authority). Lastly, both works highlight the importance of gender equality in contemporary societies. In Fun Home, Alison struggles with the patriarchal dynamic of her household. Similarly, Marji from Persepolis fights for the same rights as her Iranian male counterparts. Thus, the organizing principle of feminist graphic novels is a focus on gender equality conveyed through primarily visual (but also some textual) elements.

This speech is from the fourth Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The rhetor in my piece is Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He speaks to an audience of students and staff at Hogwarts regarding the recent murder of Cedric Diggory by Lord Voldemort. In this speech, Dumbledore’s purpose is to inform his audience of the truth surrounding Cedric’s death. Additionally, his speech serves to persuade them that diversity in their world should be valued and that Cedric’s loyalty and bravery should inspire them in the coming days.

Just before Dumbledore’s delivery of this speech, Cedric Diggory participated alongside several other wizarding students (including Harry Potter) in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. During the tournament’s final challenge, Harry and Cedric were transported to a cemetery where they faced off against Lord Voldemort. Fortunately, Harry survived; however, Cedric did not. The school is shaken by this tragedy and as their leader, Dumbledore must present them with some hope for their future.

Thank you for taking the time to check out my blog! My name is Karyn Keane, and I’m a sophomore at Longwood University. I’m majoring in English with a concentration in Rhetoric & Professional Writing and a minor in Children’s Literature, and this blog will document my experiences in ENGL 301: Rhetorical Criticism. This course (in addition to my prior courses in the concentration, such as History of Rhetoric and Visual Rhetoric & Document Design) further my knowledge of rhetoric and will prove useful as I pursue a PhD in Composition & Rhetoric.

My blog serves as an outlet for my thoughts on the field of Rhetorical Criticism. Here, I will analyze and reflect upon a variety of works using various rhetorical lenses. Students, faculty, and scholars of rhetoric may find my musings of interest; however, they are open to anyone who is curious about what rhetoricians do and how the discipline is relevant to contemporary life. The blog’s context derives from the context of our course at a small, public institution of higher education, but also relates to past and current events (which I intend to analyze in further detail throughout later postings).