"Rhetorical Strategies in Two Contrasting Arguments"

by E. Alycia Eggers

First Place Winner, 1102, USF Bullitzer Prize in First-Year Composition

John Derbyshire and Charles Krauthammer embrace the same person, event and ideal in their contrasting published arguments: the woman Andrea Yates, the event of her drowning her children, and the ideal that she deserves justice. However, this is the point where the two men veer off into conflicting corners with their opposing opinions on the type of justice Yates deserves. The authors appear to address the same type of general public as their audience and they tend to utilize the same rhetorical strategies, with a few differences, but to a very different effect. Derbyshire takes a pro-guilty stand on the case, and proceeds to persuasively convey his views by appealing to the sympathies of the general audience in addition to basing his view on a relative legal standpoint. On the other side of the spectrum, Krauthammer attempts to negate the guilty verdict by presenting himself as an expert on the subject of psychosis and appealing to the logic of the audience by placing demanding attention on her deteriorated state.

The most vital aspect of rhetoric is writing to persuade the intended audience. While both authors appear to be writing for the same audience, the general public, they appeal to their senses using several varying methods. The first methods involve the ancient, yet basic, rhetorical triangle. Derbyshire, in his attempts to pull sympathy away from the mother, bases the beginning of his argument on pathos by placing attention on the murder of the children to entice emotion from the audience and elicit feelings of compassion for the children. Meanwhile, Krauthammer makes an effort to appeal to the basic logic of the audience throughout his argument, most apparently when he states, "I find it hard to see how she can be deemed by society to be truly responsible for her crime" (Krauthammer 713). Although the author duo strives to press their views on the same audience by appealing to different aspects, they both pursue the avenue of establishing credibility for themselves, a strategy called ethos. In Derbyshire’s plight to establish credibility for himself as a worthy speaker on the topic of filicide he presents a lengthy analogy, another rhetorical strategy. The analogy narrates a tale of the time when he attempted to murder a tortoise because he felt pity for it and he believes his feelings at the time are concurrent with Yates’ feelings during her crime. Krauthammer does not need any such analogies, as his sense of credibility for discussing psychosis comes from the simple fact that he is a licensed psychiatrist and is therefore schooled and experienced in matters of the mind. Although neither writer stuck solely to the basic rhetorical triangle to plead their case, it may be more coherent from here on out to dissect their strategies by analyzing first one piece and then the other.

Derbyshire, in his article entitled "Maternal Madness…or Sheer Iniquity? Mothers Who Kill," utilizes a plethora of strategies in his argument. He commences his article with the question, "Was Andrea Pia Yates sick when, on the morning of June 20, shortly after her husband left for work, she drowned her five children in the family bathtub?" (Derbyshire 709). He later reiterates the question then proceeds to answer the query for his audience throughout the remainder of the argument, a strategy, according to "A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices," that is called hypophora (Harris par. 15). The author also utilizes some allusions when he refers to the familiar Shakespearean play "Macbeth" to establish a relationship between Lady Macbeth who went mad and Andrea Yates herself, but he also provides an obscure allusion from Thomas Hardy’s play "Jude the Obscure" to add yet another basis of comparison so that the audience can relate to Yates’ state of mind.

After providing factual information behind Yates’ actual crime of filicide, Derbyshire spends the rest of his time providing an argument to the obvious objection that Yates’ crime was a response to the "intolerable frustrations of child-raising" (711). This process of an author anticipating an objection to his argument and attempting to negate it before hand is known as procatalepsis and he spends a good deal of his piece disproving the integrity behind the sympathies aimed towards Yates.

Towards the end of the article, Derbyshire makes use of the personification device, by asserting that if people can not be held accountable for their actions despite personal sympathies, then that fact "kicks out yet more props from under our system of ethics," in addition to stating that without accountability our legal system is "reduced to mud" (711). Obviously there are no literal props holding up our system of ethics but Derbyshire says it in this manner to emphasize the tenuous hold that we have on the legal system and the factors that must remain stable to keep it afloat.

Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, does not explicitly discuss legal ethics or sympathies; he appeals strictly to the logic, knowledge, and common sense of the audience and relies on his supporting evidence to back him up. And unlike the former author, he boldly states his opinion right off the bat by declaring, "I would have acquitted Andrea Yates" (Krauthammer 712). He then proceeds to give further examples of her legal innocence while interposing exaggerated examples of psychosis by creating an analogy between Yates and a man who chopped off a head because he thought it was a pumpkin. The intended effect of this analogy is that the audience will see the cases are similar, although on a smaller scale, and that as the psychotic, hallucinating, pumpkin-seeing man should be placed in a mental facility and not jail, so should Yates.

He wants the audience to believe that to be imprisoned for an action, defendants must be aware that their crime is wrong and that they committed the crime with their own free will. To pose this concept to his readers, he too applies the device hypophora by asking, "How free is the will of someone who is seriously psychotic?" (Krauthammer 712). He does not attempt to overshadow the details of her horrific crime, though, and even emphasizes them with the use of brachylogy, omitting the conjunction "and" between the list of adjectives that modify her deed, "slowly, horribly, deliberately" (Krauthammer 712). He then offsets that with the opposite device, polysyndeton, adding several "and" conjunctions to emphasize her thought process by slowing down the phrase, "of a knife and blood and child-murder" (Krauthammer 712).

Krauthammer then presents corroboration for his argument by stating expert testimonial from a psychiatrist as well as Yates’ own words regarding her condition. Quotations and testimonials such as those exist as the kind of substantial evidence that Krauthammer uses to appeal to the logic and sense of the audience and is yet another example of his use of logos. When dealing with general common sense though, there can tend to be some ambiguity, so he applies distinctio, a device that the "Handbook of Rhetorical Devices" mentions as a tool to "remove or prevent ambiguity" (Harris par. 19). So to clarify any mental dilemmas he states, "This is not to say that any criminal can rationalize his crime as being for some higher good" (Krauthammer 713). He does not want the reader to confuse the average nut off the street with people suffering from severe mental derangement.

Towards the end of his argument he utilizes asyndeton when listing the behavior that characterizes her illness to emphasize the severity of her case, "self injury, severe withdrawal, bizarre behavior, occasional catatonia, delusion, hallucinations" (Krauthammer 713). Note the lack of conjunctions. Finally Krauthammer ends his argument with the rhetorical question, "Did Andrea Yates really have it?" (713). He is referring to free will, and his use of this rhetorical device here as his last sentence is to imply a dramatic effect and leave the reader wondering if this woman really did deserve the guilty verdict she got.

On a wall in Greece, from the 6th century B.C, this saying was found, "He who does not study rhetoric will be a victim of it" (qtd. in Banks par. 1). Standing behind their protective wall of impassioned words and smart strategies, neither John Derbyshire nor Charles Krauthammer will ever be a victim to rhetoric. However, neither wanted to reside silently in a world that was victim to injustices, so they used their pens as swords and cleverly conveyed their opinions into flowing words to reach the public in hopes of swaying a few impressionable yet sensible minds to their side of the mental field. Whether or not they appealed to emotion or logic, or used allusions, analogies or hard evidence is important to the independent pieces but irrelevant in reference to the overall goal of subtle, strategical inveiglement of their peers.

Works Cited

Banks, W.P. "A Short Handbook on Rhetorical Devices." Department of English at Illinois State University. 2001. 14 Oct. 2005 <http://www.english.ilstu.edu/ wbanks/rhetoric/rhetanalysis.html>.

Derbyshire, John. "Maternal Madness . . . or Sheer Iniquity? Mothers Who Kill." Eds. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 6th ed. New York: Longman, 2004. 709-11.

Harris, Robert A. "A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices." Virtual Salt. 6 Apr. 2005. 7 Oct. 2005 <http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm>.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Andrea Yates Wasn’t Responsible for Her Crime." Eds. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 6th ed. New York: Longman, 2004. 712-13.

Annotated Bibliography

Banks, W.P. "A Short Handbook on Rhetorical Devices." Department of English at Illinois State University. 2001. 14 Oct. 2005 <http://www.english.ilstu.edu/ wbanks/rhetoric/rhetanalysis.html>.

As the quoted title indicates, this online handbook is a brief dissection of a select few rhetorical devices. The site is an extension of Illinois State University’s Department of English website. The only explicit reference this page offered me for my analysis was a quote from ancient Greece that I found quite compelling and relevant to the conclusion of my paper. In regard to the analysis of devices provided on this page, I did not explicitly cite any in my paper; however, the information provided me with a great store of additional insight that I kept in mind while writing.

Connway, Lynn. "Revelations of Bailey's and Academy Press' close PR connection with right-wing homophobic writer John Derbyshire: Who is John Derbyshire?" University of Michigan: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. 2004. 21 Oct. 2005 <http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Derbyshire/Who-is-JD.html#reacts>.

This off beat site was written by a transsexual woman who was investigating the relationship between John Derbyshire, author of one of the arguments in my analysis, and an author who had recently written a book about transsexuals. Through this site I was able to see several of Derbyshire’s other pieces which helped me to get a stronger feel of his style of writing arguments.

Faigley, Lester. The Penguin Handbook. 2nd ed. New York: Longman, 2005.

Faigley’s handbook has many lengthy sections devoted to rhetoric. Among the subjects discussed are the three different components of the rhetorical triangle--ethos, pathos and logos--and their application in analysis. In addition to this I found a selection of rhetorical devices and their definitions to be helpful when reviewing my arguments. One of the most helpful sections, however, is the chapter devoted to rhetorical analysis that includes lists of specific questions one should answer in the analysis and even a sample of a completed analysis that I have referenced several times in the process of writing my own. The greatest aid that this text offered me though was a complete chapter on the writing of annotated bibliographies that includes a full referenced sample. (Although I must say I additionally referenced the section on MLA documentation and citation several times when writing this bibliography.)

Harris, Robert A. "A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices." Virtual Salt. 6 Apr. 2005. 7 Oct. 2005 <http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm>.

Harris provides an extensive, in-depth look at approximately sixty different rhetorical devices. For each device he provides a definition and then several uses of the device in quotations from poetry, literature, and famous plays. The examples proved to be extremely helpful as some of the definitions were difficult to understand and only when I was able to see the device being applied in a sentence was I able to comprehend and then apply the knowledge. I was able to locate and identify several different devices, many of which were unfamiliar to me.

Kinney, Thomas J. "Rhetorical Analysis." University of Arizona. 2005. 21 Oct. 2005 <http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tkinney/pdf/handouts/r_analysis.pdf>.

Kinney’s two page paper on rhetorical analysis addresses all the main topics involving rhetorical analysis but he takes his time expounding upon each subject in the easy going manner that a student could relate to with ease. Some of the subjects discussed are the basics of rhetoric, the rhetorical triangle, rhetorical situation and arrangement, the invention of rhetoric and writing an argument. Reading this site helped to confirm and support the ideals I had already been introduced to, but it offered simple clarification that is lacking in most academic texts. The knowledge gained from this reference was an aid in my analysis of the arguments, for it helped me to understand what I was attempting to create in my paper.

Montaldo, Charles. "Profile of Andrea Yates." About. 2005. 21 Oct. 2005 <http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm>.

The crime/punishment section of About.com offered an in-depth profile of the subject of both the arguments for analysis. The woman, Andrea Yates, and her action of drowning her five children in the bathtub was the basis for both the pieces so I felt it was necessary to gain some background information on the woman and the crime to enable me to notice what the authors were each omitting. Both authors did indeed omit several aspects of either the woman’s mental state or details of the crime to help further their personal rhetorical agenda and this knowledge helps me to answer some of the guiding questions offered in outlining the analysis.

"Profile of Charles Krauthammer." Right Web. 1996. International Relations Center. 2004. 21 Oct. 2005 <http://rightweb.irconline.org/ind/krauthammer/krauthammer.php>.

This site, published by the IRC organization is an individual profile of syndicated columnist, as well as former psychiatrist, Charles Krauthammer who is an author of one of the arguments in my analysis. This obviously democratic web site offers a great deal of insight into Krauthammer’s motivation for the position he upholds in his article.

The web site also provides an in depth look at Krauthammer’s history of work in medicine and in journalism which adds credibility to his argument and aids in the continual analysis of his piece. In addition, now that I am provided with background material of both authors the source of their opinions is much more understandable.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 6th ed. New York: Longman, 2004.

This text provides the bases for my analysis for it contains the two contradicting arguments whose rhetorical styles are being discussed. In addition to the original arguments there is also a store of useful background information on the subject of both of their articles, Andrea Yates, which will enable to me to better enter their frame of mind. There are several other helpful tools provided in this book including several chapters devoted to rhetorical analysis and the art of rhetoric, proper MLA format complete with examples, and even guiding questions one should use to get the paper off the ground.

Rhetoricae, Silva. "Basic Questions for Rhetorical Analysis." Brigham Young University: College of Humanities. 14 Jun. 2003. 14 Oct. 2005 <http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Pedagogy/Rhetorical Analysis heuristic.htm>.

The Brigham Young University website offered several links that were relevant to the topic of rhetoric, and I found two separate specific sites that I was able to apply. This particular site offers a small number of concise questions for one to ask about the piece of rhetoric in the analysis. I found some of these questions to be similar to the questions I had already applied; however there were a few questions that contained different content, and I discovered that they were very helpful for they enabled to me to analyze a few different aspects of the arguments.

Rhetoricae, Silva. "General Rhetorical Strategies." Brigham Young University: College of Humanities. 14 Jun. 2003. 7 Oct. 2005 <http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/General Rhetorical Strategies/General Strategies.htm>.

This web site is also an extension of the Brigham Young University website although it is a separate link than the one previously described. This specific site places more emphasis on general strategies that can be used when writing arguments instead of focusing solely on rhetorical devices and their definitions. The site provides examples for all underlying figures for each strategy which aid in clarifying the application of that particular strategy. As a result from the content I learned in this site, I was able to identify several strategies used in the arguments I analyzed and to apply that knowledge in my paper.